Why defend Iraq?
Without Saddam Hussein, asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, would Iraq not be a better place to live?
A friend whose integrity and nationalist feelings are above reproach recently voiced a question that I suspect is troubling a great many people. Why, he asked, are we so keen to defend Iraq when the main beneficiary of this line would be Saddam Hussein, a ruler who does not deserve our support? Would the world not be a better place without him?
Perhaps, but in standing against the war in Iraq we are not defending the cause of Saddam Hussein, which I believe is indefensible, but of the Iraqi people, who deserve all the support they can get as they brace themselves for a ruinous war that will bring yet more devastation and hardship to their long-suffering nation.
Of course, the problem with a stand in support of the Iraqi people is that it cannot be altogether dissociated from supporting their president, who now stands as a symbol of their resistance. But the fact that such a stand can be used by Saddam to bolster his position should not be a reason to abandon the Iraqis, who are a component element of our pan-Arab identity. To watch them die of hunger, to stand passively by as their pride and sovereignty are violated and their country destroyed is a betrayal of that identity, indeed, of our own selves.
Moreover, the objectives of the projected military offensive against Iraq are shrouded in ambiguity. Will it be launched to decommission Saddam Hussein's alleged arsenal of banned weapons, or to topple him from power? The issue has implications going beyond the Iraqi question as such. As far as the Bush Administration is concerned, Iraq is only the first in a long list of countries, headed by Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea, which must be stripped of weapons of mass destruction. Washington's sudden interest in going after countries suspected of secretly developing weapons of mass destruction does not extend to Israel, despite the fact that its arsenal of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction has been an open secret for years.
Bush's war on terror was initially aimed at the suspected perpetrators of the terrorist attacks carried out in New York and Washington on 11 September 2001, namely, Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qa'eda. It was then extended to Afghanistan, where the Taliban regime was sheltering Bin Laden and his organisation. After the end of the campaign in Afghanistan, it was extended to include the Iraqi regime, despite the complete absence of any evidence implicating Baghdad in the 11 September outrage or linking it to Osama Bin Laden. Now it is being extended to include all the countries accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction -- with the exception of Israel!
Somewhere along the way, the issue of terrorism came to be identified with the issue of weapons of mass destruction, even though no such weapons figured in the 11 September attacks. In fact, we are talking here of two distinct issues, each with its own specifies. Today, access to weapons of mass destruction is not confined to a handful of advanced states. For a start, they are available on the open market. Moreover, their production is no longer a privileged secret monopolised by a restricted circle of countries, and the cost of producing them is considerably less than it was in the past. This is a particularly critical problem when it comes to the Middle East, where Israel, with the full knowledge and support, not to say connivance, of the United States, has been allowed to build up a "secret" arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. This is not only a factor of instability in a region already rife with problems but an incentive for other countries to develop similar arsenals of their own, setting into motion an arms race that will be difficult if not impossible to control or contain. Already, Pakistan and India have developed nuclear devices. Other countries could follow suit, including those mentioned in America's list of "rogue states".
It could be argued that Washington's drive to ensure the banning of weapons of mass destruction should receive the unqualified support of all right thinking people. However, the credibility of its position is compromised by what many see as the double standards it applies to the issue. There is one standard for Israel, which is allowed to maintain a secret arsenal of nuclear weapons, and another for what Washington has branded as "rogue states", which are required to dismantle whatever arsenals they posses and to desist from developing nuclear programmes. Moreover, the permanent members of the Security Council are authorised to own nuclear weapons while this does not apply to any other country.
This double standard approach prevents the US from being consistent in its anti-Iraq campaign and belies its allegation that its main objective is the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. As to its argument that a preemptive strike aimed at disarming Iraq is necessary because Saddam Hussein could eventually supply terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction, this is belied by the absence of any evidence linking the Iraqi regime to Al-Qa'eda or any other terrorist network.
The Bush Administration's argument that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are a serious threat to global security has failed to convince some of America's allies, such as Germany and Japan. In recent talks between the US and Russia over Iraq, negotiations focussed not on weapons of mass destruction, but on Russia's economic interests, particularly those related to oil. A Russian government spokesman declared a few days ago that Baghdad's decision to cancel an oil agreement worth $4 billion, signed in 1977, has removed one of Russia's main motivations for opposing an American attack against Iraq. The Russian official was blunt; "Saddam is not the sympathetic figure who can expect Russia to protect him with no counterpart!". This type of language makes it clear that it is oil, not any other issue, which is at the heart of America's present campaign against Iraq.
Iraq's proven oil reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia. Recent explorations have raised proven oil reserves from 120 billion to over 200 billion barrels, a rich prize that multinational corporations are racing to get their hands on. America is in the lead, followed by the UK. But they are facing stiff competition from French, Russia, Chinese and Japanese companies. Plans are now being made on how the spoils, amounting to trillions of dollars, will be distributed after the war is over. Already, Ahmed Shalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress and a key figure in the Iraqi opposition groups now working closely with the US to topple Saddam, is coming forward with promises of lucrative contracts for the oil corporations, first and foremost American. This makes it clear that it is oil, not weapons of mass destruction which is the main issue in the war preparations now underway against Iraq.
The outbreak of war is bound to affect the American economy in a very marked manner, especially if Washington decides to push ahead with its war plans without effective participation from its Arab allies. Whatever the billions of dollars expected to be reaped in the long run, critical shortages could occur in the short run, deepening the present economic recession in the United States at a time Bush is particularly interested in burnishing his image in preparation for running for a second term.
For the United States to score a decisive victory in the coming oil war, it must appropriate the role of the United Nations on the world stage and become the sole arbiter and unique frame of reference. This it has already done by seizing the Iraqi report to the inspectors without the permission of the UN, without even the knowledge of Kofi Annan, possibly because the report is thought to contain information damaging to the United States.
Wars triggered by oil interests promise to erode the already severely curtailed prerogatives of national sovereignty, paving the way for an extreme form of globalisation where these prerogatives are exercised by one state alone. It is no accident that demonstrations against the Iraq war have broken out all over the world, even in the United States, calling for a peaceful settlement of the Iraqi issue. The demonstrations are an indication of deep disquiet at the reshaping of the global system to suit the requirements of an omnipotent and single-minded superpower riding roughshod over the laws governing relations between states. While no one can deny that the Saddam regime is defective for more than one reason, the world is beginning to realise that what is even more dangerous at this time is Washington's insistence on overthrowing a legitimate regime in a sovereign country by force of arms.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 19 - 25 December 2002 (Issue No. 617)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/617/op3.htm