WAR AGAINST IRAQ

 US Stands Condemned As Never Before

Harkishan Singh Surjeet

  NO matter on what note the US-UK war against Iraq ends, one thing has become plain beyond doubt. That in order to overthrow one enemy, that is Saddam Hussein, the United States of America has turned virtually the whole world against itself. In fact, the US was never so isolated in the world community as it is today. Moreover, while the US’s claims about its gains in the war have a big share of media hype, there is no media hype in the world people’s opposition to the US war on Iraq and to the US drive for global hegemony that this war seeks to push ahead. This opposition is real, very real.

OUTRIGHT UNJUSTIFIED WAR

THAT the war lacks any justification whatsoever has been clear to the people from day one. The people saw how the US sought to misuse the UN system for its contemplated war on the pretext that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). However, when the UN weapons inspectors certified that they had found no WMDs in the country, the US took the position that, weapons or no weapons, it would unleash a war against Iraq to topple the Saddam regime. It is noteworthy that the US and allied forces have not found any proof of the existence of WMDs in the areas which they have so far captured.

  Here it would not be out of place to recall that it was the US that had propped up the Saddam regime and that gave this regime all-out support in its seven years long war against Iran. Moreover, immediately after the Gulf War I the media gave wide publicity to some confidential documents that showed that it was the same US that egged Iraq on to invade Kuwait. This was in a bid to get a pretext for attacking Iraq, as Saddam Hussein had in the meantime become an eyesore to the US imperialists. It was just like the way the US propped up fundamentalist groups to oust the PDPA from power in Afghanistan and then attacked the same fundamentalists’ regime when the US’s own interests got endangered. This shows how not even those regimes are safe from a US attack that have been playing second fiddle to it. A good lesson for the governments of all countries of the world, including India and Pakistan.   

SERIOUS REPERCUSSIONS

THERE is no doubt that this war has caused a lot of destruction in all parts of the invaded country and a lot more miseries for a people who have been groaning under an extremely brutal sanctions regime for the last 12 years. Newspapers and periodicals are full of write-ups about the cost of the war for the hapless Iraqis. But it is also true that the extremely serious repercussions of this war would not remain confined to Iraq; rather the whole world is going to get affected by this out and out imperialist war.   

  The first thing to note in this context is that the horrors of a unipolar world were never as clear as they are today. Ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated about a decade ago, there has been no countervailing force to the US depredations. In this period, the US has launched wars against Yugoslavia and then against Afghanistan. However, since George Bush assumed presidency, US imperialists have got further emboldened and extremely arrogant.  Soon after taking over as president, Bush expounded the so-called “axis of evil” theory, naming Iran, Iraq and DPR Korea as parts of this axis and indicating that Libya, Sudan and some other countries may also be included in this list. In the last two years, the US tried all means at its disposal to browbeat the DPR Korea into submission on the so-called nuclear issue; it is another thing that its mission in East Asia miserably failed. Then, turning its attention away from DPR Korea presumably for the time being, the US led an invasion against Iraq, which is the third war the US has launched in the short span of only four years, i e between 1999 and 2003.

  But now that the US has attacked one of the countries which Bush named in his “axis of evil,” the world peoples well apprehend that some more countries may face the US imperialist wrath in the near future. The Bush administration has already doled out threats to Syria and Jordan on the pretext that they have been extending support to Iraq during the war. But there is reason to believe that these threats aim at making the Israeli Zionists, the US’s most loyal cronies in the Middle East, secure from all opposition and to crush the Palestinian people’s struggle for a homeland.

  As for the real aim of the war, that too has been clear from the beginning. For long, the US has been eyeing the oil resources of Iraq that holds the second biggest oil reserve in the world, after Saudi Arabia. In fact, with the Saudi oil magnates in its pockets, how to grab the Iraqi oil resources for the benefit of its oil multinationals has all along been the main concern of the US. The US craze for controlling the world oil resources is also clear from the way it has been trying to engineer a coup against the elected Chavez government in Venezuela that is the biggest oil producer in Latin America. It is, moreover, for the same reason that the US has also been trying to intervene in the Central Asian republics. As for Kuwait and other oil-rich sheikhdoms in the Gulf region, they are already under the US tutelage.

  And now the US war against Iraq makes it patently clear that any country may hope to have its resources safe only till the US does not turn its eyes towards those resources. This is the very gist of the US drive for world hegemony.

THREAT TO WORLD PEACE

IN fact, it is for the sake of this very hegemonistic drive that the US has sought to make the United Nations irrelevant. The US and its allies went into a unilateral war against Iraq even after the Security Council meeting on March 19 refused to approve the US-sponsored resolution seeking a mandate for this war. Nay, the US did not even took notice of the strong opposition voiced by France, Russia, China and Germany, the first three of whom are permanent members of the Security Council, with veto power.

  But the world peoples have not forgotten how the failure of the League of Nations contributed to the outbreak of the second world war in 1939. The fear is that if the UN system gets marginalised at the hands of US imperialists, this too will have serious repercussions for world peace.

  For, needless to say, the emergent situation is fraught with only one possibility --- an all-round escalation of the arms race anew. At a time when there is no countervailing force to US intimidation and blackmail, when major forces like the non-aligned movement lie paralysed, even if temporarily, and when the US drive threatens to make the UN system increasingly irrelevant, it is but natural that now every country would be worried about its security. There is no doubt that some of the countries may opt to come under the US umbrella, but they would do it only at the cost of their own sovereignty plus their resources. But that does not mean that all the countries would adopt this course.

  Also, the Bush plan to erect a National Missile Defence (NMD) system and a Theatre Missile Defence (TMD) system can only aggravate the apprehensions of freedom-loving peoples about their own safety, security and independent development. Moreover, such a US plan threatens to militarise even the outer space, posing a grave threat to entire humanity.      

RESTORATION OF DEMOCRACY (!)

THE way the US threatens to behave in Iraq after subduing it, also makes its designs for hegemony patently clear. If one goes by the pronouncements being made by US leaders, it would appear as if they have attacked Iraq and they would rule Iraq, directly or by proxy, for the welfare of the Iraqi people themselves. “Restoration of democracy” is yet another buzzword making rounds in the ruling circles in Washington.

  All this only reminds one of the old proverb: “I will kill you for the sake of your own salvation!”

  But now that the fall of Baghdad seems imminent, American imperialists are increasingly baring their fangs. They have made clear that they are in no mood to leave Iraq in near future. They say they would remain in Iraq for another six months before handing over the reins of administration to their indigenous cronies. Nay, they have even nominated a retired general, one Jay Garner, as the interim administrator of the post-Saddam Iraq. (This implies the assumption that the proposed regime would be really interim.) This fellow, Garner, was there during the US war against Vietnam, was involved in deployment of Patriot missiles in Israel during the Gulf War I, and was the commander of the Space & Strategic Defence Command of the US Army from 1994 to 1996 before retiring in 1997.

  Such American moves for “restoration of democracy” in Iraq, however, involve one serious lapse of memory on part of US imperialists. They have simply forgotten, and conveniently, that these moves are patently against the canons of international law and civilised way of life. As embodied in the United Nations charter, international law says that the people of any and every country have an inalienable right to choose what system of economy or governance they would have. The UN charter simply forbids any country to intervene in the internal affairs of any other country, or to use force in order to effect a regime change there. For the sake of argument, even if one accepts the US theory that Saddam was a dictator, a cruel ruler, a blood thirsty monster and what not, there is no denying that it is the people of Iraq who have a right to punish him --- in whatever way they deem to be fit. The US has simply no business to be there in Iraq.  

  But, once the UN charter is flagrantly violated in Iraq, will US imperialists observe it in other parts of the globe?

REAL US INTENTION

THIS makes clear the real intention of the American statement that they would remain in Iraq for six more months “to make Iraq secure for Iraqis.” This is their latest phraseology; earlier they talked about “reconstruction of Iraq” after ousting Saddam Hussein.

  Coming from the mouths of US imperialists, such phrases can mean only one thing. Even after Saddam Hussein is gone, the Americans only expect to have sleepless nights, and that is why they want to make Iraq secure for their own interests in Iraq. As for the country’s reconstruction, Bush was loud-mouthed about it even before he started his criminal war against Iraq. He even put forward the estimate that the proposed reconstruction would cost some 700 billion dollars. He only forgot to specify as to where this kind of money would come from.  

  But there is no need to worry. The whole world knows that the money for the US-supervised reconstruction (!) would come from the sale of Iraqi oil, and would go into the pockets of…….. Well, that is also clear.

  Unfazed by global criticism and condemnation of their action, US imperialists have even started doling out contracts in the cities under their control. As reported in these columns, the first lot of these contracts in the port town of Umm Qasr went to American companies only; it was only after the UK voiced its concern that it was decided that in future some of the contracts would be given to British companies as well. However, this is not to deny that a few crumbs would be thrown to companies from some other countries as well, if only to keep them in good humour and ensure their continued support.

INTER-IMPERIALIST CONTRADICTION

APPARENTLY, however, Tony Blair is not satisfied with the way the contracts are to be distributed. He has already voiced concern, and also the opinion that whatever reconstruction work is to be done in Iraq, it must be under the UN supervision. And no one can say when the Australians, the Japanese, the Spaniards and other allies of the US in this war would begin to raise the same issue.     

  As for France, Germany and other such European countries that opposed the US war plan, most probably they would not have any share in the war booty. They are also incensed that one of the US’s aims at launching its war at this juncture was to boost the sagging dollar against the surging Euro. (See the article by Geoffrey Heard elsewhere in this issue.) In fact, just as the US was unable to carry with it the NATO as it had done in its war against Yugoslavia, it also failed to dominate over the European Union on the question of its war against Iraq.

  This fact puts to rest the speculation, that was being made a few years ago, that in the unipolar world all the imperialist countries would come together to exploit the world under US leadership. The indications are that the inter-imperialist contradiction is going to intensify, even if to a limited extent, in the wake of the US-EU rivalry.

  The growing anti-war protests in the last two months also show, in reality, an intensification of the contradiction between the world peoples and imperialism. If one ponders deeper, these protests are of the same genre as the anti-IMF, anti-WTO protests that have taken place in the recent past; only that the issue is different here and that imperialist nakedness too is quite apparent here. It is also doubtless that these anti-war protests are not going to subside even if the US succeeds in subduing Iraq. Therefore, what the day calls for is that all these protest actions must be channelised into a mighty stream so that imperialists are restrained and the world is made secure from their depredations.