Bush war is about oil

I saw a picture in a newspaper last week that made me laugh. It was of George Bush. He was in the middle of making a speech, or answering questions at a press conference. On the podium in front of him was a badge that said President Of The United States, as if we didn’t know.

Bush was leaning forward and using the index finger of his left hand in a pointing gesture, for all the world a man of authority and vision. Behind him, emblazoned across the backdrop and yet perfectly framed in the photograph, was the word ‘strength’.

It was a spin-merchants’ wet dream and it was risible and revolting at once.

The accompanying headline announced that Bush had vowed to be patient on what ‘to do about’ Iraq. Translated, what that means is that the U.S. will attack Iraq when it believes it is ready to do so.

There was other guff about exploring all options and tools at the President’s disposal, and the international community coming together to figure out how to deal with the growing threat from Iraq. We can therefore expect the consultation to be of about the same level of detail as that which preceded the attack on Afghanistan – in other words a façade of consultation with Tony Blair will act as cover for the American President’s unilateral decision to go to war.

In one particularly archly scripted section of Bush’s speech, the truth of what is happening in relation to Iraq was turned entirely on its head. “It is important to my fellow citizens to know,” Bush stated, “that as we see threats evolving we deal with them. We must deal with them. We can’t let the world’s worst leaders threaten the United States with the world’s worst weapons.”

So who, you might ask, has been threatening whom? Well, Iraq has threatened no one or nothing that I am aware of in recent times. Saddam Hussein is not saying that he is thinking about going to war with, or in, America. On the contrary, the threats have all been one way – and they emanate from the United States.

The assumption seems to be that it is enough to say that something is so, to make it so. If you say it often enough, people will believe you. “We must deal with the threat from Iraq. The only answer is to go to war. We have to remove Saddam Hussein, who is the kind of totally unscrupulous dictator who goes around threatening people.”

Fine. So war it is…

Certainly Tony Blair seems to believe that this is reason enough to go to war. Blair, apparently hooked on the idea that he is up there making the hard decisions with Bush, is shrinking in stature with the passing of every week. He is looking more and more like the President’s patsy, the only man in Europe who thinks the so-called War On Terrorism is a really spiffing idea, the only one who agrees that it is justified to wage war on Saddam Hussein, and on Iraq, simply because America wants to.

Of course Hussein is a swine and the regime he controls is thoroughly disreputable. But – in the context of the foreign policy he has been pursuing – the same might not unfairly be said of George Bush and that isn’t a justification for anyone declaring war on the United States or attempting to overturn the government there by force.

It is, in any event, transparently obvious that America’s interest in Iraq has little or nothing to do with democracy or the plight of the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein – or even the fact that he may be developing weapons of mass destruction. (Doesn’t the U.S. actually have weapons of mass destruction? Didn’t it use them in the past? Sorry, silly of me to ask). The threatened U.S. action is about what the U.S. perceives to be its own economic interests. And in particular it is about oil – which looms large as a consideration for both George Bush and his Vice-President Dick Cheney.

At the moment U.S. based oil companies are dependent for supplies on Saudi Arabia, which currently produces about 12% of the oil on the world market. Iraq, meanwhile, controls 11% of the world’s known oil reserves. As the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia becomes more fraught and unreliable in the wake of September 11th, the appeal of Saddam’s oil fields becomes ever-stronger. That is why the U.S is showing such a pressing interest in Iraq right now.

Clearly, the failure of Iraq to allow the U.N. weapons’ inspectors to carry out their function has played into Bush’s hands. But that has nothing to do with the real issue that’s at stake here, which is about the U.S. and its oil companies, gaining access to a dependable source of energy supply. If George Bush does go to war, it will be a war about oil.

As it happens, it is also a matter of great political expediency for the President. With the U.S. economy going through a difficult and gloomy patch, Bush needs a war to ensure that he continues to maintain the support of the majority of voting Americans. It will immunise him against criticism in a country in which the majority of voters seem utterly incapable of seeing beyond the rhetorical gibberish spouted by the President and his cronies. The U.S. is a wonderful place, and in many respects its people are great – but, Jesus, sometimes you wonder…

The bald truth is that there is scarcely even a shred of justification for the position being adopted by the Bush administration. The only hope is that opposition in Europe might become strong and vocal enough to act as a break on the belligerence of the U.S. It is a slim hope, but one worth encouraging.

Is there any chance that, as a member of the U.N. Security Council, Ireland might lead the way in this? Answers on a poscard, please.