[NYTr] "Tony Blair should be brought before the ICC in the Hague"

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by Tim Murphy - activ-l


Spectrezine - Nov 14, 2007
http://www.spectrezine.org/war/Kees.htm

A spectre is haunting Europe...

"Tony Blair should be brought before the ICC in the Hague"

by Kees van der pijl

[Political scientist Kees van der Pijl is Professor of International
Relations at the University of Sussex, England. In his latest book
Global rivalries, from the cold war to Iraq, he offers an intriguing
analysis of international relations. He views as central the
relationship between Anglo-American capitalism and the two powers
themselves. Willem Bos, of the Dutch Socialist Party monthly De
Tribune, interviewed him about the war in Iraq. ]


Kees van der Pijl: "Of course the war in Iraq is about oil. But we
cannot understand the whole development if we don't look at the
relationship between the different parties involved, at the rivalry
between on the one side the US and Great Britain and on the other
countries such as France and Germany. This is, not coincidentally, the
break between what I call the 'core area' - the English-speaking world,
with its aggressive neoliberalism that wants to regulate everything via
the market - and the more state-oriented countries, France and Germany
being two examples. There have long been tensions over oil. When in the
1970s attempts were made to gain access to Arab oil by means of a
Euro-Arab dialogue, the US reacted like someone who has been stung by a
wasp." 

Why has this rivalry come to a head over oil and over Iraq?

Kees van der Pijl: "In order to understand the background to this
tension we need to look at the functioning of the international oil
market. Oil is traded on the international market in dollars. These are
deposited in London and from there spread around the world in the form
of credit. In this way Britain and the US have their fingers on the
buttons of the world oil trade, both in terms of the currency in which
it is traded and via the investment structure. The other - European -
countries need dollars in order to pay their energy bill. They can't
simply just lay their hands on these. European countries do ninety per
cent of their trade within Europe and only ten per cent with parts of
the world outside Europe, so dollars don't come to them 'automatically'
via trade. They have to be bought, and they're dear. In this way
Europe, via its energy bill, constantly helps to keep the dollar
strong. Increasingly, as the price of oil increases, Europe tries to
find other, cheaper ways to acquire oil. Every time that they do that
it leads to major tension with the US and Great Britain. In essence
that is what happened on the eve of the Iraq war."

Following the first Gulf War of 1990, the US and Britain had Iraq, by
means of economic sanctions, in a stranglehold. These sanctions led to
enormous impoverishment and disruption throughout the country. This was
why the United Nations established the oil-for-food programme, through
which food and medicine were sent to Iraq, but the regime's control of
their distribution resulted in the strengthening of Saddam Hussein's
position. 

Kees van der Pijl:"The sanctions led to a huge disaster for the Iraqi
population, while for Saddam they meant only that he had his hands more
firmly on the reins. The US and Great Britain continued to support the
continuation of the sanctions, but in general the view was that these
measures against Iraq had had long enough. Anticipating the ending of
sanctions a number of oil companies signed contracts with Saddam's
government to renew oil extraction - firms such as the French Total,
Russian Lukol and corporations from China, India and Canada. They
received contracts to exploit Iraqi oil fields operable as soon as the
sanctions were lifted. The assessment of Saddam's politics also played
a role. It wasn't, it's true, clear whether Iraq still had weapons of
mass destruction, but in general it was assumed that he no longer had
the stomach for military adventures." 

So the US and Great Britain saw themselves threatened with being
sidelined. 

Kees van der Pijl: "Exactly. It had become a tricky situation for them.
The foreign competition threatened in time to make off with the Iraqi
oil and along with that also to put the position of Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait under pressure. After all, when as a result of the sanctions
Iraqi oil production almost dried up, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had taken
that share of the market. The oil revenues of these countries were used
in part to buy American weapons. If the sanctions against Iraq were to
be lifted and Iraqi oil production to recommence, they would have to
return a part of their market share. Saddam would certainly not be
spending his oil revenues on American weapons, but would be going to
his traditional suppliers, Russia and France."

The US therefore was thus threatened not only with the loss of control
of a part of the oil from the Middle East, but this would also
represent a blow to the American arms industry and to the United
States' military position in the region. In addition, the stability of
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be put in jeopardy. 

Kees van der Pijl: "This situation was also extremely disquieting for
the Israel lobby in the US. It was feared that rising oil prices would
bring about a change in attitude in relation to the Arab world - and
that in the oil industry as well as in the arms industry sympathy for
the Arab world would increase. The Arab countries were after all an
increasingly important section of the market. Put all of these factors
together, and understand also that Saddam had, as it were, 'threatened'
to trade oil in euros, and you will see that there would have been a
nervous reaction in London and Washington - Iraq returning to the oil
market and the oil neither extracted nor traded by Anglo-American
corporations but by companies from France, Russia, China and India. And
all of this paid for in euros! This last factor represented a direct
threat to the American economy and the position of the London markets.
Because an oil-producing country that receives euros for its oil will
not of course for preference spend its revenues in the US. Admittedly,
none of these developments was complete. It was a matter of tendencies,
of developments in a certain direction. But they explain, indeed, how
at the end of the 1990s in the US and Britain the idea arose that the
situation in Iraq and the Middle East was beginning to slip from their
grasp. That was, moreover, not particularly strange, because France and
Russia had long been the arms-suppliers and confidants of the Ba'athist
rigime in Iraq, so for that matter they were simply returning to their
former situation, but under, indeed, what were for the Americans
extremely unfavourable circumstances."

The American and British attitude to Iraq can therefore, you argue,
principally be explained by reference to the struggle to maintain
control of the international oil, arms and currency markets? 

Kees van der Pijl: "Yes, and over the whole situation in the Middle
East. Of course there was also a political-ideological element which
played a role in this. The initiative to present the scenario of a
doomsday which must be averted came principally from a group of
neoconservatives, who, with the coming to power of George Bush, found
themselves in a strong position. The key figures in the neoconservative
network had already long been active in politics and played a central
central role in the so-called oil-arms-Israel conglomerate. The
politics of this group were laid down in the Project for a New American
Century, which took as its starting-point the idea that the United
States must maintain a military ascendancy sufficient to enable it to
impose its will on anyone and everyone in the world.

"That is one aspect: a political approach, an ideology, on which is
based the idea that America must rule the world and recreate it
according to its own interests. The other aspect that determined that
there would be war is the oil situation. This was sketched out in May
2001 in a report from vice-president Cheney in which it was foreseen
that the American dependence on foreign oil would rise from the then
level of 52% to a level of 66% in 2020. In order to ensure that oil
would come directly to the US by that time, foreign producers would
have to up their production and from this enhanced production also
ensure that more was supplied to the US. That would be difficult to
reconcile with a situation in which Iraq was producing just for the
European market. That whole picture was already clear long before
September 11. It's also clear that by then the scenario for an attack
on Iraq was already in place. 9-11 gave the Bush administration the
chance to carry out that scenario."

What plan did the American have at that time, then, for what would
happen after the occupation of Iraq?

After the seizure of Baghdad Bush announced publicly that there would
be a free trade treaty between a number of countries in the Middle
East, and the US. In this way the US wanted to ensure the flow of the
biggest possible slice of the region's oil revenues. It was also the
intention that there would be a peace treaty between the new Iraq,
Jordan and Israel and that a pipeline would run from Iraq to the
Israeli port of Haifa. This would guarantee Israel's oil supply and put
an end to the country's isolation in the region. And all of this would
completely ignore the Palestinians. Obviously this did not work out.
The Americans were not welcomed as liberators, the world turned out not
to be as pliable as the neoconservatives had thought. Now the situation
in Iraq is desperate. Numerous attacks take place every day. Estimates
put the number of people who have fled their homes at four million, the
economic situation is catastrophic and the internal struggle is only
increasing."

The interviewer goes on to ask Professor van der Pijl what people in
their country, the Netherlands, can do about this, but his answer -
though it draws attention to the particular relevance of the
Netherlands as the home of the International Court - is relevant
internationally, particularly perhaps to people, political parties and
other organisations in developed countries. 

"There is concern about a war without any legal justification. A legal
complaint must be made. A party such as yours, such as the Socialist
Party of the Netherlands, could play a role in this, if you look at
international law and the position of The Hague as what is in fact the
judicial capital of the world. America and Israel have not recognised
the International Criminal Court (ICC), but the UK has, so Tony Blair
could be proceeded against. It makes little sense to call for an
enquiry into the Netherlands' involvement in the war (which the SP and
others have done - Ed.). I can tell you about that: we are the home
port of Shell, we are scared, (the Dutchman) Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is
paid for working for NATO (i.e., as Secretary General - Ed.) A child
could understand these mechanisms. But why doesn't the SP take the
initiative in bringing a complaint against Blair? As a serious
parliamentary party the SP could do that. I can give you the names of
progressive experts in international law who could explain perfectly
what steps would be necessary in order to lodge a complaint against
Blair at the ICC."

International law?

"Yes. In my book I've devoted a chapter to the history of international
law. In Nuremberg, at the trials of the leaders of the Nazi rigime and
in Tokyo, where Japanese war criminals were tried, they proceeded from
an idea that there were three sorts of crime. Crimes against the peace,
war crimes and crimes against humanity. These crimes against the peace
have since been completely forgotten. A crime against the peace is when
you attack another country without provocation. For this, Nazis and
Japanese were condemned and hanged. It is of the utmost importance that
that element of international law is brought back into use. This could
occur by means of a case against Blair. This would also be of
importance to the SP. The growth of the SP is of course an important
phenomenon. http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/spnl.htm

I see it as a consequence of the mistakes, or if you prefer
the treachery, of the (Dutch) Labour Party. But you can't simply
continue to build on this for ever. At a certain point the question
will be posed - are we merely a left social democratic party or are we
more than that? Are we truly going to try something different? A case
against Blair could be an example of that."

See Also:
http://www.spectrezine.org/war/Wokusch20.htm