It seems to me that there is, if not overwhelming, substantial evidence available to us to support the idea that in fact that is exactly what has happened. Every day we see the media talk about how new corporations are opening up operations there - we all know about the Moscow stock market, etc. The collapse of the Soviet government, an event of world- historical importance, seems at least on its face, as the end of working-class political power, which has in its turn fueled the reactionary social transformation that are occurring. It's also clear that a new class or property owners -many owning substantial amounts of "social" property, has emerged.
It seems to me that part of the "economic boom" that is occurring now is the result of the opening up of these "new markets" in Eastern Europe and Russia. I look forward to seeing this analysis in your paper and on the Internet. Whether exactly "correct" or not, it can only help to further develop a discussion leading to a greater awareness of this important issue.
Tom Green
San Francisco, California
Don't align with Hussein
The workers of the world should not be so quick to align
themselves with Saddam Hussein. His Stalinist regime has used
chemical weapons on his own people and Iran.
It is true that the reasons the United States is attacking Iraq is for oil (money) and to "set into power a client regime subservient to the interests of the 60 families that rule the U.S." The working class should protest Saddam Hussein's Stalinist regime, the United States, as well as Russia. Russia's only reason for wanting Hussein to remain in power is to sell Iraq (Saddam) more weapons, with the money from oil sales to the United States. Again it's the workers of the world we should align with - not the ruling classes.
J.R.
Seattle, Washington
U.S. wants Iraqi oil
In addition to the Militant's correct analysis that the
U.S. government wants a protectorate (a government Washington
can control) in Baghdad, the U.S. capitalists clearly want to
tap into the huge Iraqi oil reserves. The two go hand in hand.
In a lead article in the February 23 Wall Street Journal, the author quotes an unnamed U.S. State Department official saying "Clearly there is an interest in Iranian and Iraqi oil, but some of those nations that are less vigilant than we are on containment are motivated by commercial interests."
The Persian Gulf countries have oil reserves that could account for half of the world's production within 15 years. Iraq has known reserves of 112 billion barrels and probable additional fields of 215 billion barrels. Saudi Arabia has known reserves of 250 billion barrels. The U.S. government has promoted oil reserves in the Caspian Sea area (countries like Azerbaijan and Kazakstan) with U.S. and European countries already planning pipelines. However, these reserves are nowhere near the size of the Middle East and the Caspian Sea area is politically unstable according to the article.
To sum it up, the Journal notes that "so far the losers in Iraq are oil companies from the United States and Britain - which shares Washington's hard line toward Iraq - the very countries that may end up leading the bombing" there.
Oil companies from France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands and Russia (but not the U.S. and Britain) already have billions invested in the Iraqi oil fields and are thus urging an end to the sanctions that have limited Iraqi oil exports. Their economic interests, clearly counterposed to those of the United States and Britain, intensifies the capitalist competition amongst the international oil companies that can lead to war.
Mark Friedman
Los Angeles, California
The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of general interest to our readers. Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged. Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used rather than your full name.