In the post 9/11 world the label of terrorism is strong, anti-patriot and criminalising.
Such a term is the form by which Hussein’s Iraq would perpetrate against those in opposition to his exaggerated view of a divine modern incarnation of the cradle of civilisation. An example of the way he defied the UN was the religious persecution that materialised as oppression during his tenure; mass killings of the Shi’ite and Kurdish peoples were both institutional and unacceptable to the West. This, the ability of a governing state to be terrorist toward its own citizens, is the legacy of Hussein.
Elsewhere in the ruins of humane understanding lies a moral codification of Hussein’s Iraq; Saudi Arabia. There are two significant differences however. First, the Saudi state does not have any significant demographic challenges such as the three dominant groups in Iraq (Kurdish, Sunni and Shia). Secondly, instead of nationalisation coupled with inclusive production and consumption of oil like Iraq had, the immoral regime prostitutes its desert to the global market and in return receives payment of moral exemption.
State terrorism has been imposed by Saudi Arabia on the activist Waleed Abu al-Khair, who in a terrorism court was imprisoned for outlining the state’s human rights abuses. Public worship of any religion bar Islam has been outlawed and Shia Islam is being abused out of public institutions. Shia mosques in the dissolute state are targets for ISIS insurgency, torture is used as a public punishment and judges have discretion to chastise ‘criminal’ children who exhibit signs of puberty with lashings. Campaign group Human Rights Watch has also said that women within the country are second class citizens ‘in all possible ways’.
Recently Anne Widdecombe, a former Conservative politician, said on the BBC’s Question Time that she opposed banning Mr Trump from a state visit on grounds of social attitudes because we have previously allowed other deplorable leaders the same welcome. A similar hypocrisy arises in liberal commentators who are deplored by the US for a moral shift whilst no such outrage has occurred with our middle eastern ‘allies’. Such is the operative nature of ‘conservative’ corporate foreign policy, if there are economically aligned interests then have at it with torture, have at it with abuse of women, have at it with state terrorism but if you don’t sell your oil or let our firms exploit your workers then forget it as we are not interested.
Venezuela currently faces the same economic dichotomy, following a reliance on oil. In my view, they are immoral in a different way. Instead of recycling the oil money into aristocracy, oligarchic institutions, or simply corporate functions, they had opted to give the returns to their people. And, although they have failed to operate fossil-fuel socialism the western race to the bottom refuses to help them. There is no need to help Venezuela because they already hit the bottom. This suits the west. Economic deprivation will cause death of Venezuelan citizens. Is this on the shoulders of biased globalisation? The state has recently run itself to the last 10bn and food inflation starves its’ population.
Such a composition of dollar imperialism begs the question, if Hussein had privatised oil, if Iran privatises their oil, if Libya had privatised not nationalised their oil, would they be cooed into the sheep pen of the US Secretary of State for Wall Street? It seems simple, if state terrorism is the agenda of the day in oil dependent places then return the profits to the elites, the rich and to stock markets, you will not face impunity. Western values peg human life to the dollar.