KERALAMONITOR.COM IRAQ COLONISED FMs of countries neighboring Iraq meet on post-war situation
RIYADH, April 18 -- The foreign ministers of countries neighboring Iraq plus Egypt and Bahrain, the current Arab League chairman, opened an emergency conference here Friday to review the latest situation in Iraq and war repercussions on the region.
The ministerial meeting was called by Saudi Arabia after the kingdom's Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal made a surprise visit to Damascus on Monday for talks with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Iraq's security and sovereignty.In his opening address, Prince Saud al-Faisal said the foreign ministers of the countries neighboring Iraq were meeting here to discuss the situation of Iraq and serious war consequences to the region. He stressed the importance of safeguarding the sovereignty, integrity and independence of Iraqi people, and urged the foreign forces to leave Iraq as soon as possible.
"Our region suffered war and conflict over the past decade and we should work hard to make the war in Iraq become the last one," he added. The minister noted the UN role in rebuilding Iraq and providing humanitarian aid. While rejecting the US accusation of Syria, he welcomed US Secretary of State Collin Powell's recent overture to visit Syria. "We hope the efforts will be successful and contribute tothe peace-making in the region," he said.
On the issue of Palestine, the Saudi foreign minister urged United States to exert more efforts to bring all parties concerned back to the negotiation table in accordance with the 1993 Oslo accords. The foreign ministers were expected to discuss ways to help forma national government in Iraq and shorten the US military presence there.
Top diplomats from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt and Bahrain met for the first time after the outbreakof war in Iraq late last month. Regional countries held a similar conference on Jan. 23 in Turkey's largest city of Istanbul in a bid to prevent the US-led war. Friday's gathering came at a critical moment. Analysts say recent developments show the situation will remain volatile for quite some time. Saudi Arabia's proposal for a meeting of nations bordering Iraq indicates that these countries are feeling the heat of war and that they are concerned about the future of this area, as the future of Iraq does not concern the Iraqis alone.
US company wins first major contract in rebuilding Iraq
LOS ANGELES, April 17 The Bush administration on Thursday awarded Bechtel Group, a US construction company, the first major contract in a vast reconstruction plan for Iraq, but it assigned no position of authority to the United Nations or Europe. In a statement released by Bechtel, the San Francisco-based company said it defeated a handful of other US construction companies to win the contract awarded by the United States Agency for International Development. The award will initially pay Bechtel 34.6 million dollars and could go up to 680 million dollars over 18 months. The contract covers many major projects in Iraq, ranging from rebuilding two international and three domestic airports, ensuringpotable water supply, reconstructing electric power plants to building roads, railroads, schools, hospitals and irrigation systems.
An initial priority is rebuilding Iraq's only deep-water port, the harbor at Umm Qasr, where cargo is loaded on ships that traveldown a waterway in southern Iraq to the Persian Gulf. The Bush administration said the bidding was based solely on companies that were most qualified to do the work and on the need for an expedited selection and security clearances. However, the two-month process drew complaints from Congressional Democrats as well as Europe companies, about the secrecy and decision to restrict bidding to a handful of the largest US construction companies. The reconstruction of Iraq, experts said, could cost 25 billionto 100 billion dollars. Iraqi oil revenue is supposed to pay for much of the reconstruction.
Chilean analysts warn of US pressure on South America after Iraq
SANTIAGO, April -- Chilean analysts warned on Thursday of the possibility that the United States could impose economic pressure on South American countries because of their opposition to the US-led invasion of Iraq. The lack of support from South American countries for the Iraq war "disappointed the US" and could have adverse effects on the relations between South America and the US, some analysts argued.Chilean economist Hugo Fazio noted that the US could utilizes both its diplomatic and economic resources to force South Americancountries to be docile. The US regarded South America as part of its "global strategy of economic, political and military domination," Fazio added. Meanwhile, economist Jacobo Shatan, a former researcher of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, suggestedthat South American countries make use of the extensive anti-war demonstrations across the world to push forward the integration process in the region.
The region would not have a bigger say in negotiations with theUS until the countries of the Rio Group, the South American CommonMarket and the Andean Community were united and integrated, he stressed. The South American countries, except Colombia which supported the US-led military campaign, had expressed their regret and outrage over the outbreak of the Iraq war and called on the UnitedNations to provide urgent humanitarian aid for the Iraqi people.
Saudi FM urges Iraq neighbors to support crucial UN role
RIYADH, April 18-- Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal on Friday urged the countries neighboring Iraq to supporta crucial UN role in rebuilding Iraq and establishing a new government.He made the call in Riyadh at the opening of an emergency regional conference attended by foreign ministers of countries neighboring Iraq as well as Egypt and Bahrain, the current Arab League chairman.
The minister said the conference will seek a common stance on basic issues and principles to tackle the current realities.He noted that their primary concern is the interests of the Iraqi people, stressing Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. "Our principle is: Iraq's sovereignty, independence and integrity should be safeguarded. And such principles have been accepted by the international community," he said.
The Saudi foreign minister also urged the occupation forces to obey the Geneva Convention and maintain the security, stability and peace in Iraq.The occupation forces have the obligations to protect the historical heritages of Iraq, the minister said.He demanded that the foreign forces leave Iraq as soon as possible for the sake of establishing a transitional civilian government in the country.
The new government should be formed by all factions and represent the will of the Iraqi people, said Faisal. The countries neighboring Iraq were determined to join international efforts to support Iraq, and oppose the interference of Iraq's internal affairs, according to the minister .
IMF Approves US$701 Million Disbursement Under Stand-By Credit to Turkey
The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) today completed the fourth review of Turkey's economic performance under the Stand-By Arrangement. This will enable Turkey to draw SDR 510.6 million (about US$701 million) immediately from the IMF.The Stand-By Arrangement was approved on February 4, 2002 (see Press Release No. 02/7) in a total amount of about SDR 12.8 billion (about US$18 billion). So far, Turkey has drawn about SDR 10 billion (about US$14 billion) under the current Stand-By Arrangement.
Following the Executive Board discussion, Anne Krueger, First Deputy Managing Director and Acting Chair, said:
"The government's strong commitments to stabilization and economic reform are welcome, and essential given the economic challenges Turkey faces. The government has indicated its intention to adhere to the broad principles of the existing economic program and to achieve its main economic goals of disinflation, debt reduction, and sustained economic growth. These commitments provide a good basis for regaining market confidence in the government's economic management, and for putting government finances on a stronger footing.
"Recent policy slippages have been costly. In particular, the government needs to rebuild its credibility in financial markets to ensure a smooth roll-over of domestic debt. While the contribution of the war in Iraq to current economic difficulties should not be underestimated, policy mistakes have also played a role in weakening confidence. To reverse this development and foster credibility, the authorities must build up a track record of sustained and concrete policy action and strict implementation of the program. Sustained implementation is also required if the strong performance foreseen under the program-growth of 5 percent in 2003 with inflation declining to 20 percent-is to be realized.
"Fiscal restraint is central for promoting debt sustainability, boosting market confidence, and supporting continued disinflation. In this regard, it is essential that the government achieve the program's fiscal target and demonstrate that it is prepared to take additional measures as needed. Budget restraint should focus on cutting unproductive spending, restructuring state enterprises, and strengthening tax administration. The government's commitment to forego future tax and other amnesties is welcome. To help ensure that the fiscal adjustment is durable, fiscal restraint needs to be underpinned by an array of reforms, beginning with rapid completion of the direct tax reform, and continuing with initiatives in public financial management, tax administration, social security institutions, and civil service.
"The Central Bank of Turkey is to be commended for its prudent conduct of monetary policy and its successful floating of the exchange rate, which were instrumental in meeting the inflation target for 2002. To build on this success, monetary policy will need to remain focused on disinflation, and independent. Banking supervision also needs to remain strong through the independent banking supervision agency (BRSA). The authorities should act quickly to limit the damage to the BRSA's authority stemming from recent legal challenges, by strengthening its legal powers and operational and financial independence. It is essential that the government continue to refrain from interfering in the commercial decisions of state-owned banks. Privatization and reforms to improve the business environment need to be reinvigorated, and accordingly the government's commitment to an ambitious and revitalized privatization program is welcome.
"The need for unwavering policy implementation is reinforced by major uncertainties regarding the impact of the war in Iraq. Given these uncertainties, the government's commitment to block discretionary spending and to take new measures should circumstances warrant is an appropriate short-run response. While the recently announced prospective U.S. financing will ease Turkey's immediate debt rollover situation considerably, Turkey's public debt remains high, and financing cannot substitute for unwavering policy implementation.
"Although significant risks remain, implementation of strong policies and a more benign external environment provide the basis for market credibility to be regained, which will allow Turkey to achieve its macroeconomic targets and maintain a viable debt position over the medium term. While a consistent record of program implementation has yet to be established, the government's recent focus on its underlying economic objectives has prompted renewed commitment to strong policies of stabilization and reform. On this basis, Turkey's adjustment and reform efforts deserve continued support," Ms. Krueger said.
Power and Interest News Report (PINR)
(PINR) -- With the fall of Saddam Hussein from power, the United States government is busy preparing for its postwar occupation. Current plans call for putting U.S. officials in charge of Iraq under the name of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance in Iraq led by former U.S. general Jay Garner. Their stated objectives are immense, and, until they have been achieved, Washington will be forced to keep its occupation in place. More
Chalabi rules out joining in Iraq's interim government
BAGHDAD, April 18 - Chairman of the Iraqi National Congress (INC) Ahmad Chalabi said Friday that he would not nominate himself for any position in the interim government that will replace the former Saddam Hussein regime. Chalabi, a 57-year-old wealthy businessman formerly based in London, made the remarks in a press conference after returning Baghdad Wednesday evening. Some people said although Chalabi has won popularity in Washington, especially from the Pentagon, his support remains fragile in Iraq, which he fled in 1958.
Chalabi told reporters that he had convinced the US administration not to appoint an American military ruler for Iraq to stay in power for a long term. Answering a question about the defeat of former ruling Baath party members, Chalabi said a list of Baath party officials who will be on trial has been prepared, but no penalization will take place against other party members.
A number of Baath party members had helped his movement during and before the ongoing US-led war which topples the Saddam regime. Meanwhile, Mohammed Mohsin Alzobeidi, self-claimed chairman of the executive committee in charge of Baghdad, noted that over 20 committees have been formed in the capital to supervise different departments from financial, ecomonic, social to security branches.
Iraqis stage mass rally in Baghdad against occupation troops
BAGHDAD, April 18 -- Thousands of Iraqis took out to the streets of the capital city after the Friday prayers to protest the occupation by the warring Anglo-American army.Demonstrators marching out of the Imam Abu Hanifa Mosque in Baghdad demanded withdrawal of foreign troops. In a sign of solidarity between Sunni and Shiite Iraqis, the protesting Iraqis chanted slogans of "No Bush. No Saddam. Yes to Islam!"Some held up banners bearing the word of Jihad (holy war) against the occupation forces, reminiscent of scenarios of Palestinian-Israel confrontation in the West Bank and Gaze Strip. A popular Islamic cleric called for a joint council of Shia and Sunni scholars to counter any puppet government imposed by the US-led crusaders.
"The coming administration must be run only by Iraqis," said Ahmed al-Kubaisy, head of the Iraqi society of Islamic scholars, inthe Friday prayers in Abu Hanifa Mosque in Baghdad's al-Azamiya area.
"The occupation forces should leave Iraq soon before being humiliatingly ousted," Kunaisy addressed the massive attendance, adding that Iraqis should act in unison and reject the presence of occupation forces. "There must be a national government in which people of various religions and ethnicities are represented," he said.
A revealing glimpse of Washington’s "free and democratic Iraq"
By Peter Symonds of wsws.org
April 18, 2003What the Bush administration means by “freedom” and “democracy” in Iraq was on display at a US-sponsored meeting of selected Iraqi “representatives” held Tuesday in southern Iraq. The thoroughly contrived character of the gathering at the heavily-guarded Tallil air base demonstrates that, having invaded and occupied Iraq, Washington has no intention of permitting the Iraqi people any say in running the country. Assembled in an air-conditioned tent at the airbase were 80 or so handpicked Iraqi exiles, tribal sheiks, ethnic Kurds and Shiite clerics. The site, it appears, was chosen for its historic associations—nearby was the 4,000 year old ziggurat, or stepped pyramid, at Ur—to which Garner tritely referred in his opening remarks as he proclaimed the beginning of “a free Iraq and a democratic Iraq”.. Full Report
Behind The Scenes Of The Iraq War
Pravda.ru
4-17-3The plan for the Iraq war, which has erupted in the face of opposition from the entire world, was drawn up at least decades ago, by Israeli strategists In its attempt to realize its strategy of destabilizing or dividing the Middle Eastern Arab states, Israel has Egypt, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia on its list of subsequent targets. As these lines are being written, the United States of America has begun striking at Iraq. Despite the fact that most countries of the world, and even the majority of the USA's allies, opposed it, the US administration was determined for the strike to go ahead. When we look behind the scenes of this insistence, it seems that Israel and its powerful lobby in the US, have the greatest share in the make-up. The Age-Old Israeli Plan to Divide Iraq
An ambitious report entitled "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s," which appeared in the World Zionist Organization's periodical Kivunim in February 1982 disclosed a strategy aimed at making the whole of the Middle East a kind of "living space" for Israel. The report, drawn up by Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist and formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel, set out the scenario of the "division of Iraq" in these terms:
Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria- Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi'ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren't for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq's future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past- In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. 1) Full ReportFootage shows Saddam's 'final public appearance'
April 19 2003
Footage of Saddam Hussein's last known public appearance surfaced yesterday, showing him on the streets of Baghdad being mobbed by an enthusiastic crowd as he waved, basked in adoration and was hoisted onto a car hood to greet his fellow Iraqis.The footage was released by Abu Dhabi television and immediately carried by CNN. The television said it was taken April 9 - just over a week ago - as US forces moved into Baghdad. Clad in a beret and olive military uniform, Saddam moved through the crowd as people cheered: "With our bloods and souls we redeem you, Oh Saddam." Helped by guards, Saddam ascended the hood of a car and appeared a bit embarrassed as he took in cheers. Some of those cheering him held AK-47 assault rifles. Full Report
CIA's Golden Victory - US Bribed Iraqi Military Leaders
The Express - London, UK
4-18-3Republican Guard generals betrayed Saddam Hussein in return for huge payments in cash and gold, it emerged last night. In so doing, they allowed the Allies to seize Baghdad virtually without a fight.
Resistance around the capital from six Republican Guard divisions just melted away because the senior commander of Saddam's elite troops defected and ordered his men to give up or go home.
He was spirited away by a United States Apache helicopter to a secret location. The astonishing revelations of the double-dealing at the heart of Saddam's inner circle expose the immense contribution made to the coalition campaign by undercover squads of SAS special forces. Working hand-in-hand with MI6 and CIA paramilitaries they were responsible for buying off factions of Saddam's henchmen.
The Joint Special Operations Task Forces have been operating undercover since before the war, contacting Iraqi military, intelligence and secret police leaders to make them change sides.
The teams carried suitcases full of gold bullion, US dollars, Swiss francs and euros to buy off regime leaders, and threatened to kill those who refused to cooperate.
The same techniques had been refined in Afghanistan where Operation Jawbreaker led to the defection of senior warlords.
General Maher Sufyan, the head of the Republican Guard, was allegedly spirited away from the Al Rasheed airstrip, in south-east Baghdad, to an unknown location, according to the French newspaper Le Monde and the leading Arab news channel Al Jazeera. Intelligence sources have told strategic analysts Stratfor that senior Republican Guard generals and commanders from the Special Republican Guard and the Iraqi security services betrayed Saddam and revealed his location on two occasions, leading to the "decapitation" raids designed to assassinate him and his senior men.
They then cut a secret deal agreeing to surrender in the second week of the war and sabotaged the attempts of Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz and Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, two of Saddam's key henchmen, to fight on. They only discovered the betrayal when US forces passed Karbala in the "red zone" around Baghdad.
In the days before the battle that never was Allied commanders at Central Command in Qatar boasted that they were in contact with senior Iraqi civilian and military leaders. They have since admitted that a reward system exists to buy information on the whereabouts of the most wanted war criminals and the location of weapons of mass destruction. US commanders have been unable to show any pictures of Republican Guard troops and their equipment destroyed in the advance. Yesterday US Brigadier-General Vince Brooks said he was "not aware" of the deal with Sufyan, but he admitted: "We know there are a number of military formations that chose not to fight for the regime.
"We do deal with leaders that are out there - either local leaders, tribal leaders or in some cases military leaders." He hinted that those who had cooperated with the coalition may not lose their jobs.
"There will be former military members who will have a role to play in a future Iraq, " he said.
Saddam and his son Qusay, who was the overall commander of the Republican Guard, may have been killed or so severely wounded in the first "decapitation" raid on the first night of the war that they lost control of the troops.
Saddam's other son Uday is thought to have survived. Sources say his presence accounted for the stiff resistance from Fedayeen fighters under his command in the first two weeks of the conflict.
Allied commanders dismissed reports that Saddam is holed up in his birthplace north of Tikrit.
Maher Sufyan is not included in the "deck of cards" handed to Allied troops to help them hunt down the Iraqi regime leaders. Popular Information Minister Mohammed Saeed Al Sahaf, nicknamed Comical Ali, is not on the list either, fuelling specualtion he too may have cut a deal.What did Rumsfeld do in Iraq in 1983?
by resistance is bliss Wednesday April 16, 2003 at 11:37 AM
junge Welt, a left German newspaper, published the following expose on what Rumsfeld actually was doing in Baghdad 20 years ago: trying to get an oil pipeline built from Iraq under US control.The Rumsfeld Saddam Deal
Secret documents after 20 years publishes: Pipeline business despite chemistry weapon war negotiates
Donald Rumsfeld, today US Secretaries of Defense, met on 20 December 1983 with Saddam Hussein and its deputy Tariq Aziz in Bagdad. They spoke, are certain now, not over the chemistry weapons, which the Iraq straight had inserted use the war against Iran. They did not speak also about the pursuit of the Kurds, the Shiites or other minorities. Their only topic was oil? more exactly: the financing and the building of a pipeline of the Iraq to the gulf of Akaba, to the Red Sea. Akaba lies in Jordan, a few kilometer only far away from Eilat, and belongs to Israel. Also Israel should be included into the project.
The reasons for the current US campaign may be still unclear some. The reasons for Rumsfelds journey to Bagdad before twenty years are openly evident, since US safety archives waived the secrecy of the appropriate documents. On 18 sides that occupies which hanging toners of "institutes for Policy Studies" together with the Sustainable Energy & Economy network on the basis the accessible papers: The same persons, who give to look until today in the Iraq for massenvernichtungswaffen, had at that time the massenvernichtung of Iranians and Kurds before eyes, but only one in the head: Oil.
In March 1982 the Syrian government had its large oil export line for the support of Iran the Iraqis to the Mediterranean closed. As main export route the route remained southern to the insufficient harbor facilities of Basra at Persian Gulf. Additionally the route has the disadvantage that it can be blocked by Iranian side, thus by the northeast bank of the gulf out, easily. That applies despite the numerous western bases at the south side of the road of Hormus, for example in the Exklave of Oman. A further possibility for the removal the northIraqi oil led predominantly and leads by Kurdish and Turkish area after Ceyhan at the Mediterranean. It was and is endangered, as long as the there conflicts are unresolved.
Reagans's minister of foreign affairs George Shultz, before, therefore the idea of a pipeline launched managers with the large building contractor and oil technology giant Bechtel to the Red Sea for its former employer, which seemed excluded from such considerations up to then? because of the proximity to Israel. Rumsfeld spoke the Investitonsvorhaben several times in Bagdad, so also in a variant on 26 March 1984. On the same day a UN committee condemned unanimously the employment of Iraqi chemistry weapons against Iranian soldiers. The Shultz only to ask the Iraqis it the USA may not bring the US minister of foreign affairs compelled into the "embarrassing situation" buy in the future chemicals which could be "raw material for something, which could contribute to the production of chemical weapons".
Meanwhile the US-delegated advanced the financial programmes for the pipeline project and insured in view of the chemistry weapons their Iraqi official contacts: "we would not like that this topic controls our mutual relations." The conscious linkage of the private-economical motive for profit with geostrategic criteria becomes clear with Bechtel manager H.B. Scott in view of an apparently which is approaching conclusion of the negotiations with the Iraq in the year 1984: "I cannot stress at all enough, how important the efforts of the Bechtel management on all levels of the US government and the industry are to support this project. The project has important geopolitical Untertoene. The time might be ripe with the project fast to advance with very important rewards for the fact that Bechtel made it possible."
The U.S. export import bank and the U.S. Overseas private Investment corporation, which helps to secure with government support of export trades, was pushed by lobbyists and Reagan officials to make available 500 million dollar credits and endorsements. But Saddam Hussein required for his part security. He was afraid, Israel could attack the pipeline. Thus the US government developed plans to pass yields on from the pipeline to the Israeli work party. Also it considered coupling military and civilian assistance for Israel to the warranty that the pipeline remains untouched. Judge William Clark flew therefore as fuerstlich paid employees of the technology company Bechtel to Bagdad? proven as representatives of president Reagan and its national security council. Also a close friend of the Israeli Prime Minister at that time Schimon Perez switched himself on into the negotiations. Swiss billionaire Bruce Rappaport turned to Bechtel with the offer of an Israeli security guarantee for the planned route. Rappaport required an anticipated payment on the conclusion of ten per cent, by which a part should be passed on to him, another at Israel.
On 25 February 1985 Schimon Perez insured that Israel would not accomplish "unprovoked attack" against the pipeline. But the project operators were afraid that this linguistic idiom would not be sufficient to calm the Iraqis down. Let Saddam Hussein the entire plan one year later fall. The authors of the study mean: Since then the irakisch?US American relations from year to year would have worsened.
Again once is it shown: Which is made ridiculous as Konspirationstheorie in the presence of war proponents, is possibly long in documents held as naked fact. The documents are provisionally inaccessible to us only. Today far more right-wing extremist Neokonservative participates than before twenty years in war plans and their execution. They act Israeli government in the consent with the right-wing extremist. A bribery of the work party might have been unnecessary in view of the weakness of the war opponents in Israel.
The authors of the study judge finally: "the bitter lesson from the Akaba project probably is that a?uebler dictator? as a good friend of the United States is considered, if it is ready a business to make? and as a deadly enemy, if it opposes."
''Saddam's fall: a warning to the Third World''
April 18, 2003 - By Dr. Farish A. Noor(YellowTimes.org) -- When the towering statue of Saddam Hussein that was standing in the middle of Baghdad was toppled by his own people -- aided and abetted by American Marines -- and telecast live to thousands of people the world over, it was clear that the (onetime U.S.-sponsored) Iraqi regime had come to an end and that Saddam's days of ruling the roost were finally over.
Before the dust had even settled, triumphant U.S. officials were already sending out warning messages to neighboring Syria, telling the Syrian government to stop "aiding" Iraq or face the wrath of the victorious "liberators" of Iraq in due course.
The collapse of Saddam's statue sums up the graceless fall of Saddam's own regime: a puppet government that was sponsored and supported for years by the United States until its worth was all but spent.
Saddam's usefulness was at its peak when he sent thousands of young Iraqis to die in a vain and pointless war against Iran that bled both countries dry. Then, as now, the killing of Muslims by fellow Muslims was little cause for concern for the U.S.; and its ally Israel was more than contented to see its arch nemesis Iran checked by a pro-Western Iraq. Saddam was, of course, killing Shiites and Kurds even then -- though these acts of murder did not receive as much coverage in the western media at the time.
Mortal enemy
Then in 1990 Saddam went one step too far when his tanks rolled into neighboring Kuwait, which happened to be an even closer and useful strategic and economic ally to the U.S. Saddam was not prepared for the negative reaction he would receive as a result of this particular misadventure, and certainly not ready to pay the costs that were incurred soon after. Overnight, America's erstwhile ally was transformed into its mortal enemy, and Saddam found himself cast as the arch-villain in a sick comedy of errors that has come to characterize American foreign policy in the post-war era.
In the U.S., George Bush Sr.'s popularity soared as Operation Desert Shield gave way to Operation Desert Storm and played itself out before an audience glued to their television sets. Despite the fact that Russian satellite photos had shown that Saddam's forces were not as strong as the dictator claimed them to be, the marching orders were given.
The first Gulf War itself was a brief -- though unequal -- exchange of murderous fire. The Iraqi forces were practically wiped out, while the allied forces lost more men to friendly fire than enemy attacks. Saddam the strongman had been reduced to a straw man, and by playing the role of cardboard villain he and his regime had helped to restore America's pride in itself and its ascendancy as the sole superpower in a unipolar new world order.
The heroes of the day were men like the American General Norman Schwartzkopf, dubbed the "liberator of Kuwait." Few Western experts and media consultants cared to point out that it was the same General Schwarzkopf who had helped the Shah of Iran set up his notorious Gestapo-like Savak secret police, who were responsible for the deaths, torture and disappearances of thousands of Iranian activists, students, unionists and opposition members in the 1970s. (1)
A lesser-known veteran of the Gulf war was a sergeant by the name of Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh would make his mark a few years later when he drove his truck filled with chemical fertilizer into the Alfred O Murrah building in Oklahoma City and blow it up, killing 168 people and injuring more than 500 others. It would take years before the actual human cost of the war would become known (2), but in the early days of the new decade, the Muslim world found itself defenseless before the might of this new global hegemon.
The irony of it all was that Saddam himself was (and is) probably the last person to realize that he was but a pawn in a game whose rules were not of his own design or choosing. The saddest thing of all is that the primary victims of this bloody sport between states have been the ordinary people of Iraq, who are about to discover just what being "liberated" by the same government that has sponsored other luminaries like the Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos and General Suharto will be like.
Pride before the fall
It has become the standard scenario that has been repeated time and again all over the developing world: Despots and tyrants from the countries of the South have prostituted themselves and their nations to pander to the whims of the superpowers and the developed states of the North. Saddam's regime was but one sad case in a long list of disasters. In all of these cases, the powerful and developed countries of the West have been more than happy to deal with such puffed up despots for the simple reason that authoritarian despots often make good cronies.
The despots in turn are given ample time to wallow in their excesses, strip their nation's resources bare, rob the country in broad daylight, purchase arms from the West and murder their own populations. In time, however, these regimes will prove either useless or no longer viable; in which case we see the now-familiar charade of a "regime change," which merely opens the way for the cultivation of yet another despot-crony whose days are equally numbered.
The Shah of Iran, for instance, was one such despot whose own record left much to be desired. Like his ancestors, he too was bent on modernizing his country at all costs -- even if it meant opening up the Iranian economy to foreign (read: American) investment in key commodities such as oil. The Americans and their Israeli sidekicks were happy to bankroll the Shah's decrepit and discredited regime manned by a host of debauched sybarites and inbred wastrels, until at last the walls of the palace were breached and the fabled peacock throne was reclaimed by the masses.
Closer to home, we have seen just how the U.S. has helped to "liberate" the people of Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Successive regimes in these unfortunate countries were propped up by the U.S., with the clear intention of making sure that they did not fall into the fold of the Soviet bloc during the Cold War and to ensure that the U.S. would have the lion's share of their wealth and natural resources.
In Indonesia the Americans were instrumental in the rise to power of General (later President) Suharto, Asia's longest-serving (and self-serving) tyrant. Suharto proved to be a steadfast and loyal flunkey to the West and the U.S. in particular, and the Americans were quite happy to turn a blind eye to his excesses and abuses.
When Indonesia forcibly annexed the ex-Portuguese colony of East Timor in 1974, U.S. officials (including President Gerald Ford and U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger) were well aware of their plans long before. The attack on East Timor was timed so that both Ford and Kissinger (who were both in Jakarta then) could board their plane and make a speedy getaway before the massacres began.
The violent and brutal annexation of East Timor -- undoubtedly one of the greatest human rights disasters in modern history -- was done with the tacit support and approval of the U.S. for the simple reason that the Americans wanted to ensure that Timor would not fall into the hands of the left-leaning Fretilin movement and thus become another Cuba in the heart of Asia.
But in time as Suharto's popularity and support crumbled, the U.S. turned against its own crony-puppet and announced that the "game was over." Contrary to what many observers thought at the time, the fall of Suharto had little to do with the so-called "reformasi" movement of Indonesia, but rather the Manichean maneuvers of the Americans.
One day before he was forced to resign, Suharto turned to the Yankees for help. He was told by the U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright that "his days were over" and that he would no longer receive their support. So out went the dictator whom the U.S. had lovingly cultivated and nurtured for so long.
The same was the case for the Philippines next door, where the U.S. put into office a succession of weak and unrepresentative leaders from Ramon Magsaysay to Diosdado Macapagal, until they finally pounced upon the most servile and useful crony of them all: Ferdinand Marcos. When Marcos was finally toppled by his own people in 1986 (doubtless, many of his statues were brought down to earth as well), the country was falling apart and its coffers emptied.
According to some of the BBC reports that we have heard this week, the fall of Saddam's regime and its political machinery can best be compared to the fall of Ferdinand Marcos and his shameful exit from power. The comparison is more than apt, for both of them happened to be American-backed dictators whose main role and purpose was to act according to the needs of U.S. geo-strategic and economic interests; and both of them were conveniently dismissed when it became clear that their services were no longer required.
Also similar is the fact that both dictators were responsible for the deaths, torture, incarceration and persecution of thousands, though these crimes went unnoticed when the victims happened to be the enemies of the U.S. at the time: Filipino Communists in the case of Marcos, Iranian Shiite revolutionaries in the case of Saddam.
Lesson for the South
If there is any hikmah (wisdom) that can be gleaned from this murky and sordid drama, it is that the leaders and governments of the developing world should be more careful in choosing their allies.The fact remains that since the end of World War II the U.S. has grown stronger militarily and its global ambitions have expanded accordingly.
The U.S. did not become a superpower by accident: it was through design, cunning and sheer unscrupulousness that this newcomer on the international scene managed to elbow out the superpowers of the older generation -- most notably Britain and France -- and assume its pivotal position as the paramount leader in world affairs today.
America has not only learned the rules of imperial conquest and domination, it has rewritten the rules of the game and perfected it to a fine art. Never in modern history have we seen a demonstration of Gramsci's concept of hegemony as we see it today.
The leaders of the South, on the other hand, have proved to be singularly useless, pathetic and clueless when it comes to dealing with this global hegemon. The reason for this apparent quietude and paralysis is obvious: the U.S. has them by the short and curlies.
It is baffling, to say the least, to note that despite America's deplorable record of double-standards, selective persecution of its adversaries and opponents and its own abuses of human rights at home, that so many leaders and governments of the South still turn to the White House for aid and support.
From Latin America to Africa, from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, the leaders of the South continue to wait in line at the doorsteps of the White House for what little aid and advice they may be given.
Most shameful of all is the humiliating spectacle of Arab leaders -- flowing robes and shiny Rolls Royces et al -- running to Washington whenever they have a dispute with their neighbors.
If American paternalism is so rife today, it is mainly because the leaders of the South prefer to behave like children and continue to see the U.S. as the Freudian father whose word will bring order and law into their lives.
Related to this is the institutionalized lawlessness, corruption, nepotism and cronyism that are rampant all over the developing world, making every country in the South a potential victim of U.S. "liberation" and intervention. For those of us who have opposed this unjust and illegal U.S.-led war from the beginning (and continue to do so), the most contentious point has been the atrocious record of Saddam Hussein himself. For what the Saddams of the world really do is give the U.S. the rationale and justification for its own unilateralism backed up with the force of arms.
The fall of Iraq should be read as a sobering lesson for all the governments of the South. Unless and until they realize that the only way to break free from this vicious chain of dependency is to address the uneven and unjust power differentials that exist in the world today, they will never be able to overcome the impasse that is partially of their own making.
Those pro-Western and pro-U.S. dictators who think that they can (literally) get away with murder should also pause and think again: Oppressing their own populations to appease Uncle Sam will only undermine their own credibility and right to rule, and in time their shameful records will be brought against them when the U.S. sets its sights on their countries.
For the despots of the Third World who have remained in power for so long thanks to a host of repressive laws, death squads, state terrorism and brute force, their days are numbered. Sadly the "liberator" who will free their peoples happens to be the same corrupt, immoral and thuggish superpower that propped them up in the first place: the United States of America, patron and benefactor to the universal league of power-hungry tyrants.
Endnotes:
1) Willem Oltmans, Not Guilty. Uitgeverij Papieren Tijger, Vlugschrift 8, Breda, 2001. pg 26.
2) In time the appalling human costs of the Gulf War was made known to the public at large. By the end of 1999, the American Department of Army Veteran Affairs was forced to admit that 136,031 U.S. army veterans were partially or completely disabled as a result of medical complications incurred while serving in the Gulf (which became known as "Gulf War Syndrome"). Though the American military establishment denied any knowledge or involvement in the matter, it was widely speculated that the medical complications were either caused, or made worse, by the cocktail of drugs given to American soldiers who were serving in the Gulf at the time.
The total number of those disabled amounted to nearly 25 percent of those who served in the war. Another 60,000 veterans had also filed claims against the army which were denied. By then a total of 9,600 veterans had died since the war, also as a result of medical complications. The losses suffered by the ordinary people of Iraq were even higher. By the end of 1999, nearly one million Iraqi civilians had died as a result of sanctions imposed on their country by the United Nations under pressure of the U.S. and U.K.
[Dr. FARISH A. NOOR is a Malaysian political scientist and human rights activist. This article was originally printed in the well-known Malaysian publication MalaysiaKini.com.] Dr. FARISH A. NOOR encourages your comments: korawa@hotmail.com
Post-War Oil Management Should Bolster Rights, Benefit Iraqis
(Washington, D.C., April 18, 2003) – Iraq’s oil must be managed in a
transparent and accountable manner that meets humanitarian needs and
ensures respect for human rights, Human Rights Watch said today.On April 16, U.S. President George W. Bush called on the United Nations
to lift economic sanctions against Iraq. But this would effectively
remove U.N. oversight of Iraq’s oil revenues through the Oil-for-Food
program before a new and transparent regime is in place.In a new backgrounder, Human Rights Watch outlines principles for the
management of Iraq’s oil revenues that would ensure transparency and
accountability in order to avoid the long-term problems of corruption,
poor governance, and human rights violations that plague many
undemocratic, oil-dependent countries.“Iraq’s oil belongs to the Iraqi people. An independent mechanism must
be kept in place to ensure oil revenues are managed transparently and to
meet their humanitarian needs,” said Arvind Ganesan, director of the
Business and Human Rights Program.Human Rights Watch said oil revenues should be directed first to meeting
the humanitarian needs of Iraq’s people. Prior to the war, approximately
60 percent of Iraqi families received their sole sustenance from the
Oil-for-Food program. Because of the conflict and the initial suspension
of the Oil-for-Food program, humanitarian needs will increase
substantially.Human Rights Watch said another pressing issue was who should manage the
oil. Any reversion to foreign control, or the appearance of foreign
control, in the aftermath of U.S.-led military intervention will likely
be a major issue of contention and popular opposition.“There is an inherent conflict-of-interest if the world’s largest oil
importer is seen to be managing the world’s second largest oil
reserves,” said Ganesan. “The only way to deal with that is to allow
functioning Iraqi institutions, or an independent mechanism with Iraqi
participation, to manage the oil resources for the good of the Iraqi
people.”It is not clear whether the Iraq National Oil Company, which has managed
the Iraqi oil sector, is now capable of functioning effectively in this
role. To ensure transparency and independence, Human Rights Watch
recommended that a third party be given this role, for instance the
United Nations Office of Iraq Policy.Regardless of the institution managing Iraq's oil, Human Rights Watch
said that all sources of oil revenue and expenditures should be audited
and those results made public. The designated institution should also
have the authority to tender and manage an open bidding process for the
reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraqi oil infrastructure. In the
case of new exploration and production agreements, the entity
responsible for the open tendering and bidding process should ensure
that the contracts that it awards are comparable to similar agreements
throughout the world and should be made public. The companies that
receive such contracts should publish all payments made to the authority
managing Iraq's oil as a result of their contractual or other agreements
in order for the Iraqi public to be aware of these arrangements.“Post-war Iraq should be a model for other oil-dependent states," said
Ganesan. “Careful management of Iraq’s oil resources would allow for
strengthening institutions that protect human rights and would show that
it is possible to benefit from oil wealth without sacrificing human
rights and democratic freedoms or fueling massive corruption.Background
Iraq has more than 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the
second largest in the world. However, its oil infrastructure is
underdeveloped or deteriorating and will require considerable investment
to realize its full potential as the economic engine of a post-war
economy and a democratic government that respects human rights.The cornerstone of Iraq’s post-Gulf War oil revenue management has been
the U.N.-administered Oil-for-Food Program that was established by the
Security Council in 1995. Although Iraq has the second largest proven
oil reserves in the world, its actual production is currently far below
its potential.The U.N. Security Council modified and extended the mandate of the
Oil-for-Food program for forty-five days on March 28, 2003, but it is
not clear whether the mandate will be renewed, for what period of time,
or what will be the scope of the program’s mandate.