Sham reasons for the war

February 25, 1991
Issue 

By Mark Delmege

The reasons given for this war are a sham. The USA had prior warning of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and withheld criticism. Worse still, it appears to have assisted Kuwait in undermining the Iraqi economy through oil pricing policies, thus sowing the seeds for the conflict.

There can be no justification for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, but the greatest crime of this war began with the bombing of Iraq and Kuwait by US-led forces.

Tens of thousands of people have already died. Add to that the enormous environmental damage caused through bombing of chemical and nuclear facilities and all manner of industrial sites, and we begin to grasp the horrors and barbarity of this war. Before the war is over, millions of people will be maimed, homeless or orphaned, two countries will lie in ruins, and hundreds of billions of dollars will be stripped from the world economy.

Why is the war being fought? It is certainly not about democracy. Only about 6% of the 2 million people in Kuwait have the right to vote.

It has little to do with the price of oil. Even if Iraq controlled Kuwaiti oil production, it would still have only a minority interest in OPEC, which itself controls only about 40% of "Western oil" supplies.

It was not about defence of Saudi Arabia — British intelligence refuted that claim not long after the August 2 invasion.

Is it then about the morality of one country invading another? Hardly, given the US's proclivity of invading other countries at will, fomenting counter-revolutions and promoting civil wars around the world.

What this war seems to me to be about is continued US hegemony in the Middle East and resurgent militarism.

Although the USA does not import very much oil from the Gulf, by being able to influence Middle East political events it is able to maintain political clout over those Western states that do (eg Europe and Japan).

With the perceived end to the Cold War, the US military was in dire straits, as is the US economy. The elites in the US found that their interests were served best by war. This does not suggest that war is good for the economy but rather that elites who run the business and military establishments can make

hefty financial gains.

Sanctions should have been given time to work. Concerted actions like sanctions only have to work once for aggressor countries to realise their potency.

But the response to Iraq's early offer of negotiations and Bush's continual war pronouncements make it clear that the US was never interested in a negotiated settlement. Iraq did have reasonable complaints against Kuwait, even if that did not justify its invasion. The point is that solutions to complex problems require diplomacy and understanding — factors not employed in this devastating conflict.

West Australians have seen the changing nature of the US deployments in the Indian Ocean these past 10 years. Many of us in the peace movement here warned of the dangers inherent in this military build-up. And, yes, we want a "new international order" — but one without the humbug, one that will put forward solutions to people's needs, one that will commit billions of dollars to solving the very real crises of today. Not the old order that still spends billions on killing machines and manufactures conflicts to further the interests of relatively few.

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.