ALTHOUGH USA has always aggressively pursued its own interest round the world, this is perhaps the first time that in the face of massive opposition (prior to action) states and people from across the planet, that it has attacked another nation on most spurious pretexts. The justifications to invade Iraq started with Saddam allegedly hoarding weapons of mass destruction and as it became evident that the UN Inspectors perhaps would succeed in proving that no such stash existed, USA, with Britain, hell bent on warfare put forward a claim of Saddam being a tyrant, an evil dictator (the argument that he is not the only oppressor in the world falls on deaf ears). Both Bush and Blair declared their intended offensive a moral duty -- an act of magnanimity -to liberate people of Iraq, bring them freedom and democracy.

Surely even a child could tell them that democracy through bombs and guns is a contradiction in terms. Would it not be true to say that democracy comes about through winning the minds and hearts of the populace? Would it not be right to assume that democratic acts are based on approval by the majority? Yet the war on Iraq is being waged against mighty antipathy from the people round the world (including Americans) and with profound splits and dissent in the UNSC, the EU and the NATO.

It is clear from actions of the USA administration that it intends to dominate the world economically and militarily -- with or without the support of others. It wants to destroy and then to 'make-over' any nation that does not bow down to American political will (a policy document 'Vision for Iraq', already doing the rounds in the US government departments, outlines a blueprint for 'policy, institutional and financial reforms' to be undertaken in post-war Iraq). What is unfolding before us is naked imperialism. This neo-imperialism is being spearheaded by a country founded on violence, plunder and annihilation of indigenous people, and is being aided and abetted by Australia, also founded on violence and genocide, Britain an old colonial power which still lives somewhat uncomfortably with its loss of empire and Spain, the first imperial power in the Americas, which had colonised much of the rest of what Britain did not. The strategy of appropriation of what belongs to others continues (in case of Iraq, its oil) without much moral qualms. (Maybe Bush suffers from a complex -- what his father could not achieve he wants to prove he can. So what is Blair's problem?)

In the previous world domination scenario the western powers declared the people of countries -- even continents -- they went into, as lazy, heathens, uncivilized, less than human etc. and thus justified a takeover or annihilation or slavery or other unreasonable and barbaric exploits. Now the game plan is to create demons/enemies (individuals/states) and then move in to save or free the people from tyrants/communism. The process of demonisation/ dehumani- sation is so subtle and consistent -repetition of certain phrases, focus on one particular person/state, language loaded with morality -- that it manages to convince most of the 'evilness' of the particular person or state. (Why is Saddam evil and not Sharon? In fact why is it that all evil doers happen to be from the non-western countries?)

Iraq of course is not the first state to encounter the wrath of USA. In the last 50 years USA has instigated more military intervention (in over 24 countries) than any other nation in the world -- certainly 22 more than Iraq. And in a number of these there have been repeated incursions. Their crimes: election of government perceived as unfavourable to American politics, robust trade union activities, existence of socialist or communist systems, rich in natural resources. For example, in Chile (September 11, 1971), CIA funded and supported coup overthrew the democratically elected Marxist president and installed a military dictatorship. General strike in Panama was quashed by US troops and marines in1925. In Vietnam (196075) the USA fought the South Vietnam-

ese revolutionaries and North Vietnam to stop the spread of communism in South Vietnam. Over 2 million Vietnamese died in the war. And Iraq has been invaded three times within 12 years (1991, 1998, 2003) for oil.

USA definitely has the might to take over the world. Its stockpile of weapons of mass destruction could obliterate the earth and its people many times over (arms expenditure -- USA 396 billion: Iraq 1.5 billion). At present it has military bases in at least 41 countries -- with multiple stations in most, in Germany, for instance, 27, in Japan 10, in Italy seven in South Korea eight. The whole of Middle East and Central Asia is now well covered by American bases. Of course the Central and South American countries are deemed by as its extended territory -- in the Monroe Doctrine, drawn up in the 19thcentaury USA declared its manifest destiny to look after and control the geo-politics of the western hemisphere and thereby accorded itself the full right to intervene in the internal politics and policies of any country therein any time that America feels threatened.

With this might USA has also taken on the right to impose its will wherever, for whatever and whenever thereby unleashing the law of the jungle -sanction for 'state terrorism'. It has moved on from its self appointed role of world policeman and set itself up as the judge, the jury and the executioner.

Until now we were more or less in an era of 'sweat economy' i.e. the poor and developing world having to sell its products, resources and labour at a price determined by the rich countries, the multinationals and other businesses from wealthy nations moving in to countries where labour is cheap and legislation not too restrictive and moving out to another with more favourable conditions, thus the '3rd world' subsiding and sustaining the life style of the rich people and countries. With 'might is right' policy we have entered into the 'blood economy' era in which massacre of people and nations is condoned by the greedy and calculating -- Britain will surely secure contracts, like in Kosovo and Afghanistan, to 'reconstruct' Iraq. Why else would Clair Short, the Secretary of State for International Development make a trip to Washington? (600 million dollar contracts are already on the table). Turkey is to receive 6 billion dollars (it demanded 17 billion) from the USA for the use of its territory -although they are now playing their own dangerous game in northern Iraq.

Reinforcing these two is the 'permanent arms economy', boosting the wealth of the western nations, the

main arms producers, and strengthening them politically (in 2000 USA sold 18 billion dollars worth of arms to the world -- and often to both sides in conflicts).

So Iraq to day -- who tomorrow? America must have a line up of 'rogue' states and 'demonic' rulers. There is the 'Axis of Evil' to start with. Could it then be the turn of Israel possessing around 200 nuclear weapons, with missiles and warplanes and submarines to launch them from? It has also defied 31 Security Council Resolutions the first dating back to 1968 and the last four passed in 2002. Turkey is another violator of Security Council Resolutions -- at least 21 in the last 32 years.

But it is implicit that the war in Iraq is about oil (it has reserves worth 1.1 trillion) and not bringing about democracy. What does that tell us about American Government and its relationship with oil companies? Much has been already uncovered about Bush Administration's connections with oil and other corporations. Form Bush (stocks in, amongst others, BP, Exxon Mobil, Duke Energy) to Condoleezza Rice (was on the Board of Chevron Corporation) all had or still have major holdings in one or another oil company. The war also exposes how far some governments will now go to protect the corporate interests. As in all wars many will die and fortunes will be made by some.

But the opposition to the war is also phenomenal. There have been con- demnations, protests and marches in all corners of the world. People who have never before raised their voice are expressing their resentment on the streets. School children from Bangladesh to the USA have left their class to demonstrate their outrage they feel about this war. Yet there are few words, leave alone action, from one quarter i.e. the Arab world. The leaders seem to be quietly accepting the fate of Iraq perhaps in the belief that they will be spared (oppressive as their regimes are) and possibly they are right. In the region Saddam (with all his treacheries) is the only one not compliant to the American will. Despite their oil wealth other Arab states appear totally beholden to the USA and therefore unable to protest or mount a challenge.

During the civil war in Spain, in the 1930s, people from all over Europe and America poured in to fight against fascism. The fact is that most Arab states are corrupt, despotic and selfserving, propped up by the American regime and the people afraid to act on their beliefs and convictions. So while bullish foreign powers attack one of their own the Arabs sit by, watch the carnage and guard their own interests. All this to a certain extent also explains why the Palestine situation remains as it is.

In the mean time, while 'state terrorism' is in full force in Iraq, its two architects, Bush and Blair warn us of terrorist threats around us. They echo each other in telling us that the terrorists (including Saddam) "hate us, are jealous of our way of life, our freedom ……" (Why is it that the western systems, structures, way of life are supposedly more legitimate and better than any other? Maybe one should ask Native Americans or Blacks or the trade unionist in the USA about 'freedom'). In any case, it is not the American or for that matter the British way of life or freedom that is abhorred. What, not just the terrorists or 'fundamentalists' or people in the developing countries, or Muslims but also many Europeans fear, hate, and are seriously concerned about is the interference and intervention in internal politics and policies of nations and continual attempts to impose cultural and economic changes on societies. It is neo imperialism that is reviled and resented. (Is Britain trying to re-launch itself as a colonial power?)

While the stance taken by France, Germany, Russia and China in this war will be strengthened by the general public support (marches, protests), pressure could also be put on individual governments, through personal letters to our parliamentary representatives, opposing the war, presenting petitions to American Embassies and British High Commissions/Embassies and of course boycotting American products.(Globally consumers' refusal to buy South African goods did have a serious impact on the political outcome of the country). It is very important to let the people of Iraq know that they are not alone in their fight.

Mridu Thanki is an independent consultant/ researcher in the fields of social development and education from UK now living in Bangladesh.