The US Invasion of Iraq: Neo-Colonialism at Work - Essay Example

THE US INVASION OF IRAQ: NEO-COLONIALISM AT WORK Introduction The break up of the former Soviet Union saw the US emerge as the sole super-power on the world stage. By virtue of its pre-eminent position, the US was in a position to impose its will on the global community. Whereas earlier the US had a convenient adversary in the form of the erstwhile Soviet Union and the bogey of the Cold War, it now had to find newer enemies and causes to justify its aggressive foreign policy in the quest for global dominance. As has been demonstrated time and again, the US is prepared to go any lengths to achieve this objective as a function of its National Security Objectives, irrespective of the consequence. In pursuit of this objective, the US has sought to justify its actions by projecting and espousing a number of causes that are dear to the Western World e.g. Human Rights and Non-Proliferation; ostensibly for the betterment of the world community. The reality, however, is quite different. US intervention in various corners of the globe post World War II has left behind a trail of death and destruction, often in the very countries it was meant to benefit. The latest casualty in US attempts to maintain its super-power status is Iraq, where the US is embroiled in a battle of attrition with no clear-cut exit strategy. Apart from service personnel, scores of innocent civilians are daily becoming the victims of terrorism in a deadly escalatory spiral of violence. Has the world become a safer place after the US invasion of Iraq This paper examines some of the arguments propounded by the US and its unflinching ally the UK, to justify the invasion of Iraq in order to expose the true agenda and hidden motives of Operation 'Iraqi Freedom'. The paper will examine the following: Backdrop to operation Iraqi Freedom. Justification for the invasion. Hidden agenda and motives. Colonization of Iraq. Backdrop to Operation Iraqi Freedom The events of 9/11 shook the very foundations of US national security. The sight of the twin towers of the World Trade Center crumbling like a house of cards shook the myth of US invincibility. In vowing to crack down on terrorism, the US launched Operation Enduring Freedom, which soon got bogged down in the rugged mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. Worse, Osama Bin Laden remained at large. As the momentum behind the Global War on Terrorism began loosing steam, newer and more formidable challenges had to be found to galvanize the American people. According to Burbach, Roger and Jim Turbell "Concentrating on terrorism for electionprovided an opportunity to highlight Bush's War on Terror and the need for patriotic Americans to rally behind the flag to support their President.Unfortunately, Osama Bin Laden, the terrorist who had rained fear down on America on 9/11, could not be found. They needed to find a new terrorist to portray as evil incarnate. Saddam Hussein fitted the bill."1 In the run up to a Presidential election, what better rallying point could there be than a democratic US sallying forth to rescue the downtrodden people of Iraq from the deprivations of Saddam Hussein The Iraq war, however, was not about Saddam Hussein or even weapons of mass destruction. It was all about oil and control over the Middle East region - a region that is at the heart of world oil production and which has the world's largest proven oil and gas reserves. It is the source of the energy that drives the global economy, led by the US, and which is imperative for the US' well being. According to Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, there was no justification for the use of military force against Iraq.2 Iraq was not at all a threat either to the US or to the world at large. In fact, the US had plans to invade Iraq many months before September 11. According to the Sunday Herald, the US had first mooted the idea of the use of military force against Iraq about five months before the September 11 attack, as a means of securing control of its oil.3 However, the US has always denied that its invasion of Iraq was for the purpose of imperialism through effective control of the global oil industry. Yet, as is evident from subsequent events the real agenda behind the Iraq invasion was Oil, and not any threat to US or global peace. Justification for the Invasion The US presented many arguments to the world in order to convince the global community that its invasion in Iraq was just and lawful; that it was being done solely in self-defense, as international law does not allow any country to declare war against any other country unless its own survival is at stake. The US' pretence for the war on Iraq or the arguments it projected against Saddam Hussein were all made-up to make people support the US led actions and to consider these actions as directed solely against Saddam Hussein and not against Iraq or its people. The following are some of the most burning issues that the US projected as the reasons behind the invasion of Iraq that served to camouflage the real intentions behind the US invasion of Iraq. Weapons of Mass Destruction. One of the main allegations that the US raised against Iraq was that its possession of weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to the security of the US and other western countries, especially so after the September 11 attacks. As noted by Judis and Ackerman, "Officials conjured up images of Iraqi mushroom clouds over US cities"4 but US forces on the ground and even international weapons inspectors failed to find any evidence that could conclusively prove the existence of any weapons of mass destruction. Weapons, that were supposedly a threat not only to Iraq's immediate neighbors but also to the West, as alleged by the United States. As Chomsky said, "When the military forces occupying Iraq failed to discover the weapons of mass destruction that allegedly justified the invasion, the administration's stance shiftedto the assertion that American accusations had been 'justified by the discovery of equipment' that potentially could be used to produce weapons".5 The fact is that all the weapons of mass destruction had either been destroyed during the Gulf War I (1991) and by post-war United Nations sanctions. Global War on Terorism. The Al Qaeda Connection. Obviously, the possession of deadly weapons could not serve as the sole reason for declaring war against any country, so the US declared that it was prosecuting the global war on terrorism that posed a threat to the entire civilized world. The US had made up its mind to invade Iraq as early as the autumn of 2001, and in the post 9/11 environment this requirement gained more urgency. A plausible reason had to be found to present to the US public in the 2002 State of the Union address. Since Iraq was one of the countries already figuring in the State Department list of terrorist sponsor countries, it was immediately suggested that a linkage be drawn between Iraq and the Al Qaeda and Iraq be held responsible. Fabrication of Intelligence Inputs. For Iraq to be held responsible, however, it necessitated the establishment of a link between the Al Qaeda and Iraq. Such evidence, however, was hard to come by and in fact non-existent. As noted by Judis and Ackerman, a CIA new York Times report of February 2002 states that the CIA, "[found] no evidence that Iraq had engaged in terrorist actions against the United States in nearly a decade[nor] provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda".6 Had the US tried to justify a war on Iraq on flimsy evidence, it would not have been able to convince the US Congress or people. Such links therefore had to be created and to that end, it directed all its efforts in projecting the image of the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as a terrorist who had connections with Al-Qaeda and who was continuously engaged in plotting terrorist acts against the US and other western countries. Key figured from within the Administartion mounted pressure on the CIA to take a harder line against Iraq. Judis and Ackerman state, "[there was a implied threat] of Saddam Hussein transferring to Osama bin Laden chemical and biological weapons that could be used to create new and more lethal September elevenths".7 However, once again, the US to justify its allegation that Iraq had any connections with Al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden, could not present concrete proof whatsoever. Alleged links between one of the hijackers and Iraq could not be proved, nor between Iraq and the Al Qaeda. Judis and Ackerman quote a New York Times report in which top Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubahya told his captors after his capture that Bin Laden himself had rejected any alliance with Saddam.8 Chomsky has said, "It is immaterial that the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, in fact his bitter enemy, was based on no credible evidence and largely dismissed by competent observers".9 US Intransigence. However, the wheels had been set in motion and the Bush Administration used the 'anniversary of September 11, 2001, to launch its public campaign for a Congressional resolution endorsing war, with or without U.N. support, against Saddam".10 The CIA was forced to modify its intelligence assessments based on questionable inputs. One report highlights, "extensive Iraqi chem-bio programs and nuclear programs and links to terrorism", but goes on to add that, "this information comes from a source known to fabricate in the past". 11What is interesting to note, is that the later clarification is given as an obscure footnote. Such was the dubious evidence used o fool the US Congress and people into supporting a war on Iraq; a classic case of fabricating intelligence as per one's preconceived ideas. Say Judis and Ackerman, "Much of the evidence was based on what intelligence analysts call 'rumint'rumor-intelligence plugged into various speeches and accepted as gospel."12 The fact is that the US could well have found other justifiable reasons for waging war on Iraq other than national security. Thus this reason too was more a figment of the imagination and wishful thinking rather than any analysis based on credible intelligence inputs. By deceiving the US Congress and people, it deprived them of making an informed decision, - a lapse that is being paid for in innocent lives. Violation of UN Resolutions. In search for further pretext for waging a war on Iraq, the US also made UN Resolution 1205 of 1998 grounds for intervention by saying that Iraq had been continuously violating UN resolutions and willfully obstructing UN weapon inspectors. UN Resolution 1441 empowered inspection teams to visit any restricted or secret areas in Iraq including presidential Palaces in search of weapons more to humiliate Saddam than anything else. However, this too did not prove to be a solid ground for an invasion of Iraq, and the UN, had by no means ever sanctioned the use of force as a means of enforcing UN resolutions. Democracy, Self-Rule and Human Rights. The US has always championed the cause of establishing democracy and self-rule the world over, in an attempt to impose western values in these countries. These values are at times at odds with local customs and traditions, and hence these attempts to import democracy are doomed to failure. Burbach, Roger and Jim Turbell opine, "Throughout the summer of 2002 Saddam Hussein was publicized as the super-terrorist, the butcher of Baghdad, the man who would gas his own people."13 This was all done in order to pave the way to initiate a war against Iraq in the presence of the UN and sundry Human Rights organizations. Burbach, Roger and Jim Turbell further add that the US, " produced an 'Apparatus of Lies' about Saddam's propaganda operations as well as disseminating stories of 'torture and brutality in Saddam's Iraq", in order to mobilize world opinion in their favour.14 Another commentator, Everest corroborates this when he says, "The claim that the war was fought to "liberate" Iraq is as big a lie as anything said about Baghdad's purported weapons of mass destruction or ties to al-Qaeda"15. When none of these reasons found favor in the world community, the US decided to go it alone. The US came out with a new defense paradigm that of 'pre-emptive war' based solely on the prediction of an attack on the US or its allies. This too was but a smoke- scene for the actual motives. Hidden Agenda and Motives There is no denying the fact that in today's world, oil is the lifeblood for a country's industrial growth and industry is the backbone of any country's economy. Oil also determines the military power of a country because if a country doesn't have sufficient oil to meet its consumption, there would not be enough "blood" to run its military "body". Everest has said, "The conquest of Iraq was designed to open up new avenues for the US to economically, politically and strategically exploit the country's petroleum wealth."16 The US realizes that to maintain its global hegemony and dominance, oil is the key. It has analyzed that if somehow it could control the world energy production and global reserves, there would be no one in the world that could rise up to confront its power. It would then, not only be controlling world oil and its production, but also the fate of those countries who rely upon oil import to meet their domestic consumption demands. Everest said, "Global capitalism remains dependent on a steady flow of low-priced petroleum, making oil both vital to the health of the world economy and key to the competitive positions of the rivals."17 This is also corroborated by Bellow who says, " The more strategic goal was to preempt the region's resources in order to control access to them by energy poor China ",18 China being the only country that could challenge US supremacy in the long-term. According to Woods, "Every US war claims a just cause, a proper authority and right intentions, while insisting that there is no other way. Those claims are, of course, more than a little debatable."19 The US invaded Iraq in March 2003 on the pretext of war on terrorism, world peace, US national security, strike against terrorists, Iraqi freedom, democracy and human rights etc. However, United States was driven by its own agenda for war on Iraq i.e., the oil that was available in the sands of Iraq and the volatility of the region where it exists. Following were some of the major causes because of which United States decided to invade Iraq: Manipulation of Energy Reserves. The US is heavily petroleum dependent country and its petrol-dependence was the major reason that led it to the Iraq invasion. As Iraq is the second-largest oil producing country in the world, having power and control over its oil production means securing a key that can take the oil market to new limits. Burbach, Roger and Jim Turbell point out, "Iraq nationalized its oil in the early 1970s, creating a stir in Iraq and across the Middle East as well as in the boardrooms in the New York City."20 After taking control of Iraq from Saddam Hussein, Iraqi oil lies completely under American control. As remarked by Everest, "The post-Hussein structure of Iraq's industry is in formation, yet there is much evidence that the Bush administration intends to reshape Iraq's petroleum sector to America's advantage." 21 The US invaded Iraq for the purpose of achieving its objective of global hegemony. By manipulating Iraq's energy reserves it can easily exercise control over all other oil-producing and oil-dependent countries of the world. As commented upon by Everest, "The point is not that the Bush inner circle waged war simply to secure Iraq's oil for American profit or consumption. Yet petroleum was a central and major objective"22 Dollar as Monopoly Currency. Before the invasion of Iraq, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was deciding on making a shift from US Dollars to the Euro, thus proposing an end of the dollar monopoly. Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi president at that time had already taken a step to shift international oil transactions from US Dollar to Euros. Preempting the US to invade Iraq so that under its benign occupation, the US could make Iraq revert back to the dollar standard and prevent OPEC from making contemplate any currency switch. Insider sources have revealed that the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the stated aim of regime change. Clark states, "the neoconservative strategy of installing a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad was partly designed to thwart further momentum within OPEC towards a "petroeuro."23 However, with Iran also now moving towards the Euro and Russia too showing interest in a petroeuro, how long US dollar monopoly will continue is anybody's guess. Candidly stated, 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' thus was a war designed to install a pro-US dispensation in, to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. This act of United States was also a warning to the other oil producing countries as to what could happen to them if they too harboured any ideas of switching from the Dollar to any other currency. Domination over Oil-Dependent Countries. The US has always aimed at getting power and influence over its trading rivals, whose economies are in turn, dependent on petroleum for sustained growth. According to Wood, "maintaining hegemony among major capitalist powers is a far more complicated business than achieving geopolitical dominance, or even a 'balance of power', as old imperial states sought to do in the days of traditional inter-imperialist rivalry."24 In the world of today, geo-economics has supplanted geo-politics as the key driver of foreign policy. Everest has remarked, "US strategy is guided by the needs of global dominance and empire, which entails having its hand on the world's energy spigot in order to control others and to successfully compete in the global economy."25 Everest further pointed out, "Profit for U.S. corporations are not all that's at stake in awarding contracts in post-Hussein Iraq; hard-edged competition between rival nations is also being played out."26 After the invasion of Iraq, the US has secured unfettered access to the world's second largest oil reserves while awarding contracts to national companies. Everest also said, "Russia and France insist their contracts remain valid, but in reality they've been thrown up for grabs by the U.S. conquest of Iraq."27 It may be recalled that France and Russia were the most vociferous opponents of any proposed military intervention in Iraq, to the extent of even threatening to veto any Security Council resolution to this effect. As Everest said, "Washington intended to ruthlessly use its military conquest to weaken French and Russian influence, as well as that of other rivals, in post-Hussein Iraq".28 The invasion also benefited the US in yet another facet of energy security. Having secured control over Iraqi oil reserves, the US now finds itself less reliant on oil from Saudi Arabia or any other country and the need to protect these assets. As pointed out by Klare, "[the] alliance with Saudi Arabia has rested on the understanding that the United States would defend the House of Saud against both foreign and domestic enemies in return for privileged access to Saudi oil."29 Diversification of sources has thus given the US more leeway in its foreign policy options. Revenue from Iraqi Oil. Rebuilding of Iraq. Iraqi oil is the cheapest oil in the world. Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the revenue that was obtained from the sale of oil went to Saddam Hussein i.e., the Iraqi government. Wood observes that from the US point of view, Iraq, "Sitting on its own huge oil reserves, and with a well developed political and economic infrastructure, to say nothing of its military forces, Iraq cannot, like Afghanistan, be left to its own devices."30 In the post invasion era, the Interim Government collects this revenue, which in turn awards contract to various US firms engaged in the reconstruction of Iraq. According to Everest, "Washington hoped to use Iraqi oil revenues to pay for the cost of rebuilding its oil and economic infrastructure, which had been devastated by two US wars and 13 years of sanctions, and to make their new client state economically viable."31 Thus, Iraq and the Iraqis would have to pay repair and reconstruction of the destruction wrought by the US. Favoritism. In a majority of the cases, this repair was undertaken bu US owned companies. Concessions such as Order No 39 "allowed foreign [US] investors to fully own Iraqi's companies with no requirements of reinvesting profits back into the country",32 with the exception of oil companies since it would have created of public backlash in Iraq. As commented by Everest, "The world's major energy multinationals are blocked from investing in many of the world's richest countries mainly by the nationally-owned oil companies which were a product of the anti-colonial upsurges of the 1950s and 1960s".33 However, this lacunae was overcome in even more devious ways. Benefits to Oil Companies. In order to speed up the re-establishmen of Iraqi oil production, a number of concessions were given. An example of this is Executive Order 13303, under which, "Iraqi oil contractors [i.e. US oil companies operating in Iraq] were given a lifetime exemption from lawsuits."34 The provisions of this order had far-reaching implications, as it covered any and all Iraqi oil products under US control whether existing or prospective. Chatterjee quotes Vallete, an analyst of the Institute of Policy Studies, who says, "In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, anything they or anyone else does with it is immune from legal proceedings in the US".35 The implication of this provision is that US owned or operated oil companies could commit the most heinous of crimes from murder to industrial accidents to financial irregularities, but still remain immune from judicial scrutiny. Benefits to the US. After invading Iraq and having installed a puppet Iraqi government, the US is in a win-win situation. On the one hand, it has awarded all the oil-extracting contracts to various American companies, and on the other hand, purchases oil at the cheapest prices. Thus, it not only utilizes Iraqi oil for its own consumption but also makes a profit by selling Iraqi oil to other oil dependent countries. As icing on the cake, all this revenue in turn, goes to pay various US companies engaged in the reconstruction of Iraq. Everyone benefits except the Iraqis, on whose behalf supposedly the war was waged. Influencing Global Oil Prices. OPEC regulates the oil price of all the major oil producing countries. It regulates an optimum selling price for oil which member countries are obligated to follows. It also restricts the production of oil to maintain a balance in market demand and supply for the oil. According to Chomsky, "Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the worldIf you control Iraq, you are in a very strong position to determine the price and production levels to undermine the OPEC [and] to throw your weight around throughout the world."36 After taking control of the Iraqi government in 2003, the US is now in a position to dictate the market price of oil by introducing a fluctuation in the price of Iraqi oil. As Iraq is one of the largest exporters of oil in the world, any change in oil price by this country also forces other countries to adjust their prices. This, in turn, would also strengthen US hegemony over other countries, because no matter how much global oil prices increase, the US will still be getting its oil for the same price. Colonization of Iraq It is now a established fact that operation Iraqi Freedom was not a all about Saddam Hussein, terrorism or even the 'heard but never seen' weapons of mass destruction. The invasion of Iraq was but the first step in what has become, in the words of Docena, "the most ambitious, most radical, and most violent project to reconstruct an economy along neoliberal lines."37 Even before the invasion of Iraq got underway, a comprehensive plan to transform the Iraqi economy from a centralized command economy into a market economy had been prepared, which entailed the imposition of an entirely new set of rules and regulations, including a new Constitution. The New Constitution. In 2004, when the draft Bill of Rights was first released which was then being negotiated with between the US and its Iraqi sympathizers. The Iraqi people had been expecting a welfare state, with the country's oil wealth being used for education, health and other social services. What they got instead was a constitution which when enacted would as per Docena, "advance and protects its [US] fundamental interests in the country [Iraq] by championing and strengthening the hand of those Iraqis committed to defending them even after formal occupation ends."38 What the Iraqi people would get in the name of sovereignty would be a puppet government with the prime minister and other officials effectively chosen by US officials " more interested in the Iraqi constitution than he Iraqi's themselves governed by their domestic agendas."39 Sovereignty and Power. In June 2004, the US handed over sovereignty to Iraq. As brought out earlier, the whole exercise of installing an elected government was a sham because the real power remained with the US. All the laws enacted earlier under US occupation remained in force. All US and coalition troops remain under the control of the US, not Iraqi government, which has no powers over them to the extent that these troops are even immune from criminal proceedings. Even more importantly, the new government has little control over Iraqi oil revenue. Docena states that prior to the transfer of power, "the US had tied its proceeds down to projects decided by the US, thereby depleting the amount of revenue to be controlled by the interim governmentwith the interim government having no power to renege on them, reallocate previously committed funds, [or] enter into longer-term commitments."40 All this is strong evidence of the fact that the occupation of Iraq continues even today, notwithstanding the conduct of elections and all the outward appearances of sovereignty. At its core, Iraq remains a colony of the US in the 21st century manifestation of economic imperialism. Conclusion The US invasion of Iraq was therefore nothing but naked aggression, much against the wishes of the global community and only served to highlight the dangers inherent in a unipolar world. Although the US tried to justify its intervention on various grounds, their actions post the termination of combat operations in Iraq has exposed the hollowness of their claims. Iraq, once one of the more stable and secular countries of the region is sliding into anarchy, sectarian violence and civil war. The US and coalition presence in Iraq is likely to continue for an indeterminate period, since any withdrawal at this stage would negate any US gains made in its quest for global oil hegemony. The US is unlikely to allow that to happen considering that Iran is next on the US hit-list. The course of events with respect to Iran, especially Iran's nuclear programme, gives one a sense of 'deja-vu', with events unfolding in the same predictable manner as was the case with Iraq. Will the US learn from history or is it hell-bent upon committing the same mistakes Only time will tell. Bibliography Bellow, Walden, George Bush's Rollback Economics, in Destroy and Profit, Disasters and Corporations, (Chulalongkom University Social Research Institute, Bangkok, 2006). Burbach, Roger and Jim Turbell, Imperial overstretch: George W. Bush and the Hubris of Empire (London: Zed Books, 2004). Chatterjee, Pratap, Iraq inc.: A Profitable Occupation, (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2004). Chomsky, Noam, Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World, (New York, Metropolitan Books, 2005). Chomsky, Noam, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, (New York, Metropolitan Books, 2003). Clark, William, The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker, available at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html accessed 28 Feb 2006. Cox, Robert W., Critical Political Economy in International political economy: Understanding the global disorder (Bjorn Hettne eds. London: Zed Books, 1995). Docena, Herbert, 'Shock and Awe' Therapy: How the United States is attempting to Control Iraq's Oil and Pry open Its Economy, in Destroy and Profit, Disasters and Corporations, (Chulalongkom University Social Research Institute, Bangkok, 2006). Docena, Herbert, 'Iraq's Neoliberal Constitution, in Destroy and Profit, Disasters and Corporations, (Chulalongkom University Social Research Institute, Bangkok, 2006). Everest Larry, Oil, Power, and empire: Iraq and the US Global agenda (Monroe: Common Courage Press, 2003) Judis, John B. and Ackerman, Spencer. The Selling of the Iraq War: The First Casualty, (New Republic, June 30, 2003). Klare, Michael T, Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum, (New York, Owl Books, 2004) Kofi Annan, "'No basis' for Iraq war now", BBC News, 31 December 2002, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2617783.stm, accessed 1 January, 2005. Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilization excerpted in Essential Reading in the world politics. 2ed edition (W.W. Norton&Company, New York, 2004). "The West's battle for oil", Sunday Herald, 6 October 2002, available at http://www.sundayherald.com/28224, accessed 1 January, 2005. Wood, Ellen Meiksins, Empire of Capital, (New York: Verso, 2003). Read More