York University, Toronto, Kanada

Foreign Relations between the United States and Iraq

by

 Simon Drexler

"Reflecting both U.S. Government policy and responsible sales practices by American firms, United States suppliers did not contribute directly to Iraq′s conventional or non-conventional weapons capability."

[President George Bush on allegations that the U.S. played a role in arming Iraq]


"Saddam Hussein is President Bush′s Frankenstein - a run-of-the-mill dictator the president fed with billions of US tax-payer dollars and turned into a monster"

[Democrat Charles Schumer at a special house banking committee hearing]

 

 

Table of Content

1. Introduction 3

2. The Political and Historical Making of the Modern Iraqi State 6

3. Chronology of U.S.-Iraqi Foreign Relations 17

4. Conclusion - The Shipwreck of U.S. Foreign Policy toward Iraq 27

5. List of References 29

1. Introduction

Since the terrorist plot against the World Trade Centre took place on September 11, 2001, the United States is not tired to reiterate its commitment to fight terrorism on a global scale and to oppose all states involved in harbouring or supporting terrorist activities. It did not take long for Bush′s War Cabinet to announce that the war in Afghanistan is only the beginning of a wider range of activities, which soon may be extended to countries like the Philippines, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Iran, Iraq and North Korea. In his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002, President Bush depicted the latter three states as an "Axis of Evil". Meanwhile this expression has entered public debate as a household term. America′s increased war rhetoric and it′s blunt ambitions to oust Saddam Hussein and finally settle Bushs´ unfinished family business raised open criticism not only in the Islamic world but also among NATO allies. Many conceive this term as inopportune, misleading, ideologically biased and even insulting. Despite widespread resentment, the United States is currently assessing its opportunities to stage a full-scale war against Iraq within the next months and is campaigning for diplomatic and if possible military support in the Middle East, Europe, Russia and China. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has already declared his support for American war plans. The strong stance of the White House was recently underlined by statements of Vice President Cheney and Minister of Defence Rumsfeld who announced that the United States is able and willing to rely on its own strength and act unilaterally if an international alliance against Saddam Hussein cannot be materialized. Against this background, it is likely that we soon will witness full media coverage of a new Gulf War and CNN footage of American soldiers operating in the Persian Gulf. It would be naive and inept to expect that the ousting of Saddam Hussein′s regime is an easy and bloodless task and could automatically bring long-term stability to the region. Although, most TV channels and newspapers will provide us anew with a version of a modern high-tech war absent of bloodshed and human suffering.

American aggression against a sovereign Arabic state could further fan the flames of fundamentalism and anti-Americanism in the region and could turn the Middle East into chaos. However, it would be mere soothsaying to predict the outcome of American military operations and it is still not fully clear whether a direct attack will take place at all. If Saddam Hussein perceives the American plans as a major threat to his grip on power, it is likely that he will back down and allow UN observers to access military facilities and gather information of Iraq′s alleged production of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq′s compliance with international law and U.N. resolutions could undermine the legitimacy of American use of force and could break ground for a diplomatic settlement of the current crisis.

Instead of embarking on the slippery slope of predicting the future I want to use my research paper to shed some light on the past of U.S.-Iraqi relations. The current political statements and most of the media coverage in the U.S directly or indirectly suggest that America and Iraq are natural antagonists. The United States views itself as a guarantor of world peace and justice and the harbinger of global economic prosperity whereas the Iraq is portrayed as a country ruled by a brutal and ruthless dictator willing to oppress the whole region and threaten the world through chemical and nuclear weapons. All to easy this antagonism drifts into the black-white dichotomy of good and evil governance. Such rhetoric is certainly a necessary tool to rally American citizens behind Bush′s crusade but it also well serves as a cover-up for America′s infamous past in cooperating with the same dictator during the Reagan and early Bush administration. The United States heavily supported the regime in Baghdad with a variety of financial and trade policies. For instance, the U.S. government granted Commodity Credit Cooperation (CCC) loans, approved licenses for the export of dual-use equipment and even shared intelligence, just to name a few actions. Economic assistance was given until the very last day before the invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. It took the Bush administration only a few days to announce a complete embargo and to deny that the United States had ever been directly involved in building up Saddam`s weapon arsenal. Nevertheless, in the following months a huge body of evidence was collected that American business interests and Iraq′s attempts to produce chemical and nuclear weapons were considerably intertwined. Furthermore, the inquiries of Congressmen Henry B. Gonzales in the United States and Lord Scott in the United Kingdom revealed that high rank civil servants and even ministers turned a blind eye to semi-legal or illegal business practices.

[...]