Re: Some provocative thoughts about looting in Iraq

This Al Jazeera article about Amnesty International's criticism of US 
occupation relates to the issue of US protection (of oil, but not people or 
cultural artifacts).

Wednesday 16, April, 2003 / Last Updated:  9:59PM Doha time, 1:59AM GMT  
 
"US more keen on oil than Iraqi people" 
 
Ruben Banerjee

Deeply concerned over the anarchic turn of events in  Iraq, Amnesty 
International charged the US-led forces on Tuesday with being more concerned 
about Iraqi oil well than the Iraqi people.

There seems to be have been more preparation to protect the oil wells than to 
protect hospitals, water systems or civilians," lamented Irene Khan, the 
secretary-general of the international human-rights group in what is the 
strongest indictment of the US and its allies to date for their inability to 
restore normalcy in Iraq since they ousted the government of Saddam Hussein.

British troops from the Heavy Machine Gun Platoon of the 1st Battalion Royal 
Irish Battle Group enter southern Iraq under oil blackened skies against a 
backdrop of burning oil wells 

The first taste of the coalition's approach to law and order will not have 
inspired confidence in the Iraqi people," insisted Khan at a news conference 
held in London.

Criticism of the US-led forces is expected to get shriller following the 
indictment from as influential a body as Amnesty.

For much of the past week, US-led forces have had to fend off simmering 
discontent for doing precious little to restore law and order as also the 
essential services like water and electricity in the battle-scarred Iraq.

The anarchic fallout of the war strengthened the belief in many that the US 
were eyeing Iraq's huge oil reserves. Securing oil wells in Basra and Kirkuk 
have - not coincidentally - been among the first tasks carried out by the US 
troops after vanquishing the Iraqi army.  

Protecting people should be a primary responsibility of any power than expects 
to enter a country and justifies its intervention on the basis of liberating 
the people or protecting their rights," said the Amnesty secretary-general.

On Iraq's future, Amnesty objected to leaders of the Kurdistan Democratic Party 
and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan taking part in a new government because of 
alleged rights violations during a civil war in the mid-1990s.

Khan said the groups, which have shared control of northern Iraq since the 1991 
Gul war, were responsible for many civilian deaths and widespread torture. 

Amnesty demanded that the United Nations investigate rights abuses in Iraq both 
before and during the present conflict.

Khan reminded that US-led troops were subjected to international laws on 
occupying forces and obliged to protect Iraqi human rights.

In the face of mounting criticism for its inability to stem the lawlessness, 
the US has been loathe to admit responsibility. US Defence Secretary Donald 
Rumsfeld had accused the media of exaggerating instances of looting.

But international law stipulates that the US troops, the occupying force in 
Iraq, maintain law and order and ensure the lives and property of its citizens. 
-- Al Jazeera

Elson E. Boles
Assistant Professor
Sociology
Saginaw Valley State University


>>> <Threehegemons@aol.com> 04/15/03 11:37PM >>>
In a message dated 4/15/2003 8:08:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
spectors@netnitco.net writes:

> But I would like to pose some provocative thoughts. Many of the looters may 
>have been motivated by nihilism; many may be criminals. Maybe. But many were 
>motivated by the possibility of getting some money. It is easy to sit here and 
>condemn someone as "greedy" because they break into a museum and steal a gold 
>cup, but from their point of view, if they can sell that cup for $50, it might 
>feed their family for a month or buy 
> antibiotics to save the lives of their children.

I don't think this is particularly controversial.  In a system of inequality 
based on private property, when control breaks down, people seize all kinds of 
stuff.  What is striking is that after making promises to museum officials 
about protecting this heritage the US simply let looters run wild in the 
museum.  It seems the US has not learned much about the pyscho-cultural effects 
its actions might have since it planted troops in the holy land of Mecca.

Steven Sherman