Is It The World, Or Is It Me?
By Ian McPherson

Almost invisibly, but by horrific increments, the world seems to be changing for the worse. War is now again imminent in the Mideast, as the US government prepares its plans for an preemptive assault on Suddam Hussein. It seems to me that enough people in the world have lost their lives over oil. Perhaps it is time that came to an end. Is it the world, or is it me? You decide.

Heated debate in the US over Iraq

International (or US) war seems inevitable with Iraq, even though little evidence has been revealed by the US government to connect the Iraqis with the September 11 attacks. Many Mideast commentators insist that Osama bin Laden would have little to do with Saddam Hussein, because bin Laden is a religious zealot, while Hussein ventures into a mosque only when he is forced to. The fact that 15 of the 19 people connected to the September 11 terrorism were Saudis has been almost ignored, let alone widely publicized.

What motive, other than the obvious hatred Osama bin Laden has for the US and the rich amongst his own countrymen, who he believes have sold out to the US for the supply of oil, could there be here? The New York Times recently reported that a Rand Corporation analyst advised a Pentagon advisory group that the Saudis should be treated as an enemy, as they are a prime sponsor of terrorism and instability in the Middle East.

If this is so, will the US again support one despot regime, only to swap sides later when the tables turn against its short term interests, as it did with Iraq after its war with Iran?

Is it simple coincidence that George Bush's popularity rises during times of terrorism, yet falls during times of financial and corporate unrest? The New York Times reported that an American arsenal in the Mideast is being built up to confront Saddam Hussein. This sort of government action appears to many in the world to lack a clear public mandate, and without overwhelming evidence of a real threat, to border on a betrayal of the public interest.

Other than to assure the supply of oil, a highly dangerous and out-of-date solution to our transport needs, or to protect the lives of a horribly oppressed and brutalized population, why should any US or Australian soldiers help fight a war in Iraq? Lacking sufficient evidence, the US public would be wise to be skeptical of a government which may be looking for increased popularity, and for the public focus to swing away from its economic problems, which this war would provide.

Women glow, and men thunder ...

Meanwhile, down under, Australia's Prime Minister Howard, when challenged by Opposition Leader Simon Crean to provide evidence of any link between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorists, or to supply evidence that Iraq actually has any weapons of mass destruction, bluffed it out.

Howard stated that parliamentary examination of the evidence would "unduly politicize an extremely sensitive issue, with potential adverse consequences for the national interest". It's clear now that our own Prime Minister is as much in the dark about this war as the US public.

Muddy waters across the Atlantic

Irritating the US greatly, Russia has announced a plan to fund and support Iraq, probably to ensure its own oil supplies direct from Baghdad as repayment on old (and new) loans, and break out of the world (OPEC) oil monopoly. It makes sense, from the Russian viewpoint, to pay less for oil from Iraq, and it may help them recover unpaid funds they are already owed.

Baghdad has its own problems. The Washington Post reported that US oil companies have cut Iraqi oil imports over the past six months. This has led to a steep decline in Iraq's exports and affected Iraq's ability to transfer money from the UN-supervised "oil for food program", which allows Iraq to sell oil to buy humanitarian supplies. The US was importing one million barrels a day five months ago. That has fallen to around 100,000-200,000 barrels a day, and may fall further. This is currently costing Iraq around $20 million per day.

You may think that the US companies are acting ethically, and supporting the government's assessment of Iraq. But don't be fooled. The truth is that Iraq demands "kickbacks" and UN procedures make it impossible for buyers to determine the price of oil before buying it. Naturally enough, the US customers are going elsewhere.

Saudi Arabia has also announced that it does not want American forces to use Saudi soil for any military campaign against Iraq. Whilst the Saudis were openly hostile against Saddam Hussein for invading fellow OPEC member Kuwait, because they could see that they may have been next, they are less than keen on allowing the US to initiate a conflict in the region, now that Hussein looks far less threatening.

OPEC member Kuwait's oil minister recently stated that the cartel was ready to increase crude supplies to world markets if the United States decided to go ahead with a military strike on Iraq. One would expect this, of course, from a country ravaged by Hussein's troops. Not coincidentally, the small country, and the other OPEC members, stand to make a tidy profit from the conflict, should it occur.

Legal problems arise in New York

In New York, over 300 family members of victims of the September 11 massacre are filing suit against various Saudi Arabian government "interests", alleging that these "interests" assisted in financing Osama bin Laden and his network of terror.

When quoted, lawyer Allen Gerson stated that "This will be a civil complaint for damages," he said. "We're trying to expose the extent, the depth, the orchestration, the financial support that terrorist organizations have received for perhaps a decade from various Saudi interests."

Although it is not clear what evidence exists to support this court case, the lawyer said he would be seeking more than $300 billion in damages for the families involved. Again, the evidence is mounting that the springboard for Osama bin Laden's activities may originate in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

Is this part of the War on Terror, or the control of oil?

What reason would the leader of the free world have to initiate a war, without significant evidence of a viable threat against the US, you may ask? There is no doubt that oil is involved. A more reliable government in Iraq would certainly ensure a more stable and affordable oil supply to the US and the world. But without convincing evidence that there is a threat of attack on citizens of the US, can this be linked to the War on Terror?

George Bush is at heart an oilman. He sold his ailing oil exploration firm to Harken Energy Corp. for stock, just before it was discovered Harken had concealed large losses. This stock sale helped finance Bush's stake in the Texas Rangers baseball club and hurled him into the role of a multi-millionaire. Interestingly, George Bush was employed at the time as a member of Harken's audit committee.

As a man intimate with the interests of the oil industry, George Bush makes no bones about his links with the industry, but hides from the consequences of these links when they turn sour. Whether the US public's interests are adequately served by the President's obvious addiction to the oil industry, which is responsible for a considerable amount of toxic pollution and an unsustainable long-term business plan, is debatable, but of such stuff are Presidents of the US made.

The sane alternative

The world would be a better place if alternatives to oil were seriously considered, and legislated by government. Unfortunately, the vested interests in the oil community (and the recipients of their donations in the US Congress) will ensure that the last of the profits are "milked" from this dwindling supply of energy before alternatives are readily available.

We may as well forget about the fact that we may have ruined the world already, and that there may not be any future for our children. No-one wants to talk about such depressing stuff, let alone act on it. The US government's continual rejection of the Kyoto agreement, on the grounds that it would hurt the economy, are falling on deaf ears — we all know that the oil industry has the most to lose.

The world would be a better place without the oil industry, and the Sheiks and Kings of the Mideast, who all fuel, support or harbor terrorism in one form or another. Without the billions of dollars of income from oil, they would be reduced to mere owners of sandpiles.

Sane is sane. A war over oil is not sane, and should be rejected by all right thinking people, worldwide. The US is obviously offended that Russia has cut a deal with Saddam Hussein that they do not benefit from. And indeed, the US is deeply offended that Russia still deals extensively with the "terrorist states" of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Cuba and North Korea. Yet not all the people in these states are terrorists, and the small amount that are is not enough to justify a war. Nothing is.

Unless the US government can justify this war, with sound and undeniable evidence, it should be rejected by the public. Just as I write this, George Bush stated to the New York Times that; "When I say I'm a patient man, I mean I'm a patient man and that we will look at all options and we will consider all technologies available to us, and diplomacy and intelligence. But one thing is for certain, is that this administration agrees that Saddam Hussein is a threat."

The real question, of course, is "who" is Saddam Hussein a threat to? The US itself, or its interests in the Mideast, including its access (and control) of oil-producing nations? Only time will tell what really was the motivation behind this call for a "preemptive strike".

The War on Terror has given George Bush's administration unprecedented power to affect the lives of millions of innocent people in the Mideast. Let's just hope that the time does not come when that power is abused. And, let's hope that all our governments have the sense to see that we must move away from our addiction to oil, before we make the world uninhabitable.

Is it the world, or is it me? You decide.

See you all in the next issue! 

Ian McPherson
DownUnder Editor