BY ANGEL LARISCY
MIAMI - "What has been the U.S. government's response to
the UN/Baghdad accord? To pause? On the contrary, they are
sending more troops, combat planes, and weapons to the Arab-
Persian Gulf," said Janet Post, the Socialist Workers Party
(SWP) candidate for mayor of Miami in the last elections and a
member of the International Association of Machinists. "There
can be no reason for this except to plan for a bloody
slaughter of the Iraqi people. The U.S./UN `diplomacy' is part
and parcel of the war drive," Post explained in her opening
remarks at a debate February 26 entitled "Iraq vs. U.S."
sponsored by the International Relations Association at
Florida International University (FIU).
Over 150 students participated in a lively discussion at the event, which was organized in three days and held two days after the announcement of the deal between Iraq and the United Nations to continue weapons inspections. On the panel were four FIU professors, an Air Force lieutenant colonel, and two members of the Socialist Workers Party.
A few placards against war and the bombing of Iraq were held up in the audience of students, who in their large majority expressed reticence at the U.S. policy on Iraq.
"The United States is a world leader and can't abdicate its responsibility to act as one. We have significant national interests in the region and it is not stable," remarked Lt. Col. John Watkins, a national defense fellow at FIU and a commander of the 34th Air Force fighter squadron in Utah who participated in bombing raids on Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War. Watkins said he was an "implementer of military action regardless of my opinion," and noted the recent accord does not mean the crisis is over. "I expect to be back in the Gulf within six months."
Ron Cox, an associate professor in the political science department at FIU, said "What happened to the peace dividend?" referring to the expectation of a smaller military budget following the end of the Cold War. "The sanctions on Iraq are taking hundreds of thousands of lives," he continued, expressing his opinion that the sanctions don't hurt Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
"The Gulf War ended seven years ago. Iraq is out of Kuwait. What threat is Iraq to us?" asked a student. Charles McDonald, an FIU professor and a fellow with the Naval War Academy answered, "The threat of Iraq is that we do believe Saddam has weapons of mass destruction."
Brad McGuinn of the international relations department said he thought "the existence of Saddam Hussein has provided a rational for U.S. presence in the region."
"Saddam Hussein is not a typical dictator; he's a qualitatively different entity," remarked Dr. Mesbahi, acting director of the Asia department at FIU. While saying he was opposed to U.S. intervention in the Mideast, Mesbahi also expressed the opinion that, "Saddam Hussein has become a conduit for disaster in the region."
"Our unequivocal demand should be `U.S. out of the Middle East,' " countered Bill Kalman, a member of the United Transportation Union and representative of the SWP. "The U.S. government would like to set up a protectorate, a government to do their bidding in the region," he continued. "The real targets are the Iraqi and Palestinian people who continue to fight. Washington has no business exerting its will in the region," he concluded to applause from some audience members.
In response to one Arab student's query of why the regime in Israel can have weapons of mass destruction and the one in Iraq can't, and another student's calling attention to the U.S.'s support for dictators around the world, Watkins remarked, "The policies of the U.S. are imperfect; the policies of the U.S. are in some cases inequitable."
McDonald added, "There is a problem with hypocrisy in the area but we have to do the best we can."
Kalman noted, "There is no we. There are different political and economic interests depending on what class you're a member of," he said. "The majority of us, working people, have no interest in imperialist war waged by our bosses and their government."
"With the obvious differences that have arisen between the United States and Russia on Iraq, do you see this as an isolated incident or a harbinger of what's to come?" asked an audience member. Mesbahi said he thought there wouldn't be much more criticism from Moscow against the U.S. war moves because the Russian government was "weak." Post responded, "The ultimate target of the U.S. military buildup is Russia. The United States wants to pull Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO as part of beginning to amass troops on the Russian border and attempt to use military presssure to overthrow the workers state that still exists there."
The last question of the event was addressed in particular to Kalman. "You say you're for the sovereignty of the Iraqi people, but Saddam Hussein doesn't represent the interests of most Iraqis, so how can Iraq get a government that is for the poor and workers?" asked a young GI who had just returned from Bosnia.
"The working people of Iraq are quite capable of fighting for their own interests," the socialist rail worker replied, "of defending their country from imperialism and ultimately replacing the Hussein regime with a workers and farmers government . the same kind of government we need to fight for in this country."