-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service Reprinted from the Sept. 26, 2002
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
DISMISSING IRAQ CONCESSION, BUSH READIES OIL-GRAB
By Richard Becker
The Bush administration wants a new war against Iraq. And Bush and
company want the people of the U.S. and the world to believe it's
because of a "grave threat" posed by Iraq's "weapons of mass
destruction."
That phony pretext for war went up in smoke on Sept. 17.
On Sept. 16, Iraq's government sent an official letter to United
Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan stating that Iraq would allow UN
weapons inspectors to return without conditions, "to prove that Iraq
has no weapons of mass destruction."
But Washington won't take "yes" for an answer.
The White House's predictably arrogant response was to denounce Iraq's
offer for the unconditional return of the inspectors. For those who
have believed that Iraq's weapons were the real issue, this
denunciation might have seemed somewhat surprising.
What Washington's reaction shows is that Iraq's purported weaponry is
not the issue at all. If it were, the Bush administration would have
welcomed Iraq's statement.
Instead, the White House, in its official statement, demanded "a new,
effective UN Security Council resolution that will actually deal with
the threat Saddam Hussein poses to the Iraqi people, to the region,
and to the world. ...
"This is not a matter of inspections," the Sept. 17 White House
statement continued. "It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other
Security Council resolution. This is a tactical step by Iraq in hopes
of avoiding strong UN Security Council action. As such, it is a tactic
that will fail. It is time for the Security Council to act."
The White House statement is just more disinformation and propaganda.
Iraq, a country severely weakened by 12 years of war and blockade,
poses no threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. Iraq
has nothing to match up with the Pentagon's vast array of high-tech
and nuclear weaponry.
All of the surrounding governments have spoken out in opposition to a
new U.S. war--an unlikely position if they believed themselves
threatened by Iraq.
U.S. AIMS TO START A WAR
Its imperial arrogance aside, the only real content of the U.S.
statement is that it makes clear that Washington is vastly expanding
its demands on Iraq.
The Bush administration's plan for a new UN Security Council
resolution would be to impose conditions on Iraq that no sovereign
state could accept. One much-discussed idea is so- called "muscular
inspection," i.e., sending in up to 50,000 heavily armed U.S. and
British forces to do the "inspecting."
The objective of such a resolution would not be to resume weapons
inspections, but instead to start a war.
The Bush plan is to make the conditions so intrusive and onerous that
Iraq would have only two choices: Surrender its sovereignty as an
independent state or refuse to accept the resolution. Washington would
then try to make it appear that Iraq itself was responsible for the
war.
Such a Security Council resolution would be like the Rambouillet
accord, the U.S./NATO ultimatum that preceded the Yugoslavia war.
In Rambouillet, France, in February 1999, then-Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright proposed a "peace agreement" to the Yugoslav
government that called for the U.S. and NATO to have free and complete
access to all of Yugoslavia. In other words, NATO and U.S. troops
would have been authorized to occupy Yugoslavia immediately.
Albright told Yugoslavia that Rambouillet was a take-it-or- leave-it
deal--"no negotiations." When the Yugoslav federal parliament voted to
accept all of the Rambouillet accord except for the U.S./NATO
occupation, the bombing began.
A similar scenario appears to be in the making in relation to Iraq.
Hours after the release of the White House statement, Treasury
Secretary Paul O'Neill told CNBC: "Saddam Hussein has got to go,
there's got to be a regime change."
MANDELA CONDEMNS WHITE HOUSE
The UN weapons inspectors left Iraq on Dec. 15, 1998, at the orders of
the Clinton administration. The following day, the U.S. and Britain
began an intensive bombing campaign labeled "Operation Desert Fox"
against Iraqi cities, towns and military sites.
A few weeks later it was revealed that the weapons inspectors had been
acting as spies, providing the Pentagon with information used for
targeting Iraqi facilities and personnel in Desert Fox.
Given the constant U.S./British bombing raids on Iraq since the end of
the Gulf War in 1991, and the threat of a new all- out attack, it is
not hard to see why Iraq has been opposed to the return of the UN
inspectors/spies.
Contrary to the impression conveyed by the corporate media here, most
of the world is strongly opposed to a new U.S. war against Iraq. Few
have spoken out more strongly that former South African president and
liberation fighter Nelson Mandela.
On Sept. 12, Mandela said in an interview that "the attitude of the
United States of America is a threat to world peace." Mandela said the
decision to attack Iraq was "clearly ... a desire to please the arms
and oil industries in the United States of America."
Mandela, citing former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter, said it was
known that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and that Israel
possessed such weapons, but no one was saying anything about it.
Mandela's response to the White House statement of Sept. 17 was quoted
by Reuters news service: "We must condemn this because they think they
are the only power in the world. They are not and they are following a
dangerous policy.
"What right has [Bush] to come in to say that offer is not genuine? We
must condemn that very strongly," Mandela said.
"That is why I criticize most leaders all over the world of keeping
quiet when one country wants to bully the whole world."
The South African government said it hoped that Iraq's announcement
"should lead to the lifting of sanctions."
Socialist Cuba spoke out strongly against a new war through its
Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque. Addressing the UN General
Assembly on Sept. 14, Perez Roque said in part:
"A new war against Iraq seems inevitable, an escalation of the
situation of permanent aggression that this people has endured during
the last 10 years. 'Preventive war' is talked of now, in violation of
the spirit and letter of the Charter of the United Nations. Cuba
proclaims here that it is opposed any new military action against
Iraq."
REAL AIMS OF NEW U.S. WAR
The real aims of Washington's war drive have nothing to do with
weapons of mass destruction or human rights violations, and everything
to do with control of the world's oil supply. The U.S. rulers have
wanted to take control of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the entire Gulf
region, which holds two- thirds of global petroleum reserves, for more
than six decades.
Control of world oil resources not only means unimaginable profits, it
is also a key factor in the U.S. drive for unchallenged global
domination.
An article in the Sept. 15 Washington Post, entitled, "In Iraqi War
Scenario, Oil is Key Issue," points to what U.S. oil companies hope to
gain.
"A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a
bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling
oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and
reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials
and leaders of the Iraqi opposition."
Iraq has more than 10 percent of the world's proven oil reserves--112
billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia.
The Post article makes it clear that the aim of a new war will be the
recolonization of Iraq. A new puppet regime in Baghdad would be
ordered to de-nationalize Iraq's oil and turn it over to U.S.
capitalist oil companies.
Ahmed Chalabi, the notoriously corrupt exile leader of the CIA-funded
"Iraqi National Congress" who is working to burnish his credentials in
Washington as a possible future puppet ruler, told the Post that he
"favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil
fields.
"American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," said Chalabi.
No statement could better express the real reason the Bush
administration is so anxious to get on with the invasion.
- END -
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011; via e-mail: [log in to unmask]
*****
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
