www.brainboxmag.com War

With the war drums pounding, the rhetoric rising, and the testosterone boiling, let us take a step off of the brink and examine what we are about to do in Iraq. We should take a look at our actions using greater hindsight to achieve better foresight. We are about to go to war, and I believe in the era of computers, much of America sees this decision as somewhat trivial. They are apt to go along with Bush, satisfied with the President’s labeling of Saddam as evil. So let us look deeper into the situation, and I hope to illustrate the dire state of American diplomacy. I will grant to the advocates of war, for the time being, that we are poised to invade Iraq not for oil (read Bill’s UN), but rather for the two reasons given by Bush. First, and most importantly, Iraq must be disarmed. Secondly and much more infrequently noted, Saddam is an evil dictator, and we must liberate the nation. Let us look at these reasons. Iraq poses no imminent threat on the United States or any other country. Links to Al-Qaeda are extremely weak, if they exist at all. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Husein would probably kill each other if they were in the same room. Osama has frequently called the secular Hussein an “infidel.” Not only do they ideologically stand opposed, but furthermore, Saddam, who by all accounts is a somewhat intelligent guy, would be utterly stupid to try to make connections with any terrorists. He knows that the day he is concretely connected to a terrorist attack on American soil is the day he not only loses all his luxurious palaces but also is the day he is blown to smithereens. He knows he cannot use any of his biological and chemical weapons for terrorism, because American intelligence could easily track it back to him. Yes, I admit he does have biological and chemical weapons. We gave them to him, back when he was our ally, back when we helped him, when it was politically convenient to support this dictator. Currently, Saddam is isolated and weakened militarily. He shows no sign of invading another country. Even Bush acknowledged in his State of the Union that he did not pose an imminent threat. Rather, Bush sees the need for a pre-emptive strike. I am not sure though whether most Americans understand the gravity of those words. The United States has never gone into war pre-emotively. We have always justified our acts by claiming that we, or some other innocents, were attacked first. The War of 1812 was justified by, among other things, the impressment of American sailors by the British. The Mexican War was justified by leading American troops into disputed territory, where they were attacked by the Mexicans. The Spanish-American War was justified through the sinking of the Maine Battleship in Havana. The First World War was justified by the belligerent acts of Germany, including the sinking of the cruise ship Lusitania. The Second World War was justified by Pearl Harbor. The Korean War was justified by the invasion of South Korea. The Vietnam War was justified by the Gulf of Tonkin incident. No matter how much these justifications obscured the real causes of the war, the defensive justifications were still present. Indeed, they were needed to quench the moral questions of the American public. Not so presently with Iraq. The President, and some advocates for war, have argued that it is a different world, and the United States must act first, even if it never has before. If it has changed, is war the answer to this change? We had planes that could have been hijacked and flown into buildings thirty years ago. Yet, it did not happen. Why? There was not such a burning desire, or the resources, to do so amongst terrorists. What changed that? Actually, I’m glad you asked. It was the first Gulf War that pushed Osama over the ledge. He was so angered by the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia, that he got up and left, taking his millions to aid in a new terrorist war against America. Saddam has had biological and chemical weapons for years now. The last time he used them in a belligerent act? During the Gulf War. I believe a pattern might be emerging. As stated above, Saddam currently lies castrated. Even if he wanted to smuggle some weapons to Al-Qaeda, he could not, because he is not self-destructive. With regard to terrorism, the only thing this war guarantees is in fact more of it. If we do invade Iraq, Saddam will make allies out of necessity with all enemies of the United States. This means aiding terrorists. Moreover, when we invade Iraq we threaten to make a martyr out of Saddam for the entire Arab world. Previously disliked by most fundamentalist Arabs as a secular dictator, he is fast becoming a hero for standing against the Americans. The war would also be destructive in the conventional, non-terrorist, sense. If we do invade Iraq, it will destabilize the whole region, sending refugees everywhere. Those civilians who will not be killed by American bombs will wallow in disease-ridden refugee camps. Furthermore, if Saddam knows he will be destroyed by America, might not he send an anthrax laden scud missile into Tel-Aviv, or somehow attempt to stir up Arab support in Palestine and Syria against Israel. And then what is stopping Israel from becoming involved in a war with Syria, Palestine, and Iraq, not to mention the people of Egypt and Jordan who may threaten to rise up against their more Western-friendly leaders? The Third World War might become reality. Much of this is probably more unlikely than likely, but why risk it? The point is that we see war as such a clean thing, which it will never be. The Middle-East, especially, is not a place to make war lightly. This said, I do not support Saddam Hussein as the leader of Iraq. I might even be willing to listen to plans for war if I thought liberating the people of Iraq was of top priority. After the war the Iraqi people will be as quickly forgotten as the Afghani people were. Unless we are willing to invest billions of dollars into creating an egalitarian society, the way did after the Second World War in Europe and Japan, the Iraqi people will be no better off under a Western-friendly regime. Just look at one of Iraq’s neighbors Saudi Arabia, where the gap between rich and poor is astounding and where, despite (maybe a better word is because of), the pro-American government, Al-Qaeda finds many willing recruits. Most of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis and Egyptians, countries with pro-American governments. None were Iraqi. If we go to war, the next 9/11 will most probably involve Iraqis. Make no mistake, this war has nothing to do with the Iraqi people. After the war, the benefits of oil production will not go to them, for in none of the Western-friendly oil-producing countries do oil riches go to the people (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela). I believe the war has everything to do with satisfying the American appetite for oil, but even if it does not, even if it is about the cause most oft repeated by our President, to rid the world of the evil Saddam Hussein with his evil weapons, we are at a turning point in American diplomacy, one that historians will certainly look back at with dismay. It will be the day testosterone-bursting war hawks will no longer need the veil of an imminent threat to satisfy their craving for blood.

• Anthony

On why we should know better than to say this war is for the Iraqi people: From The Boston Review

The Red Perspective is a column exploring current events and issues as they relate to the pursuit of the Socialist ideal. It is almost always written by Anthony Ross, although sometimes by others. Past installments can be viewed here.

www.worldtrademag.com Posted on: 02/17/2003 Tony Seideman

The Columbus Pacific in the Port of San Antonio, Chile. (Communication Resource Management)

Transportation providers understand how a country operates in an intimate, detailed and often devastating way. They see up close whether corruption or commitment to quality and efficiency dominates government operations. They know from hands-on, sometimes painful experience whether an infrastructure works for a country or against its future.

In few regions is this reality truer than South America. While some pundits have described South America as a continent slipping rapidly into chaos and dysfunction, its economies stunted and its potential thrown away, carriers with on-the-ground experience say the reality is far different.

"US-South American trade is quite viable and continues to grow," says Allen Clifford, senior vice president of sales and marketing at Mediterranean Shipping Co. (USA) Inc. Although some South American countries are facing vast, seemingly insurmountable challenges, others have dramatically altered the way they operate in ways both small and large. The question is whether the countries that have reshaped themselves to conduct business more effectively will be able to withstand the economic stress caused by other nations that are experiencing crippling difficulties.

Two nations are currently garnering kudos from carriers and other economic experts, while two others seem to be battling hard for the bottom slot. Brazil and Chile have won plaudits from carriers and economists alike for the changes they've made in their regulatory policies, physical infrastructures and worldview in recent years, while Venezuela and Argentina are both seen as wasting abundant opportunities and resources both human and physical. And, while Brazil and Chile have both taken a number of specific steps to win their accolades, each needs to do a great deal more work.

Brazil's steps include increasing the efficiency of its regulatory apparatus, privatization, and modernizing its ports. The country has faced problems with inefficient structures and its tax system. To its credit, Brazil went through a number of economic and political reforms.

"They opened their industries up to international competition," says Doug Webster, spokesperson for Hamburg Sud North America. One positive result of Brazil's efforts is that the country now has a trade surplus of $13 billion U.S.

Chile's biggest advance is embodied in its embrace of the first free trade agreement any South American nation has made with a North American neighbor.

"More than 85 percent of bilateral trade in consumer and industrial products became immediately tariff-free. About three-quarters of both U.S. and Chilean farm goods will be tariff-free within four years," the American Association of Port Authorities says in a statement about the agreement.

While some South American countries are doing well, others are in deep trouble. Venezuela's situation is so difficult some major carriers have temporarily ceased calling on its ports, while Argentina's decline is reflected not just in its local economy, but in a radical drop in its trade with the outside world as well.

Argentina's financial problems are having a strong impact on trade, Webster notes. "There was a time when Argentina's ports were moving well over 1 million TEUs a year. This year, they're moving six-hundred thousand," he says. Prompt resolution of the country's difficulties is unlikely, he adds. "Not a lot is going to happen until Argentina goes through a set of elections which are now scheduled for some time this spring."

Ocean carriers are confident enough in South America's strength to be adding new capacity to lanes serving the continent. "An indication of MSC's commitment to this trade are the enhancements made to its East Coast South America service made in late October," Clifford says. " MSC now offers all water service from Miami and New Orleans to a select number of ports in South America, which means improved transit times and more space available for shipments," he says.

Hamburg Sud is also making investments in new services and capacity. "Our long term view is that the area is a region that has real prospects for trade improvement," says Webster.

www.forbes.com Reuters, 02.17.03, 5:32 PM ET

CARACAS, Venezuela, Feb 17 (Reuters) - Venezuelan state oil firm PDVSA has begun construction of a 125,000 barrel per day plant to process orimulsion boiler fuel for export to China, tapping an initial investment of $360 million, PDVSA said on Monday. The construction follows a 2001 supply contract lasting 33 years between China National Petroleum (CNPC), parent of PetroChina <0857.HK> (nyse: PTR - news - people), and Venezuela's PDVSA. CNPC owns a 40 percent stake and PetroChina owns a 30 percent share of the contract. PDVSA owns the remaining 30 percent. Construction of the plant is slated to be finished by next year. The ground breaking came as Venezuela, the world's No. 5 oil exporter, struggles to restore its petroleum industry to pre-strike levels after a work stoppage started on Dec. 2. Orimulsion, a mixture of 70 percent extra heavy crude oil and 30 percent water, is produced in Venezuela and used for direct burning in power plants. PDVSA said in a statement the plant was being constructed in Anzoategui state. It would generate state income of $2.2 billion in the first 20 years of operations.

www.forbes.com Reuters, 02.17.03, 5:16 PM ET

CARACAS, Venezuela, Feb 17 (Reuters) - Venezuela's largest private energy generator and distributor, Electricidad de Caracas (EDC) <EDC.CR>, on Monday reported a 53.143 billion loss during 2002 compared with a 89.244 billion bolivar profit in 2001. EDC said the loss was due to a devaluation in the local bolivar currency, a drop in demand of electric energy and increases in fuel prices. Telecommunications and service firm Corporacion Electricidad de Caracas <EDC.CR> (CEDC), the sister firm of Electricidad de Caracas, showed a loss of 215.483 billion bolivars during 2002, compared with a profit of 32.364 billion in 2001, a company statement said. Both companies are affiliates of U.S. power firm AES Corp (nyse: AES - news - people). ($1=1,403 Bolivars, Dec. 31, 2002 rate)

www.vheadline.com Posted: Monday, February 17, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

Venezuelan Confederation of Trade Unions (CTV)  general secretary Manuel Cova has proposed a signature campaign to choose a single opposition candidate to run against President Hugo Chavez Frias.

Cova says that diversity inside the Coordinadora Democratica (CD) is one of its strengths because it enriches the political debate … “so long as we don’t lose sight of the main objective, namely to place collective interests before anything else.”

The CTV leader, who has been given opposition media spotlight since the collapse of the national stoppage, suggests that a signature campaign would help void internal divisions and intrigues … “the candidacy would have the backing of millions of signatures.”

Cova says he agrees with the proposal of a constitutional amendment to shorten the presidential period and elections with a second round.

“It would help an opposition signature campaign, owing to diversity inside CD and would also help the problem of governance that we have in Venezuela because future rulers would be elected by a solid majority.”