THE CRISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Editorial Notes
All the modern arms sent by Washington to the tottering Chamoun government in Lebanon did not succeed in halting the rising flood of popular revolution steadily submerging that worm-eaten regime, sanctuary for all the agents of imperialism hunted out of the other countries of the Middle East. Imperialism was helplessly watching the collapse of its Lebanese bastion, and calculating the risks of more direct intervention. It was at that moment that there exploded the thunder-clap of the Irag revolution, knocking over at one blow the handful of "strong men" of the Baghdad Pact, headed by Noury es Said, N° 1 valet of Anglosaxon imperialism in the Middle East. At that moment it was thought that this whole region, economically and strategically so vital to the capitalist West, would be swept away by the hurricane of the pan-Arab revolution. Instinctively, in dismay and panic, imperialism reacted by landing marines in Lebanon, parachutists in Jordan. This apparently energetic action could, however, make sense only if it were extended to the occupation of Iraq and the crushing of all the revolutionary hotbeds in the Middle East, including Egypt. That is an undertaking that implies all-out war against the Arab revolution and, beyond it, the USSR and the other workers' states. In fact, limited military occupation of some bastions in the Middle East by imperialism is at the present stage unacceptable either by the Arab revolution in full flood or by the Kremlin. By being continued, it would produce daily clashes with the armed popular forces of the Arab revolution, frictions, incidents, and tensions, steadily increasing and heading toward a graver and more general explosion. The Kremlin itself would encourage Arab resistance to military occupation in all sorts of ways, both to show its active solidarity with the Arab revolution and to dislodge new imperialist bases from the neighborhood of its own frontiers. Hence the continuance of a military occupation, even a limited one, is at present inconceivable without its ending up by raising tension to the level of an explosive paroxysm. The only way out, therefore, is by compromises on the political arrangements involving drawal of the imperialist forces from the Middle East, and the respect of the right to self-determination by the Arab peoples of this region. That is in theory the goal of the "top" conference now being prepared. Under these conditions, imperialism is in a most difficult position. It runs the risk that, no matter what form is given to this withdrawal in order to "save face," such a move will not fail to be interpreted by the Arab and international masses as a resounding new defeat to imperialism, a striking new demonstration of a relationship of forces very unfavorable to it. The Arab revolution, and the colonial revolution generally, would most certainly, after that, experience a new and spectacular advance.
It would matter little whether the compromises sought
"top" conference would respect during first period the present status of the oil companies in the Middle East. The trend of events is inexorably toward the expropriation of these firms, through an intermediate stage of modification of the present contracts, which scandalously pillage the wealth of the Middle-Eastern countries for the profit of imperialism. Imperialism will be led to share more equitably with the Arab bourgeoisie arriving at political power. Naturally, it remains to be seen whether imperialism, now weighing all the consequences of its limited military intervention and its possible withdrawal, will decide on withdrawal or on war. Munichs have marked its policy for several years now: Korea, Indochina, Suez; and now Iraq. That is to say, compromises to its disadvantage in order to avoid a more general war. But, in another sense, Munichs urge it on to the decisive test, to the extent that they break up the balance, aggravate the disequilibrium, and render a further retreat more catastrophic and therefore more difficult than the preceding ones. The coming weeks and months will once more be critical. Imperialism is visibly hesitating before the risks, and feels at a loss, uncertain of its own unity, cohesion, and strength. The European bourgeoisie in particular, except for "hard" nuclei in England, and perhaps in Germany, is gripped by a profound defeatism whenever the hour for a decisive choice seems to be striking. The colonial masses, on the contrary, are filled with limitless revolutionary ardor. On its side, the Kremlin, well aware of its political and military strong cards, has decided to "neutralize" the Middle East, including Turkey, from imperialism, i e, to impose the disarmament of all the imperialist forces in this region, as against the maintenance of economic advantages, these being rearranged on a basis more equitable toward the countries possessed of oil wealth. That means that any possible withdrawal by imperialism this time must take on a quite broad form, which gives a measure of both the importance and the gravity of the struggle now going on. There is no better way for the Western proletariat to fulfil its class duties and simultaneously to fight against the danger of war than to come actively to the aid of the colonial revolution. Only the revolutionary activity of the Western proletariat to impose the withdrawal of the imperialist troops from the Middle East and the right of the subject peoples to self-determination is at present a really effective contribution to weakening imperialism further and, should the case arise, to disarming it more promptly and easily. 29 July 1958 [For background material, consult the Lebanon item in the section "News of the World Workers' Movement and the International."]