While immoderately awaiting with anticipation for the ovine and bovine count from down under, I thought this point of view from Lebanon might be of interest.
link--
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/28_10_02_c.htm
Opinion
United States has ideological, economic and Israeli-driven motives for militant stance In 1899, imperialist British poet Rudyard Kipling published his famous poem, The White Man's Burden, after the US had defeated Spain and occupied the Philippines. Kipling called on the Americans to shoulder their historical responsibility of "civilizing" the Filipino savages, even if that entailed invading, defeating and annihilating them. It seems the Bush administration believes in the same concept of Western supremacy.
On Sept. 23, National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice declared in a Financial Times interview that the US "is determined to defend democracy in the Muslim world and is leading Muslims on the march to freedom."
In a staff discussion in 1948, then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower described "the campaign of hatred against us (in the Arab world), not by the governments but by the people," and asked: "Why do they hate us?" His National Security Council outlined the basic argument: The US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is "opposing political or economic progress" because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region.
Now, 44 years later, President George W. Bush is asking the same question: "Why do they hate us?"
Today, many ordinary people in the Gulf are asking whether the US has the legal and moral right to change a country's government by military force.
Articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter stress that a member nation of the UN does not have the right to impose its will by force on another. The Security Council made exceptions to this rule, but even these have to fulfill two conditions: Military action can only be initiated if (1) all peaceful means have been exhausted, or (2) the country concerned has committed a major violation of a Security Council resolution.
Article 51 of the UN Charter also empowers member states to use military force in self-defense against armed attack.
The above three articles justified the use of military force to evict the Iraqi invaders from Kuwait in 1991. That was why Gulf and Arab states supported forcibly evicting the Iraqis from Kuwait.
In 2002, however, these conditions are nonexistent. That is why there is no Gulf/Arab/international support for America's war plans.
The administration has produced many excuses to attack Iraq, such as Iraq's violation of 16 different UN resolutions. However, Iraq is not the only country to have violated UN resolutions: Israel, for example, is in violation of 68 of them.
Another excuse is that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and has used them against its neighbors as well as its own people. True. Nevertheless, when Iraq first used WMDs against Iran in December 1983, President Ronald Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld (now Bush's defense secretary) to Baghdad to meet Saddam Hussein and discuss reopening the US Embassy as well as improving economic and commercial ties between the two countries. The following year (March 1984) around the time the UN published a report detailing Iraq's use of poison gas against the Iranians Rumsfeld met with Tareq Aziz.
While Saddam was merrily gassing the Kurds of Halabja, moreover, then-President George H. Bush agreed to extend a $500 million credit line to Iraq for the purchase of US agricultural products. This sum was doubled the following year.
In addition, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter says that 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's WMDs have been destroyed, and the IAEA declared (in 1998) that Iraq's nuclear weapons program had been totally dismantled.
According to many political analysts in the Middle East, there are three main reasons the Bush administration is adamant in calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and attacking Iraq.
1.The first reason is ideology: The Republican administration believes America must project itself as an imperial power that can have its own way. The new US national security strategy unveiled by Bush on Sept. 20 was not a reaction to Sept. 11; it was the culmination of a process started 10 years ago by a group of American right-wing neocons that viewed the world in a similar light to English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (who said national interests could never be reconciled). According to these neoconservatives, US security can never be guaranteed except by overwhelming military superiority and absolute independence of will.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Zalmai Khalilzad (now the US envoy to Afghanis-tan) kick-started the process at the request of then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. Wolfowitz and Khalilzad produced a paper in February 1992 that called for imposing America's will, and securing world peace through the use of American military and economic power. They recommended the Pentagon use force to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iraq and North Korea.
After the Republicans lost the White House to Bill Clinton, a committee was formed to prepare what was called the Project for the New American Century. In September 2000, this committee produced a report that set out a future defense strategy for the US.
After George W. Bush won the presidency, Project authors (Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, and Steve Cambone, Rumsfeld's special assistant, among others) occupied prominent positions in the new administration. It was these people who formulated Bush's new national security strategy a policy based almost word for word on the Project for the New American Century. That was before Sept. 11.
The current administration is carrying out the objectives of the Project in the Middle East. In September 2000, this conservative, right-wing, expansionist cabal defined Iran and Iraq, in addition to North Korea, as being its principal short-term goals. These three countries were subsequently lumped together by Bush in his infamous "axis of evil."
The authors of the Project called for building permanent US military bases in the Middle East, southern Europe, Latin America and Southeast Asia which explains the steps taken by the Bush administration after Sept. 11 to establish an American military presence in Georgia, the Philippines and Colombia.
2.The second reason is economic: The Bush administration is infested with former businessmen (Bush, Cheney and Rice) who are close to American oil companies.
Despite the fact that there have been voices in the administration calling for reducing America's dependence on imported Middle Eastern oil, and relying instead on supplies from Russia, the Caspian Sea, West Africa, and Latin America, it is envisaged that oil from the Middle East will continue to be indispensable for at least 100 years.
In 2001, the US imported 2.7 million barrels of oil per day (bpd) from Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) countries and Iraq fully 30 percent of US oil imports. Saudi Arabia is America's largest foreign oil provider with 1.6 million bpd, more than what the US imports from its immediate neighbors Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. Next comes Iraq with 795,000 bpd, then the other Gulf Arab states with 258,000 bpd.
It is projected that the US will import two-thirds of its oil needs in 2002, half of which will be from the Gulf.
Moreover, Iraq's proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels come second only to Saudi Arabia's 261 billion barrels.
Thus, "regime change" in Iraq and control of its oil resources will (1) ensure a safer source of oil for the United States; (2) allow the US to deal more firmly with other Gulf producers; (3) provide the US with a stranglehold over its competitors (Japan, the EU, and China) that rely on Gulf oil.
3.The third reason is Israel: Invading Iraq would ensure Israeli supremacy over the Middle East by removing one of its principal adversaries. Concentrating on Iraq would also free up Israel's hands to deal with the Palestinians as the Jewish state sees fit.
In April 2002, neoconservatives William Kristol and Donald Kagan called on the American administration to abandon its mediating role in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and concentrate instead on Iraq. The road to real peace and security, they argued, goes straight through Baghdad.
It is in Israel's interests, they continued, to have a friendly regime in Baghdad that would provide it with oil and various commercial opportunities. Iraq might even provide a solution for the problem of the Palestinian refugees, who could be relocated to western Iraq within a unified Hashemite Kingdom.
Mohammed Abdullah Al Roken
is a UAE academic and analyst who
teaches public law at UAE University.
He wrote this commentary for
The Daily Star
c.i/
