Iraq - the saviour of the world?

by

Stuart Yates

See in your mind's eye a young Iraqi child, undernourished, without adequate food, sanitation, clean water, medicines. In 1991, the year of the Gulf War, you would see 1.2 million under-nourished Iraqis. In 1998, you would see 3 million. Between 1990 and 2000, mortality rates of the under-fives in Iraq rose 160%, of the under-ones, 162% (taken from U.N. statistics). The official Western line is that Saddam Hussein does not care for his people, uses them cynically for his own ends. Received wisdom says that he spends money on weapons of mass destruction at the expense of his own people, that this causes undernourishment, not sanctions.

Take a look at some other figures, also taken from U.N. statistics. Between 1990 and 2000, the literacy rate for 15-24 year old men in Iraq rose some 9%. Astonishingly, the literacy rate for young women in the same period rose 16%. So we are asked to believe that in Iraq, where apparently nothing happens without Saddam's approval, people are left to starve whilst their reading and writing skills are being steadily improved. Take your pick: either Saddam Hussein does not have absolute control or he is choosing to spend resources on raising the level of women's education. If he does not have absolute control this shoots down the megalomaniac bogeyman concept. If he is doing the latter he is electing to benefit women at the expense of increasing his capability in the 'weapons of mass destruction' arena. Neither of these alternatives are consistent with the personal demonisation of Saddam. Unless you believe that young women are being educated in order for them to develop weapons of mass destruction.

We have to move away from absolutist "We are right and they are wrong" statements and outlook. Saddam is not a leader I would choose or under whose authority I would wish to live. Then again, I would not choose to live under the authority of George W Bush. Still, Bush would be preferable - he might be back in the sticks in a few years. Neither can claim to be absolutely right and neither is absolutely wrong. (For instance, Saddam kills his own people, Bush kills the people of other countries - which is more right, which is more wrong?) Why was Saddam not ousted in the Gulf War? Because George W's daddy thought he had learned his lesson and would become a compliant ally (stooge) of the U.S., providing a conveniently cheap source of oil and an alternative to an increasingly out of favour Saudi Arabia. Saddam, perhaps foolishly, is stubborn, maybe is too proud. In any case, he is not willing to respond to America's beck and call. Unlike some leaders much nearer home.

One issue which seems rarely to be discussed is the significance of what the U.S. is proposing in its mealy-mouthed weasel phrase 'regime change'. Since the Second World War America has covertly meddled in innumerable countries, creating instability and indeed a whole series of 'regime changes' geared to installing leaders more compliant with America's 'interests' e.g. oil, expansion of U.S. multi-nationals etc. But it has always been covert and denied whenever possible. Successive administrations, no, why use the politically correct Western term, successive American regimes (George W Bush's legitimacy after all is more than doubtful) have acknowledged the need to take account of world opinion. What is different today is the belief of the Bush regime that world opinion, including that of the U.N., does not matter. Stated more simply: if you or I are not American citizens, we don't count. We are not important. We are a sub-species. Have you got that message yet Tony?

There is a further significance. If the U.S., being a superior species, can determine which regimes are good and which bad (shades of Animal Farm!) and take action to effect regime changes accordingly, where does this stop? If the U.K. for instance decided not to allow GM food? Where are the checks and balances? The U.S. already ignores or manipulates the U.N. for its own ends. Whether Saddam deserves to be bombed out of existence or not is not the main issue, horrific though that prospect is. The main issue is that if the world (that includes you and I) stands idly by as the U.S. goes ahead then there is nothing to stop an even more callous American regime continuing the same actions, or threats, wherever and whenever it chose to. This my friends is labelled world dictatorship. We are I believe on the very brink of such a development unless the U.S. is resisted. Anything other than resistance is complicity and we will deserve our slavery. Iraq, ironically, can be seen, albeit unwittingly and unwillingly, as the cause to slow or stop this further slide into a world totally dominated by the U.S.

I believe too that Saddam Hussein does not in any event deserve on currently available evidence the threatened military action, even if supported by the U.N. Bad as Iraq's record may be there are other countries, even in the Middle East, which have similar track records. First amongst these of course is America's favourite protégé Israel. Weapons of mass destruction? Indeed yes, including nuclear weapons. Invades neighbours? Israel makes Saddam look modest in his aspirations, having invaded and occupied every single one of her neighbours in the first fifty years of her history. Ignores U.N. resolutions? The following are just those applying to illegal Israeli settlements:

SC Resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979 [Adopted at 2134th meeting (12-0-3) (3 abstentions were Norway, U.K., U.S.)];
SC Resolution 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979 [Adopted at 2159th meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)];
SC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980 [Adopted at 2203rd meeting - unanimously];
SC Resolution 471 (1980) of 5 June 1980 [Adopted at 2226th meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)];
SC Resolution 904 (1994) of 18 March 1994 [Adopted at 3351st meeting – unanimously (Draft was voted on in parts, with the U.S. abstaining on two preambular paragraphs. No vote was taken on the text as a whole)].
All apply to Israel and are among eighty (80) Security Council Resolutions since 1948. Note the U.S. abstentions and also note that there are more than thirty additional Security Council Resolutions concerning Israel that the U.S. vetoed. Israel, it is true, does not massacre her own citizens, 'just' the women and children of the Palestinian Untermenschen. All in all Israel makes Saddam look like an amateur and in any just world would have at least some form of sanctions imposed on her.

But of course I am forgetting the black and white thinking: Christian Western 'democracies' (Israel qualifies as sort of proto-Christian, I believe the logic goes. How offensive to Judaism!) are by definition good whilst non-Christian, non-Western, non-democracies are by definition bad, unless they are wholly and utterly obedient to the wishes of the U.S., in which case they are tolerated in order to be exploited. So Saddam was supported in his war with Iran - Iran being then labelled evil - but not in his invasion of Kuwait as this was not in America's script. Actors who deviate from the approved script get written out of the story.

Another spurious reason for going after Saddam in the way that the sheriffs went after the guys in the black hats is that the other guy in a black hat, Osama bin-Laden, seems to have escaped the posse. In the absence of his body, dead or alive, another body has to be strung up on Boot Hill. Saddam Hussein happens to be the best candidate around, the fall guy with few friends. Texas-style justice indeed.

Resisting American bullying in connection with Iraq is not the same as supporting Saddam. 'If you are not for us, you are against us' is another example of simplistic, childish, black and white U.S. thinking. The evil intentions, and I use the word deliberately, of the present American regime does not make the U.S. an evil country, but in a democracy the people do have a say. Democracy brings responsibilities with its benefits. What is your choice - freedom or slavery? Are you willing to pay the price for freedom? It does not have to be high: making your views known to your representatives, signing petitions, supporting any legal actions that may influence your leaders. Some in the West are doing so. We need more.