Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | News Flashes | Scoop Features | Scoop Video | Strange & Bizarre | Search


Howard's End: Why The UN Debate’s a Farce

Howard's End: Why The UN Debate’s a Farce

By Maree Howard

A "diplomatic blunder" is how the The Wall Street Journal has declared the drive for a second UN resolution over Iraq and of Guinea it says; " The spectacle of the US Government begging that African nation for permission to sacrifice American blood and treasure to save the world from Saddam Hussein exposes the farce that the UN Security Council's debate has become." Save the world? Maree Howard writes.

Sitting here in New Zealand, do I feel an overwhelming need to be saved from Saddam Hussein? No!

Apart from what appears to be a paranoid and religiously fanatical US administration, neither do too many others. In fact, even the Iraqi's themselves are now fleeing Iraq, not because of Saddam Hussein, but because of the fear of US bombs and missiles which are about to rain down on them. Twice the number of packed buses have left for Jordan over the past few days as normal, according to The Times newspaper.

Those Iraqi's who can afford it are also hiring large vehicles and packing their families and possessions for either a ten-hour drive across the desert to Jordan, or an eight-hour drive northwest along the River Euphrates to Syria.

Are these mum and dad Iraqi's with their frightened kids in tow stopped by this tyrant, Saddam Hussein, from leaving? No!

Have Iraqi's ever been stopped by Saddam Hussein from leaving their country. I can't recall that. So, why the need for this war? Sure, he's done some horrific things when he has been threatened by political and religious foes.

Around 25 million people live in Iraq and, for the most part, they seem happy enough otherwise they would all be leaving if they felt threatened - wouldn't they? The fact that they have stayed at all under the harsh living conditions caused by the disproportionately severe punishment and treatment of the UN sanctions is a miracle in itself.

Can we say the same about many other countries who actually forbid their citizens from leaving their country and commit enormous human rights violations? - China comes to mind, and yet, are we going to war with that regime? No!

And another question. We've all been focusing on the war as a huge grab for Iraq's oil resource by the US to maintain its lifestyle. But what's in it for Britain?

Why has Tony Blair almost destroyed his political career by taking such a dogmatic approach in providing a military contribution and will not back down? There's got to be a reason that's being kept from us and I'm going to paint a scenario which is being raised within the global intelligence community.

After the war, Britain will be restored with a measure of power and influence in the Middle East through the establishment of military zones.

Already Britain has its own command in Kuwait over southern and south-eastern Iraq under which US troops are to serve. Although that command is subordinate to the supreme command of US General Tommy Franks, it will have complete autonomy in the field. For the first time since World War II a British officer will be in direct command of US troops.

The Turks will operate similarly in northern Iraq, also with field autonomy, but under the supreme command.

Britain lost its power and influence in the Middle East in 1956/57 when it was forced by then US President Dwight D Eisenhower to abandon all British holdings "East of Suez" and pull up its stakes in Jordan - and Tony Blair and his business friends, like BP oil, want it back.

This scenario means that if Iraq is split-up into three military zones after the war, the British will have control over the strategic oil fields of southern Iraq at Basra, the Khozistan regions and Al Qurnah as well as the Iraq-Iran border. This is also significant in itself, because any designs Iran has on Iraq's territory will mean Tehran will have to deal with the military might of both Washington and London.

This scenario means that while all of the oil of Iraq will be under the control of the US, some of the revenue will go to both Britain controlling the south and south-east and to the Turkish government controlling the north, to off-set their war-costs and to maintaining troops in their respective zones after the war.

It makes sense because the US will simply be unable to control the total of Iraq on its own after any war and prevent all the in-fighting and power plays by Iraq's religious and various ethnic communities.

Meanwhile, The Times reports that near the al-Rasheed bridge a group of Iraqi boys and girls who usually play together after school are frantically making sandbags by shovelling earth into plastic sacks and stacking them into a makeshift bunker for their families to try and avoid the blasts of the coming American bombs and missiles. Unlike some others, they simply cannot afford the money to leave the country and they are saying goodbye to many friends.

"Tell me where to go, where can I run to," they begged.

Others say they are terrified for their babies. "We don't know if we will ever see each other again, we don't know if the next time will be in heaven," The Times reports.

For me, this war has no validity, no legitimacy and as a Kiwi, I am deeply ashamed that our country has not taken a stronger position to try and prevent it. It seems in this life, the strong will always be allowed to dominate the weak.

© Scoop Media

Top Scoops Headlines


Werewolf: Living With Rio’s Olympic Ruins

Mariana Cavalcanti Critics of the Olympic project can point a discernible pattern in the delivery of Olympics-related urban interventions: the belated but rushed inaugurations of faulty and/or unfinished infrastructures... More>>

Live Blog On Now: Open Source//Open Society Conference

The second annual Open Source Open Society Conference is a 2 day event taking place on 22-23 August 2016 at Michael Fowler Centre in Wellington… Scoop is hosting a live blog summarising the key points of this exciting conference. More>>



Gordon Campbell: On The Politicising Of The War On Drugs In Sport

It hasn’t been much fun at all to see how “war on drugs in sport” has become a proxy version of the Cold War, fixated on Russia. This weekend’s banning of the Russian long jumper Darya Klishina took that fixation to fresh extremes. More>>


Binoy Kampmark: Kevin Rudd’s Failed UN Secretary General Bid

Few sights are sadder in international diplomacy than seeing an aging figure desperate for honours. In a desperate effort to net them, he scurries around, cultivating, prodding, wishing to be noted. Finally, such an honour is netted, in all likelihood just to shut that overly keen individual up. More>>

Open Source / Open Society: The Scoop Foundation - An Open Model For NZ Media

Access to accurate, relevant and timely information is a crucial aspect of an open and transparent society. However, in our digital society information is in a state of flux with every aspect of its creation, delivery and consumption undergoing profound redefinition... More>>

Keeping Out The Vote: Gordon Campbell On The US Elections

I’ll focus here on just two ways that dis-enfranchisement is currently occurring in the US: (a) by the rigging of the boundary lines for voter districts and (b) by demanding elaborate photo IDs before people are allowed to cast their vote. More>>

Ramzy Baroud: Being Black Palestinian - Solidarity As A Welcome Pathology

It should come as no surprise that the loudest international solidarity that accompanied the continued spate of the killing of Black Americans comes from Palestine; that books have already been written and published by Palestinians about the plight of their Black brethren. In fact, that solidarity is mutual. More>>


Get More From Scoop

Top Scoops
Search Scoop  
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news