Liberating Iraq

How are you interpreting the latest news about Iraq? Is it coming across as intended that the US is attempting to liberate the people of Iraq from a terrible dictator in order to bless them with self-imposed government and democracy and must do so in the face of most of the rest of the nations of the world, who are only interested in their own interests and/or are too cowardly to fight? If this is your base opinion, then mission accomplished for the White House spin doctors. Let them know so they can adjust Ari Fleischer’s bonus accordingly.

As we’re coming to a crux on the latest Iraq conflict, take care not to get swept up in the wrong issues. There are many wrong issues. Instead of re-examining, or, for US networks, examining for the first time, the reasons for the opposition to the attack on Iraq, we are treated to all sorts of news that treats a unilateral attack on Iraq as a foregone conclusion. If you’d just been treated to a 10 minute report on Kuwaiti air raid sirens on CNN like I just was, you’d understand what I’m saying. The reports either address the withdrawal of diplomats, further buildup of troops or the failure of the French as a people, but do not address the global opposition to the war in any detail and there is little mention of alternatives (continuing inspections having been sufficiently derided as to render them laughable for the properly indoctrinated).

Take extreme care to note how things are explained to you: “France and its allies against war were undeterred…” from France Unmoved By the Summit on the New York Newsday is a good example. Doesn’t it sound like France is just shy of joining the ‘Legion of Evildoers’? Perhaps they just don’t think war is the answer, whereas the US does. The phrasing in the US media helps you come to the correct conclusion that France is, typically, too cowardly to fight whereas the US is “willing to do what it takes”, which usually means you better have a bomb shelter handy if you’re poor and happen to be sitting on some natural resources US corporations are interested in.

It’s also quite typical that the focus is on one country, rather than all of the countries that wouldn’t vote with the US. China, Germany (which doesn’t have a vote, but is influential) and Russia are also rather large nations, representing large populations that don’t support this war. The US media has honed their ire on the French. It’s so much easier to hate one country at a time. Reading the papers and watching CNN lately makes one think that France is worse than Iraq.

Who would have voted for the resolution if it hadn’t been withdrawn? France wouldn’t even have had to veto it; the US didn’t have the votes anyway. Iraq situation at a glance on UPI mentions that “ the United States, Britain and Spain was supported by Bulgaria” on this resolution, whereas “Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan” were all undecided. “ France, Russia, Germany, China and Syria” were all against.

In Bush ponders abandoning vote at U.N. , it is noted that “[t]he U.S. diplomatic drive was centered on Chile and Mexico”. That is quite a generous interpretation of the word ‘diplomatic’. I think both Chile and Mexico have had enough of American diplomacy to last an age (Chile was the subject of US-supported overthrow of democratically-elected Allende to put Pinochet into power, one of the twentieth century’s most brutal dictators and Mexico is currently plunging into even deeper poverty due to NAFTA and is still smarting from Bush’s complete dismissal of all promises made during his campaign to provide a better migrant-worker solution).

The ‘diplomacy’ of the US usually involves bringing pressure to bear by withholding approval for IMF or World Bank funds or increased or renewed trade sanctions. The withdrawal or reduction of foreign aid is less of a threat since the US (contrary to popular US belief) gives far less than other first-world nations. The concern is somewhat greater in client nations in which the US is supporting the autocratic government with military aid, which makes up the lion’s share of US foreign aid.

Quite a global consensus the US has built in support of their crusade. In addition, I have not yet heard of a country in the world whose people support a war in Iraq. Almost every country I’ve heard polled reports an anti-war sentiment of at least 80% (for more info on the breakdowns, see One world, a million different opinions). The countries that did support the US resolution have the same percentage of citizens against the war. Even the US spin-mongering media is in dire straits trying to word a poll in such a way that US public support for the war reaches 50% (and that is only with a UN resolution). Yet the US asks us to believe that the countries that vote with the will of their people (as Turkey recently did in disallowing use of their bases for launching a war) are somehow “traitors”.

The fact is that the US, Britain and Spain are acting very autocratically in denying the will of their people. The point of a democracy is to represent the will of the people − not to lie to them about your policies until they’ve voted you into office, then pursue an agenda that goes against 90% of popular opinion. Perhaps not specifically disallowed by the laws of the US, but certainly against the whole spirit of the thing, I’m sure you’ll agree. I think we can take heart that so many countries are still voting with the will of their people rather than the will of a ruling elite.

Or maybe they just don’t see any money in this attack. Perhaps they only see the US gobbling up all of Iraq’s resources in the aftermath, leaving them nothing. As it stands now, Saddam is on the outs with the US, but, monster though he is, is still honoring France and Russia’s contracts (and Germany’s military ones, until recently). Perhaps all of these ‘first world’ countries are no better than vultures picking at the meat of the third world, only expending energy and effort when it improves their own lot. Less encouraging, but still coinciding with the will of their people, whatever the reasons. The US is about to wage war without less than 20% approval. The war will serve no one but an elite within the US; the peoples of Iraq and US will share in the consequences, but not the profits.

Another interesting development in the UPI article is this quote: “U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Bush in his address Monday night would issue an ultimatum to Saddam saying the only way to avoid war would be for Saddam “and his cohort” to leave Iraq.” Sorry, what? I thought the reason was weapons of mass destruction? Oh, I see, the reason and the results are whatever Bush says they are. And we should all happily bobble along, now calling for Saddam’s head directly, because George said so.

Note how the reason for war has shifted as each reason went unsatisfied. First it was that Saddam definitely has an atomic weapons program. No such program was found (despite the faked report delivered by Cheney to the UN — that’s right, faked. Stolen from a term paper written by a UC grad student 10 years ago. See how stupid they think we are?). OK, no nukes so he’s got chemical/biologicals…not too much of that was found either (those 8 empty missiles didn’t seem too threatening). Links to Al Qaeda? Nothing. Now, it’s because he won’t leave the country that he must go. Presumably this is working the whole ‘liberating Iraq’s people’ angle that they also think we are stupid enough to believe.

Why shouldn’t we believe that the US has the interests of the Iraqi people in mind? You can’t just believe it because they say it. Look at their actions. I can think of no time in history in which the US supported the overthrow of a government only to install a democratic one. None. Every government supported by the US is autocratic (because of the stability) and is allowed to rule only because it promises to funnel natural resources out to the benefit of private (usually US) corporations instead of the people. So when you see a reported unabashedly say that the US is worried about Saddam blowing up oil wells because “the Iraqi people won’t have anything left to rebuild with” (CNN broadcast), don’t believe a word of it. There is literally no way the Iraqi people will see a dime from their oil resources if the US is in charge of the new regime.

One needs only look as far as Afghanistan, which is the most recent victim. There were big promises of rebuilding Afghanistan, the way we ‘forgot’ to do at the end of the 1980's, when we used it as a mire in which to trap the Soviets in “their own Vietnam” (Zbigniew Brezinski, Secretary of State for Carter). However, examine why and when we stopped working with the Taliban. Were they brutally oppressing women for a decade? Yes. When did we cease dealings with the Taliban? June, 2001. As late as May 2001, we sent them a $45 million package to fight the war on drugs. By June, they’d made the crucial error of ceasing talks with UNOCAL on building the Caspian pipeline across Afghanistan. The US began plans for invading Afghanistan and overthrowing the Taliban (see whythe US was so ready so quickly after 9/11?).

After the Taliban were overthrown, we installed Karzai (who actually didn’t work for UNOCAL, as legend has it − see Emperor’s Clothes interviews UNOCAL oil). However, in the same article, it mentions that “Zalmay Khalilzad … [b]ecause he was quite a noted expert on Afghanistan you know, so he did consulting for us [UNOCAL]”. He’s the official US envoy to Afghanistan (his experience in the US State department is also quite vast, as documented in USA: Unocal Advisor Named Representative to Afghanistan). Guess what? That pipeline breaks ground this summer. Big surprise, eh? Only a two-year delay in planning and the Caspian riches are rightly flowing through US pipelines laid in a newly ‘liberated’ country.

Now, what about the people of Afghanistan? Guess how much money the Bush administration allocated to relief/rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan (a country bombed even flatter than before and in the midst of an enormous famine) for the next budget year? If you guessed zero, you win a prize. Congress had to shamefacedly allocate $300 million to this country because the administration was finished with them and had gotten what they wanted (a compliant ruler willing to allow the pipeline to be built under the right fiscal conditions; i.e. US corporations reap the lion’s share of oil profits). This is well known outside the US where much more attention is paid to what the US does as opposed to what it says (the opposite of US domestic news). Now ask me about the Iraqi people’s confidence in their liberation.

Another quote there is from Ari Fleischer: “[The] diplomatic window has closed”. I saw the same quote attributed to Bush just now on CNN (apparently he will say it later tonight). At which point did the US exercise diplomacy? Remember that Iraq was heavily bombed, including all support structures (power plants, manufacturing, etc.), followed by 12 years of crippling sanctions (denial of medicines, food, etc.) that have caused the deaths of anywhere between 500,000 and 1 million children in Iraq, during which daily bombing runs continued and now a massive military buildup and saber-rattling that has continued for months, with no validity given to a non-military resolution. Can someone please email these folks the definition of diplomacy?

So what is the consensus in the end? The US, along with a cadre of bullied countries, whose people are almost entirely against the war, was trying to force a resolution through the security council. To this, CNN merrily quotes John Negroponte, the ambassador to the UN for the US (whom Bush carefully selected based on his experience running the slaughter in Nicaragua for the CIA during the 80's, for which he served no time in prison):

“…because of one country’s exercising it’s veto, this resolution will not be passed…”

I just caught that on TV, so it may be more of a paraphrase than a quote. If you didn’t know the speaker and you knew more than a little about how the UN works, you might think he was speaking of the US. You see, up until now, the US has been the world-record holder on vetos in the security council, vetoing all sorts of horrendous things like outlawing international terrorism (not good because then the US would be guilty of it for actions in Nicaragua), declaring support for the universal human right to food (not good because declaring a right to food reduces capitalist profits for companies trying to sell food to the indigent) or calling for the restoration of Palestinian lands (65 separate resolutions so far, all vetoed by the US, whose only supporting vote was, of course, Israel). There are hundreds of such seemingly wonderful resolutions designed to specify intent to make a better life for people worldwide that the US has been the lone (or accompanied only be Israel) dissenting vote in the entire world.*

Amazing how stupid they assume us to be, no? Simpering on TV that France is being a big meanie and not letting the US fight an ‘approved’ war.

The US administration now deems the UN as no longer relevant (as Bush predicted 6 months ago) since they did not support the US military resolution. Boo-hoo. The resolution 1441 in question mentions “serious consequences”, but in no way authorizes military action. So when you see reports or editorials stating that the US needs no further authorization, but that they just wanted to check with the UN, it’s just not true. Look at the US history with the UN and see if it has ever given it an ounce of respect, then ask yourself if the US would have gone for further approval if it really thought it already had approval in hand. The reports are that the US is mystified that France (again, just the one country, not the 5 countries definitely against or the 6 countries on the fence) wouldn’t approve the resolution authorizing military action. It is here that the US, especially under the rule of the most ideologically simplistic administration in memory, suffers from lack of vision. It is inconceivable to the US that serious consequences can mean anything other than bombing a country flat, then installing a pliant dictator to funnel its wealth and resources to the wealthiest 1% of the US. I see a lot of middle ground in between that and doing nothing. The US administration don’t.

The outlook of war is horrible, but we can take heart from one thing. As it stands, the US is about to embark on a unilateral war in a much more public way than they are used to. In the past, their unilateral excursions have been far less in the open, and far less strenuously opposed. I much prefer the US to have to remove its mask and move unilaterally in the open than to be able, once again, to bring it’s economic blackmails to bear and force the UN to rubber-stamp the US attack with an air of legitimacy. Perhaps the bloodymindedness of the upcoming attack will finally incite a revolution at home (and perhaps an impeachment for Herr Bush).

In an attempt to end on a lighter note, it looks like the logic employed in the Kosovo conflict will again be used: “pre-emptive retaliation”. Left alone, Iraq has attacked no one for 12 years (and whether the attack on Kuwait was implicitly approved by the US in order to justify a counterattack is a well-supported theory). Once attacked, they promise to attack wherever there is sky, earth and water anywhere in the world. Therefore, we are justified in attacking Iraq because of the predicted results of our attack. If only Heller were still alive to ruefully enjoy this reliving of his greatest novel.

In perhaps Bush’s own attempt at emulating the logic found in Catch-22, we have this bit of syntactic emptiness from the fearless leader (U.S. poised to drop UN resolution… on Forbes:

“Bush made little secret of his exasperation with France. ‘We have an expression in Texas that says, ‘Show your cards,’ he said. ‘France has shown its card. Now we have to see tomorrow what that card meant.’”

If you can figure out what the hell he’s talking about, drop me a line.

*The reasoning is not always clear, but environmental, famine, drought and other such problems for over half the people in the world are always seen as better solved by the market (and profited from by private corporations) than by social programs. One needs only look at how the ‘free’ market has fared so far in solving these problems to see the lie in that reasoning. The corporations allowed to wend their way in this free market have, on the other hand, fared quite well. (See Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower by William Blum and Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs by Noam Chomsky for more information.)