The Policy Department of the National Front examines British involvement in the Gulf crisis from a Nationalist standpoint.
THE SITUATION in the Gulf crisis is fluid. At the time of writing open hostilities have yet to break out. If they do, and Britain is at war, and our servicemen fighting and dying, by the time Vanguard appears, then, as Kelvin Sanderson said in the NF Ex-Servicemen's Eyes Front, we as patriots must stand by armed forces once committed to conflict. Nevertheless, it will still be appropriate to ask whether they should have been so committed in first place. Or, if the current stalemate continues, whether they should be.
There are three grounds alone which would seem to justify the use of British armed force.
First, to defend British people, as in Ulster and the Falklands.
Secondly, to defend Britain's allies, especially our ethnic kith and kin.
Thirdly, to defend British national interests - national interests sufficiently vital to our country and her welfare that they are worth Britons dying for. How do these grounds apply in the Gulf?
The first clearly does not. The only British people in the area, mostly expatriate workers and their families, are actually brought into danger primarily by our military involvement. At that, Saddam Hussein, to his credit, has behaved honourably and at the time of writing is letting all our women and children leave the area. His concern must naturally be primarily for his own people and if by keeping some British men in his country he hopes to avert an attack on them it is a course of action it is difficult unreservedly to condemn. If detaining a few well-paid expatriates would help preserve British people from enemy bombers, might we not consider doing the same?
Our concern for the remaining Britons in the area must be tempered by the fact that no-one forced them to go and work in a notoriously unstable and dangerous part of the world, for which they are handsomely paid and upon which pay they often avoid being taxed. Not that such tax avoidance inhibits them from loudly demanding British diplomatic and military help now. If they dodged paying for it, should they have a right to claim it?
Skilled British workers who deny their abilities to the nation to which they belong and which paid for their training and instead sell them to rich foreigners are not a class of people for whom this writer, at least, feels much sympathy. Their families are another matter, but they are being allowed home.
Anyway, the Britons in Iraq are, as stated earlier, an argument against sending our forces to the region. Our Servicemen cannot hope to rescue them and by becoming embroiled in conflict actually put their lives more at risk. Such British involvement in war against Iraq also puts the lives of Britons around the world, including here in Britain, at risk from retaliatory strikes by terrorists sympathetic to the Iraqi and Islamic cause. Of whom there are no few.
The second consideration, aiding our allies, also does not apply here. Of course in the case of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia few would claim it did. They have never done anything for us, other than buy up mansions, stocks and shares, and racehorses here, attentions we could do well without. However in many Tory circles the talk is of standing by 'our American ally'. It is of course true that many ordinary Americans are our kith and kin and deserve our warmest regard.
But their Government, which no more represents their interests than ours does those of the indigenous British people, is another matter. The US regime is not and never ever has been an ally or indeed anything but an enemy of Britain. For many years, its declared foreign policy aim was to destroy Britain as a world power. When we were embroiled in Middle Eastern conflict, at Suez in 1956, far from rushing to our aid the US Government quite openly and deliberately stabbed us in the back, twisting our arm through financial pressure until a weak British Government caved in, leaving our soldiers dead for nothing on the Egyptian sands.
In terms of undermining us as a world power, then rotting our culture through the 'Coca-Colonisation' of our TV and popular music, our 'American ally' has over the years done us much more concrete harm than our late 'Soviet enemy'.
It is also of dubious military use anyway. As ex-Serviceman Dennis Hill rightly observed, US troops are like a bunch of bananas – some green, some yellow, and some rotten. Their combat-worthiness via-a-vis our own may be judged from a comparison of their squalid failure in Vietnam compared to our victory in Malaya; their ignominious farcical hostage rescue failure in the Iranian desert ten years ago compared to our SAS storming the Iranian Embassy; or their laboured efforts in Grenada or Panama compared to our triumph in the Falklands.
The servile poodle-like way in which our 'Iron Lady' came running when the US President snapped his fingers, just as when his predecessor wanted to use their air bases garrisoning our soil to bomb Libya in 1986 is a cause for bitter shame to any true British patriot. It seems the White House has more say over sending British troops to their possible deaths in a foreign desert than our own parliament, which was summoned as a belated token gesture long after our men had been sent.
Worst of all, the White House itself dances to strings pulled by the all-powerful Zionist lobby, which of course has its own fish to fry in the Middle East. And if there is one thing worse than British soldiers dying in America's wars it is British troops dying in Israel's wars, while Israeli troops sit on their backsides and watch us doing their dirty work.
The final reason we might send our troops is to defend our vital national interests. But what might they be in the Gulf? "Stopping an aggressor" and "defending the borders of Kuwait"? Hardly! As the Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Powell rightly said on 11th August, we have no national interest in giving and have never given "an automatic commitment to defend by arms every frontier, every boundary, of every state in the world".
In any case, as Mr. Powell equally appositely observed, the natural tendency of other Arab states to band together to restrain an over-aggeressive one of their number might well restore the balance of power without outside intervention. If it is any of our business.
In any case, if we are to rush to the brink of war over the violation of Middle Eastern borders and the occupation by one state there of the territory of its neighbours within hours when Iraq was the perpetrator, why have we done absolutely nothing in 23 years when Israel was?
This may have something to do with the noticeable shortage of ethnic Iraqis in the US Congress and of 'Conservative Friends of Iraq' in Downing Street! In fact, Iraq has a far better claim to Kuwait then Israel has to her imperial acquisitions. Kuwait is a recent and artificial entity (so is Iraq, for that matter), and Kuwaitis are ethnically and culturally indistinguishable from Iraqis.
The Kuwaitis are no Palestinians. They live lives of pampered ease on unearned income. A recent (pre-invasion) study estimated the average Kuwaiti worked an exhausting fifteen minutes a day. On reaching adulthood, every Kuwaiti gets a little present of ￡125,000 from their equivalent of the Social Security, money squeezed out of what White men pay for oil the Kuwaitis did not make, do not extract, and could not use till we found it. All the work in Kuwait is done by the 80% of the population made up of Immigrants, mostly Pakistani but including the odd Briton.
Under Saddam the Kuwaitis might actually have to do an honest day's work for a change. No wonder they're not very happy about it! Not that their opinions were hitherto heeded unduly by their despotic ruler, a reactionary feudal sheikh. The Emir even muzzled their feeble apology for an elected assembly, the powerless Majlis, because it kept asking embarrassing questions about the crass corruption of the Royal Family.
Why should a single British soldier die to restore some fat Arab parasite to his corrupt throne? Or for Kuwait anyway?
Perhaps through we should "stop the tyrant Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad"? If so, why don't we pick a quarrel with the far bloodier despotisms there are in the world? Red China, say? Or Burma? Or North Korea? Or Albania? Saddam Hussein is far from the worst ruler in the world at the moment. Indeed, judged by standards other than those applied to incumbents of a trendy vicarage in Hampstead he is not particularly awful.
Harsh and ruthless he may be. But he comes from a harsh and ruthless milieu. Iraq has no vestige of a democratic tradition, and precious little of one of "human rights". Judged by the standards of his own society, the only standards by which he may fairly be judged, Saddam is not an especially bad lot. I wouldn't vote for him for our Prime Ministership. But then I wouldn't back many of our politicians to last long in Iraqi politics.
If Saddam was the only ruthless dictator on the face of the planet this crusade against him might be justified. Otherwise it is but hypocritical humbug. The argument that Saddam might be dangerous because he might get nuclear weapons - and if he does then just as with his present armoury it will be because our own greed-crazed Capitalists sold them, or their technology, to him - is more nonsense.
If he gets The Bomb, and if he starts threatening us with it, and developing a technology capable of sending nuclear missiles from Iraq here would constitute such a threat, then a quick, surgical strike, possibly using tactical nuclear weapons, would soon dispose of that. Not the current mass troops deployment, which just gives him more of our people to kill.
"NEW WORLD ORDER"
"Defending the new world order" is an excellent reason not to get involved – save perhaps on the other side. This "new world order", with the United Nations as planetary policeman, has been bubbling about in various highly-placed and influential minds for many years. The same minds that dreamed up internationalism and multi-racialism, among other delights. They are not minds overly concerned with the survival of races or even nations. And they are not minds whose purposes we should serve.
Their "New World Order", if it could be brought to birth, would at best be a chaotic mess dominated by a UN General Assembly in thrall to block votes of primitive Third World banana republics many of whose despots make Saddam Hussein look like the Archbishop of Canterbury.
At worst it would be a nightmarish global totalitarian tyranny. 1984 made real. If Saddam is against that, then good luck to him! But in fact this "new world order" is more humbuggery, to veil basically American armed action.
"Preventing the rise of an Islamic superpower" would by contrast be a good reason to fight, if Iraq were one in embryo. A few issues back Vanguard warned of this danger in the coming decades. But ironically, however much Saddam may play the religious card now to whip up the masses across the Arab world, at home his Ba'athist regime has always been notably secular.
Indeed, Iraq is one of the least Islamic Arab states. The barbaric Shariah religious law is not imposed, women have their proper rights and are not forced to walk around in black bin-bags, nobody gets their hands or heads cut off in the High Street and mullahs are kept firmly in the mosque, unlike in our new "ally" Saudi Araba, a bloody medieval barbarian cesspit, if ever there was one.
Saddam's Ba'athism is based on the secular Arab nationalism of the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, whom we should probably not have fought at Suez in the first place. Ideologically, secular Arab nationalism is a worthy enough cause for the Arabs. It is infinitely better than the hysterically anti-White, crusading fundamentalist Islam, Europe's ancient enemy, which is waiting in the wings for Saddam to fall. Indeed Saddam rightly and commendably tried to destroy it in its Iranian citadel for eight years. Toppling Saddam is more, not less, likely to create an Islamic fundamentalist superpower. And to give it a grudge - yet another one - against 'the West'.
Which leaves only the national interests of the other crusaders against Saddam - America and, by proxy, Israel. The latter obviously feels its national survival threatened by Saddam and sees a chance to get its American satellite to pull its irons out of the fire without directly firing a shot. All quite legitimate for the Israelis but absolutely no concern of ours. The survival of Israel, whatever certain MPs with, or in the case of Thatcher without, an ethnic interest therein may say, is not a British national interest worth fighting for.
America itself has a legitimate national interest in protecting its supply of a vital raw material - oil. The US depends on Gulf, notably Saudi, oil, for its energy needs. And so can justify going to war to protect that crucial resource. Britain however is self-sufficient in oil and therefore has no national interest in who controls Gulf oil-wells we don't need. A powerful demonstration that the global economic interdependence promoted by internationalists strews across the world the causes of wars, whilst national self-sufficienty as advocated by nationalists makes for world peace.
If each nation is as far as possible self-sufficient in its basic needs it need not fight in faraway places to defend foreign sources thereof. Also, in an era of growing Third World population and consequent shortages of world resources it is selfish and exploitative to use up other peoples' resources.
Indeed, it can be argued that the Americans might be better off spending the $1 billion a month they are spending on their Gulf "Desert Shield", let alone the vastly more they will have to spend on a war there, on developing alternative, ideally renewable, energy sources within their own borders. That way they would not need to go to war over deserts halfway across the world and no relatively small power thousands of miles away could threaten to cut their economic jugular vein. At any rate, that is their problem, not ours. Why should we fight for America's oil supply?
From the viewpoint of British national interests, Saddam Hussein has so far done us no great harm and threatened us with little more. The Brazilians threatening our global environment by destroying their rainforests are more of a menace to British interests than the sundry Arabs squabbling over their bits of desert.
There would be more justification for unleashing our forces against Rio than against Baghdad. And a lot more for unleashing them on an enemy which is a lot nearer home than the Gulf and has been killing Britons daily for twenty-odd years - the IRA in Ulster. The Government's willingness to get stuck in to help a bunch of Arabs in Kuwait is in sharp contrast to its attitude to protecting a million Britons in Ulster. How many Kuwaitis died for Britain at the Somme, though?
In conclusion, it is difficult to see why British Servicemen should be sent to die in the desert in defence of the dynastic interests of the Al Sabahs, the economic interest of America or the military interests of Israel. Until and unless Saddam Hussein threatens Britain or British interests why should we fight him? Britons should fight for Britons only. To borrow an old American slogan, let's keep our boys out of foreign wars...