Below is
the text of an article in Common Sense issue 25
(2nd quarter 1998) on the topic of the
political background to the genocide in Iraq.
Iraq - New Background
The Islamic Party of
Britain has come across interesting background information relating
to the continuing genocidal onslaught against the Iraqi people by
the USA. Dr. Kitty Little, a chemical scientist from Oxford, had
written to the Attorney General to demand the indictment of the
prime minister and foreign secretary under the 1969 genocide act.
Kitty Little, who made her name in medical and atomic research also
holds a degree in philosophy and has written the book "Mammon Versus
God - The Bankers' New World Dis-order". In her submission she
claimed that "in the Gulf War the American, Israelis and British air
forces had as their primary targets water and sewage treatment
plant, power stations, hospitals and clinics, food warehouses and
distribution, churches and mosques, civilians and the civilian
infrastructure. A variety of anti-personnel weapons were tried out.
During the land advance the order was to kill everyone they met.
Instead the British sector of the line took prisoners, while British
air crews began to refuse to bomb defenceless people. As a result
then war had to be aborted, with only about a million people killed.
Sanctions were
introduced, with hospital and medical supplies blocked, since they
were allegedly intended for "biological weapons". The other main
target for sanctions has been food. Only perhaps the minimum needed
for normal health is allowed. The UN inspectors, allegedly looking
for evidence of the manufacture of "weapons of mass destruction"
would seem to have been acting as spies. All this suggests that the
British and American forces will again be targeted by subversive
agents. So far the result of sanctions has been the death of about
another million people - half of them children under 5 years of age.
The intended Gulf War II
has as its primary objective the killing off of the rest of the
Iraqi population - genocide. The 1969 Genocide Act specifies that
not only the actual killing, but also "...any attempt, conspiracy or
incitement to commit such an offices". That means that Blair and his
associates have already committed a major criminal offence." She
makes the following comment about casualty figures: "Pentagon
propaganda gave the total number of civilian death's in Iraq as
5,000. The U.S. Census Bureau figures were: 40,000 Military deaths;
13,000 immediate Civilian deaths; 70,000 public health consequences
of war damage to electricity and sewage treatment plants; 123,000
Total. They also gave 35,000 deaths in Kurdish and Shiite
"rebellions" immediately following this war. Independent observers
including the Red Crescent gave totals varying from 300,000 to
50,000. In the circumstances it would have been impossible to make
any accurate counts. As well as the deaths, a large number of people
would have been injured, many seriously, and there was a shortage of
medical supplies and equipment, while hospitals had also been
targets. How many of those died of their wounds? The numbers seem
disproportionately high for such a short campaign, until one
remembers that extermination the population was one of the primary
objects of the exercise." To support this contention, she further
stated:
"I have known since late
1990 that the reasons the Gulf War was planned by Kissinger and Bush
were not only to seize the Iraqi oil for the international oil
cartel, but also to "exterminate" the indigenous population to make
way for Soviet Jews (see paras 3 to abstract, and paras 47 to 52).
At that time James Akins, a former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia,
came over to warn the government of Kissinger's 1975 plans (4 years
before Saddam Hussein became President). He was accompanied to
London by a mutual friend".
The James Akins to whom
she refers is described in the 1986-87 International edition of
Who's Who as an: "American diplomatist, writer and lecturer. Born in
1926; educated at Akron University.; U.S. Navy 1945-46; undertook
relief work with non-profit organisation. 1948-50; taught in Lebanon
1951-52; held numerous diplomatic posts in Paris 1954-55, Strasbourg
1955-56, Damascus 1956-57, Kuwait 1958-60, Baghdad 1961-64; with
Secr., Washington, D.C. 1965-67, Dir. Fuels and Energy Office
1968-72; Ambassador. To Saudi Arabia 1973-75. Publications: numerous
articles on oil and energy policy and the Middle East. (our
emphasis)
Dr. Kitty Little's
account is highly opinionated, and it would be rash to follow her
conclusions without corroboration. However, the leader of the
Islamic Party of Britain, David Musa Pidcock, has had the good
fortune of being able to speak and correspond directly with Mr.
Akins in Washington, and has received, in writing, verifiable facts
which clearly help us to understand the historical origins of past
and present confrontations in the Gulf.
It is clear from his
disclosures that Mr. Akins does not conform to the traditional
definition of a diplomat as being: "An honest man sent abroad to lie
for his country," - far from it. As far as he is concerned the
policy currently being pursued by America and her coadjutors is one
devised by Henry Kissinger back in the 1970's which, according to
Mr. Akins called for the re-population of the entire area between
Kuwait and Dubai with Oklahoma and Texas oilmen (bad enough) but,
not as Dr.Little has suggested with Russian Jews. He states in his
facsimile letter dated February 20th 1998:
In early 1975 some twelve
articles appeared in American newspapers and magazines on "How we
can solve our economic problems." The basic idea was that we would
occupy the Arab oil fields from Kuwait to Dubai (not Iraq), expel
the indigenous populations, "not more than 2 million", bring in
Texan and Oklahoma oil men who would produce the oil. The inevitable
cries of "imperialism" from the third world would be immediately
stilled by our selling them oil for $2.50 a barrel. The reaction of
the Soviet Union and the Arabs themselves was conveniently ignored.
It was clear that the
articles came from a single "deep background" briefing. I assumed it
was given by some idiot in the Pentagon or the CIA and said on
American television that "anyone who proposes solving our domestic
economic problems in this manner is a madman, a criminal or an agent
of the Soviet Union." The oil fields would have been destroyed by
the Arabs and, under the best of circumstances, they could not have
been restored to production for two years during which the economies
of Europe, Japan and the United States would have collapsed. I wrote
a long report on the subject; it had low classification and should
be available from the State Department under the Freedom of
Information Act. Congress subsequently did a study on the same
subject and backed me on every point.
Subsequently several of
those who were present at the briefing revealed that Henry Kissinger
was the one who gave it. Many assumed that I was fully aware of this
when I made my statement on the subject. This was untrue; I may be
daring but I am not suicidal; had I known the identity of the
briefer I would still have opposed the idea but I would have been
more cautious in my choice of words. Kissinger was not amused and my
diplomatic career was terminated shortly thereafter.
In 1990 in the run up to
the Gulf war, I said publicly - perhaps in England as well - that
Saddam, through his invasion of Kuwait, had given the US the
opportunity to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq which I considered
the most important Arab country and, as a bonus to occupy the Arab
oil fields as recommended in 1975, but with no losses, indeed, with
the cooperation of the Gulf Arabs. I never suggested nor did I
believe then or now that our plan was to exterminate the Iraqi
people to make way for the settlement of Soviet Jews. In fact, until
I read your account of Ms.Little's paper, I had no idea that anyone
held such ideas.
Ms.Little did not invent
the story about Israeli plans to occupy all the lands "from the Nile
to the Euphrates, including Medina in Saudi Arabia...The Zionists at
the Versailles conference presented a map of Eretz Israel; its
borders would include all of Palestine, all of southern Lebanon up
to Sidon, all of southern Syria, not just the Golan, including the
entire Jebel Druze, and all of inhabitable Trans-Jordan. The Herut
party (now part of Likud) uses as its logo this map superimposed by
an arm carrying a rifle and the word "Kahk" - only thus. This
concept has never been disavowed by the Herut/Likud.
Israeli expansionist aims
were and are bad enough; there is no need to exaggerate them. As for
Iraq as a place for settlement of Soviet Jews, I believe Ms' Little
is confused...The late Rabbi Kahane said that within three months of
his becoming defense minister, Israel will be "free" of its Arab
population - by this he meant Arabs in Israel as well as those in
the occupied territories. And the main area of settlement of these
Arabs would be Iraq, with its adequate land, water and oil. Even
Kahane never talked about Israel occupying Iraq.
I served in Iraq for 4
years and have a great affection and admiration for its people. They
have the great misfortune to be governed by a monster. I have long
said that within 10 years of the overthrow of Saddam a demilitarized
Iraq would be known as the "Japan of the Middle East." I'm no longer
sure of this; some of the best Iraqi minds are out of the country
and many will never return; Iraq's education and health systems -
comparable in many ways to the best in the west - have been
destroyed; children who are near starvation cannot learn much at
school.
I would like to see
sanctions lifted; they have failed completely in their stated goal
of removing Saddam who is stronger, internally, than he was in 1990.
Starving, desperate peoples do not make revolutions; their only
concerned is finding enough calories to survive the day.
Many in the Middle East
believe the US needs Saddam in power to retain its hold on the Arabs
of the peninsula. While I am not privy to the workings of official
American political circles I doubt if there is any such intention.
Americans don't think in such terms, at least those currently in
power don't. I myself believe Saddam must go - and the sooner the
better - before [the] resurrection of Iraq can begin. But the
bombing of Iraq, currently planned, will not bring about his fall."
As Noam Chomsky wrote in
the Observer of February 21,st 1998: "Nor should it be forgotten that
before August 1990 Saddam Hussein was a favoured friend and trading
partner of the US and UK. He was 'our kind of guy' Saddam Hussein
remains a monster and a serious threat as he was when he conducted
his most awful crimes with US/UK support. But the reaction of his
former backers reeks of cynicism and hypocrisy. And their current
designs - even putting aside considerations of international Law -
may well make a terrible situation even worse.
As might is right in the
jungle of world politics, Henry Kissinger and his Bilderberg cronies
- David Rockfeller, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Margaret Thatcher, et
al are unlikely to be put in the dock and tried for crimes against
humanity. The track record for miscarriages of justice under
previous administrations is truly legendary but the Birmingham 6
would pale into insignificance at the side of the Baghdad 6
million.
Author: Islamic
Party of
Britain |
Date Published:
Spring
1998 |
==================================================================
Back To Top
|