JUSTIFYING WAR
Obviously, the US could not simply invade Iraq, so it began casting
around for a 'legitimate' reason to attack. That search has been one of
increasing desperation as each rationalization has crumbled. First Iraq
was a threat because of alleged links to al Qaeda; then it was proposed
Iraq might supply al Qaeda with weapons; then Iraq's military threat to
its neighbours was raised; then the need to deliver Iraqis from Saddam
Hussein's horrendously inhumane rule; finally there is the question of
compliance with UN weapons inspection.
The USA's justifications for invading Iraq are looking less impressive
by the day. The US's statements that it would invade Iraq unilaterally
without UN support and in defiance of the UN make a total nonsense of
any American claim that it is concerned about the world body's strength
and standing.
The UN weapons inspectors have come up with minimal infringements of the
UN weapons limitations -- the final one being low tech rockets which
exceed the range allowed by about 20 percent. But there is no sign of
the so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD) the US has so
confidently asserted are to be found. Colin Powell named a certain north
Iraqi village as a threat. It was not. He later admitted it was the
wrong village.
'Newsweek' (24/2) has reported that while Bush officials have been
trumpeting the fact that key Iraqi defector, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel,
told the US in 1995 that Iraq had manufactured tonnes of nerve gas and
anthrax (Colin Powell's 5 February presentation to the UN was just one
example) they neglected to mention that Kamel had also told the US that
these weapons had been destroyed.
Parts of the US and particularly the British secret 'evidence' have been
shown to come from a student's masters thesis.
America's expressed concern about the Iraqi people's human rights and
the country's lack of democracy are simply not supported by the USA's
history of intervention in other states nor by its current actions.
Think Guatemala, the Congo, Chile and Nicaragua as examples of a much
larger pool of US actions to tear down legitimate, democratically
elected governments and replace them with war, disruption, starvation,
poverty, corruption, dictatorships, torture, rape and murder for its own
economic ends. The most recent, Afghanistan, is not looking good; in
fact that reinstalled a murderous group of warlords which America had
earlier installed, then deposed, in favour of the now hated Taliban.
Saddam Hussein was just as repressive, corrupt and murderous 15 years
ago when he used chemical weapons, supplied by the US, against the
Kurds. The current US Secretary for Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, so
vehement against Iraq now, was on hand personally to turn aside
condemnation of Iraq and blame Iran. At that time, of course, the US
thought Saddam Hussein was their man -- they were using him against the
perceived threat of Iran's Islamic fundamentalism.
Right now, as 'The Independent' writer, Robert Fisk, has noted, the US's
efforts to buy Algeria's UN vote includes promises of re-arming the
military which has a decade long history of repression, torture, rape
and murder Saddam Hussein himself would envy. It is estimated 200,000
people have died, and countless others been left maimed by the
activities of these monsters. What price the US's humanitarian concerns
for Iraqis? (Of course, the French are also wooing Algeria, their former
north African territory, for all they are worth, but at least they are
not pretending to be driven by humanitarian concerns.)
Indonesia is another nation with a vote and influence as the largest
Muslim nation in the world. Its repressive, murderous military is
regaining strength on the back of the US's so-called anti-terror
campaign and is receiving promises of open and covert support --
including intelligence sharing.
AND VENEZUELA
While the world's attention is focused on Iraq, America is both openly
and covertly supporting the "coup of the rich" in Venezuela, which
grabbed power briefly in April last year before being intimidated by
massive public displays of support by the poor for
democratically-elected President Chavez Frias. The coup leaders continue
to use their control of the private media, much of industry and the ear
of the American Government and its oily intimates to cause disruption
and disturbance.
Venezuela's state-owned oil resources would make rich pickings for
American oil companies and provide the US with an important oil source
in its own backyard.
Many writers have noted the contradiction between America's alleged
desire to establish democracy in Iraq while at the same time, actively
undermining the democratically-elected government in Venezuela. Above
the line, America rushed to recognise the coup last April; more
recently, President Bush has called for "early elections", ignoring the
fact that President Chavez Frias has won three elections and two
referendums and, in any case, early elections would be unconstitutional.
One element of the USA's covert action against Venezuela is the
behaviour of American transnational businesses, which have locked out
employees in support of "national strike" action. Imagine them doing
that in the USA! There is no question that a covert operation is in
process to overturn the legitimate Venezuelan government. Uruguayan
congressman, Jose Nayardi, made it public when he revealed that the Bush
administration had asked for Uruguay's support for Venezuelan white
collar executives and trade union activists "to break down levels of
intransigence within the Chavez Frias administration". The process, he
noted, was a shocking reminder of the CIA's 1973 intervention in Chile
which saw General Pinochet lead his military coup to take over President
Allende's democratically elected government in a bloodbath.
President Chavez Frias is desperately clinging to government, but with
the might of the USA aligned with his opponents, how long can he last? |
