Haroon Siddiqui on oil lobby

Haroon Siddiqui is an Indian journalist from Hyderabad, India who writes for Toronto Star. Here he explains how the oil lobby wants a war with Iraq.


Published on Sunday, January 19, 2003 by the Toronto Star
‘Oil Lobby Determined to Have Its War’ in Iraq
by Haroon Siddiqui

HYDERABAD, India—With Canada, most of Europe and the entire Arab world wary of an American war on Iraq, let’s turn to Asia for another perspective. To the world’s largest democracy, India. To its highly respected former prime minister, Inder K. Gujral, easily the most thoughtful and moderate Indian leader since Jawaharlal Nehru.

Five years after stepping down from office, he remains a popular speaker, from here to America, where his son lives. Gujral was in New York for the fall session of the United Nations as a member of the Indian delegation in the days leading up to the Nov. 8 resolution on Iraq, reconstituting the U.N. weapons inspection system.

“It would be a great tragedy for the world if there was to be a war on Iraq,” he said in an interview. "It would be particularly calamitous for our region. But the oil lobby in America is determined to have the war.

“The main American aim seems to be to gain control of the world’s second-largest oil reserves and to dictate the flow of oil to the world market. This has, in fact, long been the objective of American diplomacy in oil-rich West Asia.”

Gujral recalled a 1990 meeting he had as India’s foreign minister with then-U.S. secretary of state James Baker. “He minced no words when he told me: `Mr. Minister, oil is our civilization and we will never permit any demon to sit over it.’ That still seems to be the main objective of the American policy,” the job having been left unfinished in the 1991 Gulf War.

Gujral’s views are widely shared here, even by the right-wing Hindu nationalist government, whose domestic hard-line religious views are anathema to him as a secular Hindu.

The government of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, despite hitching itself to George W. Bush’s war on terrorism, remains unpersuaded by the president’s call to arms on Iraq. It subscribes to the view that a war on Iraq would dilute the war on terrorism.

Gujral agrees, but his critique goes well beyond that.

"Afghanistan is still unsettled. Al Qaeda is trying to recuperate elsewhere. That task should not be left unfinished. We cannot have attention and resolve diverted elsewhere. There is no credible evidence linking the Iraqi government in any way with the global terrorist’s network.

“The issue is not Saddam Hussein. He has done horrible things, but individuals are dispensable. The issue is Iraqi people, long suffering under economic sanctions. The issue is the American desire to control oil.”

The issue is also American unilateralism. America is, of course, "the pre-eminent power of this age. Its technology and economy dominate the world and its might is irresistible. There is also a strange helplessness on the part of other powers in the face of American domination. But the world, especially our region, is full of apprehension that this hyper-power would act unilaterally to impose its own form of global order and enforce its values in shaping the world to its own taste.

“It is highly unacceptable at the beginning of the 21st century to have powerful outsiders decide which particular government is good and which one is bad. It would be a strange thing to have some powerful powers, sitting thousands of miles away, dictating what should happen in which country.”

Gujral believes the Bush administration’s declared desire to dominate the world may not be good for America itself.

"The world today is too complex, too volatile and too independent to be governed from a single center. Interventions in the name of peace and security will always require global solutions and global coalitions. Such co-operation would be impossible when a country chooses to operate beyond the pale of international law and sanctity.

“The only viable option, therefore, is a multi-polar world order. I believe that the principal center. of this order will be America, of course, and a newly assertive European Union, and resurgent Russia and Asia, particularly the rising economic powers of China and India. Consultation and co-operation among these powers will be central to maintaining the stability of this order.”

Bush is working through the United Nations on Iraq, isn’t he?

Yes, says Gujral, but only to subvert it. "There’s the ongoing Anglo-American campaign to build up a war psychosis without adducing any convincing material evidence against Iraq. As to weapons of mass destruction, this is best proven or disproven on the ground, now that international inspection teams are in Iraq and by all accounts are carrying out their tasks unhindered.

“Yet America is trying to defeat the purpose of the U.N. inspection regime. I hope the inspectors will be allowed to complete their job and table their report. And I hope it is the United Nations which decides the merit of the report. Let the inspectors tell the world whether Saddam Hussein has or does not have weapons of mass destruction.”

Recalling the 1953 American-organized regime change in Iran after Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized the Iranian oil industry, Gujral noted that the event unleashed “ultra-nationalistic-cum-religious” forces, which culminated in the 1979 revolution. “I fear the emergence of similar intifada in the post-Saddam era.”

Haroon Siddiqui is The Star’s editorial page editor emeritus. His column appears Sundays and Thursdays.

Haroon Siddiqui from Hyderabad, India

IK Gujral is an old stalwarth of the congress party. A socialist to his bones..he was the idiot who slowed down the economic reforms upon coming to power. Let him weep...

But what Gujral says is 100% true. Most Indians (in fact all) oppose US war on Iraq and this includes BJP and other all other parties.

US is also worried about India-Iran's cosy relationship. Khatami's visit to India worried American policy makers.

Jan. 23, 2003. 01:00 AM

Sept. 11 just a straw in the wind' Asian intellectuals vilify cowboyish’ Bush

HAROON SIDDIQUI

MYSORE—This historic city in India has been overshadowed by nearby Bangalore, hub of India’s information technology. But this former capital of a regional Hindu empire (1394-1947 but for a 40-year Muslim interregnum) offers greater charms: The exquisite palace of the maharajah, featuring a gilded dome and stained glass ceiling, teak and rosewood doors with silver and ivory inlay, and a bejewelled throne of fig wood; ancient temples in and out of the city; a lush countryside; and past it, up on a hill, British India’s famous summer resort of Ooty.

To this city came 230 academics and others for a joint meeting of the Canada-Asia Pacific Conference and the Indian Association for Canadian Studies. I posed two questions to a random sample of delegates: What do you think of George W. Bush? And of a possible war on Iraq?

Herewith some of their responses:

Myung-Bae Yeom: director, American Canadian Institute, Chungnam National University, Daejon, South Korea.

I don’t believe a word of what Bush says. He’s not as wise as a president of the United States should be. He thinks the cowboyish way. Under him, the world may end up with a one-state tyranny. In our Oriental way of thinking, people of age and power are respected. But they have the wisdom to concede to the young and the weak. The United States does not. That’s the core of the world’s current conflict with America.

Dr. Harish Narang, professor, English, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

What caused 9/11? Anger at America. The blatant manner in which America is supporting Israel is leading to a counter-movement in the world. More than Israel, it will be America that will pay the price. Sept. 11 was just a straw in the wind.

Just about everybody hates America now, not only Islamists or jihadis or Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. Germany’s Gerhard Schroeder won an election opposing an American war on Iraq. Hundreds and thousands of people are protesting in London, Rome and elsewhere for the first time since the Vietnam War. But the lessons of Vietnam seem to have been lost on America.

It has become brash and arrogant: supporting acts of Israeli terror on hapless Palestinians, in total defiance of world opinion; bombing Iraq into the stone age and then forcing millions of innocent Iraqi people to pay either with their lives or by surviving at a subhuman level for the sins of Saddam Hussein; and now it’s threatening another war. This is America at its brazen worst, an icon of barbarity. It’s a political pariah.

Sunil Sondhi, professor, international relations, Delhi University.

I support George Bush. The currency of international relations is power. The United States is the biggest economic and military power. If the president perceives that Iraq is an emerging threat to his country, he has every right to take a stand. As for his double standards, I believe that any country in that position would do the same.

Amarjeet Singh Narang, professor, social sciences, Indira Gandhi University, New Delhi.

Bush’s plan to attack Iraq is not justified, from a humanitarian or international legal point of view. He cannot be the self-appointed policeman of the world when he himself has the maximum number of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, there is no deterrent to American power. Russia, China and others are looking to improve their economic relations with America. The only possibility of a counterweight is the European Union.

Dr. Jameela Begum, professor, English, University of Kerala, Trivandrum.

I think Bush is another Hitler. He thinks there is only one nation and it must rule the world.

Dr. Vinnay Jain, professor political science, Ambedkar University, Agra.

Originally, I thought that Bush was daft. But his foreign policy, whether it is his own or dictated by his associates, shows maturity even if his pronouncements don’t. His rhetoric — “smoke them out of the caves,” “fight to the last man,” etc. — is very cowboyish. I don’t believe a word he says about Saddam Hussein. My students feel the same way. They think Saddam is a hero because they want someone, anyone, to stand up to America.

Dr. Chandra Mohan, president of Indian Association for Canadian Studies.

Bush adopts a soft attitude towards his friends’ terrorism but wages war against other forms of terrorism. He has a double standard when it comes to Palestine and when it comes to Iraq. The same allegation applies to his dealings with our country, India, because he is giving monetary assistance to Pakistan (accused of cross-border terrorism in Kashmir).

B. Hariharan, lecturer, English, Mysore University.

Bush is aggressive when he need not be. Power is completely corrupted in his hands. It’s painful to watch. What crime have the people of Iraq committed? What have those women and children done? Bush talks about Saddam’s violation of human rights but American economic sanctions are the worst form of human rights violation. America is supporting Israel, which is also violating basic human rights. Somewhere along the line, the American soul has been lost.

Dr. Cooni Vevaina, professor, English, University of Mumbai.

Bush is full of banalities. It’s very obvious that other people do the thinking for him. On Iraq, it’s right-wing and myopic cowboy politics.
Additional articles by Haroon Siddiqui

Indians response to US-Iraq war

Most Pakistanis consider Indians to be "hating Muslims" and generalise that Indians never support Muslim cause and coin phrases like "Muslim burning Indians". On the contrary you find majority of India's population on Iraq's side , not because they are Muslims but because they feel for the suffering for the ordinary Iraqi people irrespective of their religion. Like every society there are small number of Hindu fanatics who have committed crimes against Muslims but then there are equal number of Muslim fanatics in India who have committed crimes against Hindus.

Consider this... regardless of the feelings of the Indian public, why is the BJP anti-war with Iraq?
It's not public sentiments or votes.
It's not oil.
It's not an $8 trillion fee to get a pipeline passed along its territory like Pakistan.

Only one reason: the BJP doesn't want the US to shift its focus. It wants the war on terror to be a war on terror.. once Bush flips the channel from Al Qaeda to Al Moolah, he isn't going to give squat about Laskar-e-whatever for sometime. India's no do-gooder. BJP wants the US to the recognize Kashmir as a terror issue, and keep kicking up a ruckus with Pakistani-grown Islamic groups. Smart fellow, that Vajpapaya.

South Asian leaders urge Iraq peace, BBC, 28 January 2003

South Asian leaders on Tuesday called for a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis, urging restraint on the United States. They were responding to Monday’s report by UN weapons inspector Hans Blix that said Iraq was defying international demands to disarm. The report sparked fresh threats from the US and Britain that war was likely unless Iraq disarmed fully.

The Pakistani, Indian and Sri Lankan leaderships all said that war was not the solution to the crisis. Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee urged Washington to ease off.

“The super power should exercise super restraint,” he said. “Certain countries in Europe, too, do not want war. Iraq also does not want war.”

Mr Vajpayee feared a conflict would harm the world economy, sending oil prices soaring - a particular concern for India, which imports 70% of its oil. Pakistan is currently a member of the UN Security Council. Its Prime Minister, Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, said war should only ever be a last resort. Mr Jamali is touring five Gulf states this week to discuss ways of avoiding a conflict. “In the 21st century, you don’t go for wars. War is the last resort. Diplomacy is the first,” he said.

A far stronger line was taken by Pakistan’s Islamist politicians, who said the UN report had quashed any legal or moral grounds for a war against Iraq. The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal alliance of religious parties urged the United Nations to prevent military action threatened by the US. The alliance said Mr Blix’s report contained no proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. An alliance leader, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, said: "The US cannot now continue with aggressive postures.

“The US had no justification in the first place to threaten Iraq. After the inspectors’ report it should stop beating the war drums.” Sri Lanka urged Iraq to co-operate with UN weapons inspections and called for diplomatic efforts to peacefully resolve the crisis given the “human, political and economic consequences” of war. Sri Lanka depends on Gulf oil for most of its energy requirements and fears a war would seriously damage its economic recovery.

The state-run Ceylon Petroleum Corporation put off a planned shutdown of the country’s only oil refinery for maintenance this month because of the uncertainty. Mr Blix’s report on Monday was his first major account to the UN following 60 days of inspections. He said Iraq was defying international demands to disarm but also that there was no proof Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief nuclear inspector, called for several more months to finish work in Iraq and diplomats indicated the inspectors could deliver a new report on 14 February.

He said Iraq was defying international demands to disarm but also that there was no proof Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

This is the most relevant sentence,Iraq is being called upon,by res.1441 to disarm,they are defying disarmement.

How can you be disarmed when you don't have the weapons they want you to have, in the first place.

It's like saying - our intelligence indicates you have it but let's punish you anyways because we can't find it.

You are 100% sure that Saddam has non of these weapons,how could you possibly know that for certain Nadia?

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ana: *
Consider this... regardless of the feelings of the Indian public, why is the BJP anti-war with Iraq?
It's not public sentiments or votes.
It's not oil.
It's not an $8 trillion fee to get a pipeline passed along its territory like Pakistan.

Only one reason: the BJP doesn't want the US to shift its focus. It wants the war on terror to be a *war on terror
.. once Bush flips the channel from Al Qaeda to Al Moolah, he isn't going to give squat about Laskar-e-whatever for sometime. India's no do-gooder. BJP wants the US to the recognize Kashmir as a terror issue, and keep kicking up a ruckus with Pakistani-grown Islamic groups. Smart fellow, that Vajpapaya.
[/QUOTE]

Ana ur absolutely rite, u made a gr8 point here

Another thing, I hope Gujral was the PM of india. He is one of the few moderats among the hawks of indian politics.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Braveheart: *
**He said Iraq was defying international demands to disarm but also that there was no proof Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
*

This is the most relevant sentence,Iraq is being called upon,by res.1441 to disarm,they are defying disarmement.
[/QUOTE]

Care to know Israel defied how many UN resolutions to give up the illegally occupied territory? Or just hush it under the carpet?