U.S. war strategy menaces Iraq
Behind Bush's maneuver at the UN
By Brian Becker
It is essential for progressive people, and especially the
working class whose sons and daughters constitute the majority
of the Pentagon military forces, to understand the real
politics behind a recent U.S. initiative at the United Nations
regarding economic sanctions against Iraq.
The UN Security Council voted unanimously May 13 to
reorganize the economic sanctions on Iraq.
The major media in the United States reported that the new
sanctions would be "smarter" because they will supposedly
permit Iraq to import many previously banned goods that are
essential for the well-being of Iraqi civilians.
After the UN vote, Bush administration officials raced to
the microphones to declare that if civilians continue to suffer
they will have only Saddam Hussein to blame. They asserted that
the new sanctions only prohibit Iraq from receiving military
goods or "dual use" products--goods that could potentially be
used for either civilian or military purposes.
Part of a war strategy
Does the UN decision usher in a new era of "smarter" and
more humane economic sanctions? Having lost more than 1 million
people to disease and malnutrition as a result of 12 years of
virtually airtight sanctions, won't the new sanctions policy
relieve some of the suffering of Iraqi civilians?
And as a consequence, shouldn't the vote be considered a
step forward? Isn't any "humanitarian" reform of the sanctions
better than nothing?
This, unfortunately, has been the position of some groups
and leaders in the anti-sanctions movement.
The May 13 UN vote was not humanitarian at all. It is
actually part of a fairly complicated war strategy by the Bush
administration.
The real reason the United States initiated the new
sanctions with a "human face" was to prevent the actual
complete lifting of sanctions at the very moment the Bush
administration is preparing for all-out war on Iraq.
If sanctions were entirely lifted--which is the official
position of almost all countries--it would mean an end to the
so-called Oil for Food Program. This is a UN program that is
dominated by the United States.
The program allows the United States, rather than the Iraqi
government, to exercise strategic control over Iraqi oil
revenues. The Bush administration considers this program a
central element in its favor as it prepares for war against
Iraq.
The OFP purports to be a humanitarian enterprise. The Iraqi
government agreed to it in 1996 after having rejected it for
several years. The OFP permitted Iraq to resume selling oil for
the first time since August 1990. But the revenues from all its
oil contracts were placed under the control of the UN Security
Council.
Of course, this scheme was a thinly veiled form of looting
by the U.S. and British governments, the Kuwaiti monarchy and
many of the biggest Western corporations.
Between January 1997 and 2000, Iraq sold $40 billion worth
of oil. All this money was deposited into an account controlled
by the UN. Only $9.6 billion, less than 25 percent of the
revenue, was distributed to Iraq to purchase food and
medicine.
The rest went to the Kuwaiti monarchy and other "victims" of
the 1991 war. Last year, for example, $200 million of OFP funds
was given to ExxonMobil. The corporation was listed among the
"victims" of Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
Worse still, the Oil for Food Program constituted a major
setback for Iraqi sovereignty and independence. The transfer of
its oil revenues to de facto U.S. control provides the
imperialists with strategic leverage at the core of Iraq's
economy.
The Iraqi government resisted the Oil for Food Program for
several years. U.S. conservatives and liberals alike routinely
pilloried Saddam Hussein for rejecting this form of
"humanitarian aid." The Iraqis only relented after sanctions
had brought the economy to its knees.
By 1996, economic sanctions had plunged Iraq's relatively
affluent society into stupefying poverty. In April 1998 UNICEF
reported, "The increase in mortality reported in public
hospitals for children under five years of age (an excess of
some 40,000 deaths yearly compared with 1989) is mainly due to
diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition."
Iraq was well aware that the imperialist powers were
unlikely to ever relinquish control over its oil resources once
it accepted the OFP, but it had little choice given the raging
sanctions-induced genocide of 1991-1996.
The May 13 vote for "humane" sanctions is, plainly put, the
only available method to maintain U.S./UN economic sanctions
and, as a consequence, the Oil for Food Program.
Will there be additional civilian goods available to the
Iraqi population? That is a possibility. But the new UN
resolution also contains a 332-page listing of all the
commodities that could be still banned as "dual use" products.
In the past this criterion has led to banning ambulances,
chlorine, piping, pumps and filtration equipment used in water
purification, x-ray machines, all computers, etc.
Even if it turns out that Iraq is able to import more goods,
however, that is not the decisive issue for the Bush
administration. The Bush administration and the Pentagon have
made it clear that they are preparing to massively bomb Iraq
and invade the country with ground troops.
No war for Big Oil
Maintaining the Oil for Food Program is part of the Bush war
strategy. If Iraq had sovereign control over its own oil it
would undoubtedly use the funds derived from the sales to
rebuild its economy and infrastructure and to prepare to defend
itself against the Bush administration's planned
aggression.
In this context, the May 13 UN vote is not a humanitarian
step forward. It actually assists the U.S. war effort against
Iraq. Even the countries that succumbed to U.S.
pressure--including threats, no doubt--and voted for the
resolution essentially denounced the move.
The Russian and Syrian ambassadors, for instance, called for
the full lifting of the sanctions--immediately after they voted
for the U.S.-backed resolution.
If the United States has its way, in the coming months
thousands of its soldiers will be sent to kill and be killed to
fulfill imperialist ambitions to replace the Iraqi government
with a puppet regime.
It is not about "weapons of mass destruction" or getting a
more democratic government in Baghdad.
It will be a dirty war for oil. A war for ExxonMobil,
Texaco, Citibank, Chase and the corporate capitalists who are
hell-bent on returning Iraq to its former colonial status.
Reprinted from the May 30, 2002, issue of
Workers World newspaper
This article is copyright under a Creative
Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
HOME
:: U.S. NEWS ::
WORLD NEWS ::
EDITORIALS ::
SUBSCRIBE ::
DONATE
Email
this article
Printable
page