ISSUES

A peace with democracy, a peace with dignity

By Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu

I want to relate the work of the Mahatma in the public political realm to the challenge and situation of Sri Lanka today. This is not the first half of the 20th century, but of the 21st, and the fight is not against a far flung empire, far across the seas. However, the pertinence of the life and work of the Mahatma to us today in our seminal nation and state building endeavours, is its splendid illumination of the struggle against the iniquities and injustices within and between ourselves; the fears and the yearnings that drive us apart and imprison us within unforgiving stereotypes, paradigms of intolerance and hate. 

The project that we are embarked upon, that has had its official inauguration in Sattahip, Thailand, is quite simply a project to redesign and redefine the polity and with it, society.  Irrespective of whether we move from ad hoc bodies to facilitate relief and rehabilitation to interim political structures and finally to a new constitutionally sanctified political architecture, the process that can trace its inception to the November 2000 meeting in the Vanni between the leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) Velupillai Prabhakaran and the Norwegian facilitator Erik Solheim, is one which in no small measure, will transform the state.  And as it does, we too, in our relations with each other, will have to transform. 

No exercise in political architecture and masonry and certainly not one of this scale and magnitude can succeed without the appropriate, enabling popular political culture to accompany it. That a new architecture can be conceived of at all, attests to the onset of change. Yet, this needs to go deeper and wider into the polity, if it is to constitute that seismic shift for a better tomorrow.  Moreover, it needs to be founded on more than mutual exhaustion and desperation, or the mere making of a virtue out of a necessity.  It needs to be generated by hope and conviction, rather than jaded by sullen resignation, cynicism or despair. Institutions and processes are animated by an enabling political culture and if the life and work of the Mahatma is deemed too demanding a blueprint for the former, it is surely pivotal to underpinning the latter.

Sense of direction 

The process can only be founded on public support and legitimacy. Accordingly, the doubts and apprehensions of  the public must be addressed though a statement of mutual understanding between the parties to the negotiations on the principles that will frame the negotiating process and the agreements to be reached through it. This will provide a sense of direction. It will go a long way in assuaging fears that a separate state is being created on the ground or that a unitary one will always be with us in spirit, if not in law. Most importantly, it will constitute a shared vision.

This must include the following principles:

1. Self -determination within an united Sri Lanka, 2. Respect, protection and strengthening of human rights and internationally accepted standards thereof, 3. Democratic pluralism, especially the fundamental rights to speech, expression, association and dissent, 4. Respect for the rule of law and due process, 5. Representation of all stakeholders, especially local minorities, on political decision making bodies, 6. Legitimisation of the above through elections as soon as feasible and the explicit commitment to move towards this as a matter of priority, 7. Assured access to resources and financial autonomy for any structure agreed upon for the north and east, combined with its obligation to establish procedures and mechanisms for accountability and transparency.

The political structure that can accommodate the above as the aspirations of the people of our island, will have to be federal. Whether we call it federal or not and there still is stiff resistance to doing so, the state of the future will have to be federal in nature, if the country is to be united and at peace. This of course, is a radical departure from the past practice of constitution making, especially its home grown or autochthonous incarnations of 1972 and 1978.

We have under the guise of democratisation and development cumulatively concentrated power at the centre, effectively in the hands of one community, one party and in the office of one person. Born more out of insecurity, suspicion and fear than an overarching notion of national interest or collective good, our faith has been vested in a zero sum notion of power and a majoritarian notion of democracy.  In turn, we have excluded and isolated and had to pay the price of teetering, wretchedly, on the brink of division. We have after all had to contend with armed insurrection and secession, not because we shared power, but rather, because we stubbornly, foolishly refused to do so.

Self-rule and shared rule

The persistence of this miserably costly paradigm is attested to by the frequent mistake in common parlance with respect to the structure of the state — the equation of the term ‘unitary,’ where all power is concentrated in the centre with ‘united,’ where all the constituent elements of society voluntarily subscribe to a sense of collective destiny, as the bedrock of their political arrangements.

Federalism as an idea, as a founding idea for the new political architecture of  Sri Lanka, has been much misunderstood, deliberately distorted and vilified. Even though our political and constitutional evolution quite clearly records otherwise, federalism has been branded as a stepping stone to secession.  It continues to be misunderstood and is in need therefore, of clarification and elaboration.

Federalism is an idea that is expressed in political structures which reconcile the desire of political actors to be apart from a larger unit and yet a part of it. It combines the notions of  ‘self-rule’ and ‘shared rule’ in one unifying idea.  It entails a clear cut division of powers between the centre and the federating units and as much as self rule connotes autonomy and self determination for the federating units, shared rule entails a stake for them at the centre and the ultimate responsibility of the centre for the preservation and protection of the democratic rights of all citizens, throughout the polity.

Federalism cannot take root or endure unless the very culture and mindset that gives life to the political structures established, are imbued with a commitment to pluralism and a celebration of diversity as a source of strength. Ostensibly, federal states that have failed are those which in fact, negated the federal idea by entrenching power and authority in a single source and interpreted federalism to be a mere mechanism for administration. A culture of rights, respect and the honourable accommodation of difference is crucial to the federal idea and to its realisation. Indeed, they constitute the source of its coherence and the seminal elements of its success.

In effect, the basic essence of the federal idea is an amalgam too of the values of empowerment, dignity and tolerance that the Mahatma embodied in his life’s work. A settlement of our current travails designed along federal principles, will therefore immeasurably facilitate a democratic peace and a peace with dignity in our country. We may desire more, but surely we deserve no less.

To achieve this settlement, to make it work and to make it last, we will have to change and quite fundamentally, the popular political culture of which we are all adherents. The settlement I speak of, will never realise its full potential if it is only an agreement between armed combatants and key political protagonists. It has to be a new social contract, a covenant — the Latin word from which the term federalism is coigned — if it is to have the legitimacy necessary for liberation and longevity.  As one authority on the subject — the Forum of Federations has elaborated:

“A covenant signifies a binding partnership among co-equals in which the parties to the covenant retain their individual identity and integrity while creating a new entity, such as a family or a body politic, that has its own identity and integrity as well.  A covenant also signifies a morally binding commitment in which the partners behave towards each other in accord with the spirit of the law rather than merely the letter of the law. Thus, the binding agreement is more than a contract. A covenant commits the parties to an enduring, even perpetual relationship and to an obligation to cooperate to achieve the ends of the agreement and to resolve peacefully the conflicts that invariably arise in every relationship.” 

We cannot be apart from this enterprise; we have to be a part of it. There is no greater responsibility at this critical juncture in the life of our country, than that which has been cast upon the shoulders of civil society, to make this country a more decent place to live in. It is to the eradication of the more insidious of insecurities and injustices, woven well into the very fabric of society, that the Mahatma devoted his public life and set as the destination of his odyssey. Civil society has to be galvanised into taking the lead in this, in propagating the values and ideas that will give meaning and strength to the social contract or covenant enshrining democracy and dignity, that has to be made anew.  As the philosopher Avishai Margalit argues in his treatise of the same name, a decent society is one whose institutions do not humiliate people; a civilized society is one whose members do not humiliate one another.

Forgive and forget

And this has to be done through the lingering pain and suffering of a devastating two decade old war, long characterised as one without mercy. There are simple and yet profound challenges that confront us, individually and collectively in coming out of war and into peace to embrace the idea of a new social contract. Whilst, very definitely some,  more than others, have been savaged by this war, none of us have escaped unscathed, however monumental our indifference and pervasive our inertia. We all have an opinion of the ‘other’ in our midst with whom we share a land and a common destiny. Each in turn has to heal and in doing so, search their very souls for forgiveness.  Must we, will we, forget as well?

A July opinion poll conducted by Social Indicator, the polling unit of the Centre for Policy Alternatives found that amongst the Sinhalese community, a LTTE cadre was identified as an “enemy” by 67.8% — a drop nevertheless from 74.8%, two months earlier in May. This identification evoked feelings of anger. Evoking feelings of compassion and sorrow, is the identification of a LTTE cadre as a “human being” by 18% of the Sinhalese respondents. In the same survey, amongst the Tamil community polled  — all outside the Jaffna peninsula and LTTE controlled areas of the north and east — a soldier was identified as an “enemy” by 15.1% and as a “human being” by 18.7%.  Amongst the Muslim community, the figures for LTTE cadre are 19.4% and 29.6% respectively and for a soldier are 9% and 35.9% respectively. Amongst the Up Country Tamils the figures for the LTTE cadre are 9.9% and 49.2% respectively and for a soldier, 6.8% and 53.6% respectively.

Falling into the “do not know” category in respect of LTTE cadre are 3.4% of the Sinhalese, 25.4%  of the Tamils, 9.8% of the Muslims and 9.4% of the Up Country Tamils.  Likewise, with regard to a soldier, are 0.8% of the Sinhalese, 33.4% of the Tamils, 9.9% of the Muslims and 8.8% of the Up Country Tamils polled.  This is an illustration of the chasms of suspicion, insecurity and anxiety that have yet to be bridged. 

The survey also illustrates the bridges of reconciliation that can be built upon. Amongst all ethnic communities polled, the majority reveals that ‘peace’ means ethnic harmony — nationally the figure is 50.6%  in comparison to 36.4% who identify peace as “freedom” and 31.2% as an “end to war.”  A substantial majority of the respondents — 60.2%  identify war as “death or destruction” and 9% conclude that there will never be peace in our island.     

The reconciliation necessary for faith and confidence in a new beginning cannot be built on collective amnesia. Neither can it be built on revenge or retribution.  How we face the truth about the violence that has killed so much and so many in this country, will be the litmus test of our emancipation and a trial of strength of our moral fibre which once overcome, will secure the promise of tomorrow. This is a profoundly complex undertaking which has to be commenced in earnest and urgently.

This does not mean the immediate establishment of formal structures of accountability and public catharsis for those who took the decisions to kill and maim, rape, torture, abduct and extort; it means at the very outset, societal support and solidarity for rebuilding the shattered lives of innocents, for the healing of the pain of victims and the mending of the minds of perpetrator and victim alike.

(Excerpts from this year’s Mahatma Gandhi oration delivered by this columnist)

Knocking down Colombo 7 land prices BoC style

By Frederica Jansz

Prime property at Flower Road, Colombo 7, has been sold to an influential businessman backing the ruling UNP at a  rock bottom price by the Bank of Ceylon, waiving off Rs. 53 million against an outstanding capital and interest payment due on this house and land.

That is not all. The bank secured a fresh valuation on this property in August this year, bringing the price down and it was valued at a mere Rs. 39 million which means that property prices have dropped since this government took office - despite the prevailing peace process and resurgence of the economy. Some logic for which no doubt BoC Chairman, Ken Balendran will have his own brand of explanation.

The property in question belongs to Rev. Pelpola Vipassi Thero. A large bungalow with 40 perches, the six bed-roomed house comes attached with six baths, spacious sitting and dining rooms, balconies, pantry, kitchen, servants rooms, two garages, large garden and parking for 10 vehicles.

The property has now been sold by the Bank of Ceylon to Chairman, Hoeval Group Pvt. Ltd., Joel Selvanayagam for Rs. 42.3 million. Selvanayagam has already made an advance payment of Rs. 4.2 million.

On June 26, 1997, the Bank of Ceylon granted a loan of Rs. 50 million to Ven. Pelpola Vipassi Thero taking this property as collateral. At the time, the property was valued by the bank's panel of valuers and Chartered Valuer K. T. D. Tissera at Rs. 55 million.

A special review panel at the bank however placed the "forced sale value" of the property at Rs. 45 million. This panel arrived at this estimate taking into consideration that it would be difficult to force a sale of this property in view of the special nature of the land and house being owned by a Buddhist priest.

This loan should have been settled in full on or before December 26, 1997. However the principal and interest payment on the loan remained unpaid and the bank was told by Ven. Pelpola Vipassi Thero that the funds would be settled from donations received from Japan.

This promise however never materialised and up to date the outstanding capital with accrued interest and delayed payment amounts to Rs. 98.58 million.

In 1999, the bank once more had a valuation done and the property was again revalued by Tissera who having considered the prevailing market price concluded the property could be sold for a market price of Rs. 54 million.

Tissera valued the land at the rate of Rs. 1.2 million per perch while a value of Rs. 6.35 million was placed on the upstair building, which Tissera noted, was 40 years old and not properly maintained.

Since the loan by the Ven. Pelpola Vipassi Thero remained unpaid, the Bank of Ceylon on November 8, last year obtained board approval to auction the sale of this property on April 20, this year. A decision was taken to waive off the accrued interest payments of Rs. 47.12 million and merely recover the market value of the property.

Going by the recent valuation done by Tissera in January 1999 on the property the bank decided to sell the property for Rs. 54 million. In a note to the then General Manager Sarath Silva, the Additional General Manager W. P. Tennekoon on June 4, this year, pointed out however that the bank would have to recover a higher amount than Rs. 54 million since the total outstanding on the loan was Rs. 98.58 million.

Despite Tennekoon's memorandum, the property was undervalued for Rs. 39 million and sold to Joel Selvanayagam for Rs. 42 million, thus creating the impression that a higher value than the going price was obtained.

The bank got a revaluation done in August this year by a panel valuer named Perera who placed the value at Rs. 39 million. Discarding Tissera's valuation, this means that property prices have dropped at Flower Road,  Colombo 7 - to less than a million rupees per perch.

A Bank of Ceylon Board paper dated October 3, 2002 states that this 40 perch block of land and six bed-roomed house at Flower Road, Colombo 7 has been sold at Rs. 42 million only.

On September 12, Selvanayagam paid the Bank of Ceylon Rs. 2.2 million as an advance payment issuing an HNB cheque, no. 804899. On the same day he issued another HNB cheque bearing number 487756 for Rs. 2 million which was also accepted as an advance payment for this property.

Why Selvanayagam is being granted this favour is not clear given that the total capital and accrued interest outstanding on this property is Rs. 98.58 million.

Janaka Bogollagama, a director  on the board of Bank of Ceylon when questioned said, "the bank has the power to waive off interest and recover only the book value. The total interest in this case is being wiped out."

In this instance however even the capital is not being recovered. Rs. 6 million from the capital has also been waived off in order to sell the property for a rock bottom price to Selvanayagam.

Asked when Selvanayagam intended to pay the rest of the money, Bogollagama said this would be done "later" - but that as of now, "since an advance payment of Rs. 4.2 million has been made the entire issue is closed."

Iraq: Meetings, movements and motions

By Pia Djem Leichter

In light of Iraq’s invitation to weapons inspectors on September 16, and the current U.S. and U.K. push for military action on Iraq, one of the largest anti-war demonstrations was held in London on September 28. Between 150,000 and 350,000 people marched through downtown London in one of the biggest peace demonstrations in over a decade. The Muslim Association of Britain and Stop the War Coalition organised the march in what has been one of a series of demonstrations since the war in Afghanistan. People from many different walks of life joined together to rally for peace. The coalition included trade unions, Labour MPs and Muslim associations.

Speakers included former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who was attending the Labour Party Conference, and was then persuaded to join the march. “All I am trying to do is uphold the principle of the rule of law. The U.S. is engaged purely in regime removal, and that is in direct contravention of the UN. Their behaviour is anti-democratic. I’m not sure how much impact this march will have on people in the U.S., but if it puts pressure on Blair and then changes his attitude towards Bush, then it will have helped.” Demonstrators and the public share these sentiments alike, for according to recent surveys of public opinion, majority of the public opposed military action against Iraq unless there is clear sanction from the United Nations. The poll arose as Iraq rejected a draft US-sponsored security resolution requiring Baghdad to comply with new inspection rules within 30 days or face military action. 

New resolution

As talks resumed on September 30, in Vienna between Executive Chairman, UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, Hans Blix and Iraqi officials, which entailed laying down the logistical groundwork for the return of weapons inspectors, the Bush administration, alongside Tony Blair, simultaneously pushed for the drafting of a new, more stringent resolution on Iraq at the UN Security Council. After the 48-hour negotiations, Blix and the Iraqi delegation agreed that inspections would resume under existing UN guidelines to which the US vehemently opposed, instead urging to delay the return of weapons inspectors until the UN Security Council approves a “new, strong, tough resolution.” Blix reported “that there is a willingness to accept inspections that has not existed before.”

Iraq lived up to its obligation and agreed to supply details on changes it made in plants and equipment with dual civilian and military uses — one of the first such advancements since UN inspectors left Iraq in late 1998 before American and British bombing raids.  Saddam Hussein’s science advisor, General Amir Al Sadi, who leads the Iraqi team in Vienna, said: “We’re happy to reach this agreement and we expect the advance party to arrive in Baghdad in about two weeks.” This agreement came on the same day the US and Britain were attempting to persuade the rest of the Security Council’s permanent members to change those guidelines.

 In Baghdad, senior officials said the draft US resolution threatening military action is unacceptable, although Iraq is prepared to consider a “compromise” on the rules of inspection. The new resolution would provide access to previously “off-limit” sites such as the eight compounds of the presidential palaces, including unconditional access to all sites, and the authorisation of the use of force if inspectors were rejected.

Expansion of forces

The draft resolution included creating no-flight and no-drive zones protected by United Nations or United States security forces along the routes that inspectors would travel. It also calls for the expansion of United Nations and American security forces on the ground or in the skies over Iraq even while inspections were taking place, in case Iraq did not comply with the council’s terms and would allow the US to place its own inspectors on the United Nations weapons team. Several Council diplomats observed that this demand ran counter to recent reform of the weapons team by the Security Council, when they were reorganised to rely on an international staff of arms professionals rather than experts provided by individual countries.

The Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, said: “I hope the Security Council will be strong enough and fair enough to resist American pressure. But I am not confident about the capability of the UN to resist American pressure and American manipulation.” A senior source from Baghdad replied that it... “is difficult to discuss business with a gun pointed at your head.”  Tentative plans exist to move the first weapons inspection team back into Iraq on October 15, although with little sign of early agreement in the Security Council. This is unlikely.

Since Iraq agreed to readmit UN weapons inspectors on September 16, the US administration has been scrambling to persuade Russia, France and China, the countries that hold the vetoes on the council, to back the inspectors’ return with the threat of military force. Bush and Blair are seeking a very short time-frame for Iraq to give details of its weapons programmes and have sent envoys from Paris to Moscow and from Ankara to Beijing to urge support for an ultimatum for Hussein that Iraqis have said they cannot accept. The meeting on October 1 was stalled as American proposals met heavy resistance from the permanent three — France, Russia and China who expressed caution towards a new resolution threatening military action if Iraq does not disarm.

During this meeting, the US did not bring a text for negotiation, as previously announced, and also did not follow through on its offer to provide informal copies of the draft to the 10 nonpermanent members of the council. The pace of discussions were considerably slowed due to the opposition met by the three permanent members toward the authorisation of a unilateral military attack by the US and any ally if Washington determined that Iraq had made even minor violations. Many council nations regard the forceful inspection regime proposed by the American and British draft too aggressive for Iraq to accept.

New guideline

One of the prominent issues is whether the new inspection guidelines should be split into one resolution or two. France is pushing for a two-step approach involving a first resolution demanding compliance, and a second resolution authorising military support if Iraq fails to comply. France’s Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin reiterated that his country would not support any resolution that gives the US a “blank cheque” to attack. Britain and the US insist on the need for a single resolution. Russia and China stress the importance of working within the UN framework and encourage the use of diplomacy in seeking Iraqi compliance.

 Criticism mounted from the international community over the bombing raids around Basra in Southern Iraq by American and British warplanes on radar and anti-aircraft installations. Russia contended that intensifying airstrikes interfered with the diplomacy aimed at averting war. Some administration officials claimed that the bombing missions were a signal to the population that the US is serious about overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile, Iraq asserted that civilians had been injured in the bombing, to which Donald Rumsfeld fervently denied, instead accusing the Iraqis of lying to inflame public opinion against the US. Although with recent statements made by Bush’s Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, pointing out that the expense of an Iraqi invasion could be saved by the “cost of a bullet,” it seems that the US is achieving this on their own accord.

Tall tales from the ashes

By Thelma

Darling Satty,

While I stand to one side and marvel at your singular ability to carve out a tall tale from the ashes, this talent you possess to bedeck and adorn a somewhat parsimonious story from your grim past into a vibrant narrative of bribery and corruption is quite marvelous m’dear. I refer of course to the latest tale of family grief you related to the multitude of 153 that gathered in the ancient and proud city of Anuradhapura last week. Yes dear, the one about the education minister of a bygone era (who you cryptically added is now the prime minister)  nipping into your purse for a Rs. 25,000 tip in exchange for getting your son into a parippu school.

Unlike the unfortunate chappie in the Bible, you don’t believe in hiding your talent under a bushel do you? And thus, it is that all your speeches are festooned with delightful untruths and hung about with more decorations than tinsel on a Christmas tree. Trust your little stories to be more garnished than a turkey at thanksgiving.

And in your quest to embellish your tales, you have rather cleverly methinks, nicked a leaf out of the book of the very man you are trying to fell. I refer of course to the prime ministerial poop who is oozing with the milk of human kindness these days. The popeyed P has, in his quest for peace decided on the incremental approach to the peace talks. You in your keenness to imitate, have I gather, used the incremental approach when you talk — at least about one particular chestnut. 

Yes dear. Seems to me every time you tell the tale of how your little male bundle of joy was prevented from going to the blue gold and blue school down Rajakeeya Mawatha, you embellish it with some new piece of information.

Your tale about the cruelty dealt by fate, or by the then education minister, to your little bundle of vim, vigour and vitality in preventing him from representing the royal school at a parippu match, has been told to us by you about 277 times and  still counting. Each time, there are new twists and turns. But none so twisted and turned as the latest version last week.

I think it must be the spirit of something or the other. These ancient cities have all sorts of spirits lurking around among the ruins that might at the slightest provocation possess a political speaker. And to choose the ancient kingdom to drop the bombshell dear. Tch, Tch. Just when the Tigers stop, you decide to start.

But what perplexes me is why you would want to put your male heir into a parippu joint, where the inmates spend more time hanging on a kaju puhulang tree than they do reading books. You could have just as easily gone to that nice school by the beach in Lavinia and requested a place or even two places. Thelma, on account of a few male siblings going estooohhh perpetua on an annual basis is quite partial to that place. But no. You wouldn’t have it any other way would you? Nothing but lentils for your off spring.

Surely dear, if you are going to embellish your tales, at least try to get some credible material. You don’t seriously think anyone is going to believe you when you say Ra-kneel touched you for a few rupees?

The very thought that the one time education ministering angel tapped you on your ample shoulder blades in the precincts of the ministry, whisked you into a dimly lit part of the corridor and whispered the figure of Rs. 25,000 in your flapping, ear fills me with, well, I don’t know what it fills me with, but with something quite grotesque, I can tell you.

My dear old pal, if there is one thing that blob of blancmange is incapable of doing is asking you for a blighted 25,000 rupees. While I don’t know the man, I can safely say that the chappie though obviously a foul specimen of male pulchritude is not a man to take a bribe.

May be you are mistaking the whole matter and confusing and confounding yourself. There is a ripe tale about the sixties and unlike your’s is absolutely true I assure you, involving the same amount of moolah. That is what might have got you confused.

You see darling, in that instance the Wick family didn’t take but gave. And gave to a man whom our dear old Mangy will know quite well. Extremely well in fact. A sort of father figure if you like. 

This generous giving by the Wick progenitor, amounting more or less the very amount you were talking about last week,  enabled this aforesaid father like figure to cross over to the greens and never look back. It created something of a stampede after that. Couldn’t get the blues to stop crossing over to the green side. I don’t know if you have ever seen the film Elephant Walk while munching popcorn or even while not munching popcorn, but my sources tell me that, that stampede was nothing compared to this  stampede. It led to the collapse of the blue government you know. 

I understand dear. Having to keep up with the latest fashions, go to Ramzi’s, chat with friends, a girl is likely to get mixed up about these matters now and then. No real harm done dear. I’m told Ra-kneel is merely suing all the newspapers and telly stations for millions for publishing and broadcasting such poppycock. As I said, no real harm done. Paradise will pick up the tab on your behalf, as usual.

Direction and dilemmas of US policy

By Pia Djem Leichter

The US has been drawing straws in terms of which approach to take in order to get the necessary support, not only from the UN Security Council veto members, but also from US Congress for military action against Iraq. The immediacy and renewed interest in the possibility of Iraq’s manufacturing of weapons of mass destruction comes at a vulnerable period in US history, a year after the September 11 attacks, when America is still grieving.

In testimony before Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright stated that the administration is “overdramatising a threat in order to arouse public support... by trying to claim September 11th as a primary reason to go to war against Iraq. Officials say that September 11th created a ‘new reality,’ which is that terrorists might be able to obtain weapons of mass destruction. That is, of course, a reality, but hardly a new one. There are at least half a dozen other countries that are thought to have weapons of mass destruction programmes and links to terrorism that are at least as extensive as Iraq’s.”

No concrete evidence

Recently released documents failed to provide concrete evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda or the attacks of September 11. Bin Laden has slipped into the night and suddenly Hussein has become the new identifiable face of terror.

Last week, Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice raised the issue of possible links between Iraq and Al Qaeda — links that have yet to materialise into tangible facts. Given the administration’s adamant stance on preemptive military action against Iraq, after four years of weapons inspections stagnation, perhaps closer scrutiny is required.

Eroding confidence

The first issue of contention lies in the global ‘power’ equation: oil. The Middle East currently has two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves — reserves that greatly affect financial markets and the ‘free-market.’ Protecting its control of the world’s oil plays a fundamental role in US foreign policy. The effects of toppling Hussein’s regime would entail the opening up of one of the world’s largest reserves of oil — does that play a part in this urgency? Human rights violations in Saudi Arabia have been atrocious, and US administrations have turned the other cheek due to Saudi oil and thus power reserves, and according to geopolitical strategists, if Iraq produced oil at a rate that matched its reserves, it could end Saudi’s domination of the world’s oil markets.

The US calls for a “regime change” in Iraq, yet we have witnessed how difficult it is to ‘install’ a democratic state: the struggle with Afghanistan continues. The demand for a new regime and democracy in Iraq by the Bush administration raises vital concerns and queries, especially when in direct contravention of the UN and US law. It also raises the issue of who the Iraqi opposition would be? Multiple responses from the administration further demarcate rifts within it.

A meeting held in August by the US administration of the six main Iraqi opposition groups, in an attempt to establish them as a united front was undermined by divergences between the Pentagon, on one side, and the State Department and Central Intelligence Agency on the other, over the role of the Iraqi National Congress. This apparent lack of direction further erodes international confidence in the US’ ‘programme’ for Iraq.

Bush recently responded to international apprehensions by claiming that disarmament not regime change was his primary goal. “A military option is not the first choice. Disarming this man is because he poses a true threat to the United States, and we’ve just got to work together to get something done.”

The upcoming elections for House and Senate in November are of substantial importance, especially in the Senate which the Democrats control by a single vote. With a third of the seats up for election this year, there are just eight marginal states, four leaning Democrat and four Republican. In light of recent events, especially the possibility of a preemptive strike against Iraq, certain other relevant matters might not have been so easily swept under the rug.

Food for thought

Vice-President Dick Cheney, presently faces a civil law suit for fraud from the NGO Judicial Watch, which alleges that the vice president and others inflated the earnings of Halliburton, a company he ran, in order to raise the price. The president himself has yet to give satisfactory answers about his sale of shares in an oil company for a large profit just ahead of bad news that would have slashed their value.

Meanwhile, the US Congress attempted to calculate the cost of a war against Iraq. The Congressional Budget Office provided members of Congress with a new study stating that deploying the military to the Persian Gulf would cost $9 billion to $13 billion. Prosecuting a war would then cost $6 billion to $9 billion a month, and returning American forces to their home bases after the completion of the conflict would cost $5 billion to $7 billion, with an operation force in Iraq costing $1 billion to $4 billion a month, the study concluded.

The study did not try to estimate the costs of any rebuilding programme or foreign aid provided to Iraq. Food for thought — let’s not choke on it.