Editorial: The Middle East heads for war

THE MIDDLE EAST HEADS FOR WAR

•Whatever may be said in Washington, it is simply not true that the country as a whole is talking about the fate of the hostages in Iran, or anything to do with foreign policy. The country is talking about prices, mortgages and interest rates.'

Financial Times, 25 April 1980 To understand Washington's preoccupation with Iran we have to look beneath the barrage of bourgeois propaganda.

Imperialist attacks on the Middle East are nothing new. Iran (1953), Jordan and Lebanon (1958), Oman (1957-59 and 1965), Kuwait (1961), Bahrain (1956 and 1965), North Yemen (1962-70) and Saudi Arabia (1963): all have suffered military intervention. In the period after the Second World War the imperialist powers sought to establish stable conditions for capitalist development in the region. This phase of imperialist domination coincided with the worldwide expansion of production during the post-war boom. Today matters are different. As world capitalism plunges into recession, the stability of the Middle East is essential to its survival.

The imperialist nations have been forced to use every means at their disposal to stay on top in the Middle East.

The American journal Business Week warned that 'as OPEC pushes the West towards the edge of economic survival, the option of a military response becomes more and more reason- What is 'reasonable' for imperialism is war and more war. But why does the capitalist system have to rely on the forces of destruction for its survival?

A new phase of crisis The recession marks a new phase in capitalist accumulation.

During the recovery from 1975 to 1979 capitalism could barely overcome recessionary tendencies: profit rates declined and growth rates dropped. Even the subsequent upswing in production, resulting from US reflation in 1975, was insufficient to overcome the trend towards slump.

The root problem of the capitalist decline is the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

As profits fall capitalists are reluctant to invest; this leads to an interruption in the 1 accumulation process. The solution to this problem lies in the rationalisation of production. Increases in productivity raise the rate of surplus-value. At the same time capitalists try to increase the rate of surplus-value by reducing the living standards of the working class.

Capital was not restructured in the transient revival of the late 'seventies. Capitalists staved off the full force of the recession by means of attacks on working class living standards and the regulation of competition in the world market. These measures allowed accumulation to proceed but at a much slower rate than in the 'sixties. In the decade ending in 1973, the growth of industrial production averaged 5.6 per cent in Europe, 5.4 per cent in the USA and 10.5 per cent in Japan. Between 1975 and 1978 the figures were 1.1 per cent, 2.2 per cent and 3.9 per cent respectively. The superficiality of the 1975 recovery is confirmed by the stagnating productivity levels shown in table 1.

Table 1 Annual growth in GNP per employee 1963-79 (percentage change each year) 1963 1973 to to 1973 1979 US 1.9 0.1 3.4 Japan 8.7 Germany 4.6 3.2 France 4.6 2.7 UK 0.3 3.0 Italy 5.4 1.6 Source: OECD, Economic Outlook, December 1979 Productivity in Britain and the USA has been virtually stag nant since 1973. The persistence of stagnation after 1975 shows that the crisis is permanent: it will assume even greater proportions in the present phase of accumulation.

'Export capital or die' The slow rate of accumulation since the mid 'seventies means that the present recession will be much more severe than the 1974-75 crisis. One indicator of this is the dramatic intensification of imperialist rivalries. No major capitalist power can survive the world recession without consolidating its position on the world market. This is why the export of capital is such an important feature of the present phase of the crisis. The Economist recently noted the stark alternatives facing the ruling class: 'Export capital or die? 3 Capita exports are crucial if profitable investment sites are to be secured and the export of commodities stimulated.

The expansion of foreign trade is an important counteracting tendency to the falling rate of profit. The decline in industrial production restricts the demand for plant and machinery. As the domestic market becomes less and less capable of supporting accumulation, foreign trade allows the scale of production to be maintained. Trade with backward capitalist countries is particularly important because Business Week, 19 November 1979 For a discussion of the Marxist theory of crisis and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall see "The recession: capitalist offensive and the working class', Revolutionary Communist Papers, No 3, July 1978 The Economist, 27 October 1979.

it raises the general rate of profit. Imperialist countries obtain a transfer of additional value through trading with backward capitalist countries.4 The response of the advanced capitalist countries to the slowdown in accumulation between 1973 and 1979 was to shift their commodities and capital abroad. Although the rate of growth of world trade was halved between 1973 and 1978 the export of commodities has grown as a proportion of Gross National Product (GNP). In these years exports as a percentage of GNP rose from 17 to 20 per cent in France, in Germany from 23.4 to 27.1 per cent, in Britain from 23 to 24 per cent, in the USA from 6.7 to 8.5 per cent and in Japan from 10 to 11 per cent.

For Japan, the USA and Western Europe the backward capitalist countries have become the most important markets. But Asia, Africa and Latin America have other uses for imperialism too. Loans to backward capitalist countries are used to purchase commodities from the West. Credit ensures a continuing demand for Western commodities and helps prevent an even deeper recession Struggle for survival The export of capital also helps to secure sources of raw materials. Every industrial country relies on energy sources (especially oil and uranium), on minerals and agricultural products. Technological innovation and rising productivity mean that the proportion of capital invested in raw materials, relative to machinery, grows inexorably as capitalism develops. Thus the value of raw materials forms an increasing fraction of the commodity product and weighs more and more heavily on the rate of profit. To maintain profitability capitalists try to limit the prices of raw materials. This is why imperialist powers are forced to invest in new sources of energy and why the question of oil so preoccupies bourgeois economists. The direct control of raw material supplies is one of the main objectives of the export of capital.

Capital exports are vital in counteracting the effects of the crisis of profitability. Apart from stimulating trade, establishing new points of exchange and guaranteeing access to raw materials, investments abroad are profitable. Many British firms could not survive without their lucrative investments in countries where wages are low and raw materials cheap. In 1979, 44 per cent of the profits of Britain's largest engineering company Guest, Keen and Again, Nettlefords came from its overseas operations.

Dunlop is running down its British plants: 97 per cent of its profits now come from abroad.?

The pursuit of a strategy of capital export by every major power leads to the exacerbation of international tensions. The most significant victim of the cut-throat rivalry on the world market is the USA. It is losing out to Japan and West Germany in the imperialist race for spheres of influence.

And at home the productivity of American labour is falling.

The decline of US capitalism signals the end of the world system established under American hegemony after the Second World War. Today imperialist powers are making ready to redivide the world. The reorganisation of the world economy will not be a peaceful affair. Economic war leads to military conflict. As the imperialist powers step up their preparations to send troops into a whole variety of backward capitalist regions, it becomes more evident than ever that direct political control is the only way left open to safeguard investments, markets and raw material sources.

The growing activity of the US armed forces in the Middle East shows the shape of imperialist oppression to come.

Time for a new carve-up The decline of US imperialism is particularly striking in the Middle East. Capitalists from Japan, France and elsewhere have forced many American firms out of the Middle East market. In the construction sector the USA has lost a share of Middle East orders to countries such as South Korea and India. In addition the political upheavals of recent months have accelerated the eclipse of American influence. After the Second World War the USA was determined to rule the Middle East. Step by step it pushed Britain out of the last outposts of its crumbling Empire. By the fifties British imperialism could not hold onto its former dominant position in the region. The USA had successfully edged Britain out of Iran and was breathing down its neck elsewhere. The unsuccessful Anglo-French invasion of Suez in 1956 was opposed by the USA. This squalid episode marked the end of Britain's imperial pretensions in the Middle East.

The growth of nationalist opposition in Egypt and other Arab countries had severely weakened Britain's hold Britain could no longer sustain long colonial wars and in the 'fifties decided to end its direct control of South Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain and the "Trucial' states. This decision was also based on the calculation that the transfer of power to sympathetic indigenous regimes was preferable to military occupation which could drive the masses into armed struggle against imperialism. Britain's 1971 withdrawal from 'east of Suez' was its final acknowledgement of the fact that the USA had become the guarantor of capitalist relations in the area. The Eisenhower doctrine claimed this role for the USA in 1957 and it was confirmed the following year when US marines invaded Lebanon. The USA did not try to establish direct control; it preferred to exercise its domination through its client states. Israel became Washington's policeman in the Eastern Mediterranean. In the oil-rich Gulf region the USA tried to use Iran and Saudi Arabia to keep order. Saudi Arabia however was too weak to match up to the task. But the Shah of Iran was ready and willing to police the Gulf on behalf of imperialism. Iranian troops were sent into Oman and Iraq when the need arose.

The overthrow of the Shah in 1979 deprived the USA of its most important ally in the Gulf and upset the whole structure of imperialist domination in the Middle East. It was a threat to imperialist stability which could not have come at a worse time for Washington. The US economy was in deep trouble and American influence in the Middle East was now threatened by a massive popular revolt in Iran as well as by its imperialist rivals, President Carter realised that the USA's grip on the region could only be maintained by military might. Send in the gun-boats? The American military build-up since the fall of the Shah has been accompanied by a search for new local client states. The Egypt-Israel peace treaty of March 1979 was an attempt to establish a new security network based on the •Cairo-Rivadh-Tel Aviv-Washington axis 8 This initiative did not succeed because it left the Palestinian question un resolved. The Arab ruling classes of the Middle East risk increasing isolation from the masses if they are too closely identified with Israel. Saudi Arabia must pay lip service to the cause of the Palestinians and even Egypt is limited in how far it can antagonise pro-Palestinian sentiment in the Arab world. 2

The USA has considered breaking with Israel, but this option presents too many uncertainties. Apart from the Palestinian question, the USA and its local allies face the growing hostility of the workers and peasants in the Middle East. This is why events in Iran are so important. The overthrow of the Shah is a lesson the ruling classes of the Middle East are not likely to forget. They fear that events in Iran will give a coherent anti-capitalist focus to the mass unrest that prevails throughout the region. Events in Iran call into question the entire imperialist strategy of maintaining stable capitalist relations through local client states.

To uphold their domination of the Middle East the imperialists must ultimately fall back on direct intervention.

This is the meaning of the recently formulated Carter doccalls for an increased military presence in the Middle East. The British ruling class agrees: The Economist recently urged Washington to invade two or three islands off Iran just to teach Ayatollah Khomeini a lesson.

The need to secure a steady supply of oil ensures that most imperialist powers will back up Washington's initiatives in the Middle East. The hysterical reaction to events in Afghanistan and to the seizure of American hostages in Iran shows that all imperialist powers have an interest in the stabilisation of the region. This consensus will continue until Western Europe and Japan feel that their own interests are threatened by US expansion in the Middle East.

The Western working class has a responsibility to defend the people of the Middle East. Our aim must be to build workers' opposition to the colonial policies of imperialism.

Chauvinist propaganda against the people of the Middle East must be countered with an exposure of the imperialists' real designs. We have to show workers that no matter how reactionary Islam is, imperialism is a hundred times more reactionary. Imperialist oppression means the enslavement of the masses and the maintenance of social and economic backwardness in the Middle East. For the working classes of the USA, Europe and Japan any imperialist success means the consolidation of the power of their own ruling class. Defeat imperialism at home - prevent its expansion Frank Richards 19 May 1980 This happens because the production of commodities in a backward capitalist country requires more labour time than the production of commodities with the aid of the latest technology in advanced capitalist countries. On the transfer of value from less developed to more developed capitalist countries see K Marx, Capital, Vol 3, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1971, This development is discussed by F Richards in 'The scramble for Africa', Revolutionary Communist Papers, No 5, September 1979, plO. Recently the Brandt Commission has propased a 'massive transfer' of capital to backward capitalist countries 'which would greatly increase the effective demand for imports, and reduce the dole queues and idle factories in the industrialised world'. See The Times, 31 March 1980.

Marx argued: 'Other conditions being equal, the rate of profit, therefore, falis and rises inversely to the price of raw material.

The Economist, 3 May 1980.

For a useful bourgeois account of this development see V Yorke, The Gulf in the '80s, London, 1980, p12.

This approach is summed up in Carter's 'State of the union' message: 'Any attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States. It will be repelled by use of any means necessary, including military force. The Economist, 26 January 1980. The Economist, 24 November 1979.

the next step review of the Revolutionary Communist Tendency Turkey, Iran, Kurdistan, Afghanistan. ..

Mugabe, Nyerere, Kaunda, Bokassa. ..

Carter, Schmidt, Thatcher, Botha...

Backward capitalist countries and their leaders are under from the rulers of world imperialism.

mounting pressure the next step provides regular background and analysis of and growing militarism the international situation the of the imperialist countries. One theme runs throughout: the British labour movement must fight the oppression by the British bourgeoisie enforced and encouraged throughout the world. ification of these vital issues the RCT is holding an inter national conference on Imperialism in the '80s. Regula readers of Revolutionary Communist Papers will have an opportunity to debate the themes contained in this journal.

Sessions are planned on the Middle East, Africa, Afghanistan, Ireland and on the theory of imperialism. We urge our readers to participate in this important event.

The RCT needs money. Our lack of resources prevents us from publishing the journal as regularly as it is necessary.

Important articles such as 'State intervention and Second World War' and 'Reformism and the post-war labour movement' have had to be held up because of insufficient funds.

Help us by taking out a subscription, selling the journal to your friends and sending us as much money as you can afford, We are interested too in your comments and criticism.

Write and let us know what you think of Revolutionary Communist Papers. And buy our newspaper the next step.

3