The Populist Review

The Grand Imperialist Scheme

   In case there was ever any doubt, the British newspaper, Independent, recently obtained a leaked version of a new hydrocarbon law to be approved in the next few days by the US-installed puppet government in Iraq that hands unprecedented control of the country's vast oil reserves to US and British energy conglomerates. The law, expected to take effect in March, was written by a US consulting firm hired by the Bush Administration and radically changes the country's oil industry. According to the Independent, the law will permit "the first large-scale operation of foreign oil companies in Iraq since the industry was nationalized in 1972" and represents a major departure from other oil producing nations in the region who tightly control their industries through state-owned monopolies.

   But wait. It gets better. The most significant aspect of the legislation, as reported by the World Socialist web, is the introduction of "production sharing agreements" or PSAs. Under these agreements, the state would retain formal ownership of the reserves yet offer billions in "compensation" to foreign energy firms like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP for investment in infrastructure and the operational costs of their drills, pipelines, and refineries. These PSAs would be fixed for an incredible 30 years, regardless of the presiding government. And there's even a provision that insists that all disputes be settled through international, rather than Iraqi, arbitration!

   How's that for letting the Iraqis control their destiny?

   Of course, PSAs aren't new to the oil industry. They're used in 12% of the world's oil reserves, generally in places where exploration prospects are uncertain and production costs high. But neither situation exists in Iraq where many oil fields have already been mapped or discovered and oil lies close to the surface.

   The Independent continues: "Under the chapter entitled, 'Fiscal Regime,' the draft law spells out that foreign companies have no restrictions on taking their profits out of the country, and are not subject to any tax when doing this."

   Steal the oil and pay nothing for it. Is that what Bush means by democracy?

   The draft also states, "A Foreign Person may repatriate its exports proceeds [in accordance with the foreign exchange regulations in force at the time]" and "may freely transfer shares pertaining to any non-Iraqi partners." In other words, Iraqi oil projects can be freely sold to other foreign companies without interference from the Iraqis.

   All the flag-waving in the world can't diminish the fact that this war was initiated, and continues to be waged, for this very purpose. And those who need proof beyond this legislation need only look to the items released under court order from Dick Cheney's infamous Energy Task Force meeting in 2001. Among those items were maps of Iraq's oil fields, pipelines, and refineries, and a supporting list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which named more than 60 firms with projects under discussion with Baghdad. Small wonder Cheney thumbed his nose at the GAO when they subpoenaed his minutes.

   Of course, the idea that we invaded Iraq for oil is hardly ground-breaking news. Yet, as we near what seems an imminent invasion of Iran and perhaps the start of global hostilities, I believe it bears repeating. The core of this global chess game is the unconscionable theft of foreign oil reserves. And though that's nothing new for the likes of Chevron and ExxonMobil, it's hardly a reason to send our kids into harm's way. And with another 20,000 on the way, it's even less of a reason for national pride.

                                                

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net

Our Man Kucinich?

   As debate heats up around Bush's "New Way Forward," it's a good time to review the current slate of Democratic presidential hopefuls and their respective positions on the war in Iraq. So, here goes.

   John Edwards has talked at length about bringing the troops home and turning the responsibility for Iraq over to the Iraqis ("We need to make it clear that we intend to leave Iraq and turn over the responsibility of Iraq to the Iraqi people. The best way to do that is by actually starting to leave"), but he's been noticeably mum on the issue of cutting funding for the war. Ditto Tom Vilsack, who's come out vociferously against more deployments, but avoided the subject of funding. Joe Biden, too, has maintained that a troop escalation would be "a mistake," but insists that a reduction in funding isn't an option. Then there's Mike Gravel. Mike's suggestion that we raze Gitmo, set up a single payer national health plan, and withdraw from Iraq immediately, is a welcome debate. But he, too, stops short of advocating funding cuts. As for Chris Dodd, he's called for an immediate troop withdrawal ("searching for military solutions in Iraq today is a fool's errand"), but he too has stopped short of suggesting that Congress unfund the war.

  As for Hillary? Despite her belated regret for approving the war (if I knew then what I know now...yada..yada..yada), her opposition to a timetable for troop withdrawal, her vigorous support for sanctions against Iran, and her recent statements ("we need to ensure that we are providing [our servicemen] with the support and resources that they need to get the job done"--a euphemism for continuing the war's funding) make clear that she'll have nothing to do with funding reductions.

   Then, of course, there's Obama who announced today with Sen. Reid that his "office is investigating what tools are available...to condition or constrain appropriations" for the surge in troops. It sounded impressive on C-Span this afternoon. But when he added that he doesn't want troops already in Iraq to be "shortchanged," we realized his investigations probably won't recommend a cut in funding.

  That leaves one Democratic presidential hopeful who's come out in favor of cutting funds for the war in Iraq: Dennis Kucinich. And as much as we find his supporters at times...oh, I don't know...idealistic?...we have to admit he's on the right track. "The only way we can bring the troops home," he said. "is by cutting the funding to this war--just like the Vietnam War." He also said, "the Democratic Congress has a mandate from the people to stop the war, bring the troops back home, and help Iraq take a new direction. We cannot do that if we appropriate more funds which set the stage for a sharp escalation of the war."

  Regardless of his perceived chances or the idealism of his supporters, we at the Populist Review have to admit Dennis Kucinich is on the right side of this debate. This war won't be contained, much less ended, by rhetoric, investigations, or calls for immediate redeployment. It will only end when Congress cuts funding for the war. We only hope that Sens. Reid, Obama, and their colleagues in Congress will come to that conclusion before this "New Way Forward" gets off the ground.

                                                   

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net

Saddam Lynching Closes the Door on U.S. Complicity

   The rush to lynch Saddam Hussein was an act of expediency for the Bush family and an act of vigilantism for an administration whose contempt for international law has only been trumped by its effrontery. Indeed, Saddam Hussein received fewer due process rights than the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. At Nuremberg, jurists enacted a "law of complicity" which balanced the complicit nature of modern war crimes with the individual's actions. They realized that war criminals act in complicity with a vast network of international financiers, arms suppliers, diplomatic liaisons, and nefarious politicians, and sought to establish a standard by which war crimes could be judged.

   But this trial never held to such standards. It was a travesty right from the start. Political figures and government officials publicly declared Saddam's guilt even as the trial progressed. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the powerful Shi'a political party, insisted "the government wants to see Saddam dead." Adel Abdul Mahdi, another prominent party leader, stated "[Saddam} deserves to be put to death without trial." Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated "[Saddam's] execution...will come soon, just after the court ruling." A week later, Shi'a cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, whose faction formed part of the Iraq government, declared, "Saddam needs no trial and must be treated as he treated the Iraqi people. I demand his execution immediately." Any one of these prejudicial statements could have been grounds for appeal at Nuremberg.

  Saddam was also never properly informed of the charges against him. Instead, he and eight other Ba'th Party defendants were given a "referral decision" from an investigative judge which offered vague charges without indicating the defendant's respective roles or even the theory of liability to be used against them. They were charged as a group for having committed "crimes against humanity against a number of citizens in the town of Dujail...on July 8, 1982." Only after the prosecution closed its case was Saddam's alleged role disclosed. And to compound the mockery, two extra charges were added at that time: enforced disappearance and "other inhumane acts."

   Nor were the material facts to be used against Saddam ever disclosed--facts like his mental state, effective authority, or knowledge of the acts of his subordinates. Such facts, guaranteed by any legitimate court and certainly guaranteed at Nuremberg, are central to mounting a proper defense and assured by international law. But this court was never hampered by such triflings as international law.

  When concerns were raised by Saddam's defense that they had inadequate time to prepare, their concerns fell on deaf ears. As if to underscore those fears, 700 pages of documents were introduced as evidence halfway through the trial and handed to them without explanation. Yet even this was not unusual for this case. Documents were regularly produced and used as evidence against the defendants on the same day!

   As if these miscarriages aren't damning enough, witness statements were read into the record without allowing the defense access to the witnesses, a tactic reminiscent of the Salem Witch Trials in which accusers gave damning testimony then left without fear of cross examination. It's also reminiscent of the Nazi show trials or the trials of Stalinist Russia (read a great editorial on this subject on the World Socialist Web Site). At the very least, and despite his clear complicity in mass murder, Saddam should have been granted the same due process of law extended to such butchers as Martin Bornamm, Hermann Goering, and Rudolph Hess--if only to bolster the court's legitimacy. But this case was never about justice. It was about silence.

  Saddam Hussein was facing myriad charges of which this trial was the first. Curiously, it focused on the 1982 slaughter of 148 Shiite men in Dujail. But Saddam was scheduled to stand trial for other atrocities as well--namely the mass murder of Kurds in 1987-88 and the suppression of Kurdish-Shiite revolts in 1991. Those trials would have brought out some damning evidence against the United States. The fact that Carter acquiesced when Saddam declared war on Iran. The fact that Reagan armed Saddam to the teeth with arms and chemical weapons (including anthrax) in violation of the Geneva Protocol during his eight-year war with Iran. The fact that Reagan backed European arms sales to the dictator. The fact that Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam while he was using chemical weapons and assured him of U.S. support. The fact that the U.S. provided Saddam with satellite images of Iranian troop positions that led to the massacre of thousands of Iranians. The fact that Bush 41 encouraged the Kurdish-Shiite revolt then left Saddam to maintain order. If these trials were held, that vast network of complicity might face trial as well. Donald Rusmfeld might have to give testimony, U.S. defense contractors. Maybe even Father Bush. And that certainly wasn't going to happen.

   In December, 2002, Bush, Jr. seized 800 incriminating pages of a 2,000 page Iraqi report to the U.N. Those pages contained the names of U.S. companies that supplied arms to Saddam, including details on weapons, dual-use technologies, and materials of mass destruction. The censored report, which rightfully belongs to Saddam's victims, would have presented compelling evidence against past and present U.S administrations.

   How convenient, the hangman's noose.

   I agree with Paul Rockwell at CommonDreams.org when he asks: Is there really a legal and moral difference between German industries that manufactured ovens for concentration camps, and U.S. and European industries that supplied Saddam with cluster bombs, nuclear materials, anthrax spores, helicopters, and chemical weapons to kill innocent Kurds and Iranians?

  If this trial demonstrates one thing, it demonstrates that the law of complicity devised by the jurors at Nuremberg is no longer applicable. That law was predicated on a balance of power that existed between The West and Soviet Union--a balance that collapsed with the Berlin Wall. The American Empire is now far more powerful. And nowhere is the arrogance of this new supremacy more clearly demonstrated than in its disregard for international law.

   Saddam's lynching was more than just an act of political expediency. It was a warning to others, like Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, now surrounded by U.S. troops: Don't expect the protocol of international law to save you. The American Empire is now beyond the law. If we want you, we'll get you.

   And despite the assurance of your allies, you will be next.

                                                 

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net

Course Change in 2007: Bomb Iran

   It doesn’t take a Rhodes scholar to figure out where Bush is headed in the Middle East in 2007. The notion of troop withdrawals, proposed by the Iraq Study Group, is as dead as Marley’s ghost. The idea of talks with Syria and Iran, an antiquated notion once known as diplomacy (dî-plō-ma-see), is equally dead. The war can’t continue at current troop levels, yet neither can Bush extend the tours of duty of some 140,000 G.I.s, reservists, and National Guard units indefinitely. And a draft would be disastrous. Moreover, his legacy, which currently puts him somewhere between Pol Pot and Alfred E. Newman, demands that he make a decisive move before dumping the entire mess in the next guy’s lap. Add to that the fact that no one (including most on the so-called Left) wants to see Iraq turn into a (yawn) “staging area for terrorists”―as if the entire Moslem world hasn’t become a staging area for anti-American sentiment thanks to this administration― and you’ve got the fixin’s for an inevitable solution:

 

   Bomb Iran.

 

   It’s a no-brainer, really. Even for The Decider. With a croupier to spin the intelligence at the Defense Department, a Democratic Congress determined to prove they can be trusted with “national security” (yet naïve enough to believe a draft could be equitably implemented), Wall Street awash in unprecedented profits, and a Radicalized Christian base gnawing at their prayer beads for an Armageddon, the stage has been fatefully set.

   First come the sanctions, which we saw on Friday. Then come the inevitable provocations, which began yesterday with the arrests of visiting Iranian diplomats in Iraq. Then come the pundits with their incendiary rhetoric. We’ll hear about Iran’s nuclear capability and their unwavering support for Hezbollah. We’ll hear about their interference in Lebanon’s affairs (though we’ll hear nothing about U.S-Saudi plans for a major aid and military training package to Lebanon’s Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora).

   We’ll hear about Iran’s hatred for Israel and their commitment to eradicating the Jews. We’ll hear how Syria has contributed to our humiliation in Iraq by supporting the “insurgency” and see clips of anti-American sentiment in the streets (especially if we bomb Iran). We may even see that old footage from 2001―my personal favorite―of six guys in black struggling across a set of parallel bars in a remote village in (Afghanistan?) with AK-47’s strapped across their backs. It’ll be enough to make the most secular conscientious objector run for the nearest gun rack.

   As the bombing nears, journalists and academics will insist we have no other choice. An occasional nut job from the Far Left will be interviewed to add credence to their case and the further the fiction of democratic discourse. Intelligence will be spun that proves Iran’s intent to develop nuclear weapons. The Democratic Congress, with an eye toward the polls and a burning desire to further their leadership image, will fall blithely in line (seizing the chance for a populist sound bite en route).

   No one will suggest―as I did in 2000―that the plan to attack Iran and Syria has been in place since Day One; or that our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were designed, in part, to surround Iran and position ourselves for an invasion of Syria. And we won’t hear much about Riyadh’s complicity in our foreign policy, though their footprints are clearly evident. King Abdullah summoned Dick Cheney to Riyadh last month (the operative word being “summoned”) for one central reason: to discuss joint U.S.-Saudi efforts against Iran. And you can bet they weren’t discussing the Iraq Study Group (sorry, Jim).

 

   And yet, you may ask―as Scrooge did while clutching the sleeve of the Ghost of Christmas Future― are these the things that will be, or are they the things that may be? 

 

  That, dear reader, is the million dollar question. If the Democrats in Congress refuse to fund a widening war, we may avert catastrophe. If they refuse to commit more troops to the region under any circumstance, we may also find reason for hope.  But with our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, arms being funneled to the beleaguered Lebanese government, Israel all but admitting they have a nuclear bomb, social “conservatives” demanding a win in the Middle East, King Abdullah determined to counter Iran’s influence, and Congress increasingly open to the idea of a “temporary surge” in troop levels, I wouldn’t place any bets on Iran. Scrooge had to completely change course in order to avert disaster. This administration, I'm afraid, shows no such inclination.

                                          

                                                

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net

A New Course in Iraq?

By now it's clear we won't be staying the course in Iraq, but neither will there be any troop withdrawals. Notwithstanding the findings of the Iraq "Surrender" Group and the admission of countless senators, congressmen, generals, servicemen, former presidents, international observers, journalists, authors, pundits, former cabinet members, ex-Bush appointees, and our own, new Secretary of Defense, that we're losing the war, Bush seems determined to send in more troops. And for proof, we need look no further than Bob Gates' inaugural comments this afternoon. "All of us want to find a way to bring America's sons and daughters home again, but as the president has made clear, we simply cannot afford to fail in the Middle East. Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility, and endanger Americans for decades to come."

What he failed to mention is the fact that this war was illegal from the start, based on fabricated intelligence, and sold to the American people as a preemptive measure. "Winning" in Iraq meant eradicating a tyrant and destroying his stockpile of weapons. Once it was clear those weapons never existed and Saddam Hussein was safely in jail, the concept of winning was infinitely harder to spin. The argument that we're "fighting terrorism" is ludicrous, given the fact that we invaded the country and ushered a wholesale massacre of its citizenry. And the thought that we could "bring democracy" to anyone, given the fact that our system is run by special interests, is equally absurd. Winning, therefore, can now only be measured as not losing, an ambiguity that further invokes our premise for the Vietnam War.

In case Mr. Gates hasn't noticed, we already have a calamity in Iraq. And it's not a scenario that 200,000 more troops will fix. We're also guaranteed to be haunted for many years to come, thanks to this administration--haunted by the fact that we were hoodwinked into losing some 3,000 U.S. servicemen and an estimated $2 trillion of our kids' money, to say nothing of the thousands of dead Iraqis. And as for our credibility? We have none. The world and our allies are appalled at our actions and our enemies have used our excesses to recruit thousands, if not millions, of supporters. That's the reason we're endangered today. And that's the reason we will be for decades to come. There is no "winning" this war no matter how many troops we commit. It was a mistake from the beginning and it was a mistake the Congress never would have allowed had the facts been known. In our view, distasteful as it may be to some, the only course in Iraq is to get out completely. It was a nefarious policy from the start and there will be wide ramifications for our blunder, but compounding the problem by sending more troops will only postpone the inevitable. Changing semanitics or upping the ante won't change the damnable facts.

                                                   

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net

Vietnamization II

   In a rare press conference that followed his party’s “thumpin’", George Bush was asked if he saw any parallels between the current situation in Iraq and our policies toward Vietnam in the late 1960’s. “First of all,” he said, “Iraq…voted on a constitution. Secondly…this is a volunteer Army. [And] thirdly, the support for our troops is strong here in the United States. So I see differences, I really do.” 

   But despite a constitution ratified beneath the watchful eyes of an occupying force, the lack of conscription in the U.S., and a support for our troops that in no way diminishes the widespread opposition to the war, parallels between Iraq and Vietnam persist.

    In both cases, support for the war was based on orchestrated sophistry. In Vietnam, Americans were told a nation of pre-industrial farmers could pose a security threat to the United States. In Iraq, we were told Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, though the pilots were Saudi nationals, and that he'd amassed a cache of nuclear weapons. In both cases, support for the war waned as distortions were exposed, casualties mounted, and evidence of U.S. attrocities surfaced in the mainstream press. In Vietnam, it was the massacre at Mai Lai. In Iraq, it was the abuse of prisoners at Abu Graib prison.

   In both cases, chaos gave way to a search for a “decent interval.” In 1969, President Nixon adopted a policy of “Vietnamization.” His policy called on the South Vietnamese to increase their participation in the war, setting the stage for an “honorable” U.S. exit. In 2006, the calls for a U.S. withdrawal and increased Iraqi participation can be heard from every quarter.   

  The nuclear card was also reserved in both cases. In 1968, to ensure North Vietnamese participation in peace talks, Bob Haldeman, Nixon’s right hand man and one of the chief U.S. negotiators for the talks, let it be known that the president was so unstable and staunchly anti-communist that he might, at any time, resort to nuclear weapons―the so-called “Madman Theory.” Today, it’s well known that the U.S., Israel, and Turkey are in the advanced stages of a plan to use nuclear weapons against Iran, widely perceived as a staging area for Iraqi “insurgents.” Whether that plan will be used as a bargaining chip remains to be seen.

  In 1967, Nixon created the Phoenix Program, a secretive CIA program to train South Vietnamese to infiltrate their peasant communities in search of NVA sympathizers. The sympathizers were then murdered by death squads. Today, death squads from Iraq’s Ministry of Interior, dressed as Iraqi police with an uncanny ability to get through U.S. checkpoints, have been killing “insurgent” sympathizers by the hundreds, mostly Sunni. Indeed, a U.N. human rights report released last year claimed the Interior Minsitry forces were responsible for an "organized campaign of detentions, torture and killings" and asserted that special police commando units who carried out these killings were recruited from Shia Badr and Mehdi militias, trained by U.S. forces. 

   In Vietnam, as with Iraq, generals on the ground insisted the country could never hold its own without a continued U.S. presence. It was Henry Kissinger, bowing to political pressure, who proposed withdrawing our troops back then. And as we made our exit from Danang and Saigon, pandemonium gripped the countryside and rockets rained down on the citizens as the NVA made their final sweep. Thousands of South Vietnamese lost their lives or committed suicide.

   It is therefore the similarities to Vietnam rather than its differences, I believe, that drive this president to stay the course in Iraq, as reaffirmed in his comments this morning from Hanoi. “We’ll succeed unless we quit.” But that similarity also infers a similar fate regardless of the president’s tenacity. The deceit that propelled us to war in both cases set the stage for a popular outcry. That outcry implies this president will find it difficult to prevent the inevitable.

                                                   

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net