(Iraq - still; 03-02; p.2)
Congress debates become more heated and in London
about 150 000 protesters were counted on 28 September. Three permanent
member states of the UN security council, China, Russia and France,
oppose a war with the Arabian state.
Why is it, one may ask, that although facing such strong resistance
the Bush administration so fervently insists on its demands?
Lines of argument
Currently, four lines of argument can be made
out: one motivated by home affairs, one by economics, one by security
and one by world order politics.
In regard to home affairs one finds that president
Bush succeeded in pressing for a defence budget of an unprecedented
size. Surely the 9/11 shock eased congressional approval; on the
other hand - as known to the public - there were no victories
yet to be claimed in the fight against major terrorists.
It might be that Bush and his supporters now feel they have to
rectify policies and budget changes related to the September attacks.
And it is also true that neutralising a "state of concern"
may lead to a favourable climate for the mid-term elections.
Economically, the United States have a vital
interest in the whole of the Gulf region: there are a lot of energy
reserves which are considered unsubstitutable for the world's
largest consumer. Besides, many members of the Bush administration
formerly worked for companies in the energy sector, among them
George W. "Harken" Bush and Condoleezza "Chevron"
Regarding security matters, it is not the USA
alone that have an interest in non-proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and delivery systems. Iraq showed on many occasions
that she is interested in purchasing or producing such weapons.
- Whether or not the Hussein regime has such military capabilities
at its disposal remains unclear until inspectors found out. (read