The obscene haste of Bush to go to war, beside his friend
Tony Blair, is very hard to understand. In the absence of any immediate
threat to the Middle East, or to the United States, from Iraq, one has
to seek another rationale. Is it the messianic fervor driving the kind
of simplistic thinking that gave us the Bush concept of the ‘axis
of evil’? Or is it a determination to enhance Israel with total
disregard for the well-being and human rights of the people of Palestine?*
Or is it about oil? I believe it is primarily the latter.
Since 9/11 the relationship between Washington and Saudi Arabia has
become fragile... And this comes when Venezuelan oil is all but stopped
and the future of large Mexican supplies is in doubt... The Bush administration’s
perception is that Iraq constitutes one very large [oil] reserve tank—a
‘tank’ of some 120 billion barrels. And control of that
tank has become paramount for American economic superiority. Control
also would represent leverage over Europe and Japan—an important
part of U.S. ambitions for empire in the coming years.
UN Resolution 1441, for all its drama and careful wording, amounts to
little more than theatre when we know that U.S. intelligence undoubtedly
is aware of what, if any, remnants of weapons of mass destruction Iraq
possesses. After all, America is the leading arms dealer of the UN permanent
five of the Security Council, and together they formed the weapons source
leading up to and during the Iran-Iraq war. U.S. impatience with the
UN inspections—despite cooperation by the Iraqi authorities—would
seem to underline the charade. Resolution 1441 was designed to provide
UN cover and respectability for a war that Bush wants so badly. This
cover now seems more and more remote as most other permanent members
of the Council remain unconvinced that war is justified.
And now Bush is facing an appreciable turning of the tide with respect
to American public opinion against unilateral aggression by Washington.
Despite the jingoism of the last 18 months, Americans are questioning
the priorities of Bush vis-a-vis both domestic and foreign affairs—and
also questioning the contrast of his diplomatic-dialogue approach to
North Korea, with nuclear capacity, with his aggressive stance towards
Iraq without. Angry over the loss of major allies, concerned by the
change in public opinion, rejected by UN Security Council friends—Bush
has become even more dangerous and anxious to take his country to war.
Is it patriotism? Or irresponsibility? That is for Americans to determine,
just as it should be for Iraqis to determine what is right for their
country.
If UN sanctions were terminated—and if the lives of the people
were to be restored and the economy rebuilt and society and culture
restored—the capacity to go forward with change via a multiparty
democracy, as foreseen in the constitutional change under consideration,
could become viable. The United Nations has cruelly damaged the social,
economic and cultural rights of the Iraqi people under sanctions for
over 12 years. We have allowed massive loss of life. We have allowed
a state of war to stand ever since 1991. Rather than initiate massive
new aggression, we should reach out to the people of Iraq and offer
our assistance. We should fully recognize the sovereignty of the country
and the unique qualities of its ancient people. We should focus on stopping
the war of Bush now, and starting the process of restoring the well-being
of the children, the families, the people of Iraq. Iraq is for the Iraqis—they
and only they can determine what and when is best. And they can only
begin when the U.S. withdraws its forces and ends its interference;
when the UN terminates its deadly embargo; and we as individuals take
responsibility for demanding that our respective governments act within
international law.
* Satya asked Halliday to clarify this comment and how Bush’s
decision to go to war with Iraq is determined by the Israel/Palestine
issue. Halliday replied: “I don’t think it is directly related.
I’m talking about human rights. My concern grows out of the fact
that basically no one in the Middle East—besides Israel—feels
at risk by Iraq. And no one in the Middle East or Europe, for that matter,
believes that Bush’s war against Iraq is about weapons of mass
destruction. My interest is to protect the human rights of both Israelis
and Palestinians. Anyone who is looking can see the angst the people
of both lands suffer over the Occupied Territories and I think most
people recognize that violence hasn’t been productive—or
is the answer.”
Denis J. Halliday is a former Assistant Secretary General
of the United Nations. In August 1997, Secretary General Kofi Annan
appointed Halliday to the post of UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq,
where he headed the UN’s oil-for-food program. He resigned the
following year in protest of the UN sanctions. Prior to that, Halliday
served in the UN for 34 years. This statement was given by Halliday
at a press conference in Baghdad on January 26, 2003, and is reprinted
in full with kind permission.
