The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
In most countries people don't even entertain the
'democracy' theory. They see it as a nice pretext.
Here is an article by Uri Avnery. What he has in mind is
the chessboard theory - it is meant to have a domino effect.
What will the world be in a 100 years? Planet USA... or?
Elga Sutter
--------------Fwd--------------
http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/uavnery30.htm
The smell of war
By Uri Avnery[1]*
8 February 2003
This is not a war about terrorism.
This is not a war about weapons of mass destruction.
This is not a war about democracy in Iraq.
This is a war about something else.
As for terrorism: Saddam Hussein is a cruel dictator, but
the idea that he might be connected with Osama bin Laden
is ridiculous. Saddam heads the Iraqi section of al-Baath,
a very secular party. Bin Laden is an Islamic
fundamentalist, and al-Qaida aims at the destruction of
all secular regimes in our region. The official who
invented this particular lie is either an ignoramus or a
cynic who believes that one can fool all the people at
least some of the time.
As for weapons of mass destruction: the USA supported
Saddam when he used deadly poison gas against the Iranians
(and their Kurdish allies in Iraq). At the time, America
was interested in stopping the Iranians. Today there are
chemical and biological weapons in most of the countries
of this region, including Egypt, Syria and Israel, and one
of them has nuclear arms.
As for democracy: Americans don't give a damn. Some of
their best friends in the Islamic world are dictators,
some more, some less cruel then Saddam. As the old
American adage goes: "He is a son-of-a-bitch, but he is
our son-of-a-bitch."
If so, what is the war about? In one word: oil.
There is a strong smell of oil in the air. Without
smelling it, one cannot understand what is going on. But
once one grasps what it is all about, the actions of Bush
& Co., while cynical and hypocritical, are utterly
logical.
These, then, are the American war aims: * To take over the
immense oil reserves of Iraq, among the world's biggest.
* To ensure American control of the nearby huge Caspian
Sea oil reserves
* To reinforce indirect American control of the oil in all
the Gulf states, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran.
Control of most of the worlds oil reserves will free the
Americans, at long last, from the whims of the oil market.
Their hand, and theirs alone, will be on the tab. They,
and they alone, will fix the prices of oil all over the
world. If they will want prices to rise, they will rise.
If they will want them to go down, they will go down. With
one single movement of the hand, they will be able to deal
a crushing blow to the economies of Germany, France and
Japan. No country in the world will be able to stand up to
them in any matter. No wonder that Germany and France
oppose the war. It is directed against them.
It follows that the Americans do not intend to enter Iraq,
establish democracy and leave. The very idea is
ridiculous.
The US enters Iraq in order to stay there, for years and
decades. Its physical presence in the Arab and Muslim
world will create a new geopolitical reality.
Of course, this is not the first time that a great empire
uses its military power to promote its economic dominance.
History is full of examples. Indeed, one could say that
all of history is an example. But there has never been a
superpower like the US, with no rival left, using its
immense military might in order to ensure its domination
of the world economy for generations to come.
>From this point of view, the coming war on Iraq - a
"small" war, militarily - will have historic significance.
For sure, Bush will try to set up some native Iraqi
government, in order to disguise and lend some legitimacy
to the American occupation. There are any number of
volunteers, ready to serve as Quislings. Then again, Bush
may prefer some new Saddam Hussein, a dictator appointed
by them.
But war is war. War usually starts with a well-prepared
plan, but even the "best" plan, backed by the mightiest
military power, can go awry. The Arab masses may rise
against their American-supported, corrupt, lackadaisical
governments. The Turks may perpetrate a massacre in the
north of Iraq in order to break the Kurds once and for
all, and no one can know how this will end. The holy
places of the Shi'ites in the south of Iraq, next to Iran,
may cause trouble.
How will this affect Israel? Or, to use the old phrase:
"Is it good for the Jews?"
The relations between Bush and Sharon are almost
symbiotic. In Sharon's view, the massive presence of the
US in our region strengthens Israel and will enable him to
implement his hidden agenda.
But, as one says in Hebrew, "the fat tail of the sheep has
a thorn in it". The permanent occupation of Iraq turns the
US into a kind of "Arab" power, with a vital interest in
the stability and tranquility of the region. It will want
to prevent by all means chaos in the Arab countries -
before, during and after the war.
Sharon and his generals are, on the contrary, interested
in as much chaos as possible, in order to use it to
"transfer" millions of Palestinians to the other side of
the Jordan. There is a definite conflict of interest
between Bush as Sharon.
Sharon, an extremist but prudent person, knows that he
must not under any circumstances infuriate Bush. He will
act cautiously. He has lots and lots of patience and lots
and lots of stubbornness. He will try to obtain from Bush
permission to transfer (at least some) Palestinians, to
murder Arafat ("If Saddam, why not Arafat?) and to break
the Palestinian people.
Bush, on the other hand, will want Israel to stay quiet,
very quiet. At this time, he may use the Israel threat in
order to ensure that the Arabs, too, will stay quiet, very
quiet. He will threaten the Arab rulers, who are mortally
afraid of an uprising of their peoples, that if they do
not behave, he will let Sharon off the leash.
Is all this good for Israel? From the economic, social and
security points of view, the answer is negative. We are
entering an era of adventurism, with adventurer No. 1 at
the helm of our state. The earth will shake in our region,
and nobody can foresee the dangers approaching us. Only
one thing is certain: this will not bring peace.
I do not belong to those who can speak about war with
equanimity. I have seen war, I know its face. I see the
thousands who will be killed, the tens of thousands that
will be wounded and maimed, the hundreds of thousands that
will become refugees, the ruined families, the sea of
tears and human suffering.
I join the millions all over the world who say NO.
*[4] Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace
activist.
--------------Original Message--------------
From: "Nathaniel Hurd" <nathaniel_hurd@hotmail.com>
Subject: [casi] State Dept. - Democracy Domino Theory Not
Credible (LA Times)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:47:38 -0500
Source: Greg Miller, "Democracy Domino Theory 'Not
Credible' ", Los Angeles Times, 14 March 2003,
[10]
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/world/la-fg-domino14mar14,1,79186
53.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Diraq
[begin]
WASHINGTON -- A classified State Department report expresses doubt
that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of
democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in
trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence
officials familiar with the document.
The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush
administration over the so-called democratic domino theory, one of
the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq.
[....]
Times staff writer Sonni Efron contributed to this report.
[end]
Nathaniel Hurd
NGO Consultant on United Nations' Iraq policy
Tel. (Mobile): 917-407-3389
Fax: 718-504-4224
Residential/Mailing Address:
90 7th Ave.
Apt. #6
Brooklyn, NY 11217
_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk