Earl Bartley, Contributor
"CIVILISATION belongs to those who have it" is a remark from Chancellor William's authoritative study The Destruction of Black Civilization.
The pathos and appropriateness of that remark came to mind in contemplating the invasion and occupation of Iraq the country of the first civilisation, by the latest lead runner carrying the baton of human
civilisation.
The arrogant, rude, and threatening behaviour of the United States however, and, in some ways, its base motives and purposes, makes you wonder whether civilisation does in fact lead to human refinement and emotional sensitivity.
The U.S. charges that Saddam Hussein is a barbarous thug, manufacturing and stockpiling prohibited chemical and germ warfare agents and other weapons of mass destruction. That he has brutalised and murdered his own people, even using chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds.
The Bush Administration also alleges that Saddam Hussein supports terrorist groups including al-Qaeda.
Despite its drumbeat, the U.S., does not offer much persuasive proof of these allegations. But mindful of the justifiable security concerns following the 9/11 incident, the United Nations (UN) shows a great deal of willingness to accommodate the U.S., unanimously passing Resolution 1441 which demands that Saddam Hussein disarm and allow UN inspections or "face serious consequences." Considering the gravity of the charges, but the dubious nature of U.S. evidence, Res. 1441 seemed a reasonable and purposive
compromise.
But even as the UN was trying to carry out its inspection, the U.S. was massing troops on the Iraqi-Kuwait border, demanding that Iraq "proves its innocence;" and charging that Iraq is stalling.
It appears that the U.S. simply wanted the UN to rubber-stamp its invasion plans. When the UN refused to do so, maintaining that war was not necessary, and inspectors need more time, Mr. Bush, showing that "regime change," not disarmament, is his ultimate aim wheels-off to launch the war he simply had to have.
Again, given the rudeness, the threats, the bribery, the disregard for law and procedures; and of the democratic will who is the barbarian at the gate?
MOTIVES
The U.S. dogmatically asserts its rights to ensuring its security, and claims to have the noble motives of wanting to rid the world of a murderous thug threatening his neighbours with nasty and dangerous weapons.
But as many have argued, America's position is basically hypocritical, given the huge stockpiles of atomic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction that she has in her possession which, as her behaviour illustrates, are often used to coerce neighbours and secure U.S. interests in the world.
Ultimately, therefore, the U.S. argument to Saddam is 'I have more and bigger weapons of mass destruction than you, and I will not allow you to threaten me with your little foolish ones'.
That is an argument of the big, bad bully, not one of principle; and as many have pointed out, several of America's motives are anything but noble.
Mr. Bush's immediate motive, it seems, is to boost his image, poll numbers, and re-election chances by appearing as the decisive and resolute Commander-in -Chief defending America's security and interests, and beating-up on a weakened Third World country. This is thought to be a relatively costless way to achieve that image boost.
The U.S.'s more fundamental objective as we all know, is oil. Oil for the U.S. economy, whose appetite for oil is expected to grow from 20 million barrels per day to 26 million per day in 15 years; and contracts for Mr. Bush's backscratching friends in the energy industry and in his administration such as Vice-President Dick Cheney and Under-Secretary of State, Richard Pearle who seem to have conflict of interest ties with energy sector companies that would be decried were it to occur in a Third World country.
CONSEQUENCES
Absolutely the worst manifestation of the Bush Administration's narrow-minded arrogance is its seeming disregard of how a war with Iraq will affect the economic and political interests of other countries.
In terms of the economic effects, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that even a short war could result in the loss of $800 billion in world economic growth. Further, the additional costs of the war coming on top of the slow-down in the U.S. economy and its long-running fiscal and current account deficits (amounting to US$300 billion and US$400 billion, respectively) are bound to further destabilise the world economy, by sucking-up investible funds from developing and developed countries, raising interest rates in the former and prolonging stagnation in the latter.
Economies like Jamaica, which are locked into the U.S. economy can expect a fall-off in tourism earnings, remittances, bauxite, and other export earnings.
The political consequences of the invasion however are probably more far-reaching than the economic ones. Within Iraq, many of the pre-war fears regarding a fragmentation of Iraq into Kurdish, Shiites and Sunni nations seems more possible. Despite vociferous opposition from the U.S., Turkish forces have crossed their shared northern border into Iraq fearful that the Iraqi Kurds, emboldened by the loosening of controls from Baghdad, might declare their independence and induce unrest among Kurds in Turkey.
The Shiites with religious ties to Iran are being encouraged by coalition forces to rebel against Saddam Hussein's Government, but their final allegiance could very well be turned to Iran rather than any regime the coalition might install in Baghdad.
Even greater destabilising effects could occur regionally from a prolonged U.S. presence in Iraq. It is well-known that Syria, Iran and Russia would be very uneasy with a prolonged U.S. presence in Iraq, and are likely to increase their military expenditure, and militarisation of the area.
Globally, an enhanced U.S. presence in Iraq which would increase her leverage and control over Middle-East oil is likely to be resented by Germany and France, especially if a vindictive U.S. cancels oil concessions that these countries had obtained from the Saddam Hussein regime. In terms of the functioning of the multi-lateral system, it is undoubted that the coalition invasion without the approval of the United Nations has weakened the authority and prestige of that body, and set a very poor precedent that other counties are likely to follow.
Moreover, apart from Germany and Japan which had industrial economies before WW II, the U.S. has not had much success in re-building countries she has occupied or come to have great influence in.
In developing countries like the Philippines, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haiti, which the U.S. occupied for decades, U.S. investments tended to go into raw material extraction or primary production, and in services such as tourism and entertainment.
United States influence in a country often also comes with a certain amount of sleaze such as gambling and prostitution, and other fast-buck activities of the kind that inflamed the mullahs in Iran and led to the overthrow of the Shah, and the expulsion of the U.S. from Iran in 1979.
What will be interesting is the political arrangements the U.S. puts in place in a post-Saddam Iraq.
If she installs a puppet Government or one that is stigmatised as such, the Ba'ath Party will likely continue to be a great influence in Iraqi politics, possibly as a guerilla group. If the U.S. tries to set up bases in Iraq, expect fireworks in a few years between the U.S. and Iran or Syria, as it is well-known that Iran has nuclear weapon ambitions that the U.S. might try to repress.
Possibly, the least destabilising transitional and political arrangement for a post-Saddam Iraq would be for the Security Council to appoint a transitional Government of Iraqis with multiparty elections in two years. Coalition forces would secure the country during the period, set up a new police and military force, then leave.
LESSONS
As disappointing as U.S. behaviour has been, countries cannot turn their backs on globalisation.
However, the problems point to the need for countries to strengthen their food sufficiency; and regional cooperation; and diversify their trade links to prevent over-dependence on any one market.
Also, it is very important that nations continue their support of the UN. It is the main consultative forum available and even if the U.S. and other great powers bypass it from time to time, the UN must continue to do its important work and continue to serve as a discussion forum where sense might one day prevail.
One of the more heartening outcomes of the Iraqi problem is the growth and assertion of world public opinion. The 'global citizen' has finally stepped forward. He is well-informed, committed, and desirous of peace in the world.
Already world public opinion has been very influential in forcing the parties to continue with diplomacy longer than some would have liked; it has also caused combatants to be careful about civilian casualties, not to mention the pressures it is exerting to end the conflict quickly. The emergence of world public opinion could be the counterweight that is needed to balance U.S. power.
As for Mr. Bush, he may yet come to learn that a decisive war is more costly than a troubled peace.
Earl M. Bartley can be contacted at adapapa@cwjamaica.com
