WSWS : News & Analysis : Middle East : Iraq
US bribes and threatens "allies" over Iraq
By Bill Vann
17 September 2002
In the wake of Bush's ultimatum to the United Nation's General Assembly to back
a US war against Iraq, Washington has launched a multi-sided campaign to bribe
and threaten governments around the world."A thieves' kitchen" was Lenin's apt
designation for the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations. Today's campaign by
Washington at the UN to win support for another war on Iraq makes it clear that
the appellation still applies. The flurry of quid pro quos and dirty deals has
all the dignity of mobsters divvying up the spoils. While in his speech to the
General Assembly the US president claimed that his goal was world peace, a piece
of the action is what he is offering to world leaders in return for acquiescence
to US aims.Secretary of State Colin Powell returned to the UN this week with the
aim of ramming through a Security Council resolution within the next several
days demanding that Iraq comply unconditionally with 16 separate resolutions
imposed after the last Gulf War or face military action. Confronted with
widespread opposition abroad and skepticism at home over its claims that Iraq
represents a paramount threat to national and world security that can be ended
only through a US invasion, Washington is demanding that the UN provide it with
an international cover for American militarism.On Monday, UN Secretary General
Kofi Annan announced that Baghdad had agreed to allow UN weapons inspectors back
into the country. They were withdrawn under pressure from Washington in 1998 in
advance of a four-day US-British bombing campaign.US officials have repeatedly
insisted that whether the weapons inspectors are admitted or not, Washington's
policy will remain one of "preemptive" war aimed at installing a US puppet
regime in Baghdad. They have also ruled out any possibility that the regime of
Saddam Hussein will fully comply with UN resolutions, making it clear that if
the inspectors do return, their function will be to create provocations and
provide a casus belli once Iraq is deemed in defiance of US/UN dictates.To set
up a pretext for war, however, the Security Council resolution must be crafted
according to American specifications and approved by nine of the panel's 15
members, with none of the five permanent members-the US, Russia, Britain, France
and China-casting a veto. Other governments in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere
must be brought on board to provide bases and other forms of support for US
forces participating in the attack.The main prize, of course, is oil. Neither
American officials nor leaders of the so-called Iraqi opposition-the collection
of royalists, wealthy exiles and ex-generals gathered in the Iraqi National
Congress-make any bones about their intention to transfer the lion's share of
Iraq's rich oilfields to the US-based petroleum multinationals after a
successful US war.While endlessly repeating unsubstantiated claims about
"weapons of mass destruction" and feigning concern over Saddam Hussein's
internal repression, the strategic objective that the US is pursuing is control
over Iraqi oil. The country has the second-largest proven oil reserves in the
world-an estimated 112.5 billion barrels-trailing only Saudi Arabia. With
growing concerns about the stability of the semi-feudal Saudi monarchy, the US
administration is determined to seize control of Iraq.This objective, however,
cuts across the interests of a number of countries, including three that hold
veto power in the UN Security Council-France, Russia and China. They, together
with a half a dozen other countries, have signed major contracts with the Iraqi
regime to explore for petroleum or rebuild the country's oil infrastructure.
Most of these contracts are designed to take effect once the 12-year-old UN
economic sanctions are lifted. The State Department-sponsored Iraqi
oppositionists have insisted that all of these contracts will be abrogated when
and if the current regime is overthrown through a US invasion.Historically, both
Russia and France had extensive economic interests in Iraq before the 1991 Gulf
War and are loathe to see the US establish unfettered control over the country.
Russia, in particular, still claims $8 billion in debt that the Saddam Hussein
regime incurred with the former Soviet Union. Washington's none-too-subtle
tactic is to promise these and other countries an unspecified share of the booty
if they support the US war, while threatening that they will be cut off without
so much as a barrel of crude should they oppose it.James Woolsey, the former CIA
director and US corporate adviser who has emerged as a leading cheerleader for a
speedy war against Iraq, bluntly spelled out this approach in an interview with
the Washington Post. "It's pretty straightforward," he said. "France and Russia
have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are
of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can
to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with
them." But, he added, "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be
difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to
work with them."In other words: "Help us knock over Iraq and we'll cut you in on
the loot; get in our way and you get nothing."The most extensive initiatives
have been taken in relation to the government of President Vladimir Putin in
Russia, who has spoken to Bush repeatedly in recent weeks. A State Department
delegation was dispatched last week to Moscow for a three-day visit aimed at
reviewing "bilateral concerns" over Iraq. Early next month, Russian officials
will hold an oil summit in Houston with their US counterparts and
representatives of more than 100 American and Russian oil companies.As a further
incentive, Washington is allowing other governments to interpret the "war on
terrorism" in a manner that suits their political interests, much as the Bush
administration has done in the US. Thus, while publicly stating its opposition
to Russian military action in Georgia against Chechen separatists based there,
it is widely believed that behind the scenes Washington is giving Moscow a green
light to intensify its bloody repression inside Chechnya.Similarly, the US
recently gave its support to Beijing's crackdown on a separatist group in
northwestern China, the East Turkistan Islamic Movement. The State Department
added the organization to its roster of international terrorist groups, and the
US backed China's bid to have it placed on the UN's terrorist list.In an obvious
bid to placate Canadian public opinion and smooth the way for Ottawa to support
an invasion, the US Air Force announced last week that two US fighter pilots had
been charged with manslaughter and assault for killing four Canadian soldiers
and wounding eight in a "friendly fire" bombing in Afghanistan last April. The
two Illinois Air National Guard pilots dropped a 500-pound laser-guided bomb on
Canadian troops engaged in a night live fire exercise near Kandahar. US
officials have admitted that the pilots' superiors failed to inform them about
the Canadian maneuvers.While Turkey will be dragooned into any US war on
Iraq-its air bases at Diyarbakir and Incirlik are already being used in
US-British air raids on the Arab country-the unstable government of Prime
Minister Bulent Ecevit has expressed grave concerns about an invasion's impact
on his country.In an attempt to allay the concerns of the Turkish rulers, Bush
inserted in his speech a carefully worded reference to US support for a "united
Iraq." The phrase was designed to reassure countries in the region, especially
Turkey, that Washington would suppress any move by Iraq's Kurdish minority to
realize its long-standing aim of creating a separate state in Iraq's north and
would back Ankara's military campaign against Turkey's own Kurds. At least
30,000 Kurds have already died in the 17-year counterinsurgency campaign in
eastern Turkey. Turkish military forces have long conducted cross-border raids
into Iraq "in pursuit" of guerrillas affiliated to the PKK Kurdish separatist
movement.Money is also likely to change hands in assuring Turkey's full
cooperation in a US invasion. The regime in Ankara is anxious that Washington
assure the favorable disbursement of a $16 billion credit already approved by
the International Monetary Fund, and is seeking forgiveness on $5 billion in
debt to the US for weapons contracts.The other key country in terms of US
military logistics is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal
said on Sunday that the monarchy would support a US invasion of Iraq if
Washington obtained a resolution through the UN Security Council, and would once
again allow the Pentagon to use Saudi soil as a launching pad for war.At the
same time, the Saudi prince said that his regime would act to stabilize world
oil prices internationally if and when war is waged. Among the key concerns that
the Saudis have reportedly discussed with Washington is whether a post-Saddam
regime in Baghdad would maintain its membership in the Organization of Petroleum
Producing Countries. If Washington chose to pull it out of OPEC, Iraqi
production and pricing could ruin the economies of other oil producers.Other
Arab regimes that had made dire warnings of the consequences of a US war on Iraq
have also latched on to Bush's appeal to the UN as a cover for lining up behind
Washington. Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, for example, made a tour of the
region in the immediate aftermath of Bush's speech, urging united pressure by
the Arab regimes to force Iraq to readmit the weapons inspectors. After Israel,
Egypt is the largest recipient of US military aid in the world.In Pakistan,
military ruler General Pervez Musharraf has been given a free hand by the US to
consolidate his dictatorship. While the State Department issued a pro forma
criticism of constitutional changes Musharraf introduced last month guaranteeing
the military's control of the government and blocking the country's two most
popular politicians from the polls, Bush made it clear that he was not
concerned. "President Musharraf is still tight with us in the war against
terror, and that's what I appreciate," said the US president.Other countries
with temporary members on the Security Council have begun making their own
demands, hoping to get concessions from Washington in return for a vote on an
Iraqi intervention resolution. For example, Mexican President Vicente Fox, a
usually docile ally of Washington, made public statements last week complaining
about the Bush administration's failure to carry through on its promise to
legalize the status of some three million undocumented Mexican workers in the
US. Regularizing their status, he said pointedly, should be possible while
continuing to wage the "war on terrorism."It will hardly comes as a surprise to
see new US aid projects quickly assembled for Cameroon, Guinea and Mauritius,
all small and impoverished African countries that happen to hold three of the 10
temporary seats on the Security Council.While opposed by sections of his own
Republican party as a capitulation to "internationalism" and retreat from the
unilateral use of American military might, Bush's turn to the UN to prepare a
war against Iraq has once again exposed the central purpose for which the
institution was designed-providing an international rubber stamp for imperialist
intrigue. The ease with which the US is able to buy or intimidate government
after government into backing an unprovoked war of aggression has also revealed
the prostration and corruption of the ruling cliques not only in the Arab world,
but throughout the regions of the globe that are oppressed by
imperialism.Washington's cynical maneuvers will prove far less effective,
however, in dispelling the hostility of working people all over the world to war
and the horror felt by millions at the prospect of massive civilian casualties
and destruction in a US assault on Iraq.
Copyright 1998-2002 World Socialist Web Site All rights reserved
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
