Was it just for oil?

A post on the Dilbert Blog tempted me to put my thoughts in order, just to be sure what I was thinking:

Was Iraq invaded just for oil? No is the simple answer, yes is the other simple answer. Iraq was invaded to maintain a secure Western military presence, or in a more generous phrasing, to maintain regional stability. Now the reason this region is important, above say the forgotten parts of Africa, is because of its economic power, which is derived from oil. The West did not invade Iraq to make sure we had lots of oil, it feared that it wold lose control of the middle eastern economy, which would seriously damage the US economy in particular.

A long time ago the West was happy with Saddam, sure he killed and tortured, but hey, he was our friend! We even sent Donald Rumsfeld over there to sell supplies to create WMD. Unfortunately, like so many ill judged affairs it went a little wrong, Saddam got a little ahead of himself and invaded Kuwait, thinking his friends in Washington would be OK with this. So to keep him in order the US parked their tanks on their other friends lawn, the Saudi's, and told Saddam to watch himself. Pretty quickly this became untenable, for a number of reasons. Saddam along with a few other oil producers were thinking of moving their oil trades out of Dollars and in to Euros, not good for the US. These oil producing countries were also considering brokering exclusive deals with China, in urgent need of energy, something the West did not want to lose control of. For the record, the US engineered clauses in the new Iraqi constitution which give it tight control over the future of Iraq, in particular ensuring that Iraqi assets (oil) must not be nationalised, and therefore can be controlled by US companies. Finally another small problem arose, radical Islam. There were many Muslims who were offended by the sight of US weaponary on the holy lands of Saudi Arabia, and they started kicking up a fuss. One such Muslim was call Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi who was also a former friend of the US, but that was then. These radical Muslims were attacking US targets and threatening to overthrow the Saudi princes, which if it succeeded could cause Saudi money to leave the US economy at a devastating rate.

For some time many in the US had publicly pondered how to solve these dilemmas, how could an overthrow of Saddam Hussain be orchestrated without raising too much objection, then...

Guardian: I do not reject the Geneva conventions

I am pleased that a member of the government has allowed comment to be passed on what they say, if they actually read the comments then better still. I think the government should find a way of doing this more often, open up it's own forums or blogs. In the past the media has provided a buffer between politicians and public opinion, now perhaps the buffer can be removed.

The key to international law is not change or adapt it, but to implement it. The US government has been accused of being criminal in many regards but it is criminal in its attempt to disrupt or avoid international legalities. There was no urgency to invade Iraq, and so we could have taken time to create an international response. You say regarding legal constraints, that we have “an enemy which adheres to none whatsoever, but is swift to insist that we do”, whereas I usually see the enemy talk about our hypocrisy, our claim to be moral or legal when our actions are immoral or illegal. We should always strive to take the moral high ground. We should implement the international criminal court, empower the UN, or do anything to end wild-west justice and, to extend the analogy, bring in “federal marshals”. We must find a way to force the US to comply with international laws. We must end the immoral arms trade that disfigures so much of the world. We must end the disruption of democracies and support of dictators. Once we have a coordinated international legal system with consensus on implementation, once we have ceased the arms trade that fuels so much conflict. Once all this is in place then we will be able to wisely update our international laws, not before.

Guardian: Marx's reserve army of labour is about to go global

It should be welcomed that in a global economy a better balance of wealth between nations will arise, although this may mean some loss of income for the richer nations as capital is transferred to the poorer nations. There is a possibility of sustainable incomes in the richer nations by allowing for global economic growth; always at the expense of diminishing natural resources. However, it should be understood that a key restraint on capitalist excess has been universal suffrage. To date, the citizens of western nations have demanded that capitalism is contained and is fairer to the mass of workers. The new threat from capitalism is twofold. Firstly, as noted in the article, the ability of China to supply cheap labour; amplified by the inability of the Chinese workers to apply the same democratic restraints on capital that we have. Secondly, old fashioned divide and rule is coming in to play. As the economy is globalised, democratic nations become less able to restrain capitalism on their own and find themselves competing against each other to accept work on the worst terms. It is no surprise that pro-capitalist politics tries to increase xenophobia, as this helps prevent international unification. I believe the only way to continue the control of capitalism is to follow a three point plan: first increase democracy in China, second allow workers to move as freely as goods and finally, develop more supra-national democracy.

Guardian: Forget the Blair-Brown battle. Labour now needs a mission, not a monarch

You are right in your assessment, but how would this discussion arise? There is no method or procedure to allow the public to enforce a debate. We must rely on the wishes of the leaders presented to us. So far it seems that radical overhaul is only promised when desperation for power creeps in, but fades once power seems absolute. For now Brown feels he can bide his time and power will come, but how can we trust this man when ideals are, as you say, "subordinated to his own career ambitions". Blair promised a lot, but to an extent allowed himself to be a blank canvas upon which we painted or hopes. Cameron is trying a similar tactic now, but it may be we are too aware of this tactic for it to succeed. Once in power the government, not just Blair and Brown, started to suffer from a delusion that is always prevalent in long runs of power, where there original desire to gain power to serve the people distorts to the point where they view the government as the people and so they must keep themselves in power "for the people".

I still think it likely that Brown will win the next election, but hopefully it will be close enough to send a shock to him, and a radical overhaul is promised by all sides, and the promise kept because due to a genuine fear of losing. Sadly I am in a pessimistic phase, and see no chance of the debate you call for arising, now or in even the next parliament.

New Outlet

I have a new outlet for my rants!

The Guardian has started allowing comments to some of its articles, as they have a wider circulation than my blog I am going to start writing there to feed my ego. As they don't have a way of easily finding my comments I will also post them here.