Why we need reparations for Iraq: Iraq can enrich itself and the world with its potential

author : Marco Rosaire Rossi topic : Iraq occupation | petrolium

by Marco Rosaire Rossi

In Erbil, Iraq -- high on top of Mount Korek in the northern part of the Kurdistan Autonomous Region -- sits one of Iraq's dormant treasures. It's not oil, or natural gas, or any other natural resource that Iraq is known for; this dormant treasure of Iraq is science. On top of a 2,127 meter high mountain rests what would have been a first-rate observatory and the only major observatory in the Middle East. Built in 1973 for $160 million by president Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, this observatory had three telescopes, each one ranging in size from 1.25 to 3.5 meters. Its construction echoed back to the time when Islamic science and learning led the world in discovery and innovation. If it had succeeded in being fully functional, the astronomical contributions from the observatory would have not only benefited Iraq, but also the entiAre world.

Today, that dream is very distant. The observatory remains an empty shell: its walls full of gaping holes, its telescopes looted or hidden away, pieces of debris scattered within and around it. It's not a hub of science, it's another victim of war. Although its assault is in violation of international law, the observatory has been attacked twice by foreign forces. First in 1985, when Iraq and Iran were at war with each other (and the United States was funding both sides), and again in 1991, when US-led forces invaded Iraq in the first Gulf war.

In many ways the observatory on top of Mount Korek is a metaphor for Iraqi society as a whole. Iraq has had a history rich in science and culture that goes back to the ancients. Before the first Gulf War, Iraq was ahead of its neighbors in economic development and infrastructure. Before the UN Sanctions, the country offered some of the best healthcare in the Middle East. All of that has been squandered. After centuries of colonialism and decades of dictatorship and war, Iraq has become a country almost as hollow as the shell of the observatory on top of Mount Korek.

How can this scenario be changed? What needs to occur to rebuild Iraq? How can Iraq enrich itself and the world with its potential?

The obvious answer to this question is for massive reparations to be paid by those nations that have done Iraq the most harm. In recent history, the United States is at the top of this list. The US has played a major role in decimating Iraqi civil society and economic development for the past twenty years, and has done so in a variety of ways. First, through the political support and military funding of Saddam, then through playing an instigating role in Iraq's war with Iran, then through the first Gulf War invasion, then through a decade of brutal sanctions, and now through the current war and occupation of the country. If there is to be any justice for Iraq, US troops need to immediately come home and reparations need to immediately go out.

But neither of these things are happening. The Democrats may have been swept into office on the voters' anti-war sentiment, but they don't tend to share those views. They are not the peace party, and less so the justice party. The Democrats' plan for Iraq is to "win without war" through a strategy of "slow bleed." The idea behind "slow bleed" is to gradually limit the administration's ability to "stay the course" without threatening political alienation or disrupting corporate relations. Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa, the party plans on avoiding an immediate withdrawal of US troops. It will drag out the conflict by gradually chipping away at the President's policy. An example of this approach is the recent supposed "anti-war" legislation introduced into the house by Murtha. He plans on adding a supplement to a spending bill on Iraq that would restrict the deployment of more troops unless they meet certain manpower, equipment and training levels to succeed in combat. Taken literally, Murtha legislation could escalate the conflict, not minimize it. The message of the Democrats to the American people is: "Bring our troops out of harm's way," not "Bring them home now."

In addition, nothing from the mainstream Democrats seriously addresses the independent reconstruction of Iraq. The only serious talk of reparations is what Iraq owes to the US and Kuwait for its invasion in 1991. Through the UN, the US pressured Iraq to pay $19 billion in reparations -- with a large chunk going to American corporations. To this day, the US claims that Iraq owes $33 billion for the invasion of Kuwait under Saddam. On top of that, the United States is forcing the current Iraqi government to pay for reconstruction during the US occupation of the country. The message of the United States to the Iraqi people is: "We are going to break it, you are going to fix it."

What this all means is that even though the war in Iraq may end in a few years -- meaning American troops will eventually pull out -- the occupation of Iraq, be it political or economic, will continue indefinitely. Even now, members of the Iraqi government are looking to pass a new law that would not only open up the country's oil reserve to foreign investors, but also allow executives from those companies to sit on a Federal Oil and Gas Council that will oversee the development of oil production. This isn't government pandering to corporations -- it's corporations becoming the government; and specifically, it's American corporations because they are the ones who are going to get those contracts from the foreign controlled Iraqi government. This law is essentially a form of reparations in reverse, where the wealth of a destroyed country is scavenged and picked by a foreign colonial power.

If Iraq is to be rebuilt, if there is to be justice in any meaningful sense of the word, then the mainstream discourse in American politics needs to change. A dialogue on reparations must begin. Iraq cannot be seen as a nation beyond hope, or as a place that has nothing to offer the world. This necessitates that the peace movement, too, must rethink its focus. Relying solely on the message "Bring the troops home now" ignores the plight of Iraqis and their need to live securely. "Bring the troops home" is only half the struggle. The other half is about what is left when they leave. Most importantly, we must acknowledge not just the political reasons for reparations, but also the overwhelming moral ones. All of us would benefit from a free and economically stable Iraq; we would benefit not just in the terms of what Iraq can contribute to the arts and science, but also to what Iraq can contribute to our sense of humanity.