On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Ghulam Muhammed <[email protected]> wrote: > Mechanisms of Western Domination: A Short History of Iraq and Kuwait > > > by David Klein > California State University, Northridge > January 2003 > > > > In the United States of America, it is almost beyond the bounds of > acceptable discourse to address the question, why did Saddam Hussein invade > Kuwait in 1990? Even to ask the question, one risks the appearance of > supporting a repressive dictatorship, and to the extent that the question is > entertained at all, the simplistic answer proffered by political leaders is > that Saddam Hussein is an aggressive tyrant, bent on territorial acquisition > and the subjugation of other nations. He is a modern day Hitler. The same > answer is utilized to explain why Iraq invaded Iran in 1980. This standard > answer is easy to accept, in part, because of the well-documented brutality > of Saddam's regime, including human rights violations committed by his > government against the Iraqi people, and especially the Kurds. > > In spite of partial truths imbedded in this standard explanation, it smacks > of propaganda. Much more needs to be understood by the American public > before it allows its government to wage war against Iraq. The history of > Iraq, Kuwait, Britain, and the United States reveals that the reasons for > the Iraqi invasions of Kuwait and Iran are far more complex and interesting > than the standard answer allows. Over a period of decades, and especially in > recent years, Britain and the U.S. have consciously manipulated tensions in > the region and have masterfully set into motion sequences of events leading > to the Iraqi invasions. The purpose of these manipulations was to increase > power and control over middle eastern governments and their oil resources by > elite U.S. and British interests. > > This short historical outline is far from comprehensive, and even the > references are sketchy. The main purpose of this essay is to offer student > peace activists, and others who might be unfamiliar with Middle Eastern > history, a few key talking points and an historical context from which to > support their efforts to block the drive toward war. This outline is > organized by historical chronology into sections. Much of the beginning of > this essay relies heavily on a single reference,Iraq and Kuwait: A History > Suppressed, by Ralph Schoenman [1]. Relevant web site addresses are > sprinkled throughout and are provided for readers who seek a greater depth > of understanding than this short outline alone provides. > > Early History > > The ancient civilizations of Sumer and Babylon originated in Mesopotamia > (the Greek word for "between rivers"), near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers > in what is now Iraq. Modern day Kuwait began in the eighteenth century as a > small village on the Persian Gulf. "Kuwait," the word for "small human > settlement," was so named by Iraqi rulers of that era. Throughout the > nineteenth century and up to World War I, Kuwait was a "Qadha," a district > within the Basra Province, and it was an integral part of Iraq under the > administrative rule of the Ottoman Empire. > > British Domination > > As the victors of World War I, France and Britain dismantled the Ottoman > Empire and the Arab nation for their own colonial purposes. The Iraq > Petroleum Company was created in 1920 with 95% of the shares going to > Britain, France, and the U.S. In order to weaken Arab nationalism, Britain > blocked Iraqi access to the Persian Gulf by severing the territorial entity, > "Kuwait" from the rest of Iraq in 1921 and 1922. This new British colony, > Kuwait, was given artificial boundaries with no basis in history or > geography. King Faisal I of the new Iraqi state ruled under British military > oversight, but his administration never accepted the amputation of the > Kuwait district and the denial of Iraqi access to the Persian Gulf. Attempts > by Faisal to build a railway to Kuwait and port facilities on the Gulf were > vetoed by Britain. These and other similar British colonial policies made > Kuwait a focus of the Arab national movement in Iraq, and a symbol of Iraqi > humiliation at the hands of the British. > > Resistance to the British imposed separation of Kuwait from Iraq continued > through the 1930s. In 1932, the British Agent in Baghdad forced the Iraqi > leadership to enter into "correspondence" on the delimitation of boundaries > for British Kuwait, but the Iraqi Chamber of Deputies repudiated these > "correspondences." A mass movement of Kuwaiti youth called the "Free Kuwaiti > Movement" defied British rule and submitted a petition requesting the Iraqi > government to reunify Kuwait and Iraq. Fearing an uprising, the Kuwaiti > Sheik agreed to the establishment of a legislative council to represent the > "Free Kuwaitis." The first meeting of the council in 1938 resulted in an > unanimous resolution demanding that Kuwait revert back to Iraq. That same > year, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq informed the British > Ambassador in Baghdad that: > > "The Ottoman-British Agreement of 1913 recognizes Kuwait as a District under > the jurisdiction of the Province of Basra. Since sovereignty over Basra has > been transferred from the Ottoman state to the Iraqi state, that sovereignty > has to include Kuwait under the terms of the 1913 Agreement. Iraq has not > recognized any change in the status of Kuwait." (quoted in [1]) A popular > uprising within Kuwait to reunify with Iraq erupted on March 10, 1939. The > Kuwaiti Sheik, with British military support and "advisers," crushed the > uprising, and killed or imprisoned its participants. King Ghazi of Iraq > publicly demanded the release of the prisoners and warned the Sheik to end > the repression of the Free Kuwaiti Movement. Ghazi ignored warnings by > Britain to discontinue such public statements, and on April 5, 1939, he was > found dead. It was widely assumed that he was assassinated by British > agents. Faisal II was an infant at that time, and Nuri es-Said, a former > officer of the Ottoman Army with British loyalties, became the de facto > leader of Iraq. > > U.S. Domination > > Following World War II, British rule was gradually replaced by U.S. > neo-colonial domination of the Middle East. The new state of Israel became > an important instrument for U.S. control of Middle Eastern oil in the post > war era. With the U.S./Israeli sponsored coup of 1953 that deposed > Mossadegh, the popularly elected president of Iran, and installed the Shah > in his place, the U.S. became the dominant imperial power in the region. > > In 1955 the U.S. and Britain inaugurated the Baghdad Pact, an anti-Soviet > security agreement for Middle Eastern nations, including Iraq. The Baghdad > Pact was widely perceived in the Arab world as alliance of regimes > subordinate to British and U.S. power, and it was greeted with popular > protests and riots. Nuri es-Said responded to the protests by jailing > opposition leaders who demanded that Iraq withdraw from the pact. However, > he also began secret negotiations with the U.S. and Britain for the return > of Kuwait to Iraq in order to placate Iraqi national sentiment. > > For two years, appeals for the return of Kuwait to Iraq intensified. In > January 1958, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri es-Said addressed a meeting of the > Baghdad Pact and publicly urged the return of Kuwait to Iraq. All pact > members agreed with the proposal, with the sole exception of Britain. > Further diplomatic gestures from Iraq to Britain were rebuffed, and finally > Iraq informed Britain that it was preparing documents and copies of secret > understandings together with a formal memorandum, to be published before the > world in July 1958. The British Ambassador responded to the Iraqi government > that Great Britain had "approved in principle" the unification of Kuwait and > Iraq, but requested a meeting in London with the Iraqi and British Prime > Ministers and other government officials. But this meeting never took place, > because the Iraqi monarchy was overthrown on July 14, 1958 in a revolution > led by General Abdel Karim Qassim. King Faisal II and Nuri es-Said were > executed, and Britain immediately thereafter abrogated the agreement to > return Kuwait to Iraq. > > News of the coup triggered an uprising of the poor and dispossessed in > Baghdad. The crowds attacked the British embassy and other targets. The U.S. > did not initially respond to the coup, but the political upheaval of the > subsequent popular uprising pushed the new regime further to the left than > it had originally intended. The new government lifted the ban on the Iraqi > Communist Party, and that modest step toward democracy in turn mobilized the > U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. CIA director Alan Dulles assigned the job > of incapacitating Qassim to the euphemistically named Technical Services > Division (TDS) of the CIA. The head of the TDS in 1960, Stanley Gottlieb, > initiated a program to assassinate Qassim. One failed assassination attempt > in this context was made by Saddam Hussein. > > Qassim continued to alienate the U.S. and Britain, and Britain further > exacerbated relations by declaring its Kuwait colony free and independent in > 1961. Qassim held a press conference on June 19, 1961 at which he declared > that "Iraq regards Kuwait as an integral part of its territory." Following > that press conference, Britain quickly massed troops in Kuwait with naval > support in the Gulf. Kuwait gained admission to the United Nations in 1963, > the same year that Qassim was killed and his government overthrown in a CIA > supported coup led by the Baath Party. > > Saddam Hussein's Rise to Power > > By 1965, Saddam Hussein's cousin became Secretary General of the Baathist > Party. In 1968 Saddam Hussein was made Deputy Secretary General and Saddam > and his Baathist supporters succeeded in seizing state power, all with CIA > backing. What followed was a slaughter of the left, including the murder and > torture of Iraqi Communist Party members and trade unionists. > > Throughout the 1970s, Iraq offered compromises to Kuwait's rulers that would > enable Iraq to gain access to its former islands in the Gulf. But no > agreements were reached, and the floating border separating the two > countries crept northward. > > In mid-July, 1979, Saddam replaced Al Bakr as president of Iraq. He > reportedly uncovered a conspiracy against his government with the result > that twenty-one high government and Baath Party officials were executed. The > armed forces and the Baath Party were purged and there were widespread > arrests. A short time later, in August 1979 a general amnesty was announced > that resulted in the release of Kurdish prisoners, members of the Iraqi > Communist Party, and others. However, Amnesty International reported > continual human rights abuses from that period. > > That same year, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National > Security Adviser, proposed to Saddam Hussein that he invade Iran and annex > Khuzistan, thereby providing Iraq access to the Gulf through the narrow > waterway, Shatt-al Arab. The U.S. hoped to use Iraq to counter the > radicalism of the Khomeini regime in Iran from spreading to oppressed > peoples of the Emirates and to Saudi Arabia. Saddam Hussein was guaranteed > financial backing in the form of loans from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other > nations. > > About half a million Iranians and Iraqis were killed in the Iran Iraq war, > and unbeknownst to Hussein, the U.S. and Israel also secretly armed the > Iranians so as to weaken both Iran and Iraq. President Ronald Reagan's > special envoy, Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam Hussein once in late December > 1983 and again in March 1984. These visits paved the way for the > normalization of relations between the U.S. and Iraq at a time when Saddam > Hussein was using chemical weapons in his war against Iran. Iraq had been > removed from the U.S. State Department's list of alleged sponsors of > terrorism in 1982, and Iraq went on a buying spree to purchase weapons from > U.S. and German companies. These weapons were used in 1988 for attacks > against the Kurds. (see:http://commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm and the > Democracy Now! piece > at: http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20021114.html) > > Prelude to the 1991 Gulf War > > The war with Iran left Iraq in ruins. When Saddam Hussein launched his eight > year war against Iran, Iraq had $40 billion in hard currency reserves. But > by the end of the war, his nation was $80 billion in debt. Iraq was pressed > to repay the $80 billion to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, with interest. While > Iraq was distracted by its war, Kuwait had accumulated 900 square miles of > Iraqi territory by advancing its border with Iraq northward. This was > presented to Iraq as afait accompli and it gave Kuwait access to the Rumaila > oil field. The Kuwaiti Sheik had purchased the Santa Fe Drilling Corporation > of Alhambra, California, for $2.3 billion and proceeded to use its slant > drilling equipment to gain access to the Iraqi oil field. > > The main source of earnings for Iraq was petroleum whose price fluctuated > depending on international production levels. By 1990, Kuwait, under U.S. > tutelage had increased its oil production to undermine OPEC quotas thereby > driving the price of Iraqi oil down from $28 per barrel to $11 per barrel > and further ruining the Iraqi economy. Appeals from Iraq, Iran, Libya, and > other countries to the Emirates, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to stick to > OPEC production levels were met with increased naval activity in the Persian > Gulf by the United States. In February 1990, Saddam Hussein spoke at the > Amman summit on the relationship between oil production and the U.S. navy > buildup and warned that the Gulf people and the rest of the Arabs faced > subordination to American interests. > > Following this speech the Western press carried stories of Saddam's > missiles, chemical weapons and nuclear potential. The Israeli press > speculated about pre-emptive strikes such as the Israeli attack on Iraq's > nuclear power plant in 1981. In spite of Iraqi diplomatic appeals, Kuwait > and the Emirates increased oil production, harming their own economic > interests, but damaging Iraq's even more so. Kuwait refused to relinquish > Iraqi territory it had acquired during the Iran Iraq war which Kuwait had > helped finance. Kuwait also rejected production quotas and rejected appeals > to cease pumping oil from Iraq's Rumaila oil reserve. It refused to forgo > any of Iraq's debt. > > On September 18, 1990, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry published verbatim the > transcripts of meetings between Saddam Hussein and high level U.S. > officials. Knight-Ridder columnist James McCartney acknowledged that the > transcripts were not disputed by the U.S. State Department. U.S. Ambassador > April Glaspie informed Hussein that, "We have no opinion on...conflicts like > your border disagreement with Kuwait." She reiterated this position several > times, and added, "Secretary of State James Baker has directed our official > spokesman to emphasize this instruction." A week before Iraq's invasion of > Kuwait, Baker's spokesperson, Margaret Tutwiler and Assistant Secretary of > State John Kelly both stated publicly that "the United States was not > obligated to come to Kuwait's aid if it were attacked." (Santa Barbara > News-Press September 24, 1990 cited in [1]). > > Two days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Assistant Secretary of State > John Kelly testified before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee that the > United States has no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country." The > New York Daily News editorialized on September 29, 1990, "Small wonder > Saddam concluded he could overrun Kuwait. Bush and Co. gave him no reason to > believe otherwise." (quoted in [1]). > > The 1991 Gulf War > > On August 2, 1990, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait and quickly gained control of > the country. The United States, along with the United Nations, demanded the > immediate withdrawal of Iraqi forces. Attempts by Iraq to negotiate > withdrawal were rebuffed by the United States. U.S. military forces in the > region had already rehearsed battle plans to repel an Iraqi invasion. > > On January 16, 1991, U.S. and other allied forces launched a devastating > attack of Iraq and its armed forces in Kuwait. The Allied bombing was > intended to damage Iraq's infrastructure so as to hinder its ability to > prosecute war by lowering both civilian and military morale. The United > States led the allied forces, but 34 nations also provided troops and/or > financial support for the military operations. Among these are: Afghanistan, > Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Britain, Canada, Czechoslovakia, > Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, > Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, > Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, and The > United Arab Emirates. > (See:http://www.historyguy.com/GulfWar.html#gulfwardates or http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/) > > U.S. media portrayed the Iraqi military as a global threat and as a > formidable military opponent to the United States. Nevertheless, the > military outcome of the war was one-sided in the extreme. Of the more than > 500,000 U.S. troops engaged in the war, 148 died in battle, many from > "friendly fire." Total allied losses were minimal. By contrast, in June > 1991, the U.S. military reported more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers killed, > 300,000 wounded. Some human rights groups claimed a higher number of Iraqis > killed in battle. According to Baghdad, civilian casualties numbered more > than 35,000. However, after the war, some scholars report that the number of > Iraqi soldiers killed was significantly less than 100,000. Whatever the > numbers, the Iraqi army was completely routed, and all surviving Iraqi > military units withdrew to Iraq. "Desert Storm," as the war was called, > destroyed 80% of Iraq's weaponry, and the international monitoring and > inspections that followed the war (see the next section), resulted in at > least 90% of Iraq's pre-invasion weaponry eliminated. > > Former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, and International Action Center > have reported devastating effects of the U.S. and British bombing on the > Iraqi civilian population, including the use of depleted uranium from U.S. > bombs that have led to cancer and unprecedented levels of birth defects in > Iraq. More than 600,000 pounds of depleted uranium was left in Iraq after > the war (See the International Action Center web > site: http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm). > > The war also had negative repercussions for U.S. soldiers. Some have > reported the effects "Gulf War Syndrome" and other debilitating health > consequences from exposure to harmful chemical and/or biological agents (see > e.g. http://mediafilter.org/MFF/CAQ/caq53.gws.html) > > U.S. Disinformation Campaigns > > It is difficult to document or even estimate the extent of psychological > operations, propaganda projects, and disinformation propagated by the U.S. > government to enlist public support for military campaigns against Iraq. > However, two examples have been documented and are well known: false reports > of an Iraqi troop buildup threatening Saudi Arabia, and a manufactured story > recited in congressional hearings about Iraqi soldiers killing newborn > babies in a Kuwaiti hospital. The film "Hidden Wars" [2] and Pacifica > National Radio have presented coverage of these stories. > > Fabricated Report of Iraqi Troop buildup > > The following description is taken > from http://www.swans.com/library/art8/ga138.html > > The U.S. administration made the claim that the Iraqis had amassed troops > and tanks along the Saudi border and were poised to invade the kingdom. This > claim was widely relayed by the main media. The only problem with these > allegations was that they were utterly false. The former Soviet Union had > provided satellite pictures, taken on September 11 and 13, 1990, of the > border (actually, they were selling the pictures for $1,500 each) that > clearly indicated that no concentration of Iraqi troops and equipment was in > sight. Major news organizations like ABC News (Sam Donaldson) or The > Washington Post (Bob Woodward) sat on the pictures and never used them. The > only U.S. news organization that indeed published them was a regional paper, > The St. Petersburg Times (Florida). Those pictures clearly showed, however, > the concentration of U.S. troops on the Saudi side of the border! John R. > MacArthur (and Ben Haig Bagdikian) documented this falsity in their book, > "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War," University of > California Press; reprint edition 1993; ISBN: 0520083989. MacArthur also > cited these facts in his above-mentioned > speech, http://www.independent.org/tii/content/events/f_macarth.html. Brian > Becker debunked this claim in detail in his report. Jean Heller, the Editor > of The St. Petersburg Times hired a U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency > in the Reagan Administration, and a former image specialist for the Defense > Intelligence Agency, Peter Zimmerman, to analyze the satellite photographs, > to no avail. There simply were no Iraqi troops poised to invade Saudi > Arabia. The "Incubator Story" > > The following description is taken > from http://www.swans.com/library/art8/ga138.html > > "The readers may recall the testimony before Congress on October 10, 1990 of > a 15-year old Kuwaiti woman, Nayirah (her last name was kept confidential). > She had witnessed a terrifying deed by the Iraqi invaders of Kuwait. In her > own words: 'I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital. While I was there, I saw > the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room > where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the > incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to > die.' The story about the 312 babies made the news with a vengeance. > President Bush (that would be George I) repeated it. The line in the sand > was drawn. Like Racak, it turned public opinion and Congress on the path of > war. Months later we learned that Nayirah was the daughter of a Kuwaiti > prince, Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's Ambassador to the U.S. She had left > Kuwait before the Iraqi invasion. The story had been entirely fabricated by > the PR firm Hill & Knowlton. Tom Lantos, the California Democrat who chaired > the hearing was co-chair (with Republican Rep. John Porter) of the > Congressional Human Rights Foundation that occupied free office space in > Hill & Knowlton's Washington, DC office." One of the best documentation of > this hoax can be found in a fascinating book, "Toxic Sludge Is Good for You, > Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry" by John C. Stauber, > Sheldon Rampton, 1995; (Common Courage Press; ISBN: 1-56751-060-4). Stauber > and Rampton are Executive Director and Editor, respectively, of PR Watch, a > newsletter published by the Center for Media and Democracy. An excerpt of > the book on this PR issue was published in June 1996 by Claire W. Gilbert in > her fine publication Blazing Tattles and can be read on line > at http://www.blazingtattles.com/info/mother1.htm andhttp://www.blazingtattles.com/info/mother2.htm. > It's an extraordinary read. PR Watch also recently posted these excerpts on > their Web site, athttp://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html. Last May 2002, > the former Hill & Knowlton staffer who was handling Nayirah made the claim > that the story was true in O'Dwyer's PR Daily, an online access to the > inside news of Public Relations but was forcefully rebuked by PR Watch > Editor, Sheldon Rampton. > See http://www.odwyerpr.com/archived_stories_2002/may/0528pegado.htm."; The > Devastating Effects of Sanctions > > Four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, on August 6, 1990, the United > Nations Security Council passed Resolution 661, imposing comprehensive > sanctions on Iraq and creating a committee to monitor them. > > The U.S. agreed to a cease fire with Iraq in February 1991. The cease-fire > agreement required Iraq to eliminate its chemical, biological and nuclear > weapons and missiles with a range over 150 kilometers. Set forth in U.N. > security resolution 687, the agreement tied the lifting of U.N. sanctions to > the destruction of Iraq's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" arsenal. The no-fly > zones over two-thirds of Iraq (north and south) were imposed by the U.S., > France, and Britain a year and a half after the Gulf War. The United Nations > never sanctioned them, and France has since withdrawn from participation. > The no-fly zones violate international law. According to Article 51 of the > U.N. Charter, Iraq has the right to defend itself, including from U.S. and > British overflights of the no-fly zones. > > The United Nations "Oil for Food" program became operational in 1996 and was > instituted by the Iraq Sanctions Committee. All contracts for aid (emergency > supplies as well as infrastructure equipment) requested by Iraq had to be > approved by the Sanctions Committee. Each member country could place a hold > on any contract it considered to have "dual use," that is, both civilian and > military use. The U.S. repeatedly exercised its prerogative to withhold > supplies to Iraq, vital to the civilian population. > > In an article, "Throttling Iraq," published in the Sept-Oct 2000 New Left > Review, Tariq Ali described the circumstances confronting the civilian > population of Iraq as follows: > > A land that once had high levels of literacy and an advanced system of > health-care has been devastated by the West. Its social structure is in > ruins, its people are denied the basic necessities of existence, its soil is > polluted by uranium-tipped warheads. According to UN figures of last year, > some 60 per cent of the population have no regular access to clean water, > and over 80 per cent of schools need substantial repairs. In 1997 the FAO > reckoned that 27 percent of Iraqis were suffering from chronic malnutrition, > and 70 percent of all women were anaemic. UNICEF reports that in the > southern and central regions which contain 85 percent of the country's > population, infant mortality has doubled compared to the pre-Gulf war > period. The death-toll caused by deliberate strangulation of economic life > cannot yet be estimated with full accuracy--that will be a task for > historians. According to the most careful authority, Richard Garfield, 'a > conservative estimate of "excess deaths" among under five-year-olds since > 1991 would be 300,000', while UNICEF--reporting in 1997 that '4,500 children > under the age of five are dying each month from hunger and disease'- reckons > the number of small children killed by the blockade at 500,000. Other deaths > are more difficult to quantify, but as Garfield points out, 'UNICEF's > mortality rates represent only the tip of the iceberg as to the enormous > damage done to the four out of five Iraqis who do survive beyond their fifth > birthday'. In late 1998 the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, former > Assistant Secretary General Denis Halliday, an Irishman, resigned from his > post in protest against the blockade, declaring that total deaths that it > had caused could be upwards of a million. When his successor Hans von > Sponeck had the temerity to include civilian casualties from Anglo-American > bombing raids in his brief, the Clinton and Blair regimes demanded his > dismissal. He too resigned, in late 1999, explaining that his duty had been > to the people of Iraq, and that 'every month Iraq's social fabric shows > bigger holes'. These holes have continued to tear under the Oil-For-Food > sanctions in place since 1996, which allow Iraq $4 billion of petroleum > exports a year, when a minimum of $7 billion is needed even for greatly > reduced services. After a decade, the throttling of Iraq by the US and UK > has achieved a result without parallel in modern history. This is now a > country that, in Garfield's words, 'is the only instance of a sustained, > large increase in mortality in a stable population of more than two million > in the last two hundred years'. (http://www.zmag.org/aliiraq.htm) In an > interview for Zmagazine, Phyliss Bennis similarly explained the U.S. > sanctions strategy as follows > (http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/barsamian.htm): "...the targets included > water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, electrical generating > plants, communications centers, on the theory, I suppose, of dual use, that > the Iraqi military also needs clean water, sewage treatment, communications, > etc. and therefore the fact that the 23 million people of Iraq might be > denied clean water was considered an acceptable consequence of that. So > there were very direct efforts made by the U.S., and they were very > successful efforts, to destroy these kinds of infrastructure centers. The > result has been absolute devastation for the civilian population at enormous > cost in the future to be repaired. As they erode further, the cost of > rebuilding them of course will climb even higher. During this last set of > military strikes, Operation Desert Fox, last December, at least one oil > refinery was deliberately targeted on the grounds that that particular > refinery's output was being used for smuggling. Whether it was or not, I > don't know. But whether it was or not, it is a violation of international > law to deliberately target an economic target, as was chosen here, meaning > that everyone in the Pentagon involved in that decision is guilty of a war > crime. The inability of Iraq to make those repairs means that the > continuation of malnutrition, of inadequate water supplies, and most > importantly, perhaps, the largest number of casualties today, is the result > of dirty, contaminated water because of inadequate sewage treatment and > water treatment facilities. What that means is that children are dying in > Iraq of eminently treatable diseases: diarrhea, typhoid, and other > contaminated-water-borne diseases, in a country whose advanced health care > system was so developed before the sanctions regime and before the bombings > that the most important problem faced by Iraqi pediatricians was childhood > obesity." That the U.S. intentionally targeted civilian infrastructure, > including water treatment plants and that this would result in the deaths of > hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (mostly children under the age of five), is > not in dispute. "Several United States Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) > documents clearly and thoroughly prove, in the words of one author, "beyond > a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government > intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country's water > supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian > Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway" (The > Progressive, August 2001)." > (http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/sanctions/sarticles9/mandf.htm)High > ranking U.S. Government officials were openly sanguine about the deaths of > Iraqi children resulting from U.S. bombings and sanctions, as in this > excerpt from an interview > by Leslie Stahl of Madeleine Albright, broadcast on 60 Minutes on 5/12/96 > (http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html): Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions > against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, > that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price > worth it?" > > Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, > but the price--we think the price is worth it." > > The inescapable lesson is that a United States Secretary of State, on the > one hand, and some groups that the U.S. government condemns as terrorist, on > the other hand, share a common rationale--a belief that the death of > innocents, even children, is an acceptable price to pay for one's political > goals. Reporters and editors for the mainstream media are well trained not > to make such elementary observations, and as an exercise in patriotism find > them inconceivable. > > United Nations weapons inspectors were ordered out of Iraq in 1998, not by > the Iraqi government, but by the United States. In the words of Scott > Ritter, a former U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq: > > "The U.S. ordered the inspectors out 48 hours before they initiated > Operation Desert Fox military action that didn't have the support of the > U.N. Security Council and which used information gathered by the inspectors, > to target Iraq." > http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/U.S. Foreign > Policy Objectives > > A Los Angeles Times article dated October 27 2002 appearing on the first > page of the Business Section provided a possible agenda for the Bush > administration for the Middle East. The article, "Iraq Regime Change Could > Weaken OPEC" included the byline, "Restoring the country's oil production > capacity might be enough to break the cartel's grip on world markets," and > included this explanation: > > Some industry analysts say the restoration of Iraq's production capability > over the next decade might be enough to break OPEC's grip on world oil > markets, even if Iraq remained a nominal member. > > "It's tough to see Iraq under any circumstances really participating closely > with OPEC in the next five years," said analyst Raad Alkadiri of Petroleum > Finance Co. in Washington. "If you have a government in Iraq that is closely > tied to the United States and dependent on the United States for its > continued power, it is conceivable that it will feel pressure to leave > OPEC." > > U.S. Undersecretary of State Grant Aldonas cited the potential economic > payoff during a recent trip to Poland. A regime change, he said in Warsaw, > would "open up the spigot on Iraqi oil, which would have a profound effect > in terms of the performance of the world economy." > > The Washington Post offered a similar analysis in its September 15th, 2002 > article entitled, "In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue" [16] > (http://www.targetoil.com/article.php?id=6). The lead paragraph explains > that: > > A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for > American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between > Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world > petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi > opposition. > > The article also includes some insights into the mechanisms employed by the > Bush Administration to leverage international support for an invasion of > Iraq: > > The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of the > administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing > from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies for President Bush's call > for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members > of the Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and > China -- have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of > leadership in Baghdad. > > "It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, > who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. > "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be > told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, > we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American > companies work closely with them." > > But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult > to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with > them." > > Concluding Remarks > > Saddam Hussein does not deserve support from the progressive community, but > Saddam Hussein is not Iraq. It is the people of Iraq who will do most of the > dying when and if the U.S. attacks them, and the people of Iraq deserve our > support. > > The claim that Iraq poses a grave danger to the rest of the world, and to > the United States in particular, is so ridiculous that it would not even > merit the attention of a rebuttal except for the fact that U.S. government > propaganda has been so successful in fabricating that threat. Part of the > propaganda success stems from completely unsupported claims that Saddam > Hussein is in league with al Qaeda. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has > found no credible connection between Saddam Hussein and bin Laden and/or al > Qaeda. Moreover, such an alliance is implausible. Iraq is a secular state > whereas al Qaeda is fundamentalist, and the two do not mix well. > > Militarily, Iraq is far weaker in 2003 than it was in 1990 when the United > States defeated Iraq's armies in a matter of hours. With at least 90% of > its pre-Gulf War weaponry destroyed, Iraq is completely vulnerable to > outside attack and poses no realistic threat to the United States, or to > other countries. The U.S. accusation that Iraq possesses weapons of mass > destruction (whether they actually exist or not) is subterfuge for the Bush > administration's real agenda: control of the oil resources of the Middle > East. > > The hypocrisy of U.S. policy toward Iraq may be seen by comparing it to U.S. > policy toward other countries. For example, Israel possesses nuclear, > biological, and chemical weapons. Israel has violated United Nations > resolutions; it has threatened and attacked neighboring countries; and > Israel is guilty of extensive human rights violations. Yet, there is no > talk from Washington of weapons inspections in Israel, much less of an > invasion of that country. Indeed, the U.S. arms Israel and provides it with > massive economic and political support. > > The ultimate hypocrisy in Washington's focus on Iraq's weapons of mass > destruction is that the U.S. itself leads the world in the possession and > production of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. has weapons of every > imaginable variety, including a nuclear arsenal sufficient to obliterate > human life on this planet. If weapons of mass destruction were a real > concern to Washington, weapons inspections and disarmament would begin at > home. > > References > > [1] Ralph Schoenman, Iraq and Kuwait: A History Suppressed, Veritas Press, > Copyright 1990 http://ez2www.com/go.php3?site=book&go=0929675053 > > [2] Hidden Wars of Desert Storm, Video narrated by Joel Hurt, Free-Will > Productions. > www.hiddenwars.org > > [3] International Action Center > http://www.iacenter.org/ > > [4] The Saddam in Rumsfeld's Closet, by Jeremy Scahill, Common Dreams web > site > http://commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm > > [5] Amnesty International Reports on Human Rights Abuses in Iraq > http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/countries/iraq?OpenView&Start=1&Count=30&Expandall > http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/MDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\IRAQ > > [6] The Avelon Project at the Yale Law School: The Baghdad Pact > http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/baghdad.htm > > [7] Shatt-al-arab A Survey Of Wars And Treaties > http://www.defencejournal.com/jul99/shatt-al-arab.htm > > [8] British Empire: The Map Room: Middle East: Iraq > http://www.btinternet.com/~britishempire/empire/maproom/iraq.htm > > [9] Interveiw with Scott Ritter > http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/ > > [10] Iraqi Sanctions: Myth Fact, contains attributions to DIA documents on > U.S. destruction of water sanitation and sewage treatment plants in Iraq > http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/sanctions/sarticles9/mandf.htm > > [11] Extra! "We Think the Price is Worth It" > http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html > > [12] Sources for Military history of Gulf War > http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/ > http://www.historyguy.com/GulfWar.html#gulfwardates > > [13] The 1991 Gulf War Rationale > http://www.swans.com/library/art8/ga138.html > > [14] Sanctions from a Mennonite perspective > http://peace.mennolink.org/articles/iraqsancthist.html > > [15] Common Dreams, UN Sanctions Against Iraq Only Serve US Ambition, by > Denis J. Halliday, http://www.commondreams.org/views/081100-104.htm > > [16] "Iraq Regime Change Could Weaken OPEC" By Warren Vieth, Los Angeles > Times > October 27 2002; "In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue," The Washington > Post September 15th, 2002, http://www.targetoil.com/article.php?id=6 > > [17] Democracy Now! > Weapons inspections and U.S. government support of Saddam Hussein in the > early 1980s > http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20021114.html > Interview with Scott Ritter and Hans von Sponeck, Kathy Kelly > http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20020729.html > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "humanrights movement" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement?hl=en. >
-- You cannot build anything on the foundations of caste. You cannot build up a nation, you cannot build up a morality. Anything that you will build on the foundations of caste will crack and will never be a whole. -AMBEDKAR http://venukm.blogspot.com http://www.shelfari.com/kmvenuannur http://kmvenuannur.livejournal.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
