The wholesale fraud in Iraq

by pv vivekanand

IF there ever was a fraud, then it is the American
plan to hand over "sovereignty and power to Iraqis" on
June 30, nearly 15 months after invading and occupying
that country. It is only a smokescreen that would help
the US argue that it had ended its occupation of Iraq
and Iraqis are running the country.
The US wants the UN to be part of that smokescreen,
and hence its efforts to have the Security Council
adopt a resolution that legitimises its occupation of
Iraq but with restrictions on what the UN could do in
the country if it were given a role.
Notwithstanding the blatant lies and false
explanations provided by Washington, the reality after
the so-called hand over will be of continued complete
American control and domination of Iraq.
In order to understand the US moves in the Middle
East, it has to be noted that the American foreign
policy in the region has always been based on three
key pillars: Ensuring US energy security, ensuring
Israel's security and ensuring regional security
through friendly governments in the region.
Seen against that backdrop, the fundamental objectives
of the US occupation of Iraq become clear. They are:
— ENERGY SECURITY: The US wants unquestioned control
of Iraq's oil resources in order to use those
resources to control the international energy market
and as a leverage against oil-hungry Europeans and Far
Easterners, including Japan. (It is a wrong notion to
argue that the US wants to steal Iraq's oil resources
and pump billions of dollars in Iraq's oil sales into
the American economy).
In the bargain, the US is also ensuring its own energy
security and also enriching the American multinational
oil conglomerates that form the backbone of financial
support for both Democrats and Republicans. Direct and
indirect control of vast oil deposits of Iraq by
American oil giants gives Washington an unprecedented
and strongest weapons to impose its will on the
international oil market.
— ISRAELI SECURITY:  The US wants to ensure that Iraq
would never re-emerge as a military power as pose a
threat to the security of Israel, the strongest
American ally in the Middle East and "strategic
partner." In order to achieve that, the US seeks to
have an "American-friendly" regime in power in Baghdad
after setting in place a new constitution (like that
of post-World War II Japan) and also overriding powers
against any inclination by the "new Iraq" to challenge
Israel.
— REGIONAL SECURITY THROUGH FRIENDLY GOVERNMENTS: The
Sept.11 attacks shook the American reliance on
regional governments for regional security in a manner
that serves American interests. That 15 of the Sept.11
hijackers were Saudi nationals was the biggest jolt
since Saudi Arabia had always been the strongest
American friend in the Gulf. That Saudi nationals —
who deemed to be rich and different from other Arabs
such as Palestinians, Egyptians, Sudanese or another
"poor" Arabs — could take part in such an attack
against the US completely changed the American
perspective towards the Gulf and particularly Saudi
Arabia. Then followed the anti-Western bombings in
Saudi Arabia and strong signs that there is a sizeable
group in Saudi Arabia that opposes American
domination.
That explains why the US has distanced itself from
Saudi Arabia since Sept.11 and, among other things,
moved its military base from Saudi Arabia to Qatar and
imposed strict curbs on US visas being issued to Saudi
nationals. It showed that the US was no longer betting
on ensuring regional stability through its alliance
with "friendly countries" in the region. In the
changed American thinking, it was absolutely necessary
to have a strong American military presence right in
the Gulf region to ensure regional security the
American way, and Iraq was the best choice, and Saddam
Hussein offered the right pretext for invading and
occupying Iraq.
In September 2002, the Bush administration issued its
“National Security Strategy of the United States of
America.” It states that the guiding policy of the
United States is the right to use military force
anywhere in the world, at any time it chooses, against
any country it believes to be, or it believes may at
some point become, a threat to American interests. It
set the ground for the American invasion and
occupation of Iraq.
How is Washington trying to arrive at a point where
Iraq becomes the focal point for all its objectives in
the region:
First: The interim "government" to be in place on July
1 will be hand-picked by Washington, which has already
handed over the list of people it wants in key
positions of power. Every one of them will be
dependent on the US for continuing to remain in power;
one step out of the American-drawn lines, he or she
will be out. US intelligence agencies have enough
damning dossiers that would help the twist the arms of
those in power if and when needed.
Second: The US viceroy in Iraq, Paul Bremer, is
setting up high-power committees, again selected by
American experts and strategists, to act in an
"advisory" capacity to the various ministries and
departments. In reality, the concerned ministries and
departments will have to refer key decisions to the
committee and have to abide by the "recommendations"
of the panels. These committees are an additional
leverage to the US to ensure that independent minded
Iraqis among those hand-picked to be government
ministers would still be controlled by Washington.
Third: All aspects of security, except street
patrolling against petty crimes, will remain in the
hands of American commanders. The pretext here is that
the interim government wants the US military to remain
in Iraq to take care of security until the Iraqis are
able to take charge and run the affairs themselves.
Achieving that could take years. Washington has
already said that the interim government would not
have the authority to ask the US to leave Iraq. Bremer
and Secretary of State Colin Powell have said this
month that the US would quit Iraq if the interim
government asked it that they did not think it would
ask the US to do so. Subsequently, a senior State
Department official, appearing before the US Congress,
affirmed that the interim government would not have
the authority to ask the US to leave.
Fourth, by virtue of its allocations of billions of
dollars of American money to run the occupation of
Iraq, Washington will retain the overall control of
all proceeds from Iraq's oil exports. Bremer argues
that since the US is footing the bill for security and
other aspects of running the country, there could not
be separate accounts for American money and Iraqi
money coming from oil exports. American control of
Iraqi oil revenues means total dilution of any
financial independence for the interim government
expect perhaps to pay their own salaries. No
non-American company will be allowed any oil
exploration contract in Iraq.
Fifth: Bremer is also setting up committees and
watchdogs to control the media. These bodies will be
given blanket power to take whatever action against
newspapers, radios and television channels which do
not toe the American line.
Sixth: The US State Department is taking charge of
running Iraq in colonial style. The US is building the
largest American embassy — "Fortress America" — in
Baghdad. It will have more than 3,500 American staff
and will be the nerve centre for all American
operations in the Gulf region and will be led by John
Negroponte, the current delegate to the UN. Negroponte
is known for ruthlessness in Vietnam and Latin
America, with his main objective being to fight off
regimes hostile to the US in Latin America. He is the
perfect American diplomat to serve the purpose.
What Iraq will have on July 1 is nothing but a puppet
government whose members — who might issue nationalist
statements critical of the US from time to time —
would have no real authority in any sphere of
governance that would have any negative impact on the
American strategic objectives. That is what Washington
is aiming at.
Beyond everything else, the US is seeing Iraq as the
gateway to an emerging American empire. Conceptually,
domination of the Arabian Gulf through Iraq, combined
with effective control of the oil and natural gas
reserves of Central Asia, will offer the US absolute
control of a region that had always posed problems to
American interests. And it is totally unlikely that
the US would let anyone, least of all Iraqi
resistance, to beat it back from its objective. What
does that work out to? Boosting the use of brutal
military force against whoever stands in its way, and
that is what we are seeing and will continue to see
in Iraq — increased bloodshed and military crackdown.