The Hindu : Protecting special interests

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Aug 23, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

Protecting special interests

THE CLAIM MADE by the Bush administration, that it fought the Iraq war in order to reform West Asia, gets progressively exposed as it implements measures that benefit Iraqis less and others more. A decision taken by George W. Bush to grant wide legal immunity to companies that deal in Iraqi oil makes this abundantly clear. Mr. Bush conferred this immunity by means of an Executive Order. It prohibits the enforcement of decrees of attachment, and other processes of a similar nature, on Iraqi petroleum and the profits that will accrue to the U.S. firms from its sale. The United Nations had recognised that a degree of legal protection needed to be extended to Iraq's petroleum assets so that the funds generated from this sector could be used for reconstruction purposes. It had, therefore, requested member-states to adjust their legal frameworks to ensure that those with a claim on Iraqi oil could not block export sales. While the U.N. intended to protect Iraq's oil assets so that they could be used for the benefit of the people of that war-ravaged country, Mr. Bush has widened the ambit of the immunity to safeguard the interests of the major oil companies. The extraordinary Order protecting U.S. oil firms from legal action taken by all other claimants on Iraqi oil, foreign or domestic, on any ground whatsoever symbolises neo-colonialism of the 21st century.

The grant of this wide immunity is part of a pattern of special treatment that the Bush administration has extended to U.S. oil interests since the start of the invasion. Iraq's petroleum installations were left largely undamaged by the invading force even as they destroyed or neglected other segments of the infrastructure. After the conclusion of organised combat, the Coalition Provisional Authority, which oversees the occupation, ensured that Iraq's oil facilities were swiftly repaired. By contrast, the Authority has taken its time to restore civic amenities. It has given priority to oil export deals over reconstruction contracts. On the other hand, there has been little effort to achieve the objectives originally cited in justification of the military operations. The Authority has virtually wound up the search for the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq was alleged to have. It is clear it is in no hurry to usher in a democratic order; nor does it appear overly concerned that its actions in Iraq retard the campaign against global terror. If actions speak louder than words, the measures taken by the Authority reveal the true intentions of the administration that controls it.

The U.S. public and media do not appear to have pieced together the various elements of the Bush administration's Iraq policy into an understandable whole. There is growing concern over the loss of life, which the U.S. forces in Iraq suffer on a daily basis, and some disquiet over the costs of the military occupation. More and more Americans have also begun to understand that the invasion of Iraq was not necessary for their security. The immunity granted to the U.S. oil industry represents the other, still relatively obscure, side of the picture. The perception is growing that the American people are paying with the lives of their soldiers and with their taxes for the advancement of powerful special interests. By all accounts, those who campaigned against the invasion of Iraq and now oppose the occupation constitute a minority of Americans. This campaign might be galvanised if the American people become aware that their administration's neo-colonialist designs on Iraq are inimical to their own interests.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion