The Ten Year Oil-War Against Iraq
Background
The U.S. has led a ten year war against Iraq using weapons of economic sanction and repeated bombings. Today, Iraq's infratructure is in shambles, 500,000 children have died, and Iraq is cut off from almost all contact with the west. Essentially, this war of sanctions and bombing is in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions. Some now call it "genocide" because it fulfills international norms for such a claim.
The announced goal of this carnage was to reverse the invasion of Kuwait, the result of a protracted and complicated dispute between the two countries, and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Actually, the real goal has always been to maintain control of Middle East oil and oil revenues which shore up western economies.
"Jobs, jobs, jobs," was how Secretary of State James Baker sought to explain it to the U.S. public in 1990. To win support for waging the gulf war, however, Washington had to demonize Hussein. Today, the U.S. admits sanctions will remain in place until Hussein's government is replaced by one amenable to its interests. In 1996, when questioned about the value of all these deaths, Madeleine Albright said: "We think the price is worth it."
Signs of Hope
In the face of these genocidal policies, signs of hope are emerging. Within the security council itself, France, China and Russia continually lobby against sanctions. Two directors of the UN's oil-for-food program, who resigned within 18 months of each other in protest of the sanctions, continue to speak against the sanctions. Former chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter has called for the end of sanctions, saying that Iraq is virtually disarmed.
In August, a Russian delegation flew into Baghdad, breaking the travel embargo a week after a defiant visit to Iraq by Venezuela's president angered the United States. Meanwhile, France, Iceland, Yemen, Morocco, Jordan and India have joined in attempts to break the air embargo. The President of Indonesia also announced that he will fly to Iraq saying Indonesia is not a stooge to anyone. More and more religious and congressional leaders are speaking out against sanctions.
Additionally, a grass-roots, anti-sanctions movement has gained such momentum that in September, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright found it necessary to disparage its influence by vigorously dismissing as "Alice in Wonderland" contentions by religious groups and others that U.S.-engineered sanctions were starving the Iraqi people. (AP 9/12/00)
Anti-Sanctions Struggles
Meanwhile, differences within the anti-sanctions movement are sending mixed messages to new and old opponents of this slaughter being conducted in our names. While it seems clear that only the complete ending of sanctions will allow Iraq to fully reconstitute its economy, some opponents to sanctions are calling for an end to economic sanctions but the retention of military ones. Others are calling for the lifting of just medical and food sanctions. Still others are calling for military sanctions for the entire region (Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc.), which is more in line with the UN resolutions; plus they are calling for the use of sanctions against nations (U.S., Britain, etc.) and corporations that supply weapons to Iraq.
One likely objective of these strategies is to respond to the question: what should we do about Saddam Hussein? Another might be simply to bring as many persons on board the anti-sanctions movement as possible.
Some Concerns
In the interest of dialogue, let me suggest that this strategy seems to ignore several factors. First, Hussein was a U.S. ally when he served U.S. interests by containing the Iranian revolution from spreading across the Middle East oil fields, even though he used gas against the Iranians and the Kurds. Once he failed to serve U.S. interests, he was conveniently demonized. While concern for the human rights violations of the Iraqi government are more than appropriate, proponents of this "delinking" of economic and military sanctions must ask themselves to what extent they are playing into U.S. oil-war propaganda.
Second, another oversight in this "delinking" strategy focuses upon who gets to decide what are economic and what are military resources. Even now, within the UN 661committee that oversees contracts under the oil-for-food deal, the U.S. has used its veto power to stop all, so called, dual-use items (e.g., chlorine to purify water, pencils) to the tune of over $1 billion dollars to date. This amount is equal to more than 15% of those resources approved by the same committee.
Related to this concern, those who seek region-wide disarmament plus sanctions against the arms suppliers, need to ask who is going to enforce these sanctions when the U.S., which is the largest weapons supplier to the region, essentially controls the Security Council.
Third, we should not underestimate the extent to which U.S. policy makers and oil companies will go to protect their oil interests. In addition to the death of a million Iraqis from sanctions and bombing, another clear indicator of this resolve can be found in the 1979 threat by President Carter to use nuclear weapons against the USSR to protect its interests in the Gulf, following that nations invasion of Afghanistan. Most foreign policy observers judged this to be the closest we have come to nuclear war, not the Cuban missile crisis. Oil is worth any price.
Another case in point, especially regarding the weapon of sanctions, is the 40 year old U.S. sanctions against Cuba which continues to strangle that impoverished nation.
Fourth, one must ask if conditions for the ending of sanctions will demand that Iraq allow western oil companies control of its oil. What role will the International Monetary Fund and World Bank play in the "reconstruction" of Iraq? Will the lot of the ordinary Iraqi change any under this likely scenario? One need only look at Eastern Europe, Russia and the global South for an answer.
Perhaps it is this scenario that prompts the observation that even should a highly democratic government come to power in Iraq, popular pressure would force it to develop its military and Weapons of Mass Destruction following Iraq's impotence in the last decade.
Ending Sanctions
The struggle to end sanctions is intricately linked with the new world economic order wherein the multinationals and their minions (World Trade Organization, IMF, WB) attempt to determine who wins and loses. Recent efforts to link issues of militarism, human rights, economic justice and eco-justice, across all boundaries, is key to ending sanctions on the terms most beneficial to the people of Iraq. The anti-sanctions movement would also do well to call us citizens of western nations to examine our own insatiable appetite for oil.
For more info and actions: