Old for New:
Lies of the UN, doing the
bidding of America & Britian.
The Reality on the Ground!
Every now and then the manufacturers of
products such as washing powder and toothpaste proclaim
that they have produced a new formula. We have become
used to being bombarded with words such as, “bigger
and better”, “fresher and cleaner”,
even “new - traditional” and of course “new
and improved”. However most of us still remain
sceptical as to whether the new products really do wash
whiter or really do taste minty-er and fresher. In actuality
we have very little choice in the matter. New has come
to mean merely more of the same. So does the Head-n-Shoulders
approach to politics produce the same sentiment? Is
there really a bigger and better, new and improved Iraq
in the offing?
As America replaces one ruler with another (Retired
General Jay Garner for Saddam) and yet another (L. Paul
Bremer III for Garner) all within the space of a few
weeks (days in fact), it is now clear that there will
be no Iraqi leadership for many months if not years.
US and British plans for re-building Iraq this past
week descended into chaos as officials admitted they
had indefinitely scrapped plans for a transitional government.
At the same time that the British were trumpeting the
“handover” of a few administrative chores
to a civil authority in Umm Qasr it became clear that
there would be no national assembly, no transitional
government and no Iraqi leadership either directly imposed
from the exiles cueing up for the job, or any other
Iraqi. Instead they announced that US and British diplomats
would remain in charge for an “undisclosed period”.
All the while the bill for reconstruction, establishing
basic services and civil order is ballooning. Recent
figures suggest a figure of $41bn is needed over the
next 2 years to get the “shattered nation on its
feet again”, and some are predicting that figure
will double in the next 10 years. Aid agencies are forecasting
the need for $250bn over the next 10 years. Then there
is the small matter of some $400bn in outstanding reparations
due from the last war, and outstanding loans and agreements
from Saddam’s time. Little wonder that the US/UK
were keen to pass their latest resolution through the
United Nations which in turn scrapped the Oil for food
programme (under UN supervision), ended the UN sanctions
(opening up a flood of lucrative contracts) and put
the control of the oil fully under US/UK control. This
resolution de-facto establishes the legitimacy of all
that the occupiers have done and plan to do. UN conventions
forbid the placing of oil revenues into the hands of
an occupying power, yet this seems to count for little.
We are told that the delay in repatriating many thousands
of US troops back to the US is because of the still
“bad” security situation in much of Iraq,
the delays are pending a “high-level review of
security in Baghdad and elsewhere in the country”.
This ongoing inability to establish order provides a
convenient cover for delays in providing humanitarian
aid (which is an obligation on the occupying forces)
and for the continued management of Iraq by the occupiers.
These tactics are failing to fool anyone and there is
growing local opposition to the occupation forces. The
fact that the US can change tacks at whim in terms of
the rulers they use, contradicts the weak argument that
it will take months or years for the people to establish
a ruler. The reality of course is that it will take
the occupiers that time to establish a “suitable”
ruler and infrastructure for their purposes.
The persistent denial of the war objectives being to
steal the oil of Iraq has been amended slightly with
the colonisation of Iraq. The world community is being
fed with a simplistic argument about the urgency of
establishing order and infrastructure while the occupiers
plan for a long term occupation in which the oil will
be sold on the world markets at rock bottom prices and
the proceeds will be used to “help” the
Iraqis rebuild their country at sky-rocket prices.
As has already been seen with the establishing of a
lucrative port contract for Dick Cheney’s Halliburton
group there is little evidence of competitive tendering
or the agreement of the “occupied” peoples
to any of these contracts.
The new global judge, jury and executioner now has
the cheque book in her grasp as well.
23 Rabee Al-Awwal 1424 Hijri
24 May 2003 Comment: