Bush or Kerry, Pepsi or Coca Cola

international | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis Thursday August 26, 2004 16:32 by Terry - Galway Grassroots/NUIG Ecology Society/Organise!/Anarchist Federation (personal capacity) room101ucg at yahoo dot co dot uk

This essay argues that the conflict in the Persian Gulf is conditioned by the needs of American capitalism, and thus whether a Democrat or a Republican, a war hero or a draft dodger, sits in the Oval Office, it will make no difference to the propensity of the American state to commit acts of mass violence. An argument which is held up as a true by the record of Clinton, a man who recently received adulation in Dublin, yet whose administration slew far more than that of either Bush Snr. or Jnr.

In organising protests against the Bush visit it wasn’t our goal to protest against Bush, or even in the first case against the American government, but rather to contribute to and continue the two years of anti-war actions against military re-fuelling at Shannon airport. The Bush visit was an opportunity, a symbol of the Irish government’s not insignificant complicity with war and occupation.
It is apt that he used Shannon airport to come here.

The first protest I was at in Shannon, in August 2002 had just 60 to 70 people on it, since then a similar number of people have been through court over participation in demonstrations, peace camps and direct action at the warport. 150 people took part in a mass trespass on the runway grounds in October 2002, a month before hand a warplane was re-painted, in January 2003 thousands demonstrated at the airport and a peace camp was set up for several weeks, then a plane was disarmed twice and there was an attempt at openly repeating the success of the October ‘02 trespass.

The amBUSH was about re-kindling this resistance into the long term.

For the Bush = War, Bush = War, Bush = War, Bush = War mantra is one which only obscures how the capitalist world economy engenders war and how American administrations headed by Democrats, such as we are likely to have before this year is out, are no more or no less bloody as those of their Republican counterparts.

From the perspective of the American capitalism a paramount goal is securing a permanent military enclave in the Gulf region.
“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”, as the influential think tank Project for a New American Century puts it.

Reason being 64% of the world’s proven oil reserves lie in the Persian Gulf region.

Since the early 90ies with the ending of the Cold War American “defence” planning documents have openly stated the goal of preventing the emergence of another “great power competitor”. Control of the Middle East oil is crucial to this, as while America is not dependant on it, much of the rest of the world is – including Europe, China and Japan.

The oil producing states are a gold mine, not only from oil itself, but also from the arms their oil rich monarchies purchase from the U.S., plus their investments in land, hotels, and other enterprises in the West.
Thus it makes a difference if oil profit is spent on American arms, or invested in New York hotels, as with that of Saudi Arabia, or if it is ploughed into internal development (as was the case with Iraq and Iran).
As the Washington Post put it: “Since 1981, U.S. construction companies and arms suppliers have earned more than $50 billion in Saudi Arabia, according to the Congressional Research Service. More than 30,000 Americans are employed by Saudi companies or joint U.S.-Saudi ventures and U.S. investments in the country reached $4.8 billion in 2000, according to the Commerce Department. The U.S. oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. recently was chosen by the Saudi government to lead two of three consortiums developing gas projects worth $20 billion to $26 billion.” (Washington Post 21/9/01)

Sanctions, the U.N. imposed outlawing of trade with Iraq, have, in recent years, been increasingly flouted, principally by French, Russian and Chinese companies. Foreign oil contracts worth $ 1.1 trillion were made by the Hussein regime in the last decade. Effectively leaving American corporates out in the cold, should sanctions end without “regime change”. A powerful impetus then for “regime change”.

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia, America’s main trading partner and military garrison in the Gulf is no longer stable. Most of the S11 attackers were from there, an American “defence” planning document went so far as to describe the place as the “kernel of evil”. Turn Iraq into a playground for American interests and there is less dependence on Saudi Arabia and thus it’s ruling dynasty is more vulnerable to American pressure.
The trade sanctions against Iraq during the 1990ies in first place can be seen as a means of supporting Saudi Arabia by removing the competition of Iraqi oil from the market.

The world’s oil is traded in dollars, helping to make the dollar the world’s most important currency. Much of the world’s central bank reserves are held in dollars. This allows the U.S. the ability to survive the sort of trade deficit (i.e. to import far more than is exported) and national debt that elsewhere would cause a massive currency devaluation. However parts of OPEC ,– the consortium of oil producing states, have moved to euro (including Iraq), others are considering doing so. Control of Iraqi oil is a means of breaking OPEC before it moves over to euro.

The alternative explanation that American policy is motivated by worthy humanitarian concerns and desire for peace and security cannot keep pace with the twists and turns of the realpolitik of American policy.


What I’m driving at is that the war and occupation is not some sort of connivance of a megalomaniac politician with his buddies from the oil industry in a smash and grab raid on Iraq.

Rather war is a strategic and economic imperative for American capitalism.

Thus if Kerry wins in November it will make no difference.

One only has to look at the track record of the Clinton administration, in power for most of the years of the sanctions which blocked trade with Iraq.

To understand the impact of sanctions you have to appreciate the devastating impact of the 1991 war on the civilian infrastructure. Bombs destroyed it, and then sanctions prevented it’s repair, by preventing the importation of spare parts and new materials, and also by closing down the economy of the country so much less hard currency was available to fund such imports.

American Department of Defence documents from the period openly discuss the impacts of the bombing of the water supply, electricity network and sanitation services.
According to "Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad", a Pentagon document:
"Food-and waterborne diseases have the greatest potential for outbreaks in the civilian and military population over the next 30 to 60 days. Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems."
While the report "Disease Outbreaks in Iraq" has it that:
"Infectious disease prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing (Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert Storm.”
It goes on to detail the diseases in question “Diarrheal diseases (particularly children), Hepatitis A (particularly children), Measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children), Meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children), Typhoid ” and so on.

Then the effects of the trade sanctions: "IRAQ WATER TREATMMENT VULNERABILITIES", reads:
“IRAO DEPENDS ON IMPORTING-SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT-AND SOME CHEMICALS TO PURIFY ITS WATER SUPPLY, ……WITH NO DOMESTIC SOURCES OF BOTH WATER TREATMENT REPLACEMENT PARTS AND SOME ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS, IRAO WILL CONTINUE ATTEMPTS TO CIRCUMVENT UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS TO IMPORT THESE VITAL COMMODITIES.
FAILING TO SECURE SUPPLIES WILL RESULT IN A SHORTAGE OF PURE DRINKING WATER FOR MUCH OF THE POPULATION. THIS COULD LEAD TO INCREASED INCIDENCES, IF NOT EPIDEMICS, OF DISEASE”
A sample: All major electrical plants were bombed, as were 119 sub-stations, eight dams, 4 out of 7 major water pumping stations, 14 central telephone exchanges, 28 hospitals, 52 health centers, 7 textile factories, 5 engineering plants and 4 car assembly plants.

A country which has had it’s development put in reverse.

As described by the London Economist in 2000:

“Sanctions impinge on the lives of all Iraqis every moment of the day. In Basra, Iraq’s second city, power flickers on and off, unpredictable in the hours it is available.... Smoke from jerry-rigged generators and vehicles hangs over the town in a thick cloud. The tap-water causes diarrhoea, but few can afford the bottled sort. Because the sewers have broken down, pools of stinking muck have leached through the surface all over town.
That effluent, combined with pollution upstream, has killed most of the fish in the Shatt al-Arab river and has left the remainder unsafe to eat. The government can no longer spray for sand-flies or mosquitoes, so insects have proliferated, along with the diseases they carry.”

According to the UNICEF’s 2003 Report on the state of the world’s children
“Iraq’s regression over the past decade is by far the most severe of the 193 countries surveyed”, with the child death rate increasing from 50 to 133 per 1,000 live births, placing Iraq below every country outside Africa apart from Cambodia and Afghanistan.

On May 12 1996, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked about sanctions by Lesley Stahl of CBS television: “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Albright replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.”

Those expecting a Kerry victory in this years American presidential elections to be like a rainbow breaking through the clouds might remember that was Madeleine Albright of the Democratic Party’s Clinton administration.

The following is a piece I submitted to the Irish Examiner shortly before Bush arrived, a censored version was used (all references to Top Oil and Cement Roadstone were removed):

Dear George,

Thanks for coming here, I’d like especially to thank you for coming via
Shannon. Your visit to Shannon is the perfect symbol of our government’s complicity with the U.S. war effort, with the torture, with the bombing of wedding parties.

That is what they have contributed to by handing over Shannon as a pitstop for 10,000 U.S. troops per month, and with your visit no one can forget this.

Moreover it is the perfect symbol of the complicity of Irish businesses, in particular Top Oil, who re-fuel the warplanes at Shannon, and let us not forget Cement Roadstone Holdings, who partly own the company building the Apartheid Wall for your friends in Israel. Friends who also use Shannon for military purposes.

George, I’d especially like to thank you for being you, one of the world’s most reviled public figures.

Kennedy sent us close to nuclear annihilation with the Cuban crisis. When he came here he was welcomed with adoration.

Reagan led a government which ploughed weapons to Central American death squads, yet he too had his photo op.

Clinton was in power for most of the years of the trade sanctions on Iraq. Sanctions which, according to U.N. figures, slew half a million children under the age of five in the space of eight years.

Clinton got the mother of all photo ops in Ireland.

But you will be welcomed not by the stars and stripes, but by flags of protest alone.

When you land at Shannon airport on Friday night we will be there demonstrating from 7pm onwards, when you fly out the next day we will be there demonstrating from 12 noon onwards.