The following article was published in "The Guardian", newspaper of the
Communist Party of Australia in its issue of Wednesday, February 12th, 2003.
Contact address: 65 Campbell Street, Surry Hills. Sydney. 2010 Australia.
Phone: (612) 9212 6855 Fax: (612) 9281 5795.
CPA Central Committee: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"The Guardian": <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Webpage: http://www.cpa.org.au>
Subscription rates on request.
******************************
To Kill Iraq: The Reasons Why
In October 2002, after several days of full-dress debate in the House
and Senate, the US Congress fell into line behind almost-elected
president George W. Bush, giving him a mandate to launch a massive
military assault against the already battered nation of Iraq. The
discourse in Congress was marked by its usual cowardice. Even many of
the Senators and Representatives who voted against the president's
resolution did so on the narrowest procedural grounds, taking pains to
tell how they too detested Saddam Hussein, how they agreed with the
president on many points, how something needed to be done about Iraq but
not just yet, not quite in this way.
by Michael Parenti
So it is with Congress: so much political discourse in so narrow a
political space. Few of the members dared to question the unexamined
assumptions about US virtue, and the imperial right of US leaders to
decide which nations shall live and which shall die.
Few, if any, pointed to the continual bloody stream of war crimes
committed by a succession of arrogant US administrations in blatant
violation of human rights and international law.
Pretexts for War
Bush and other members of his administration have given varied and
unpersuasive reasons to justify the "war" - actually a one-sided
massacre - against Iraq.
Having seen that the pretexts given by the White House to justify war
are palpably false, some people conclude that the administration is
befuddled or even "crazy".
But just because they are trying to mislead and confuse the public does
not perforce mean they themselves are misled and confused.
Rather it might be that they have reasons which they prefer not to see
publicised and debated, for then it would become evident that US
policies of the kind levelled against Iraq advance the interests of the
rich and powerful at much cost to the American people and every other
people on the face of the earth.
Here I offer what I believe are the real reasons for the US aggression
against Iraq.
Global Politico-Economic Supremacy
A central US goal, as enunciated by the little Dr Strangeloves who
inhabit the upper echelons of policymaking in the Bush administration,
is to perpetuate US global supremacy.
The objective is not just power for its own sake but power to insure
plutocratic control of the planet, power to privatise and deregulate the
economies of every nation in the world, to hoist upon the backs of
peoples everywhere - including the people of North America - the
blessings of an untrammelled "free market" corporate capitalism.
The struggle is between those who believe that the land, labour,
capital, technology, and markets of the world should be dedicated to
maximising capital accumulation for the few, and those who believe that
these things should be used for the communal benefit and socio-economic
development of the many.
The goal is to insure not merely the supremacy of global capitalism as
such, but the supremacy of US global capitalism by preventing the
emergence of any other potentially competing superpower or, for that
matter, any potentially competing regional power. Iraq is a case in point.
Some nations in the Middle East have oil but no water; others have water
but no oil. Iraq is the only one with plenty of both, along with a good
agricultural base - although its fertile lands are now much contaminated
by the depleted uranium dropped upon it during the 1991 Gulf War bombings.
In earlier times, Iraq's oil was completely owned by US, British, and
other Western companies. In 1958, there was a popular revolution in
Iraq. Ten years later, the rightwing of the Ba'ath party took power,
with Saddam Hussein serving as point man for the CIA.
But instead of acting as a compradore collaborator to Western investors,
Saddam and his cohorts nationalised the Iraqi oil industry in 1972,
ejected the Western profiteers, and pursued policies of public
development and economic nationalism.
By 1990, Iraq had the highest standard of living in the Middle East, and
it was evident that the US had failed to rollback the gains of the 1958
revolution.
Soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, US leaders decided that
Third World development no longer needed to be tolerated.
Just as Yugoslavia served as a "bad" example in Europe, so Iraq served
as a bad example to other nations in the Middle East.
The last thing the plutocrats in Washington want in that region is
independent, self-defining developing nations that wish to control their
own land, labour, and natural resources.
We can anticipate that following a US occupation: An Iraqi puppet
government will be put in place, headed by someone every bit as
subservient to the White House as Tony Blair.
The Iraqi state-owned media will become "free and independent" by being
handed over to rich conservative private corporations.
Anything even remotely critical of US foreign policy and free market
capitalism will be deprived of an effective platform.
Conservative political parties, heavily financed by US sources, will
outspend any leftist groupings that might have survived.
On this steeply unlevelled playing field, US advisors will conduct
US-style "democratic elections", perhaps replicating the admirable
results produced in Florida and elsewhere.
Just about everything in the Iraqi economy will be privatised at
giveaway prices. Poverty and underemployment, already high, will climb
precipitously.
So will the Iraqi national debt, as international loans are floated that
"help" the Iraqis pay for their own victimisation. Public services will
dwindle to nothing, and Iraq will suffer even more misery than it does
today.
We are being asked to believe that the Iraqi people are willing to
endure another massive bombing campaign in order to reach this
free-market paradise.
Natural Resource Grab
Another reason for targeting Iraq can be summed up in one word: oil.
Along with maintaining the overall global system of expropriation, US
leaders are interested in more immediate old-time colonial plunder.
The present White House leadership is composed of oil men who are both
sorely tempted and threatened by Iraq's oil reserve, one of the largest
in the world. With 113 billion barrels at US$25 a barrel, Iraq's supply
comes to over US$2.8 trillion dollars.
But not a drop of it belongs to the US oil cartel; it is all state
owned. Baghdad has offered exploratory concessions to France, China,
Russia, Brazil, Italy, and Malaysia.
But with a US takeover of Iraq and a new puppet regime in place, all
these agreements may be subject to cancellation. We may soon witness the
biggest oil grab in the history of Third World colonialism by US oil
companies aided and abetted by the US Government.
One thing that US leaders have been interested in doing with Iraqi oil -
given the glut and slumping price of crude in recent years - is keep it
off the market for a while longer.
The San Francisco Chronicle (22 February 1998) headlined its story
"IRAQ'S OIL POSES THREAT TO THE WEST."
In fact, Iraqi crude poses no threat to "the West" only to Western oil
investors. If Iraq were able to re-enter the international oil market,
the Chronicle reported, "it would devalue British North Sea oil,
undermine American oil production and - much more important - it would
destroy the huge profits which the United States [read, US oil
companies] stands to gain from its massive investment in Caucasian oil
production, especially in Azerbaijan."
We might conclude that direct control and ownership of Iraqi oil is the
surest way to keep it off the world market and the surest way to profit
from its future sale when the price is right.
Domestic Political Gains
War and violence have been good to George W Bush. As of September 10,
2001, his approval ratings were sagging woefully.
Then came the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon,
swiftly followed by the newly trumpeted war against terrorism and the
massive bombing and invasion of Afghanistan. Bush's approval ratings
skyrocketed.
But soon came the corporate scandals of 2002: Enron, WorldCom, and even
more perilously Harken and Halliburton.
By July, both the President and vice-President were implicated in
fraudulent corporate accounting practices, making false claims of profit
to pump up stock values, followed by heavy insider selling just before
the stock was revealed to be nearly worthless and collapsed in price.
By September, the impending war against Iraq blew this whole issue off
the front pages and out of the evening news.
By October 2002, the Republican party, reeling from the scandals and
pegged as the party of corporate favouritism and corruption, re-emerged
as the party of patriotism, national defence, and strong military
leadership to win control of both houses of Congress, winning elections
it should never have won.
War also distracts the people from their economic problems, the need for
decent housing, schools, and jobs, and a recession that shows no sign of
easing.
Since George II took office, the stock market has dropped 34 percent,
unemployment has climbed 35 percent, the federal surplus of US$281
billion is now a deficit of US$157 billion, and an additional 1.5
million people are without health insurance, bringing the total to 41
million.
War has been good for the conservative agenda in general, providing
record military spending, greater profits for the defence industry, and
a deficit spending spree that further enriches the creditor class at the
taxpayer's expense, and is used to justify more cuts in domestic human
services. Liberal intellectuals are never happier than when, with
patronizing smiles, they can dilate on the stupidity of George Bush.
What I have tried to show is that Bush is neither retarded nor misdirected.
Given his class perspective and interests, there are compelling reasons
to commit armed aggression against Iraq - and against other countries to
come.
It is time we dwelled less upon his malapropisms and more on his rather
effective deceptions and relentless viciousness.
Many decent crusaders have been defeated because of their inability to
fully comprehend the utter depravity of their enemies. The more we know
what we are up against, the better we can fight it.
Abridged. For the full text visit:
www.michaelparenti.org
***************************************************************************
--
--
Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archived at http://www.cat.org.au/lists/leftlink/
Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop
Sub: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink
Unsub: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
