All around the world people ask: What is the real motive for the Bush administration's threatened war with Iraq? Is it to curb weapons of mass destruction? Is it more personal, an act of vengeance by a son against the man who attempted to assassinate his father? Is it to defend Israel? Is it to reinvent the Middle East as a more democratic region, as many of the Bush administration's leading voices insist? Or is it, as some suspect, so that the US can get its hands on Iraqi oil?
The Bush administration has offered a range of justifications for its plans, although with a fairly consistent emphasis on weapons of mass destruction. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz talks about making Iraq the "first Arab democracy." Many in the Bush administration argue that aggressive policies toward Iraq can ultimately bring down autocratic governments in the Middle East the same way that the Reagan administration supposedly brought down the "evil" Soviet empire.
Outside of the US, almost nobody buys these arguments. Most believe that oil ranks at the top of the US's list of motives. Short of the US national security archives suddenly falling open, we are unlikely to find a definitive account of the President's innermost thoughts. Moreover, different US officials certainly have different priorities. President George W. Bush may focus on weapons of mass destruction; Wolfowitz may target democracy. Others may have their eyes firmly on the prize of Iraqi oil.
A more fruitful question than an inquiry into America's motives is how the US will act once war comes. Here we don't have to rely on second-guessing individuals. We can examine the US' behavior in recent history.
Looking at the historical record, it is difficult to believe that the US will give the Middle East a democratic makeover. Today's Middle East is a construction of the US and Europe. Its despots and monarchs owe their positions to the machinations of the West. Even if the US goes off to war waving the banner of democracy, the results are likely to be less glorious. In the end, this will likely be a war for Iraqi oil.
Throughout the 20th century, Arab self-determination, democracy, and economic reform took a back seat to oil. When the British inveigled Arab chieftains to fight on behalf of the British empire in World War I, the Arabs were not rewarded with sovereignty at the Great War's end, but with ongoing British and French suzerainty.
Whenever real democracy in the Middle East threatened American control over oil reserves, democracy was jettisoned. Consider the CIA-backed coup against Iranian prime minister Mussadegh. In 1951, Mussadegh nationalized Iran's oil industry, prompting a British boycott the next year and then US-backed intervention (which toppled and jailed the popular prime minister) in 1953.
A similarly instructive case is the West's support for a military crackdown in Algeria after democratic elections in early 1992 threatened to bring the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) to power. When the FIS seemed headed to victory, Algeria's army stepped in to prevent continuation of the vote. Western governments, led by France but with US backing, gave moral and financial support to Algeria's generals.
American behavior in former Soviet Central Asia is equally vivid. Many in the Bush administration point to its work in this region as a showcase for how they will reshape the Middle East. Yet democracy has absolutely nothing to do with US policy in Central Asia, where US oil companies and diplomats trip over each other promoting deals in despotic Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
A good window on postwar US policy in Iraq can be found in key documents written by and for the Bush administration before Sept. 11, when the analysis of the Middle East was much less infected by today's fears. Probably the most interesting document is a study entitled "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges of the 21st Century," produced by the James Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Texas and the Council on Foreign Relations.
The study makes clear two points. First, Iraq is vital to oil flows from the Middle East, as it sits on the second largest reserves in the world. The report agonizes over the fact that for economic security reasons the US needs Iraqi oil, but that for military security reasons the US can't allow Saddam to develop the oil. The implication seems clear: the US needs a new Iraqi regime for its energy security. Democracy is not mentioned anywhere in the study.
This document also provides an interesting glimpse into the preoccupations of officials like Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Both men entered national leadership under president Gerald Ford in 1974, during the Arab oil embargo, which unleashed huge economic shocks that doomed Ford's presidency. The "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges" study puts enormous weight on the threats of a similar disruption today. The 1970s embargo was evidently a defining moment in the strategic thinking of Cheney and Rumsfeld.
The Bush administration may believe that it is going to war to fight for democracy in the Middle East, but US support for real democracy stands to be an early victim. Sadly, a war fought for oil will be one that further destabilizes international politics and society and undermines the true security of the US and the world.
Jeffrey D. Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. Copyright: Project Syndicate
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
The wrap-up press event on Feb. 1 for the new local period suspense film Murder of the Century (世紀血案), adapted from the true story of the Lin family murders (林家血案) in 1980, has sparked waves of condemnation in the past week, as well as a boycott. The film is based on the shocking, unsolved murders that occurred at then-imprisoned provincial councilor and democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) residence on Feb. 28, 1980, while Lin was detained for his participation in the Formosa Incident, in which police and protesters clashed during a pro-democracy rally in Kaohsiung organized by Formosa Magazine on Dec.
Watching news footage of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials shaking hands and exchanging pleasantries with their counterparts across the Taiwan Strait, I could not help but feel a profound sense of temporal displacement. As a member of the generation born after the lifting of martial law and raised under modern civic education, I truly want to ask the KMT: “Do you not see who the true villain is?” In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party used a bloody civil war to drive the KMT into exile in Taiwan. In the decades that followed, it has sought to completely erase the existence
With the Year of the Snake reaching its conclusion on Monday next week, now is an opportune moment to reflect on the past year — a year marked by institutional strain and national resilience. For Taiwan, the Year of the Snake was a composite of political friction, economic momentum, social unease and strategic consolidation. In the political sphere, it was defined less by legislative productivity and more by partisan confrontation. The mass recall movement sought to remove 31 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators following the passage of controversial bills that expanded legislative powers and imposed sweeping budget cuts. While the effort
RSS