| March 19, 2003 | Wednesday | Muharram 15, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Another petrol price hike
THE world is on the brink of an avoidable war that could have unpredictable consequences not only for the Middle East but also for the world order painstakingly created after the end of World War II. As of now, President Bush’s 48-hour deadline to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq or face military action against his country represents the triumph of ‘unilateralism’ and the ‘doctrine of pre-emptive action’ and the defeat for the proponents of dialogue and multilateralism. The tragedy is that this war was never inevitable; it has been made so by the obdurate Anglo-US insistence on force as the only way of disarming Iraq and making it behave. Iraq has been cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors and was disarming without any resistance, deceit or duplicity. To claim that Iraq represents a serious threat to the security of the US and its allies is a highly exaggerated piece of propaganda. However, the logic of brute power seems to have defeated the voices of sanity for the present. Brushed aside contemptuously in this rush towards war is the United Nations Security Council. The US, Britain and Spain withdrew their draft resolution seeking sanction for military action against Iraq after it became clear that a majority of members were opposed to the resolution and that if pressed, the French would veto it. In the end, the advice of many of Washington’s traditional allies and some new ones, including France, Germany, China and Russia, has been ignored as has been the overwhelming weight of world opinion.
The consequences of an armed conflict in one of the most volatile regions of the world can indeed be terrifying. An attack on Iraq could lead to the death of thousands of innocent civilians and the destruction of the infrastructure of an already devastated nation reeling under the weight of a harsh sanctions regime. The conflict could unleash all kinds of unpredictable forces and lead to the fragmentation of the Middle East. It could pave the way for the toppling of a number of essentially pro-West, moderate regimes, the redrawing of the map of the region and a steep rise in extremism. At another equally important level, a war could see the beginning of the end of the UN as a forum for settling international disputes by peaceful means of mediation, arbitration or compromise. If the US can employ its doctrine of pre-emptive action in the case of Iraq, what is to stop other nations from taking matters in their own hands to resolve their own disputes unilaterally?
The Iraq crisis has also deeply divided the European Union, once seen as a balancing force to the military and economic might of the US. With France and Germany strongly opposed to unilateral action against Iraq, and Britain and Spain firmly in the US camp, the EU’s common foreign policy now lies in tatters. NATO, the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Conference, among other organizations, have also emerged as deeply divided over Iraq. In Britain, three ministers have already resigned from the cabinet and a massive revolt in the ruling Labour Party is threatening the future of Prime Minister Tony Blair. All this has happened without a bullet being fired yet in the context of this conflict, which threatens to provoke many more casualties in the days ahead.
The US and its allies are hoping that the war will be short and swift, somewhat akin to the first Gulf War in 1991. However, with Saddam Hussein warning of a long-drawn-out defensive war of attrition in Baghdad, the conflict may well be a more prolonged and bloody affair. If that happens, it may well trigger uprisings in the restive north and south of Iraq, sending shock waves through the whole region. Public opinion in the Muslim world and the West could also spiral out of control. The Muslim world is seething with resentment over Washington’s blatant tilt towards Israel and many believe that an attack on Iraq would acquire the dimensions of a war against Islam and Muslims. When the bombs start falling on Baghdad, this resentment could spill over onto the streets endangering a number of pro-west regimes in the region. This in turn could pave the way for Islamist forces to eventually seize control in certain strategically vital countries. In the West, where millions have protested against war even before any hostilities have broken out, the prospect of civilian deaths in Iraq could cause severe upheavals and civil strife.
What is patently clear is that the war against Iraq is not so much about weapons of mass destruction and the threat of these falling into the hands of terrorists. It is being seen as part of a wider US game plan which involves access to oil and the redrawing of the map of the Middle East to further the interests of Washington and its key ally in the region, Israel. The apocalyptic vision of a new, more democratic Middle East rising from the ashes of the old is a tantalizing fantasy shared only by Israel and a coterie of right-wing advisers around President Bush. It is alarming that this naive and dangerous vision is now being foisted upon a fearful and unwilling world, whose key institutions and alliances have already been badly battered and bruised in the process.
OIL prices have been allowed to rise yet again by the government — for the sixth time in just two and a half months. The Oil Companies Advisory Committee (OCAC) suggested a raise this past weekend of between three and four per cent for most types of petrol. This means that compared to Dec. 1 last year the price of petrol and diesel has risen in the range of between 25 and 30 per cent. The government’s policy of linking the domestic price of petrol to that of the world seems to be extracting too high a price out of our economy because of the spiralling costs of production and transportation resulting in rising oil prices. The repercussions of frequent price increases are severe and manifold. For one, transport costs could rise across the board. Commuters could be hit because owners of public transport (including even the national airline) will now feel justified in demanding that fares be increased further, over and above the levels allowed earlier this month.
Fuel being a key element in production and mobility, any significant rise in its price produces a spiral affecting wide range of commodities, costs and services — not proportionate in all cases. Commodities for domestic consumption apart, our exports too become costlier and less competitive in foreign markets. The government must seriously review its policy of tying the domestic price of oil to the world price since the negative consequences for an economy like ours, still struggling to get out of the recession, are far too many, and because a war against Iraq is just around the corner. The possibility of cushioning any future increases in the world price of oil by lowering the petroleum levy that the government charges on every litre of petrol must be seriously considered. At present, the levy makes up close to 40 per cent of the price of petrol. Surely, this can be lowered, for the sake of our domestic industry, the competitiveness of our exports, and consumers in general.