Iraq and Kuwait dispute: A history suppressed

Scan page 8

British colonial troops in Iraq during World War I (First of a two-part series)

Although the official version of events presents Iraq's occupation of Kuwait as an arbitrary and unwarranted aggression, the relationship between Iraq and its former southern district has been the centerpiece of Arab national resistance to British colonial rule in the Gulf.

Little is known of the popular struggle both within Iraq and Kuwait itself to re-unite Kuwait with Iraq, and to prevent, thereby, the deliberate fragmentation of Iraqi territory, first by Britain and later by the United States.

Ironically, the regimes installed by British colonialism itself under direct British military control could not be coerced successfully into accepting the amputation of Kuwait. This was due partly to the importance of Kuwait's resources but also because local Arab nationalists among indigenous students, workers and, frequently, even the traditional rulers themselves resented the naked exploitation of the foreign oil companies.

The population of the Kuwaiti district, no less than the inhabitants of the rest of Iraq, viewed the detachment of the coastal region of Iraq as a naked attempt by Imperial states to weaken and dominate the Iraqi people as a whole.

The entire period during which Kuwait has been separated from Iraq has been marked by resistance by every successive Iraqi government and, notably by national and student movements within Kuwait itself. It is a history well known to the inhabitants of the Gulf, but scarcely mentioned in the West, even in scholarly work. What follows is a glimpse into a little-known chapter of the popular resistance to imperialism which has characterized the Gulf continuously since the 1890s.

The early history Mesopotamia, was for millennia a political center, the site for a plethora of states. That part of it now called Iraq has, throughout its long history, been a maritime nation and renowned as a center of commerce.

The small village which evolved over two centuries on the Persian (Arab) Gulf was named Kuwait by Iraqi rulers of the day, a designation meaning "small human settlement." Throughout the 19th century and up to World War I, Kuwait was a "Qadha," a district within the "Liwa" or province of Basra, an integral part of Iraq under the administraSOCIALIST ACTION tive law of the Ottoman State which ruled the Arab nation.

In 1897, the Wali (Governor) of Basra, Mushin Pasha, advised the local village sheikh, Mubarak as-Sabah, of a decision by the Sultan to appoint him "Qa'immagam" (Prefect) of the Kuwait district of Basra Province. The reasons for giving this administrative role to a relatively obscure local sheikh are instructive.

In the process of consolidating its hold over India, British imperialism sought to weaken all important countries of the region and was determined to extend its colonial control over the Gulf, whose strategic importance lay in the British plan to dismember the Ottoman Empire.

Its strategy entailed securing control of the coast and detaching trade routes and access to the sea from Arab lands under Ottoman rule. This design was fueled by the awareness of huge oil reserves in the region, the importance of which as a commodity was an increasing factor in the thinking of the British Colonial Office.

Muhammad and Jarrah as-Sabah, the two elder brothers of Sheikh Mubarak, were approached by the British to act as direct British agents and to detach the coastal area from Ottoman control. They were to turn the Kuwaiti district into a dependent and distinct colony, for which service they were to be rewarded. Both men refused, but when they went further and sought to organize resistance to these designs, Britain arranged their murder by their younger brother, the Sheikh.

To counter the British scheme, the Ottoman Sultan made the Sheikh a better offer— i.e., the position of Prefect-thereby obviating the need to confront Britain militarily.

The British persisted. In 1898, Sheikh Mubarak as-Sabah, was induced under threat to sign a secret accord placing himself under British "protection." He had no authority to sign agreements, and when the Ottoman Sultan confronted him in 1901, he renounced the coerced accord with the British.

For the next 15 years, Britain conspired to break up the Ottoman Empire, consolidating its control over the Kuwait district. This colonial pursuit was consummated in the Sykes-Picot Treaty of May 9-16, 1916.

Division of Arab nation On Nov. 9, 1918, a joint Franco-British Declaration called for "the complete and final liberation of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks and the establishment of national Governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free OCTOBER 1990 choice of the native populations."

France and Great Britain undertook "to encourage and assist the establishment of native governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia... and have agreed to recognize such governments as soon as they are effectively established."

On April 24, 1920, the Conference of Allied Powers at San Remo entrusted Great Britain with the Mandate for Palestine. The San Remo Agreements also created an international oil consortium to "prospect for oil in the territory of the former Ottoman Empire." Ninety-five percent of the shares were divided among three countries: Britain 47.5%, France 23.75%, and the United States 23.75%. The Consortium of San Remo became the Iraq Petroleum Company.

France and Britain divided up the Arab nation between them. To weaken Arab nationalists, Britain now set out to land-lock Iraq. It severed Iraqi access to the Gulf by establishing for the first time a territorial entity labelled "Kuwait," with artificial boundaries rooted neither in history nor geography.

In 1921, Britain installed the Hashemites in Baghdad and Amman, sons of the Sherif of Mecca who, with British connivance, were driven from Arabia by the Wahhabi clan of Saud. Although King Faisal I of the Iraqi state was under British military control, neither he nor his dependent administration ever accepted the amputation of the Kuwait district and the removal of Iragi access to the Gulf.

Faisal sought to build a railway to Kuwait and to build Iragi port facilities to the city of Kuwait. Britain vetoed both projects, a practice maintained by Britain through 1961, when the Kuwait district was declared "independent."

The attempts by Britain to force Iraqi acceptance made the "Kuwait" question the symbolic focus of the Arab national movement in Iraq and a touchstone both of Iraqi humiliation at the hands of Britain and of anti-colonial struggle.

In 1932, the British Agent in Baghdad forced the Iraqi prime minister, virtually at gun point, to enter into "correspondence" on the delimitation of boundaries for British "Kuwait." The Iraqi Chamber of Deputies, although largely handpicked, nonetheless repudiated the "correspondence."

British designs resisted

Resistance to British designs on the Gulf became an Iragi cause celebre throughout the 1930s. The Iraqi press campaigned for the return to Iraqi sovereign control of the district of Kuwait and the restoration of Iraqi access The British Political Agent in Kuwait, Lieutenant Colonel H. R. P. Dickson (who would become the chief representative of the Kuwait Oil Company in 1936), wrote in his letters to the British Political Resident in the Gulf in 1933 that such was the fever of sentiment both in Iraq and the Kuwaiti district itself for reversion to Iraq that, "residents of Kuwait had to be kept isolated, by force if need be," from contact with other Iraqis.

Faisal I was succeeded by King Ghazi, who alarmed the British by his open call for the recovery of Kuwait. In 1932, Sheikh Ahmad as-Sabah visited Baghdad and met Ghazi. The two men agreed that popular sentiment was running so high that ways had to be found to restore Iraqi sovereignty. Britain prevented Ghazi from traveling to Kuwait, and the two men were not allowed to meet again.

Resistance to Britain spread throughout the country. In April 1938, Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Tawfiq as-Suweidi informed British Ambassador Peterson in Baghdad:

"The Ottoman-British Agreement of 1913 recognizes Kuwait as a District under the jurisdiction of the Province of Basra. Since sovereignty over Basra has been transferred from the Ottoman State to the Iraqi State, that sovereignty has to include Kuwait under the terms of the 1913 Agreement. Iraq has not recognized any change in the status of Kuwait."

The remarkable boldness of Iraqi functionaries who were, after all, under British military control, was made possible by the emergence of a mass movement among Kuwaiti youth, defying British rule. The "Free Kuwaiti Movement" or "Group of Free Kuwaitis" submitted a mass petition appealing to the Iraqi government to support their demand for immediate reversion of Kuwait to Iraq.

The National Bloc was formed in Kuwait by the Free Kuwaiti Movement and it called upon Sheikh Ahmad as-Sabah to establish a Legislative Council representing the "Free Kuwaitis." Fearing an open uprising, the Sheikh was forced to agree. The first meeting of the Legislative Council in 1938 passed a unanimous resolution demanding that Kuwait revert to Iraq.

Britain, alarmed, but uncertain about the direct use of force, forced the Sheikh to dissolve the Legislative Council and to hunt down, detain, and execute its members.

On March 7, 1939, Free Kuwaitis sent a series of telegrams to King Ghazi, appealing for Iraq's intervention against the Sheikh and the British. Baghdad Radio broadcast the appeal: "Our history supports the return of Kuwait to Iraq. We shall live and die under our own national sovereignty, under the Iraqi flag. Ghazi, help your brethren of Kuwait!"

King Ghazi assassinated

On March 10, 1939, an uprising began against the ruling authority in Kuwait. The Sheikh, with British arms and "advisers," crushed the uprising, killing and imprisoning most of the participants. King Ghazi made a public demand for the release of all detainees and warned the Sheikh to cease all repressive measures against the Free Kuwaiti British Ambassador Peterson now summoned King Ghazi and warned him to cease public support for the Free Kuwaiti Movement and to abandon any claims to Kuwait. Ghazi refused. On April 5, 1939, he was found dead, universally believed to have been assassinated by British agents.

Faisal II, the heir to the throne, was an infant so that control was in the hands of British agent Nuri es-Said.

Only in 1940 was the Kuwaiti Sheikh able to replace Iraqi administration of the Postal Service by a British administration, and not until 1945 were Iraqi curricula removed from Kuwaiti schools.

With the end of World War II, British rule was displaced by U.S. imperial domination of the region acting primarily through the settler-colonial state of Israel established in Palestine. Arab national resistance reached a qualitative new scale and Kuwait's relation to Iraq would be central to it.

Part two of this series will document the secret agreements by John: Foster Dulles of the United States and British rulers to return Kuwait to Iraqi sovereignty, the breaching of these agreements, the expansion of Kuwait deeper into Iragi territory (encompassing Iraqi oil fields), the theft by Kuwaiti rulers of Iraqi oil reserves, the ensnaring of Saddam Hussein by the Kuwaiti and Saudi monarchies under U.S. direction to attack Iran, and the economic warfare waged against Iraq by the Sheikhs of Kuwait, the Emirates, and the Saudi monarchy.

Scan page 9

... U.S. war moves in Middle East SOCIALIST ACTION OCTOBER 1990 9 (continued from page 1: “Thousands begin to mobilize against U.S. war moves in Gulf”) gression as an acceptable form of behavior that the United Nations has the power to suppress acts of aggression," he added. 'There is ample evidence that this right can be exercised. It will be, if the illegal occupation of Kuwait continues."

Only Cuba's representative on the 15 member Security Council voted against the air embargo and the new threats against Iraq.

Secretary of State James Baker praised Shevardnadze's speech and said he was "extraordinarily pleased" by the role of the United Nations to date.

This reactionary alliance between the U.S. and Soviet governments is a knife in the back of the Arab people. It is a green light to imperialism to step up its aggression. It is an endorsement for the Israeli rulers to step up their violence against the Palestinian people.

With Moscow's backing, Washington continues its massive build-up in the Gulf at breakneck speed. Operation Desert Shield is Washington's biggest military deployment since the Vietnam War. While exact figures are not available, it is estimated that by the end of the year more than 200,000 troops and support personnel will be in the region.

The military presence extends beyond Saudi Arabia and the ships in the Gulf. Reactionary regimes in Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates have all opened their territory to the U.S. military.

The aggression against the Arab people has wide bipartisan support in Congress. Differences among Democrats and Republicans are not over the alleged "right" of U.S. intervention but over if, when, and how •Jake Cooper (continued from page 7: “Return to Coyoacan 50 years after Trotsky's assassination”)

raised funds from union locals to purchase hundreds of tons of food for the courageous Hormel strikers.

But this wasn't Jake's only contribution to the strike. He drew on his direct experience in the union battles of the 1930s and 1940s to alert the P-9 leadership and membership to the pitfalls of the Corporate Campaign strategy they had adopted for the This strategy was based on the idea that the class-struggle methods of mass, militant picketlines were a relic of the past. Instead, the Corporate Campaign advocated a publicrelations campaign designed to bring pressure on the financial institutions that had financial relationships with Hormel. Such a strategy was actually counterposed to the mobilization of the workers to close down the plant.

Jake wrote a pamphlet called "Lessons of the P-9 Strike" which drew a balance sheet of the strike and its lessons for the entire labor movement. Hundreds of copies were eagerly read by P-9 members, their supportSaddam Hussein's Iraq should be attacked. They all agree with Bush that the "historic period of collaboration" with the Soviet Union's rulers opens a new post-Cold War era where Washington can impose its will around the world— "a new world order.' , »9 Not SO simple But it's not so simple. While the mass media present a picture of near total domestic and world support for the U.S. war alliance against Iraq, reality is a little more complicated.

The Aug. 2 Iraqi intervention into Kuwait and its later annexation of Kuwait to Iraq's southern province is Washington's hypocritical pretext for its war drive. The United Nations and the Saudi royal family provide Washington its cover.

For decades the U.S. government has sought military bases on Arab territory. This became even more urgent after the downfall of the U.S. puppet regime of the Shah in Iran in 1979. This left Israel as Washington's only reliable "policeman" in the region.

Washington's strategic concern has always been the huge oil reserves, not the rights of the Arab people. The sheik of Kuwait is a reliable U.S. ally; Saddam Hussein is not. What's at stake is the United State's longterm economic and political interests not only in the Arab East but everywhere. The oppressed peoples of the world must not get the idea that they can take over their own economic resources and destinies.

There is ample evidence to support Iraq's ers, and other trade unionists in the area.

A few weeks before his death, Jake was an honored guest speaker at a picnic to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the Austin Last month, Jake was invited to Mexico to participate in a commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Trotsky's assassination. [See Jake's article in this section.] As we try to adjust to the loss of Jake, it's no small comfort to remember that he died a happy and fulfilled man, both personally and politically. He had a loving family, financial security, and good health well into his older years.

In the political sphere, Jake's life ended as it had begun, right at the center of building a socialist movement in the United States and around the world. He traveled a path from which he never diverged for 54 years.

The revolutionary program that Jake helped formulate also spawned the Jake Cooper whose contributions are only briefly described here. We should celebrate Jake Cooper's splendid life by doing what Jake did-talk to the many young people on the campuses, in the oppressed nationalities, in the factories, and everywhere else who can be won to the only way out of misery and alienation—the socialist future. case that Kuwait is an "independent" country only because of British and U.S. imperialism. The so-called land dispute between Sheik Jaber al-Ahmed al-Sabah and Iraq did not originate in August or since Saddam Hussein became ruler of Iraq 20 years ago. For centuries, Kuwait was an integral part of Iraq. [See article on page 8.] The loyal pro-imperialist kingdoms now allowing a U.S. military presence on Arab territory—Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, along with Saudi Arabia-were all created and supported by imperialism to blunt pan-Arab nationalism.

These brutal reactionary regimes are hated by their own people. It is not only the Palestinians in Jordan and other countries who are hailing Saddam against Bush. Poor Arab (and non-Arab) workers and peasants in Saudi Arabia and Egypt are also anti-American. Big pro-Iraqi demonstrations have taken place in Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, and Iran.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser to President Carter, noted this sentiment in a recent column: "Recently I was talking to an Arab ambassador from a country that is participating in our efforts to isolate Iraq and who is very supportive of what we are doing. He told me the masses in his country are seething with hostility toward the United States.

"Anti-Americanism is very high throughout the Arab world. It is high in Egypt; [President] Mubarak could become vulnerable over time. It is quite high in Saudi Arabia, below the surface. It is even high in countries as far away as Morocco."

$40 a barrel Meanwhile, the price of oil continues to skyrocket. By the end of September, a barrel of crude oil was selling for $40—despite the fact that Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries have increased production to make up for the embargoed Iraqi oil.

This price gouging is leading to super profits for the big oil companies while working people suffer. If war does break out soon, oil speculators expect the price of oil to go as high as $60 to $80 a barrel!

The U.S. economy is for all practical purposes in a recession. Numerous companies have begun lay offs and others have cutback on capital investments. Wall Street stocks continue to decline. Between July 16 and Sept. 28, the stock market fell 19.1 percent.

Operation Desert Shield is costing the Pentagon more than $1 billion a month. The estimated cost for 1991 is $17.5 billion. Only some of that is being paid by the imperialist allies and the traitor Arab regimes.

While the impact of the oil shock and the general decline of the economy will increasingly hurt working people in the United States, it is devastating for people in semi-colonial countries.

Washington, thus far, has not had to pay a high political price with the U.S. public for its intervention in the Middle East and the Danger of Tonkin Gulf incident in Middle East The current military buildup in the Persian Gulf is the fastest and most costly since the Vietnam War (approximately $1 billion per month), involving as many as 200,000 U.S. troops by the end of the year.

While government officials are careful to point out that they are pursuing a "diplomatic" solution to the "crisis,"

top U.S. commanders are warning that by the end of September, the U.S. military apparatus might be ready to "go on the offensive," according to Marine Lt.

Gen. Walt Boomer. "The United States and its Arab partners are at least two weeks short of being ready to strike to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, states Pittsburgh-Post Gazette staffwriter Joseph Cox (Sept. 3, 1990).

Cox, quoting "well-informed sources"

in Saudi-Arabia and in the U.S. military, notes that the U.S. could provoke a shooting incident over the Iraqi border which would give the United States the pretext to recapture Kuwait and possibly move to depose Hussein in Iraq.

The Saudi Arabian source told Cox:

"We create them [provocations] every day. We create them 20 times a day when we lock our radars onto their planes. If we wanted, we could shoot one of his [Saddam Hussein's] planes and say it was on our side of the border.

How would anyone know where it was?"

growing economic problems. But this will end when body bags begin to come home and the gasoline prices double or triple.

"Vietnam Syndrome" is not dead The "Vietnam Syndrome" is not dead. Numerous protest teach-ins, rallies, and demonstrations have already been organized around the country. [See stories on pp. 1017.] The broad alliance the United States has forged against Iraq gives the illusion that a "quick" and "short" war with modest costs is possible.

But this "unity" is not durable. It cannot stop the Arab people and other oppressed people in the region, the Kurds in particular, from fighting for justice-against Washington, London, Paris, and their Arab friends.

A war against Iraq will ignite rebellions throughout the Arab East and lead to a protracted war on many fronts. The anti-Iraqi alliance will crumble rapidly.

The criminal economic blockade by land, air, and sea is therefore crucial to the imperialists' attempt to bring down Saddam Hussein's regime.

At the same time, however, the longer there is no war, the price imperialism and its allies will pay for their anti-Arab policies will increase. The truth about Kuwait's history and that of the reactionary regimes will begin to filter out to working people around the world. It will become clear that the real issue is not Iraq's annexation of Kuwait but Washington's aggression against the Arab masses.

The United Nations can provide no solution to the crisis in the Middle East. Its role is reactionary. It can't and won't protect the rights of the Arab people. It is a tool of oppression.

Self-determination for the Arab people will only be possible when the United States and other imperialist forces are immediately withdrawn from the Arab East. "U.S. Out of the Middle East! — Hands Off Iraq!" must be the slogans of supporters of human rights and democracy around the world Essential reading on the Middle East a Soctallet Action pamphlet by Ralph Schoenman, 104 pp Send 84 to 3435 Army St. #308 San Prancisco, CA 94110 Make checks payable to Walnut Publishing Co

----- pull-quotes -----

The Hidden History of Zionism"