Not Important? Think Again
31 October 2002
The Wrong War For The Wrong Reasons
It is becoming clear that America’s War on Terror is not an enthusiasm shared by many other countries. France and Russia
have manoeuvred effectively so far in the United Nations to short circuit American demands for a free hand to deal with
Iraq. This is not, in our opinion, mere posturing. An important but missing ingredient in the public debate on Iraq has
all along been the vital interests of other concerned countries, not least of them Iraq itself.
The US political economy is built on foundations of cheap oil, cheap space, and cheap money. The three are linked.
Consider, for example, the energy required to cool workplaces and dwellings in the US southwest and the credit required
to build and acquire them The US is a large and growing importer of oil and natural gas (PDF Link) to feed this need, a fact that is straining its relations with her neighbour Canada, whose gas she is burning, courtesy the NAFTA Treaty. Juxtaposed against this is the fact that global oil (and for that
matter natural gas) production is within a few years of peaking. Being finite, this is a resource that serves its owners
better by being conserved in the ground rather than being burnt more rapidly than absolutely necessary.
It should be clear that there are legitimate national interests on both sides of this issue, but these are obscured by
the diversion of the War on Terror. This is no more than an attempt to delegitimise opposition to war by casting the
issue in a moral light and diverting the discussion from the relevant to the irrelevant. The fact that the US is allied
in this endeavour with Israel is an advertisement virtually nowhere in the world but Capitol Hill and the world Zionist
community. Elsewhere, Israel is seen for what it is: a heavily subsidised imperial outpost engaged in the brutal
suppression of an indigenous population. Uncomfortably, they are not aborigines, but rather people not too unlike you
and me. Is this what the Americans have in store for the rest of the Middle East?
Russia, China and France are in effect being asked (as is everyone else) to accept American administration of the
world’s oil supply. The “you’re either with us or against us” mantra is not calculated to make this palatable. It is
rather calculated to make it seem inevitable. Quite apart from the principle of the matter, Russia is owed $10 billion
by Iraq, and like France has a vital interest in the Iraqi oil industry. But more importantly, by refusing to ratify the
Kyoto Treaty, the US is sending a very clear message. It sees no reason to incur an economic and political price for
curbing its energy demand. On the contrary, given the example of the North American natural gas industry, the outlook is
for continued American profligacy.
Having been able to put this one over on the rest of the world for fifty years, it seems as if the US thinks that it can
continue to do so for the next fifty. The problem is, when you are the world’s only superpower, you have no friends,
only enemies.
An Open Letter to the Financial Times
Last week we wrote to the FT in response to a column by Gerard Baker. Baker’s piece was a putdown of anti-war opinion
that itself offered no reason for war other than the fact that the Americans seem to want it.. The thick layer of
condescension and sarcasm within which his non-argument was wrapped only served to mask the intellectual void that he
was serving up. We would gladly link to his piece here, but the FT has made it available to subscribers only, and we
don’t want to encourage other people to waste their money. On the other hand, we don’t think that Baker’s belligerence
should go unremarked either, so here is our letter.
The Editor
The Financial Times
Sir,
Gerard Baker’s column in the 24 October FT “Iraq Comes First” notably fails to provide any explanation for attacking
Iraq other than the lame excuse that the rest of the world just doesn’t understand America after 911. On the contrary,
the time that Mr. Baker spent in Washington in recent years appears to have inhibited his understanding of the rest of
America rather badly. What other explanation is there for his and your paper’s failure to pick up on the biggest
financial story of the decade? The US Federal government cannot account for more than $3.3 trillion in spending since
fiscal year 1997. This arguably makes the Enron fiasco and the S debacle look like pre-school antics, but I don’t suppose that this would deter Mr. Baker from ignoring it. As for Iraq,
a thoughtful pause to consider the divergence of national interests highlighted by the proposed seizure and
administration of her oil fields by a military power dependent on cheap oil and foreign credit would be interesting, but
again I don’t suppose that would deter him from ignoring the question. His dismissal of concerns about the Israeli lobby
as “thinly disguised anti-Semitism” would be risible were it not so tiresome, but then I suppose one shouldn’t get too
irritated at propaganda thinly disguised as journalism.
Chris Sanders
Sanders Research Associates Ltd.
Safire rhymes with satire
The FT’s sarcasm pales in comparison to belligerence of American pundit William Safire. Safire is an ex-speechwriter for
Richard Nixon who has gone on to turn his turgid and pompous prose to the service of another politician, Israel’s Ariel
Sharon. Having secured for himself the position of Sharon’s mouthpiece in the Washington press corps (I wonder how much
competition for that there was, really?), Safire regularly blasts anyone and anything doubtful of or inconvenient to the
cause of Greater Israel. Being thoroughly confused himself about the fact that Israel is not in fact, the United States,
one should perhaps not be too critical of his other intellectual and logical lapses. On the other hand, he really
outdoes himself here. Demanding that the UN hold Iraq accountable for non-compliance with its resolutions of course begs
the question: what about Israel’s non-compliance with other UN resolutions? He denounces Iraqi “nuclear blackmail”
although the consensus of expert opinion is that Iraq has no nuclear weapons. Now Israel has anywhere from 100 to 400 nuclear warheads with the aircraft, missiles and submarines to deliver them. Who is blackmailing whom here? Safire gives us the
answer: those countries that don’t support the US, Israel and Britain won’t get a share of the post conquest oil
bonanza. On the other hand, we strongly suspect that they won’t get a share anyhow, but why be churlish?
A sword put in water rusts
After enduring Safire, it is a relief to read someone with both experience and intelligence. Martin Van Creveld is one
of Israel’s most prominent military thinkers and judging from what he has to say about the Intifada and its likely
outcome, also one of more pragmatic and intelligent than the people running the IDF. Crevelds’ prognosis is that Israel
is heading for defeat at the hands of the Palestinians. They have nothing to lose and the Israelis have everything to
lose.
Fox gives Bush a two fingered salute
Mexico currently occupies one of the rotating non-permanent seats on the UN Security Council. Regarded as a safe pair of
hands by the US, Mexico is not following Washington’s line on Iraq. Washington is losing friends fast.
ENDS