Blair means war on Iraq

By PV Vivekanand

ONE COULD not but sympathise with British Fire Brigades Union leader Andy Gilchrist when he says that Prime Minister Tony Blair is ready to spend money on waging war against Iraq but not to offer a payrise for firefighters. For that matter, Blair should indeed be looking at other pressing issues at home in addition to the demands of the striking firefighters, and, for sure, he would not find equally important problems lacking.
Indeed, the issue is British and it is up to Britons to demand their money should not be spent on waging an American war several thousand kilometres away that would also undermine the country's ties with the Arab World.
In all probability, an overwhelming majority of British voters would not approve their money being squandered on military action which does not make much sense among Britons in terms of what they stand to gain from it (except given a role to play as lieutenants in a self-styled American-captained international police force that few are willing to accept anyway).
But then, a war on Iraq would affect the lives of everyone around in the Middle East, and, as such, we could not but take an interest and try to figure out why Blair is perched high behind US President George W.Bush's war wagon on the way to Baghdad.
It is not known yet how much the British treasury would be forking out to pay for the British military involvement in a US-spearheaded war against Iraq with the aim of toppling Saddam Hussein and replacing him with a US-friendly (US-controlled) puppet in power in Baghdad.
It is generally known that the British contribution to the US war effort could be between 15,000 and 30,000 soldiers and massive back-up equipment.
Unlike the 1991 war, there would not be many -- even the Japanese are squirming -- to foot the bill this time around.
Definitely, the British share of the cost for the war could run into a few billion pounds, and the question being raised is why should the British prime minister be spending that money on action that would not only alienate British friends in the region but also help lead to chaos and destabilisation in the Arab region and what he could be expecting in return.
We are unable to buy the theory that Blair (or Bush for that matter) is genuinely concerned that Saddam poses a military threat to Iraq's Arab neighbours and that is why they are hell-bent upon toppling him in order to uphold world peace and stability.
Both Bush and Blair tried and failed to link Iraq to international terrorism and project it as a natural target in the US-led war on terror before they switched to the "threat" Iraq poses to the world.
"Secret" documents released by Blair failed to convince anyone -- except perhaps those who drew them up for his benefit -- that Saddam's hands are hovering over switches that would activate and launch a massive pile of weapons of mass destruction at his neighbours.
Blair's defence of his posture, in an article in the Pakistani newspaper Daily Jung on Saturday, fails to offer a justifiable explanation. His case that Saddam needed to be disarmed broke no new ground. Blair only tried to rehash and recycle the argument that Saddam's ouster was sought by the international community. He sidestepped the reality that a majority of world governments have welcomed Baghdad's co-operation with UN inspections with the hope that a war could be avoided and even at that they are insisting that the UN has the final say in deciding whether military action was warranted against Iraq.
Obviously aiming to convince Pakistani Muslims, Blair wrote on Saturday that a war on Iraq was not motivated by religious considerations. But then, not many Muslims have said the potential military action against Iraq had anything to do with religion. They are aware that much deeper political and economic considerations are at the core of the US and British motivations to launch war on Iraq.
"I am also waiting for the time when Iraq in the truest sense will have peace and will start living with its neighbours in a peaceful manner and the aspirations and hopes of the people of Iraq will be realised in an appropriate manner," Blair said in the article.
It is ironic that such arguments are put forward when the world knows only too well that these expressions of concern for Iraqis were never really reflected in past British actions.
We know that Bush primarily aims at serving the American oil lobby, which includes his own commercial interests as well as those of some people around him (Vice-President Dick Cheney included), by invading and taking absolute control of Iraq which would then be ruled by a US military occupation force. That situation could last for at least two years, according to reports in the US media; that should be enough for Bush to establish US oil firms' supremacy in Iraq's oil sector (whether Bush survives the presidential race in 2004 is another issue).
Bush is hoping to recoup the $100 billion to $150 billion the US is expected to spend on a war and military occupation of Iraq through benefits to American oil companies which are raring to go into lucrative Iraqi oil fields after having been denied entry since 1990.
Obviously, one of the first priorities of Bush in a hypothetical Saddamless Iraq will be to freeze or nullify altogether all oil agreements that the present Baghdad government has signed with international (non-US) companies since the end of the 1991 war over Kuwait.
However, he appears to have had to make some compromises.
French, Russian, Chinese and Indian companies are among those who have signed such agreements, and US oil giants are frustrated of not being given a share of the Iraqi oil pie, given assumptions that Iraq could hold oil reserves more than even Saudi Arabia.
As such, apart from removing from power a ruler who has steadfastly refused to toe the American line and challenged American strategic interests in the region, Bush has a vested oil interest in Iraq that he hopes would be served with a US military occupation -- meaning absolute control of Iraq and its resources and restored American domination of the international oil market.
Equally important is resumed American exports to Iraq. US companies were deprived of up to $4 billion to $5 billion of annual exports to Iraq when the UN imposed sweeping trade sanctions against Iraq in August 1990. An indication of the loss is clear when we take note that Iraq used to spend about $500 million in imports of American vehicles and spare parts alone every year.
Figuring high in the horse-trading and persuasion that went on among the big powers at the UN Security Council before Resolution 1441 was adopted was haggling over who would get what share of a post-Saddam Iraq's oil resources. As yet unknown is the nature of the assurances that the US offered to its big power colleagues in the council in order to persuade them to raise their hands when the vote was taken on Resolution 1441.
Bush has offered a public assurance to Russian President Vladimir Putin that the US would not undermine Russian interests in Iraq as and when Saddam is removed from power. It was taken to mean that the US would perhaps make sure Russia recovers the $7 billion or so Baghdad reportedly owes Moscow from the days of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. But then, why should Putin be persuaded to accept the pledge and settle for less when Moscow stood to make much more in a potential $40 billion five-year deal that it was reportedly poised to sign with Baghdad?
So we know why Bush is going to Iraq. What then is the deal between Bush and Blair?
Of course, being kept mouthwatering but at arms length from the Iraqi pie are also British firms. Obivously there is a Bush assurance to Blair that British companies would have their share of Iraq when it falls under US military control.
Otherwise, it beats logic to figure out why Blair has already secured his seat on the Bush wagon to Iraq since it is simply difficult to assume that transatlantic political loyalty runs so deep that a British prime minister would be so adventurous into undertaking a mission that would alienate his country's traditional friends in the Arab World.