US long road to Iraq (I)
mark eda
Several months after the formal declaration of the end of the war in Iraq
it is still difficult to believe that the invasion was intended to usher in
peace in the Middle East.
It has been proven that the American President George W. Bush and his British
counterpart, Mr. Tony Blair, lied to their countrymen and the world that Iraq
had banned weapons. As if this was not shameful enough, George Bush quickly
changed focus as he told the world that he invaded Iraq in order to remove
Saddam Hussein, whose autocratic rule stifled democracy under extreme tyranny.
The aides of George Bush Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld and the Secretary
of State, Collin Powell equally quickly changed the talk about the existence
of banned weapons to the desire to establish democracy and humanitarian government
in Iraq.
The switch from the effort to locate banned weapons to the need to introduce
democratic governance was so sudden that the thought of that action clearly
bordered on unquestionable immorality. The coalition forces led by America
suffered untold frustration in the days after the war was declared over. The
need to pull out of Iraq became a logical follow-up but it had to be done
under a diplomatic hype that could save the Americans from a lost of face.
This heralded the talk about hand-over of sovereignty to the Iraqis. The United
Nations (UN) that had been disregarded when it opposed the invasion was now
to be cajoled into accepting the continued stay of the Americans after they
were supposed to have disengaged from Iraq. For the United Nations endorsement
of the continued stay of US forces for the purpose of providing security till
elections are held next year, its Secretary General Koffi Anan was targeted.
Today the terrorist network, al-quaeda, has placed a price tag of several
millions of US dollars on the head of Koffi Anan. America did not only disregard
UN, but other super powers such as Russia, France and Germany. It took the
maturity of these countries to avert a major diplomatic, disengagement and
face-off with America. World peace could have been threatened, if the countries
insisted with possible follow-up reaction.
The US agenda, in the prosecution of the world equally threw moralty to the
wind. Iraqi prisoners in Baghdad were treated unconventionally. Media outings
have indicted the American Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, who was
said to have given blanket directives which led to the treatment of Prisoners
of Wars (POWs) in a manner that negated the provisions of Geneva Convention.
The award of contracts for rebuilding of Iraq was given to predominantly US
companies. Other countries in the main only secured secondary contracts. Only
a few days ago, US Democratic presidential candidate, Mr. John Kerry, told
Americans that if voted the President of US, he will stop sacrificing the
lives of young American soldiers in trying to seek the oil of the Middle East.
In consequence, the presidential candidate acknowledged that George Bush invaded
Iraq to secure Iraqi petroleum and other economic advantages and not to introduce
democratic rule in the area.
To be continued.
�Eda wrote in from Sapele.
Insurgency and hostaging re phenomena that developed with the refusal of US
forces to leave Iraq. Recall that the Americn and South Korean abductors,
demanded the withdrawal of US forces in Iraq and those of South Korea. Again
the abductors of two Bulgarians have also demanded the withdrawal of the US
from Iraq. It can thus be seen that the continued stay of US in Iraq is the
real cause of the continued hostilities in the region. Similarly, the condition
for the release of Philipino hostage is that Philipines should withdrawal
its forces from Iraq.
The Iraqis may be happy that Saddam Hussein has been removed but certainly
not that the Americans have taken the commanding heights of their economy
which is petroleum and are staying back to exercise indirect control of their
economy. It is certain at this point that the Americans lobbied the UN to
stay back and supervise the economic advantages they arrogated to themselves
in Iraq. Introduction of Western or US type of democratic governance is certainly
not why the Americans have refused to leave Iraq. Iraqi has the second largest
oil reserve in the Middle East. It thus becomes strategic to the Americans.
When the Americans started the war, they promised jobs, peace, electricity,
education and other social amenities. Today these promises remain elusive.
Eighty-five years ago, the British sought the mandate of the League of Nations
to establish a government in Iraq. British high-handedness produced the Battist
Party that produced Saddam Hussein. The forces of terror and restiveness had
been born. Even when the British left in 1920, after using chemical reagents
against the Kurds, the Iraqis had sharpened their fight back instincts. Peace
is absolutely desirable in Iraq. Any action taken under US supevision which
is intended to bring peace in Iraq may not succeed. Today the Americans say
that they have handed back sovereignty to the Iraqis. The Iraqis have not
stop fighting. Not even the parading of Saddam Hussein in Iraqi court will
make the Iraqis to stop fighting the Americans. The Americans must remember
that between 1921 and 1958 when the Battist Party emerged, Iraq has been ruled
by 38 governments/administrations.
This underscores the reactionary traits of the Iraqis and it constitutes a
basic problem. Meantime there is no reason for the Iraqis to trust that the
Americans will be anything different from the British before them. Already
they have started fighting the transitional government who gave US forces
intelligence information with which they raided and killed about 10 Iraqi
children and women in Fdallujah a few days ago. Neighbouring countries, particularly
Iran and Syria are very apprehensive of the Americans, remaining next door.
The Americans continue to gag the world. They refused to go to Liberia, Rwanda,
Sudan and Sierra Leone. These are countries that don�t have oil petroleum.
Today they have stubbornly refused to leave Iraq. In Nigeria, the skirmishes
of Niger Delta youths is big war to Americans. The are coming. Perhaps, the
rich off-shore petroleum deposits of the Sao Tome and Principe Islands will
be an added impetus to establish a US base in the West Coast of Africa. That
has been thinking in Iraq and elsewhere.
Mark Eda wrote in from Sapele.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
