Ever since the issue of Iraq made headlines in the world press, a thorough
discussion on the subject has encompassed many aspects of the Iraq crisis.
The fact is that high stakes are involved in the likely American invasion of
Iraq not only for the region of the Middle East but also for the world peace
at large. By virtue of relevance of the repercussions of an American attack
on Iraq, almost the whole world has taken positions keeping in view the
interests of the respective countries. In the context of America-led war on
terror, Pakistan is playing an important part in the campaign without whose
key support the toppling of the Taliban government must have been well nigh
impossible. Secondly it happens to be a member of United Nation Security
Council at a time when each and every vote would be crucial for the
Americans in their bid to get the stamp of multilateralism for their action.
In view of this critical placement, it is very probable that the country
would come under tremendous pressure by the Americans. What course should
Pakistan adopt in this no-win situation? Following is an attempt to analyse
the whole Iraqi question: the main motivations behind this American attack
and so forth?

The various research articles appearing on the subject have tended to play
down the oil factor in the American scheme of things. I think such an
approach is erroneous and superficial. However a look at the writings of the
powerful Americans, journalists and intellectuals, who play an important
part in the policy-making circles, provides us an insight into the real
American motives. It is an established fact that the US is using 25% of
total oil productions of the world. Its indigenous oil reserves amount to
2%. The US is using oil worth $10 billions in two weeks domestically. Its
daily consumption of oil is worth $20 millions, which is on the increase
with every passing day. American research and strategic planning
institutions have estimated that in the coming 17 years, the domestic
American consumption of oil would register an increase up to $20.7 millions
per day. The US has already used most of its oil reserves and energy
resources. These American oil reserves were worth $40 billions in 1970,
which declined to $20 billions in 1990. Therefore in view of growing
consumption of oil, it needs to explore resources that could meet its
requirements.

Why Iraq?
As Iraq possesses 11% of total oil reserves of the world as compared to 2%
of America, there are almost 25% to 30% of its reserves, which remain
untapped. If US occupies Iraq militarily by removing Saddam Hussein, the
February 17 issue of Time has carried a report saying that it would be in a
position to meet its energy requirements for the whole of century. Secondly
Iraq Petroleum Company has struck a deal with oil companies of France,
Russia and China. They are the main importers of Iraqi oil. Now if the US
does not secure its oil self-sufficiency, it would tantamount to a huge loss
to the Americans. Only those countries would wield global influence in
international politics in future that would be economically well-off. Thus
the balance of power would be based on the premise of economic factor in the
emerging multi-polar world.

The second main motivation behind an American attack on Iraq is to provide
greater security and political say to Israel in the region. If you look at
Gulf War in 1991-92 and onwards, there would be a pattern in the mutual
relationship between Israel and the US. America coerced, browbeat and bribed
the dissidents into falling in line in the first Gulf War against Iraq.
Israel is the greatest beneficiary of American aid both in military and
economic spheres. The sham negotiation process initiated between Israel and
Palestine was meant to sideline the Palestinian issue under the garb of
bilateralism divesting it of its international character. The impending war
against Iraq also seeks to implement the dream of "Greater Israel" by
removing all the military threats in its way.

The US has assigned the same role to India in our part of the world. The
fact is that we blundered in having aligned ourselves with US in the 50s by
sacrificing the golden principles of the Quaid-e-Azam. The Founder of the
Nation envisioned for Pakistan a foreign policy that sought to establish
relations with all the countries on the basis of parity and equality while
keeping the national integrity and honour intact. But alas we turned our
back on this mode of foreign policy and soon landed ourselves into trouble
by getting into SEATO and CENTO at the expense of strained relations with
the USSR. Although India was in the USSR block but it reaped maximum
dividends by establishing cordial relationship with the USA. Such is the
miscalculation of our policy-makers. The 'Vision 2000' document signed
during the Clinton visit to India dubbed India and America as "natural
allies". The subsequent process of interaction between their respective
governments has taken place at the expense of marginalisation of Pakistan's
role and rolling back of freedom struggle in Kashmir.

Thus American efforts to assign India and Israel the larger-than-life role
in the Middle East and South Asia are part of the global World Order that
has emerged in the wake of demise of Communism. In the present-day uni-polar
world America is power drunk. It has adopted arrogance of power as a policy
plank in its relationship with the rest of the world. It is because of this
feeling of being arrogant complimented by unequalled military strength and
gigantic economic progress that it is hell bent upon reducing the UN to
insignificance. The American responsible quarters have made it crystal clear
that they do not need the ratification of the UNSC to initiate a war against
Iraq. The US has already flouted the international treaties and conventions.
The European Union is opposing America vehemently. The NATO has declined to
support any military action of America. But in spite of all this cleavage
within the 'allies' of the US, it gives a damn and says unhesitatingly that
it would go to war unilaterally. India has also taken a leaf from the
American book and following the pogrom in Gujarat last year, the Indian
hawkish leadership suffers from arrogance of power. It has also made
Muslim-bashing and Pakistan-bashing the trump card for its electoral
success.
Thus in these grave circumstances, Pakistani policy-makers need to pause and
ponder over the placement of the country in the emerging power struggle.
Instead of being swept away by the so-called emotionalism, let us formulate
our policy in accordance with our national interests.

'Pakistan first': What does this mean?
The policy of 'Pakistan first' needs to be defined and specified in the
formulation of national policies. So far, every policy coined on the basis
of 'Pakistan first' has nothing to do with the preservation of national
interests. Rather 'Pakistan first' has been used as a guise to justify the
vested interests of the rulers. In fact Pakistan first embodies the
aspirations of the layman of Pakistan not the ruling elite. Therefore all
policy decisions should be taken in keeping with national interests. The
decision of our support to America in its war against Afghanistan had
different dynamics. Pakistan had no time to waste because the trio of India,
Israel and America was ready to respond. The same logic should not be
repeated in selling ourselves so cheaply. Now we have time for consultation
and decision-making. If our ruling elite thinks that Pakistan could meet the
same fate as that of Iraq if it did not fall in line, let it be said that
then doomsday scenario would come our way whether we provide our support to
the Americans or not. The issue is that Pakistan should not allow itself to
be taken for granted by the Americans. For this, we need to map out an
imaginative and dynamic foreign policy that is based upon 'principles'. The
Pakistani Foreign Policy should be two-pronged. On the one hand, Pakistan
should join France, Russia and China to oppose war along with Arab
countries. On the other, Pakistan should devise a plan to improve its
internal dynamics. For this the revamping of educational system is of utmost
importance. Since there is great resentment among the Arabs against America,
Pakistan can attract these young Arabs by giving them quality education.
Secondly Pakistan should create investment-friendly environment and work
upon the human resource development to cater to their needs. In the present
situation, the best option available with Pakistani policy-makers is to
align themselves with the 'consensus decision' of the UNSC and world
pacifists at large. Only a just stand based on principles can improve
Pakistan's image abroad.

The writer is MNA (Member of National Assembly of Pakistan) and Chairman,
Pakistan Awami Tehreek PAT, a political party of Pakistan.