Recognition of governments (was:: A Russian view of the war (April 6)

["LouPaulsen" <LouPaulsen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On this point I am not quite so optimistic.

----- Original Message -----
From: "lvnadal" <lvnadal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


> Not to waste time and bandwith by simply agreeing, but this assessment by
> comrade Liu is precise and precisely to the point.   In a paragraph or two
> we see the next 6 months of imperialist predicaments.
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> .  But the main issue is "victory".  The US
> > has decided on a strategy of declaring "victory" without full control of
> > Baghdad.  As long as Saddam's government refuses to surrender and
> > retains control of some part of Baghdad, no government outside of the
> > Coalition of the Willing will recognize the US's new regime.

(And Henry went on:
The fact
that Congress has ruled out Russia, France, Germany and Syria from
participating in the "reconstruction" of Iraq through sharing of Iraqi
oil, there will be strong incentive for all left-out governments to
continue to recognize Saadam to protect their pre-war contracts. )

For months, the US will have no alternative puppet government of Iraq to
propose, as I understand the timetable.  So, for months the Ba'ath
government will, I suppose, enjoy the 'recognition' of most of the world's
governments, as long as it has -any- presence on the ground in Iraq.  But
the question is, what good will that do.  Will it be able to get any money?
Will the U.N. talk with it about distributing the food from the "oil for
food program"?  Or will it, in fact, be completely ignored by the bourgeois
powers of first, second, and third rank? (We, of course, should demand that
it NOT be ignored.)

Congress's "exclusion" of Russia, France, and Germany from participation in
the reconstruction of Iraq [WHAT MONSTROUS ARROGANCE - as if Iraq was
already a U.S. prize of war along the lines of Puerto Rico.  And they don't
even give Tony Blair the hint of a vote on the question!  Let alone John
Howard and the other "coalition" rag-tag.  The wages of a running dog are
low these days.] cuts both ways.  On the one hand, they may treat it as an
argument to try to deal with Saddam after all.  But this only makes sense as
long as they think that Saddam has a chance of surviving.  If he doesn't
survive, obviously he is of no value in "protecting their pre-war
contracts".

On the other hand, therefore, they may treat it as a threat and as the
opening of negotiations with the US, and go to the US and ask "all right,
what concessions do we have to make to you in order to be allowed some of
the scraps of Iraq after all?"  In doing so, of course they are dealing with
a good-cop, bad-cop strategy on the part of the US, where Powell is the
"good cop"  attempting to trade for concessions and holding out the hope of
some kind of multilateralism, and Rumsfeld is the "bad cop" making it plain
that the US is boss and there is nothing to negotiate.  Since it's not
obvious that Powell has any real authority to make concessions, this is an
unrewarding prospect for the imperialist rivals also.

So they have two unpalatable choices: (a) bet on the survival of the Ba'ath
government, or (b) bet on the ability of Powell to come through with some
concessions that will not be vetoed by Rumsfeld and Cheney.  However, it
seems to me that France and Germany had chosen (b) a few days ago, and that
Putin is choosing it now (closing the embassy, and engaging in talks with
Rice this weekend).  Therefore I don't think it will help the Iraqis much to
have the formal recognition of the European imperialists during this period,
because they are all already scrambling to get a little piece of the kill,
like the brute pre-human beasts in the first reel of "2001".  I would very
much like to be wrong about all this.  If I am, Henry, let me know how and
why.

Lou Paulsen
Chicago