'Conflict of Interest?'
By Gerald A. Honigman (11/09/06)
James A. Baker III, close friend and confidant of the Bush family and Secretary of State under George the First, is back in the news again.
Lest we forget, this is the same Baker who, when Israel wasn't caving in to his State Department's demands fast enough (such as his promise to Hafez al-Assad, Saddam's twin butcher in Syria, of a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Golan--from which Syria regularly bombarded Israelis below), responded "F_ _ _ the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway ! "
He regularly referred to his "Jew boys," who he had do his bidding for him at Foggy Bottom. It's great to have a Jew stick it to other Jews in Israel.
And regarding Israel, he was quoted as seeing it in the eyes of a hunter stalking a wild turkey.
Baker has been in the background for decades, especially since his close friends, the Bushes, gained ascendancy in American politics. His law firm represents Saudi Arab interests in this country and typifies how people move through the revolving doors of businesses tied to Arab interests back and forth into government positions--especially those in Foggy Bottom. Baker's law partner, Robert Jordan, was appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia by President Bush in 2001. Currently, among other things, his law firm is defending Saudis (who provided most of the suicide bombers) in a law suit filed by survivors and families of 9/11 victims.
Baker & Co. (including the Bush clan) have gotten very rich off of Arab oil wealth.
So, pardon me if I smell a fish when I hear that Baker is back on center stage regarding plans for a future Middle East.
The man is tied up to his eye balls to Arab interests.
In other words, Jim is an Arab's dream.
In the wake of America's problems in Iraq, George II has sent Baker there as part of the Baker-Hamilton Commission. Their main goal will be to find a way out for the United States without totally losing face.
America's overthrow of one of the worst of the Arabs' all-too-many Hitlers was noble...even if it came a bit too late. George the First earlier told the Shi'a and Kurds to revolt and then, along with Baker, did nothing while tens of thousands of them were slaughtered.
But America never learned the Brits' earlier lesson over a half century ago, when millions of native Kurds, who lived in the area millennia before the Arabs' own conquest of it, were denied independence and forcibly tied to a newly created Arab Iraq to appease British petroleum interests and Arab nationalism...causes close to Baker's own heart.
The Arabs revolted against them anyway--as foreign imperialists. Of course, without the Brits help, they never would have gotten the oil wealth in the Kurdish north. But, as Janet Jackson's song asks,"What Have You done For Me Lately ?" And, after all, if it's not the Arabs' own particular conquering and subjugating brand, imperialsim is nasty.
So, America is in a similar pickle barrel now, reaping what was sown after World War I when a united nation was formed that never should have been.
Iraq is the Yugoslavia of the Middle East, with hostile groups thrown together largely for others' interests. And it will likely follow Yugoslavia's same fate. As the latter's days were numbered after the death of its strongman, Marshal Tito, Iraq's days are numbered as well with Saddam out of the picture. And that's not a bad thing...
By the way, America led that dissolution of Yugoslavia--which was undergoing at the time
much the same as what we're seeing happening right now in Iraq.
So, what does this all have to do with Baker?
Well, if the early reports I've seen about the recommendations of Baker's Commission are correct, it's going to be, "F_ _ _ the Kurds, they don't vote for us anyway ! "
A recommendation to divide Iraq into three highly autonomous federal states looks good on the surface. But, as Dr. Rashid Karadaghi points out in the Kurdish Media ( " The World According To Baker," 11/5/06), it appears that oil-rich Kirkuk will be handed over to Baker's Sunni Arab buddies to insure their economic position.
To hell with the fact that Kirkuk is as Kurdish as Mecca is Arab, and Kurds lived there and ruled there since Biblical times, thousands of years before the first Arab arrived during the Arabs' own imperial caliphal conquests.
To hell with the fact that many Aabs only live there now because of a forced Arabization policy in that economically important and strategic area...while they were slaughetering hundreds of thousands of Kurds over the past century.
America has acted this way too often before when non-Arab interests were involved--especially those of the Kurds and Jews. Both have too often been expected to cave in to Arab interests and demands, despite the predictable bloody consequences. Almost two dozen states on over six million square miles of territory is still not enough for Arabs. They have to deny everyone else any piece of the pie...no matter how small.
Thirty million Kurds in the region remain stateless and victimized by those in whose countries they now live.
It's their turn now for center stage.
The economic viability of that newly-proposed Kurdish federal state needs the oil wealth of its own lands to succeed. Perhaps a way to share the oil from the south and the north can be arranged. That would be acceptable.
But make no mistake about it...Kirkuk is as Kurdish as London is English. Many other folks may now live in Great Britain now--including lots of Arabs and other Muslims--but that doesn't change the fact any.
While representing Arab interests has made Baker a very wealthy man, this gives him no right to wield such power over the fate of a people far more in tune with American values and interests than any of his Arab clients are.
While Aabs blow each other apart to the south, the Kurdish region is the one example of pride and success that America can point to right now.
America has shamefully used and abused these people too often in the past.
It's time to atone for those sins...not to repeat them.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Gerald A. Honigman
