Iraq, embargo, sanctions, bombing, war, colonization, oil, India, Indo-Iraqi ties, trade, relations

Why the Embargo against Iraq must be lifted. Why India must Oppose a new War against Iraq

Recently there have been a number of stories alluding to the Pentagon's readiness in launching a new war against the beleaguered people of Iraq. Reports originating in the British and US press suggest that the US government has already received approval from the governments of Jordan and Kuwait for the launch of a massive surprise attack, supposedly to effect a change of leadership in Iraq.

However, such reports have also led to strong denials from Iraq's neighbors, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia who have no wish to be dragged into a venture that would amount to nothing less than an attempt to recolonize Iraq. Perhaps, Iraq's neighbors understand that if the US were to succeed in occupying Iraq, and effecting a change of government there, it may not remain content with it's success in Iraq, but would then be emboldened to put further pressure on other Arab governments to toe it's line.

Although talks of such an invasion in the Western press are accompanied by propaganda about how Iraq's leadership is "undemocratic" and "dictatorial", such self-serving justification of a military invasion and occupation should not fool anyone. Unlike in Pakistan, where General Musharraf presides over an Islamist nation, and has been unable to draw support from any major political party in the country, Iraq's leadership is based on the popular Baath Party that played a role in Iraq's freedom movement and committed Iraq to a secular path. Prior to the Gulf War and the debilitating embargo that was placed on Iraq, Iraq ranked as one of the most modern and most progressive of the Arab nations with social indicators far superior to those of it's neighbors, offering greater access to educational and cultural activities not only for women, but also for non-Muslims and non-religious Iraqis.

If the situation has now deteriorated considerably, it is the decade-long US/Britain imposed embargo that hurts the people of Iraq most, and is in fact, the greatest obstacle in terms of expanding the democratic space for the people of Iraq. But the US and Britain's concern for "democracy" has always been extremely duplicitous. Many of the US's closest allies in the Middle East are monarchies, or regimes that have been even less concerned about democratic representation than Iraq. US allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Kuwait, or even Egypt can hardly be held up as model "democracies". In any case, the idea that a nation can be bombed into becoming a "democracy" violates the very essence and purpose of democracy - which is to liberate people from tyranny, not send them to premature graves.

From the Indian perspective, a new war against Iraq could pose several dangers. Notwithstanding all the rhetoric of "neutrality" and desire for "greater friendship" towards India, the propensity of the US and British governments to use Pakistan as a foil against India has not really diminished. It has been restrained only due to growing Indian awareness of its present strength and future potential.

In the last crisis, there are several pointers to how the US and it's allies continue to try and squeeze India - the tacit endorsement of Pakistan's nuclear blackmail, the numerous "hit-pieces" against India in the Western Press, the cynical exploitation of travel warnings and "war" levies that negatively impact Indian trade - all show that the desire of the former colonial powers to suppress India has not diminished or been suddenly dissipated.

If the American military were to succeed in completely crushing the Baath Party in Iraq, and installing an utterly pliant leadership there, it would have a negative spillover effect throughout the developing world, and greatly constrict the space for dissent against American policies, not only in the Middle East, but throughout Asia, Africa and Latin America. India would not be immune from further needling and intervention in it's internal affairs.

But even apart from very important strategic considerations, India has it's own vital stake not only in preventing US/British attempts to re-conquer Iraq, but in the lifting of the embargo against Iraq.

With Iraq being a secular nation, and having also suffered the brutalities of British colonial rule, there are some natural affinities between India and Iraq. But even more important is Iraq's consistent and unstinting support for India concerning Jammu and Kashmir. This was reaffirmed by Iraq's leader during the presence of India's Petroleum Minister. In a headline reading: "Iraq conveys support to India on J&K issue", a Jul 7, 2002 story in the Times of India went on to report: "Iraqi President Saddam Hussain on Saturday conveyed his principled and unwavering support to India on the Kashmir issue and said Iraq greatly values its relationship with New Delhi. President Hussain conveyed his views to the visiting Petroleum Minister Ram Naik and said friendship with India had been a source of strength not only to Iraq but to the Arab world". Two days later (Jul 9, 2002) The Times of India carried another story by Mridula Krishna titled: "Iraq prizes ties with India: Saddam Hussein", adding: "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has said it is in the interest of the Arab world for India to grow and develop". In her report, Mridula Krishna quoted the Iraqi leader as saying: "We are ready to cooperate with India, and we say this not because we are under siege but within a strategic vision of the region and the world, most importantly, within the framework of India's relations with Arabs". He went on to note that Iraq had enjoyed friendly relations with India even before it came under siege.

But the scope of Indo-Iraq cooperation is severely constrained by the continued embargo. That is why it is imperative for all the nations who are similarly frustrated by the expansive reach of the embargo against Iraq to come together, and jointly fight US and British intransigence on this issue and oppose any attempt at a military occupation of Iraq.

For instance, the Times of India (Jul 15, 02) reported how Vietnam was strongly opposed to US plans to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, arguing that any intervention would be a gross violation of international law. Vietnam's foreign ministry spokeswoman Phan Thuy Thanh noted: "Iraq is an independent and sovereign nation, a member of the United Nations. The intervention of external forces to change the political regime is a gross violation of international law and the UN charter and is unacceptable," she added. Other Asian governments have also opposed any US attempts to forcibly intervene in Iraq's internal affairs. Numerous other nations including Russia and Germany have also voiced their opposition.

The embargo against Iraq is a human rights catastrophe of monumental proportions - some estimates suggest that as many as 1.6 million Iraqis have died as a result, and that many more are suffering from malnutrition and poor health. But it also punishes all other nations who wish to resume normal trade with Iraq. Not only is it imperative that a new all-out war against Iraq be prevented, the embargo against Iraq must be lifted with immediate affect. The Iraqi people have suffered enough. So too have the people of India and other developing nations, because they have been denied the opportunity to develop normal political, trade and cultural ties with a potentially friendly nation, who at present, is also deeply oppressed.