Once again there is speculation, fed by reports from Salisbury, that a new deal between the Government and the Rhodesian whites is on the way. This follows the mass revolt in the Tory Party less than a month ago when more than 130 Conservative MPs voted against or abstained on a motion to renew the Ministerial Order imposing sanctions on the Smith regime.
The whole affair should of course have been settled for the bourgeoisie many months ago.
When Lord Pearce and his fellow-commissioners were sent to Rhodesia, it was merely to provide a respectable 'democratic' cover for the ratification of the deal agreed by DouglasHome and Smith. The American chrome dealers had already moved in, defying U.N. sanctions:
and with sections of the Tory Party baying for the removal of sanctions, the Government threw "caution to the winds in concluding a deal that would have assured the strengthening of the white settler regime and made certain - if less quickly - the drift to apartheid. All that remained, so it seemed, were the necessary formalities.
DEAL UPSET However the deal was upset by the masses of Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), who rose in the cities, in the mining camps, and throughout the countryside in an impressive series of demonstrations against it. The Pearce Report effectively had no option but to declare that the mass of black opinion was against the settlement.
The Government has two main concerns. On the one hand, it must ensure that the African masses are left leaderless and unarmed, which can only be done by backing Smith; but on the other hand, it is anxious to dampen down estremism" in the camp of the white settlers, and re-establish business as usual with its "kith and kin". Pearce's purpose was to do exactly that.
AFRICANS WORSE OFF In the past period the situation of the Zimhabwe masses has continued to deteriorate.
The confiscation of the best African lands, which went on throughout the terms of successive colonial governments, has continued unabated since UDI. The number of black workers has been consciously depressed by the fears of the whites that the growth of a black proletariat would not only threaten white labour but the very regime itself. The black working class is today less than 3 per cent of the total black population -and they are paid only one twelfth of the wages of white workers. The trend for the whole black population has been for an absolute fall in real incomes both in the ten years before UDI and since. Talk about a settlement being "the last hope for a multi-racial society in Africa" merely attempts to mask further repressive measures being prepared against the Africans. This year's rebellion by sections of the Tory Party in both Houses of Parliament in fact came despite further concessions to the white settlers in the form of a slackening of exchange controls, issue of passports to visit Britain, etc. As for the blacks, they have been hit hardest by sanctions - in every sphere of economic life the regime has thrown the burden of sanctions onto the black workers and peasants. REPRESSION Any new agreement will enable Smith to intensify the repression of the African workers and peasants with impunity. This is clearly recognised by the Zimbabwe masses, while they have no illusions in British imperialism giving any aid to their cause. But even if a new agreement is reached, it will do nothing to solve the contradictions of a racist capitalist social structure, in which every attempt at economic growth and expansion is fraught with dangers for the whites. Such expansion could only occur on the basis of a growing black proletariat, and higher incomes for the mass of African peasants to provide the basis of a strong internal market; and this would immediately threaten the whole basis of the settlers power. Relief could only come from a massive repression and demoralisation of the African masses, which would almost certainly necessitate South African and British imperialist backing; it is this which will be on the agenda if a new deal is signed, and which socialists must prepare now to truggle against.
Britain as master of the oil-rich Persian Gulf, the richest site of imperialist plunder in the third world. For 150 years, from its war against Napoleon to its imperialist twilight in the late 1960s, Britain dominated the Gulf, and ensured the flow of oil and profits to the West. But at the end of 1917, Britain finally withdrew her colonial tutelage, leaving a set of shaky neo-colonial states to continue the protection of Western interests. In a pattern set ever since 1947, when the U.S.
took over the British role in Greece under the Truman Doctrine, Britain's pullout has been followed by a stepped-up U.S. involvement. Nixon's trip to Iran after his Moscow visit highlighted this change.
THREE REASONS There are three reasons for this U.S. move.
First, the Gulf is a zone of U.S. —Soviet rivalry Soviet economic and military power in Iraq, at the head of the Gulf, has led that country to boot out the Western oil monopoly that has long dominated its economy. Soviet naval activities in the Gulf, the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea trouble Pentagon strategists.
The U.S. has already announced that once they are no longer needed in Indochina, ships of the Seventh Fleet will be redeployed in the Indian Ocean and Mideast zones.
A second reason for U.S. concern is that the regimes in Iran and in the Arab states along the Gulf coast are thought to be unstable from the West's point of view. Both interstate disputes and clashes between the regimes and the popular opposition movements are likely in the near future. In the Sultanate of Oman, Marxist-Leninist guerrillas have liberated most of the province of Dhofar and have tied down the Sultan's army. The U.S.
reckons that its presence in the Gulf will counter these destabilizing forces.
The third and most important reason is that the Gulf is the richest source of oil in the world.
In the spring of 1972, the Nixon Administration began to issue alarmist statements about the future U.S. dependence on Gulf oil and the political weaknesses this could lead to.
While the British were there, they controlled the zone polirically - but the U.S. has the greatest economic power, with ownership of two-thirds of the oil and a $ 5 billion investment. With 70 per cent of the capitalist world's known reserves the Gulf is the key to U.S.
economic plunder of the Third World. Gulf oil is 30 times cheaper to produce than Texan or Alaskan oil, and this wealth of oil makes the area prone to careful Pentagon attention.
With depletion in the U.S. and delays on the Alaska pipeline, the United States may have to import more than the mere 10 per cent it does at the moment, and the big source for these imports will be the Gulf.
SECRET DEAL First public sign of the U.S. build-up in the Gulf came in January with the revelation that the U.S. had reached a secret deal on naval facilities in the Gulf state of Bahrain. The base there was built by the British, and the U.S. had used part of it since 1947. Last year, as the British began to leave, the U.S. moved in.
According to the State Department, the U.S. activity in the Gulf is only "a flag-showing operation to manifest U.S. interest in the area." But this is a lie.. Although the U.S. presence is small (260 men permanently on shore, a flag-ship, two destroyers), it provides a foothold for future deployments, and for a permanent watch on all Soviet actions in the Gulf and Red Sea. It is also clearly a basis for U.S. intervention in Bahrain if the ruling pro-imperialist al-Khalifa family runs into trouble.
In 1956 and in 1965, British-officered troops crushed popular uprisings. Strikes began again in 1970, and a third big upsurge came HOSPITAL WORKERS AGAINST THE FREEZEIMG Public Meeting, Wednesday. 13 December, at 7.30 p.m. in Friends House (opposite Euston Station). Speakers: Mark Palmer (Health Workers Shop Steward); Steve Lynch (T.U. organiser -in personal capacity).
IRISH CITIZEN NEW YEAR CEILIDH-Friday. 29 December at Sol's Arms, Hampstead Road (Warren Street tube), 8-12 p.m. (extension). Admission 30p. Organised by Central London A.I.L.
SOCIALIST WOMAN SOCIAL-Friday, 22 Dec. at Sol's Arms, Hampstead Road (Warren Street tube), 8-12 p.m. (extension).
this March, when a strike at the airport spread to town, and all shops factories and schools came out on strike. After four days of battles in the streets, when the government used armoured cars and reportedly brought in Bedouin tribesmen from Saudi Arabia, the workers were forced to return to work. Their leaders were thrown into prison. The U.S. is unlikely to have a quiet time in Bahrain with allies like the ruling al-Khalifa family. Since the first uprising of 1956, the al-Khalifa have lived outside the capital in a special fortified village, guarded by armed Bedouin, They doubtless find the U.S. naval presence reassuring.
U.S. MOVE INTO OMAN More important than the Bahrain deal is the recent U.S. move into the Sultanate of Oman. Last October, Omani Sultan Qabus entertained a party of U.S. visitors aboard his yacht. Head of the mission was Robert Anderson, Texas oilman and Secretary of the Treasury under Eisenhower - in this instance a front man for an elaborate move by the U.S.
to move into the oil-rich Sultanate.
The most important publicized deal fixed up by Anderson was between the Sultan and a U.S. firm with fishing interests, Mardela, of which Charles Black, husband of Shirley Temple, is the head. Ostensibly, Mardela plans to run a joint U.S. -Omani fishing company off the Omani coast, i.e., in the northwest Indian Ocean. But officials in Washington, London and Muscat (Oman's capital) have let it be known that Mardela will also carry out intelligence surveillance for the U.S. government, spying on Russian naval activity in the Indian Ocean and on smaller ships that may be engaged in arms amuggling in the zone. GUERRILLA WAR The Sultanate is the site of a fierce guerrilla war located in the southern province of Dhofar. Marxist-Leninist guerrillas in a People's Liberation Army have for eight years been fighting a people's war there against the British and their local mercenary army. They have captured most of the province and pose a direct political threat to the rest of the Gulf. Up to now the British-run Omani army has done without U.S. aid, but the new Mardela deal has changed this. According to the London Evening Standard's correspondent: Washington observers now believe that President Nixon has decided to help protect the 1.000-mile coastline of Oman." (27.3.72) In addition to this naval deal, Anderson has done well out of his Omani venture. He now has a contract to set up a diplomatic service to the Sultan, who has no ambassadors abroad at all. He has won oil exploitation rights for part of the Sultanate, and for a large section of the offshore area. In addition he has acquired mineral rights for the whole of the country. No details of what mights be there have been given, but the Egyptian press reported in January that large deposits of uranium 182 Pentoaville Road, London N.l.
Name:
Address:
had been found in the Omani interior. This possibility, plus the fact that Omani oil is sulphur-free, make the country a rich prize.
The U.S. entry into Oman has only come after long negotiation. The Sultan used to be out of touch with the U.S. because he had a territorial despute with the U.S.-backed Saudi Arabian government. But in June 1971, while the Sultan was in London on a private visit, he met representatives of the CIA. They proposed that the U.S. should give the Sultan financial aid to help him develop the country and step up his campaign in Dhofar. In December, the long-standing Saudi-Omani dispute was patched up; Omani Sultan Qabus visited Saudi Arabia and the deal was sealed.
Since then Saudi and Omani forces have worked together. In particular, they have coordinated attacks on the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, a revolutionary state that borders Oman and has given continued support to the guerrillas in Dhofar, Documents and arms captured from the attackers prove that the U.S. is helping these moves. Prisoners taken in the fighting have also reported receiving training from U.S. instructors in camps inside Saudi Arabia.
ANOTHER INDOCHINA A lthough the zone is economically far more vital to the U.S. than Indochina, there is no likelihood in the immediate future of any comparable military interventions by the U.S. Rather than hold the people down itself, the U.S. wants the growing military powers of Saudi Arabia and Iran to do the job for it. Both countries have received massive military aid in the past twenty years.
But the nature of U.S. commitment is such that, over the long run, it could easily find itself involved in a very messy situation. It stands behind the local rulers and is prepared to step up its intervention if its strategic and economic interests are threatened.
"Flag-showing" could then give way to "flagwaving". Places like Oman, Bahrain, Dhofar, and Yemen could then take on the importance that Laos, Quang Tri, and the Parrot's Beak have today.
POSTSCRIPT
This article has already appeared in the Guardian (New York) and in Ramparts (San Francisco).
Since it was written, U.S. policy has further unfolded. In July, Secretary of State William Rogers visited Bahrain and North Yemen. In September, anti-crimmunist elements in North Yemen, armed by Saudi Arabia and the United States, declared war on People's Yemen, The subsequent peace agreement between the two Yemens, signed in November, has severely split the reactionary camp, and has temporarily defeated U.S. plans to wipe out the People's Republic. According to Saudi Arabia, the agreement is an attempt to undermine the "Islamic" (i.e. pro-imperialist) character of North Yemen and to export revolution from the South.
News from the oil front has been dominated by the so-called participation agreement reached between the oil-producing Gulf states and the oil companies. As Saudi Arabia has openly stated, this is a means of guaranteeing longterm Western access to Gulf oil in an era of rising U.S. and European needs.
In Dhofar, a fresh imperialist offensive was launched on 23 September at the start of the dry season. This has included a heavy and continuous air and artillery bombardment of the liberated areas in an attempt to drive the population onto the British-held coast. A threeman delegation from the N.L.F. of South Vietnam visited the liberated areas in September: in a joint statement, the two sides expressed support for each other's struggles and committed themselves to closer ties in the future.
INTERNATIONAL MARXIST GROUP (British Section of the Fourth International)
I would like more information about the IMG.
The Stoke Newington Eight trial may be over, but there are Sentenced to ten years apiece: (from left to right) John Barker, Hilary Creek, Jimmy Greenfield, and Anna Mendleson. IRELAND (From page 1)
that which greeted the 1957 crackdown,shows that a strong reservior of resistance exists which can be tapped and successfully used to turn the tide and defeat Lynch.
WEAKNESS But the present crisis expresses the essential political weakness of the Provisional Republican Movement. As explained in The Red Mole (56), the Provisionals came to the leadership of the struggle in the North because they had the answers which corresponded to the needs of the nationalist minority after July 1970. This position of leadership in the North has given them their support in the South, not the actual test of their politics in the South, and this shows in such
----- pull-quotes -----
last year of the cover up?