Reflections On The Iraqi Crisis
The Middle East is condemned to be a killing field of the innocents. This will continue till the Americans and the west obtain total control of the oil fields there and have relentlessly sucked it dry. The presence of oil fields is the kiss of death for people in the area.
The oil should have, in theory, brought the region prosperity and peace. Instead it has been a story of lives cut down, hope strangulated and a naked demonstration of raw bullying power. The anchorless and disenfranchised youth are learning a dangerous lesson from the guardian of global democracy – Violence pays. Nothing else works. This will come back to haunt America.
It is a measure of American sucess in moulding global opinion, that we tend to blame the local leaders of the region and not the behind the scenes moves by the Americans. It is now conventional wisdom to blame Saddam Hussein for the 1.5 million kids that died due to UN sanctions. He brought it upon himself. America and the West had to helplessly enforce sanctions, for the " good of the people".
We no longer know, or care to remember, that this region had a wonderfully erudite civilization. That the contributions to mathematics, medicine, astronomy and literature could only have come from a people that had a superior intellectual and cultural sophistication.
We associate with that region the terrible modern day label, "Islamic fundamentalism" to imply a rabid and crazed warrior who will kill the Occidental man and do anything to bring the Occident to its knees.
Surely, it has to go beyond the fact that he is islamic and that islam is a terrible religion? Surely, there must be a reason for the inner rage that seems to seethe in almost any Arab heart when speaking of the west and America in particular? Or are we happy to just dismiss people from that area as crazed people with blood lust. As long as we can suck their oil, control their countries and walk all over them, why bother?
Such an inconvenience, stopping and reflecting. We would rather take away one simplifed image of a bearded youth throwing stones at American financed tanks on the Gaza strip. We would rather take away the simple image of women in chador, so we can self righteously claim we need to liberate them.
I wonder why noone speaks of liberating women in sub saharan Africa. Not worth our while, perhaps. Why is there this happy coinicidence between our urge to liberate and the presence of something we want to get our grubby hands on?
This liberating urge, the urge to go out there and civilize the world has been the bane of humanity. With all due resepct to the west and its incredible material success, what was the culture it actually exported to Latin America, to India, to the middle east and to Africa?
Here it is important to clearly differenciate between the cultural progess the west made at home and the brand of ruthless mercenaries they sent out in the world to finance their explosive growth of culture. The fact that blood from other parts of the world financed it's cultural progess should not take away from the fact that there was, objectively speaking, cultural growth.
One could be tempted to ask, what kind of cultural growth is a growth based on blood and exploitation. But that would be to entirely miss the point and embark on the kind of emotionally charged debates that go nowhere.
The fact is that it exported a culture of mindless commercialism, brutal exploitation , cynical manipulation with only one objective in mind : getting their hands on as much wealth as possible and doing so by destroying rich cultures and replacing it with what they barely understood or cared about.
If their native lands housed men of culture, they shuddered at the happenings and hid behind impotent intellectual rationalizations. It is one of the great tragedies of the human character that cultural elegance and decisive power do not go hand in hand.
In the case of Latin America, hordes of Spaniards from an armada of ships fell upon and plundered a land of plenty. In the case of India, a bunch of traders from a far away land profiteered and prospered based on nothing more than the kindness and grace of the local rulers who had enough riches to buy them a million times over.
The region that is today Iraq, is the cradle of civilization. A region that from around 3500 BC absorbed cultures and values from all around , from the Greeks, the Romans, the Iranians and the Turks.
Around the 17th Century, two events occured that changed the face of the region forever. The British, Dutch and the Portugese started getting a foothold in the region due to trading interests.
This was the beginning of the end of peace in that area.
The other event occurred in far away America. Amercia was a young vibrant nation based on principles. A refreshing change in a worldscape based on exploitation and manipulation. This principled base was the root to American growth and success in that lost period of innocence.
Edwin L . Drake drilled the first successful oil well 69 feet deep near Titusville in northern Pennsylvania. Drake's success inspired hundreds of small companies to explore for oil. In 1860, world oil production reached 500,000 barrels; by the 1870s production soared to 20 million barrels annually. In 1879, the first oil well was drilled in California; and in 1887, in Texas.
But as production boomed, prices fell and oil industry profits declined. In 1882, John D. Rockefeller devised a solution to the problem of unbridled competition in the oil fields. He created Standard Oil trust, which brought together forty of the nation's leading refiners.
The first giant oil corporation was born as was the inexorable global search for oil. A search that would lead to the brutalization of peoples, destruction of national character and leave in it's wake terrible proof of the animal in man.
In 1914, British forces invaded southern Iraq during World War 1. By 1917, the occupation of Baghdad commenced and by 1920, the immense oil potential in the area became clear to the British who would start enacting a game they knew all too well. Playing the local benefactor, helping the minority against the majority, becoming indispensable in the negotiations.
Up until the 1910s, the United States produced between 60 and 70 percent of the world's oil supply. As fear grew that American oil reserves were dangerously depleted, the search for oil turned worldwide. Oil was discovered in Mexico at the beginning of the twentieth century, in Iran in 1908, in Venezuela during World War I, and in Iraq in 1927.
Many of the new oil discoveries occurred in areas dominated by Britain and the Netherlands: in the Dutch East Indies, Iran, and British mandates in the Middle East. By 1919, Britain controlled 50 percent of the world's proven oil reserves.
In 1920, the arabs of southern Iraq start military action against the British who, predictably, did not leave the area to the locals after the Turks were defeated The British back prince Faisal of Hijaz to become the king of Iraq and he urges them to stay on for his protection by means of an alliance signed in Oct 1922.
By 1925, the soon to become familiar pattern unfolds for the first time. Parliamentary elections are held to give the pretence of democracy and the government offers concessions to search for oil to international companies. The government gets a fixed royalty. In effect, the Prince is being bribed to take away the oil from his country.
The British would give military support to keep him in power, while they would suck out the oil from the area. This pattern is exactly the same as the arrangement America has with the house of Saud even to this day.
In 1930, a treaty declared the independence of Iraq and in 1931, concessions for oil in the north was given to an international company with the government receiving fixed royalties. On Oct 3rd, 1932, Iraq was declared an independent kingdom with King Faisal in power.
Iraq entered the League of nations. Already the British had their fangs deep into the oil reserves of the country. The straight line borders that mark the apparent order in the region have been designed by the British, the French and the Americans to ensure that the various independent Arab nations will never unite as one.
As early as 1936, Iraq attempts to merge all Arab states as one entity and signs a non aggression pact with Sudi Arabia. Behind the scenes maneuveres by Western powers ensures this efforts meet with very little success. The kingdom of Iraq fights a 4 week war against Britain that becomes increasingly suspicious of King Ghazi's pan Arab intentions that would have spelt the end of Western hedgemony in the region.
Britain gains control of Iraq and this time ensures it establishes a pro Britain government. When WW 2 breaks out, Iraq declares war on the Axis in 1943. The region of Iraq has nothing to do with the events that led to the outbreak of WW2. Yet the nation, controlled by Britain, declares war. The oil fields of Iraq will work overtime to fuel the war time ambitions of marauding world powers. The people of Iraq certainly do not benefit because they are underwriting a significant part of Britains war time costs .
During the second world war, the oil surpluses of the 1930s quickly disappeared. Public officials again began to worry that the United States was running out of oil. It seemed imperative that the United States secure access to foreign oil reserves. Increasingly, policy makers and the oil industry focused their attention on the Middle East, particularly the Persian Gulf, which they believed would become the center of postwar oil production.
As early as the 1930s, Britain had gained control over Iran's oil fields and the United States discovered oil reserves in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. After the war ended, middle eastern oil production surged upward. Gradually, American dependence on mid?eastern oil increased.
In the meantime, the Russians fearing that they have been left out of the game in Iraq, support unrest in Kurd around 1945, and make that their vehicle of entry into the region. Political instabiltiy in Iraq accelerates as the Americans try to influence events there. The Kurdish uprising will eventually lead to them getting a seat in the parliament around 1970.
In the period leading unto 1960, various efforts are made by the Arab nations to organize themselves into a bloc. Inner squabbling and expert manueveing by the Western powers ensures this never happens.
In 1960, Kuwait obtains its independence and immediately, Iraq makes a claim on it . From this period on Iraq's relations with the west get increasingly distant and there is a significant movement towards a Russian alliance who had got in there in the first place by formenting Kurd uprisings. By 1972, Iraq nationalizes its oil resources and attempts to put an end to the free run of the western oil companies in its country.
The Baath party starts gaining a foothold inside Iraq and after a few leaders, Saddam Hussein comes to power in June of 1979. By Sept of 1980, he lays claim on parts of Iran and triggers of an invasion that will lead to a decade long war with Iran.
It suddenly appears that the Baath party has no intention of respecting the artifical borders set up by the western powers in the aftermath of the WWs. It is suddenly evient that it is going back in time in its attempt to establish a strong Assyirian hedgemony in the area that would likely encompass, Iran and Kuwait. Were this to happen, the modern republic of Iraq would control more than 40% of the worlds oil resources.
The decade long war with Iran drags on and comes to an inconclusive end in 1988 with cease fire declared. Soon Saddam invades and possesses Kuwait before t he UN asks him to withdraw. By Jan of 1991, the western forces evict Iraq from Kuwait, kill tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers, destroy all the military infrastructure and most of the civilian infrastructure and presents Iraq with a compensation invoice for around $ 100 billion.
Further, since it was believed that there were hidden weapons of mass destruction, sanctions were imposed which, by 1993, had killed at least 900,000 children from starvation and malnutrition. Read that line again. 900.000 children killed due to starvation and malnutirtion. This in a region that should have been among the richest in the world.
The brief chronological story was to underline the point that until oil was discovered in the region, the Western powers stayed away and there was a certain peace. Once oil was discovered and it was realized that the oil needs of West would far outstrip the production at home, all rules of engagement were off and this has resulted in the utter degeneration and dehumanization of the region.
To blame just the local leaders would be too easy. It is based on the greed of powerful nations who see a rich resource in a weaker place and do all they can to appropriate it. This is at the very heart of the uprising of movements like Al-Qaeda. In the specific case of Al-Qaeda it is useful to keep in mind that Osama Bin Laden was nourished by America and built into a war veteran in Afghanistan.
But what exactly is the crime to which Iraq is being held accountable? The charge of ," possessing arms of mass destruction and chemical weapons" have been levelled so loudly and from such high quarters that it seems to have passed into conventional wisdom that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons.
Prime minister Tony blair, even went thru the unprecedented step of bringing out a report from his office. Even a cursory reading of the report, underlines the fact that it is high on accusation and low on facts. It speaks repeatedly of not being able to explain how it concludes what it concludes because of source security.
What is the perception of the problem today? Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons that it can use. Against whom? Directly against Saudi Arabia,Kuwait, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Eypgt, Palestine and Israel.
The concern of the US if this happens is clearly based on economics. Simply put, Iraq is the only country in the middle east that can take control of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. In the event this occurs, Iraq would control around 40% of the world's oil resources. This is the crux of the problem.
Simultaneously, it is worth taking note of the fact that America's conventional ally in the region is the house of saud. The ally is not Saudi Arabia as much as the house of Saud. The faustian deal between USA and the house of Saud is something like this :
The Americans will offer military aid to the House of Saud which will use this to maintain an iron like grip over Arabia. In return, the Americans would get their oil. The fact that the House of Saud is a military theocracy -not a democracy- and will do anything to put down a people uprising suits America perfectly.
Should a democracy ever take root there, the first victim would be America. After the people of Arabia had taken out their anger on the house of Saud, it would turn to America. Almost certainly, an Islamic regime would take power. Among the first acts would be to close the oil taps for the Americans.
By helping this house to be in power, the Americans are in a principally weak position. They are helping to continually crush a possible rise of democracy. They are continuing to help a regime that restricts personal rights which Americans believe in and take for granted. This while at the same time making pretty noises abt supporting democracy anywhere.
The justification is that should this house not be in power, the alternative would be a more " fundamentalist" regime. While this is not a problem in itself, the real issue at hand is that the new fundamentalist regime would be less likely to play ball with the Americans.
This then, is the rationale for supporting the House of Saud. Continual supply of oil to feed the ever rising oil hunger of a country that houses 6% of the world and consumes 26% of the world's oil.
This cosy arrangement is at risk. Despite, all the efforts of the Americans and the house of Saud, the ground swell is increasing against both the Americans and the house of Saud. It is not possible to contain this forever and the house of Saud looks shakier than ever before in t he past. To add to the problems, the relationship between the two friends is getting shakier with evidence that a Saudi princess - wife of the Saudi Ambassador to the US - had actually funded the 9/11 attacks.
The American politican is caught in a bind. He has to be seen as being against any such thing, while at the same time not risking his source of safe oil to his people who are oil dependent in a manner that is stunning. However, with the risk of an Islamic uprising in Saudi Arabia becoming higher, the Americans need to start securing an alternative supply base of oil.
The world is drawing down its oil reserves at an unprecedented rate, with supplies likely to be constrained by global production capacity by 2010, even assuming no growth in demand, a s per analysts at Douglas-Westwood Ltd., an energy industry consulting firm based in Canterbury, England.
Oil will permanently cease to be abundant and supply and demand will be forced to balance-but at a price.The resulting economic shocks could rival those of the 1970s.
The world's known and estimated 'yet to find' reserves cannot satisfy even the present level of production of some 74 million b/d beyond 2022. Any growth in global economic activity only serves to increase demand and bring forward the peak year.
Given these stark realities, and given the real scenario that US grip over Saudi Arabia may not remain as strong, they need to secure an alternative. Guess who is next to Saudi Arabia in terms of oil production in the world? Of course, iraq. The problem though is that Iraq is not willing to play ball with the Americans.
The Americans have been talking about a regime change in Iraq. First of all, what right does one nation have to call for a change of regime in another nation. This goes against the fundamental principles of soverignity. For a moment, let us look at the charge that the current regime has a terrible human rights record. This is touted as one of the reasons for regime change.
The Americans have spoken continually abt how the Kurds have been gassed. A study of that would confirm that when the gassing actually happened, not a peep came out of the Americans.
A further study would confirm that the frist strains of chemical weapons came to Iraq from USA. I am not suggesting that therefore these acts by Saddam are pardonable. What I am saying is that the American claim of moral superiorty wears a bit thin.
Taking back one step and retracing the issue of regime change. If possessing of weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons is a trigger for regime change, why have Libya, Sudan, North Korea, the entire Central Asian states not fallen under the same category of immediate action?
North Korea has confirmed it has nuclear weapons. It has confirmed it has flouted a treaty. Pakistan actually flew in an American transport aircraft, provided to it by the Americans , to take back components from North Korea that would enable Pakistan's nuclear programme to bring within its reach, all strategic Indian targets.
North Korea not only has nuclear weapons but is aiding an inherently unstable and potentially Islamist country like Pakistan to have nuclear weapons. If there is one country in the world that runs the risk of falling to Islamic fundamentalists, sooner or later, it is Pakistan. The nuclear programme of such a country is being not only aided by North Korea , but is also being supported economically by USA.
Why not affect a regime change inside North Korea ? Why not secure all the states in the Central Asian republics ? Why focus on Iraq?
The other pillar on which the argument rests is : these weapons of mass destruction will be given to terrorists who will use it inside America, thus bringing terror into the life of ordinary Americans.
In this regard, predictably efforts have been made by America to link Iraq with Al-Qaeda. Clearly, linking anyone with Al-Qaeda automatically means that person or regime is a persona non grata. What exactly is the case linking Iraq and Al-Qaeda.?
A study will reveal the classic pattern of high decibel and repeated accusations supported with very little facts or tangible proof. The golden escape being that proof cannot be provided without compromising security.
Should Iraq have had such intentions of passing on these weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons to Al-Qaeda or other outfits, it is insulting the intelligence of Saddam Hussein to think that he would already not have done so. That once he heard the rumbling of the anti Iraq tirade, he would not have shifted or sold these already.
The argument that he could sell these to terrorists may be valid. But so could a dozen other nations. Especially, in the central asian republics where there is a unhappy coincidence of nuclear technology and economic instability. What exactly is the American response there ? It is not clear.
What is clear is why the Russians are desperate to get hold of Chechnya. Post Afghanistan, America has secured all the important central Asian countries with oil. More oil is flowing westward from this area than before. Checnya is a key route for the oil pipes. Putin wants that. Else there is no reason for this bloody conflict for a remote land rich in culture but little else.
If this is the American motivation f or moving against iraq, what is the motivation of other nations? Why is Tony Blair risking being seen as the poodle of Bush? Why were Russia and France originally against the UN Veto and why did they eventually move in favour ?
England still suffers from the phantom Limb syndrome. England is yet to reconcile to the loss of its status as the largest colonizer of the world. Now, walking with, and respectfully a few steps behind America, it sees a golden opportunity to regain its lost postion.
The British psychological need to walk the global stage is coupled with the fact that its own oil resources from the North Sea are declining rapidly. It was once believed, optimistically, that the North Sea would liberate England from the uncertainties of the middle east. This is no longer true.
When the US went to the UN to get a security resolution passed, two nations were against offering a blanket resolution. France and Russia. Guess which two nations have the largest oil contracts with Iraq? Guess which two countries have the deepest economic realtionship with Iraq? It is no surprise that that these 2 nations wanted to veto a resolution that could have blasted away the current Iraqi regime that offered cushy contracts to their countries.
But if that is so, why did the position change suddenly ? What happened behind the scenes that allowed the US to walk away with the kind of resolution that they wanted ? Clearly some deals were struck on the oil supplies of Iraq post Saddam. This while all the time , Russia and France are busy strengthening their economic realtionship with Iraq today.
A nation founded on the highest principles of human rights and human dignity is abt to go to war to defend its horacious consumption of a product it does not have. It is abt to unleash a blood bath, under the guise of principles, on a region so that it can appropriate something which is not it's.
In the process, it will put to risk millions of innocent lives in the region. This so that ," The American way of life will never be compromised" as Bush has repeatedly asserted.
What is particularly disheartening to watch is the world reaction to the American approach. England will play the American flunkey to perfection. France will pout and sulk and eventually extract its pound of flesh from this deal. I am not sure why Russia is going along. It has more to lose than gain. My own impression is at the right time Russia will throw spanners in the work.
The German reaction to this has been admirable. They have made it resoundingly clear that they would like to be friends with America not serfs of America. They have continually refused to take part and have gone to t he extent of asserting that should war break out, they will withdraw the German peace keeping forces from the region.
American efforts to emotionally blackmail Germany to give it a clean chit have so far failed. It is is entirely possible that it was political calculations on the part of Schroeder , fighting a tough election at home, that crafted this seemingly principles position. However, the fact is Germany has found its own feet on matters of international policy as is no longer hesitant to assert even an opposing point of view to that of America.
The sight of Berlusconi sidling up to Bush at Prague summed it all up. He spotted Bush at a distance and immediately a big oily smile spread itself on his face as he started making his moves to catch the attention of Bush.
Jacket was buttoned up, the person he was talking with was ignored as he moved sideways literally, elbowing people out of the way. Once he was within talking distance to Bush, gave himself exactly 10 seconds before swirling around to clasp Bush's hands reverentially. A vassal paying tribute to the emperor. There could be no other way to describe it.
The primordial patterns of strong powers never change. They are based on the aggressive principle of domination. This has led, in all of history, to countless deaths and the destruction of hapless people. Surely, it is time for us to sit back and ask ourselves, is America really the benevolent world protector ? or is it the protector of those who protect its interests ? Are we really better off in a world with only one marauding Super power ?
Is a lifestyle based on continuus consumption , relentless consumption, eventually going to destroy more than it creates ? Will it ever be possible to have leaders of nations who will lead based on universal principles and not on greed, disguised as human principles? Equally, will it ever be possible to have leaders of smaller nations who will have the courage to stand up and speak based on principles?
Until these happen, the dominant powers will create Saddam Husseins, Osama Bin Ladens and in the process of bottling them again will help themselves to some more of the goodies that do not belong to them in the first place. Which might still be acceptable if it did not kill and maim and uproot the lives of millions whose only crime was to be born in a region that was rich in oil
