IT WAS Thursday morning on March 20 last year. Iraq was attacked by the Americans and its allies. My wife was in tears and I was left numb and speechless.
I believe the same feelings were and are still felt by many Malaysians.
Why did America and its friends heartlessly invade Iraq though no consent was given by the United Nations?
In fact, the weapons inspectors of the United Nations were progressing well in disarming Iraq from the so-called weapons of mass destruction.
However, we already know who actually possesses these weapons of mass destruction!
We must now understand that war is just a tool used by the Americans to ensure that globalisation will serve their
economic interests.
So, what is the connection between the Iraq war and globalisation? The whole world has been fooled (or forced) into believing that globalisation creates fairer international trade.
We are told globalisation is supposed to make cross-border trading easier and that this is possible through the abolition of tariff and non-tariff barriers.
For example, a company in Malaysia is free to sell its products in the United States and vice-versa.
That is an ideal international trading situation. But that is not the reality. It may be easier for an US firm to sell its products in Malaysia but the same facility will not be enjoyed by a Malaysian firm wishing to penetrate the
American market.
Why? First of all, the main obstacle is the US government itself.
It always acts under the banner of “protecting its own interests.” Despite globalisation, the US will impose various restrictions on foreign entries if these were to affect their domestic firms.
On the other hand, why did the administration under US President George W. Bush refuse to sign the Kyoto Protocol?
Definitely to protect its oil companies. Why did the Bush administration fail to attend the World Earth Summit in South Africa?
Again, to protect its oil companies. Why did it attack Iraq? Besides trying to finish the unfinished business of Bush Sr, the war was aimed at serving the interests of its oil firms.
During his speech immediately after the attacks on Iraq began, Bush promised “sustained commitment” on
Iraq after the war.
What did he mean by that? Are we so foolish as to believe that he really meant America would help the Iraqis?
There was actually business to be made out of the suffering of the Iraqis.
“Sustained commitment” meant to remain in Iraq after the war to rake in the profits gained from the oil fields.
The made-in-Iraq-by-America devastation also offered business opportunities to American construction companies. The war in Iraq has created a feeling of insecurity in the region.
This will boost the demand for a defence system, which is a very lucrative business in America.
Why did the American government act in favour of the oil companies and defence industry?
The lobby system in America allows various interest groups to influence its domestic and international policies.
This is where money comes into play. Oil giants spend a lot of money to hire good lawyers to lobby and influence the policies of the US administration.
Bush is also indebted to, among others, the oil giants for helping his presidential campaign in 2000. About US$191mil (RM726mil) was spent on the campaign. Now it is the turn of the sponsors to benefit. Therefore, regardless of what the international conventions say, the Bush administration will always ignore them if the interests of the oil companies were at stake.
The international community can shout endlessly at the US about poisonous emissions, global warming or the suffering of the Iraqi civilians only to see them not giving a hoot. The lobby system also creates injustice in the process of globalisation.
The US lobby groups play a significant role in protecting local interests by barring the entry of foreign products.
For example, look at what happened to the tropical wood industry. The wood industry in the West uses non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to protest against the tropical wood industry over environmental issues such as global warming.
After totally destroying their forests, suddenly they get the idea that only tropical forests serve as the green lung of the earth and thereforethese cannot be disturbed. Why didn’t they say this before?
These NGOs managed to influence their governments to ban the import of tropical wood products. Very much similar to the American invasion of Iraq, globalisation is almost certain to occur.
However, whether globalisation is the right thing to take place really needs serious reconsideration.
The spirit of globalisation is noble and should be embraced by every nation. However, looking at how the Americans and other developed nations are behaving, the actual implementation of globalisation will only benefit their companies.