The Guardian Saturday November 151997 COMMENT AND ESSAY I23US loses control in the calm

, "

before a new desert storm

The conflict might lurch in dangerousdirections, including Iraqi attemptson regional American military targets

Commentary

MartinWoollacott

ONE wonders howoften General ColinPowell,General Nor-man Schwarzkopf,

and former President GeorgeBush return in their minds tothat euphoric morning inFebruary, 1991, when theAmerican leader, with thesupport of his senior militarymen, decided to round off theGulfWar in exactly 100hours.It had a nice ring to it, but itis a subject of desperateregret today. "If it had beenour intention to overun the

country we could have done itunopposed, for all intents andpurposes," Schwarzkopf saidat his fmal press conferenceofthe war.Perhaps it would not have

been that easy militarily, andperhaps it was not politicallypossible, given the state ofpublic opinion at the time andthe prevailing view that Sad-dam would either soon fall or,if he survived, would be soweakened and toothless as toconstitute a danger to no one.But, if only. The United Statesand its allies thought theycould leave Saddam Husseinto twist in the wind, but theylet him live to fight anotherday. As a result of that deci-sion, and of the failures thathave followed, there maysoon have to be a dismalchoice between appeasingSaddam and making a sus-tained aerial attack on Iraq.The UN Security Council hasthreatened the Iraqi regime

with "serious consequences"but, in truth, the serious con-sequences will affect every-body, including America andBritain.Someofthose consequences

are already apparent. Theyare with us in the shape of adangerous split within thepost-cold-war order, whichenvisaged permanent co-oper-ation between North Amer-ica, Russia and Europe, act·ing together to keep thepeace. It is ironic that thebreak.has comenot over Natostructures and expansion, butover how to deal with therogue states - Iraq, Iran,Libya and others - which theUnited States wants to sanc-tion and isolate but appearsunable to actually vanquishby fair means or foul.The consequences are

above all with us in the frag-ile nature of that Americanascendancy in the MiddleEast which, for want of any-

thing better, is w,hat passesfor stability in that region. Ifthere is one man who is asresponsible as Saddam for thedecline ofAmerican influencethere it is Benjamin Netan·yahu, in London this lastweek to meet Robin CookandMadeleineAlbright. His aban·donment of substantive nego-tiations with the Palestinianshas undermined those Arabregimes which had put theirtrust in the United States. Be-tween Israelis and Palestin-ians themselves, the obstacleshe has created are less impor-tant. There is a certain inexo-rable process of adjustmentgoingon between Israelis andPalestinians, which seems tocontinue beneath all theanger and violence.But, externally, it is a dif-

ferent matter. The reasonwhy America can now find nosupport amongst Arabs foraction against Iraq is not thatthese governments have any

love for the Baghdad regimebut that the United States hasfailed to deliver what it in ef-fect promised in the yearsafter 1991.The US set itself,iminediately or somewhatlater, an extraordinary rangeofobjectives- to isolate, con-tain, and sanction Iraq, Iranand Libya with a view tochanging their regimes or atleast altering their behaviour,to manage a peace negotiationbetween Israelis and Palestin-ians, and try to extend thatinto a general peace settle-ment, and to help transformthe economiclandscape of theMiddle East. It had hopes, inaddition, of ameliorating thedifficulties between Turkeyand Greece, and solving theCyprus problem, and it latertook on much responsibilityfor ending hostilities in Bos-nia. This was a truly ambi-tious plan for the EasternMediterranean and theMiddle East, but with thecredit of the Gulf victory inhand and the disappearanceof the Soviet Union as an ac-tor and opponent, it seemednot impossible that some atleast of it would cometo pass.But the results have been

meagre, the Arab states havelost confidence, and are nowunderstandably "'reluctant toput their bets on the tablewith such an inept or unluckyplayer as in their view Amer-ica has so far turned out to be.Apart from anything else, allhave to cope with an anti-

Israeli, anti-American con-stituency inside their owncourttdes. Their dilemma ismost clearly seen in the caseof King Hussein. Once theArab leader who tried, in thedays before the Gulf War, tomediate between the Westand Saddam, he crossed overfully to the anti-Iraqi camp atabout the same time as hecommittedhimself fully to thepeace process. He is now adoubly betrayed figure, look-ing east to see a hard Iraqienemy whomhe had been as-sured again and again wouldbe removed, and looking westto see an Israeli leader whohad so little respect for himand his problems as to ar-

range a major assassinationattempt in the Jordaniancapital.AnAmerican attack on Iraq

this time, unlike on previousoccasions, could lead to a con-flict which would make theGulf War seem simple. Thiswould not be a matter ofallied tanks charging throughthe desert. There is no occa-sion, nor is there stomach, forthat. If the Iraqis do not res-pond to diplomaticmoves, theUnited States and Britain

could find themselves batter-ing Iraqi targets with missilesand bombs. They might haveto goon doing it, if the regimetreats the first attacks withcontempt. The United Statesmight decide, anyway, thatthis time an attack must beaimed at Saddam himself andhis key military assets, arisky course with no assur-ance of success.The conflict might then

lurch in dangerous direc-tions. These could includeIraqi attempts againstregional American militarytargets. One cannot be abso-lutely certain that thesewould not come, or would befeeble and unsuccesful. Sad-

dam could move against theKurds, whose divisions con-tinue to offerhim an opportu-nity to enter the northernzone, with some apparent le-gitimacy, as the ally of onefaction or another. Thatwould be disastrous for theKurds, and a humiliation forthe United States.More likely, perhaps, is

that Iraq will avoid bothretaliation and concession,and look to its "friends" -Russia, France, China, some

of the Arab countries - to or-ganise a "compromise". Wewould have the unpleasantpossibility ofthe Iraqis seeingoff a few attacks, apparentlyagreeing to talks about theresumption of weapons in-spections, and then stonewall-ing for months while, amongother things, they couldmakeoperational some of the massdestruction weapons they un-doubtedly have, and hope togradually bore their waythrough to the final goal of alifting of sanctions.The fiasco of the Doha

MiddleEastern economiccon-ference this weekend, whichwill be attended by neitherEgypt nor SaudiArabia, illus-trates how limited Americaninfluence has in a way be-come. Yet American policyand purpose is still verymuch the defining element inthe Middle East, the centrearound which countries andleaders manoeuvre, andWashington does still have adegree of control. That con-trol, however, is slipping, notleast because of Saddam. Pro-fessor Lawrence Freedman,co-author of the best historyof the Gulf War, wrote thatjust as Saddam's ability tocontinue to control Iraq polit-ically after the conflict was asurprise, so "his eventualdownfallwouldalso comeas asurprise". Wemay take somecomfort from that, becausethere is not much availableelsewhere.

Unloveable Shell,the goddess of oilFor a century, Shell has exploredthe Earth to make our lives morecomfortable. But in its wake, saysAndrew Rowell, lies a trail ofcorruption, despoliation and death

Address _

Socan ,oun.

Name _

_________ Postcode' _I I

• His beliefs liv,on after his death.

~

THIS WEEK'Sessayist,AndrewRowell,lsafreelance envi-ronmental con-sultant who haswri"en exten-sively on the 011

Industry. He Is author ofGreen Backlash - Global Sub-version Of The EnvironmentalMovement (Routledge, 1996)

another military crackdown."The military governor saysit is for the purpose ofprotect-ing the oil companies. Theauthorities can no longer af-ford to sit by and have thecommunitiesmobilise againstthe companies. It is Ogonirevisited," says Uche Onyea-gucha, representing the oppo-sition DemocraticAlternative.In Peru, Shell has returned

to the rainforest. It acknowl-edges "the need to considerenvironmental sustainabilityand responsibility to thepeople involved", but ~hemove is still criticised bymore than 60 internationaland local environmental,human-rights and indigenousgroups. "Shell has not learntfrom its tragic mistakes,"says Shannon Wright fromthe Rainforest Action Net-work, which believes thereshould be no new fossil-fuelexploration in the rainforest:"They continue to go intoareas where there are indige-nous people who are suscep-tible to outside diseases."Meanwhile, Shell publicly

talks of engaging "stakehold-ers". It hopes that we, as con-sumers, will continue to giveit a licence to operate.However, for each barrel

produced, the ecological andcultural price increases expo-nentially. Everyone knowsweneed to reduce our consump-tion of oil: but Shell's veryexistence depends on sellingmore of it. Senior executivesare said to be "girding ourloins for our second century"because "the importance ofoil and gas is likely to in-crease rather than diminishas we enter the 21st century".Can we let that happen?

ing hundreds of birds. Thefollowingyear, Shell spilt 150tons of thick crude into theRiver Mersey,and was fmed arecord £1million.But by now, the company

was responding to growinginternational environmentalawareness. "The biggest chal-lenge facing the energy indus-try is the global environmentand globalwarming," said SirJohn Collins, head of ShellUK, in 1990. "The possibleconsequences of man-madeglobal warming are so worry-ing that concerted interna-tional action is clearly calledfor."Shell joined the Global Cli-

mate Coalition, which hasspent tens of millions of dol-lars trying to influence theUN climate negotiations thatculminate in Kyoto nextmonth. "There is no clearscientific consensus thatman-induced climate changeis happening now," the lobby-ists maintain, two years afterthe world's leading scientistsagreed that there was.At the same time, the com-

pany has taken its own pre-ventive action on climatechange and possible sea-levelrise by increasing the heightof its Troll platform in theNorth Sea by one metre.By 1993,as Shell's spin-doc-

tors were teaching buddingexecutives that "ignorancegets corporations into trou-ble, arrogance keeps themthere", 300,000Ogoni peace-fully protested against Shell'soperations in Nigeria. Sincethen 2,000 have beenbutchered, and countlessothers raped and tortured bythe Nigerian military. In thesummer of 1995there was theoutcry over the planned deep-sea sinking of the redundantoil platform Brent Spar, andin November Ogoni leaderKen Saro-Wiwawas executed,having been framed by theNigerian authorities. At thetime Shell denied any fman-cial relationship with the Ni-gerian military, but has sinceadmitted paying them "fieldallowances" on occasion.This year in Nigeria, the

three-million-strong Ijawcommunity started campaign-ing against Shell, leading to

working with the chemicalsued Shell and two other com-panies in the Texan Courts.Shell denied that it ever ex-ported the chemical to CostaRica and denied that it ex-ported it to any other countryafter the ban in 1977.The casewas settled out of court.Just as people had begun to

question Shell's products, sothey began to challenge itspractices. In the 1970s and1980s, Shell was accused ofbreaking the UNoil boycottofRhodesia (now Zimbabwe)byusing its South African sub-sidiary and other companiesin which it had interests.Shell, singled out by anti-apartheid campaigners forproviding fuel to the notori-ously brutal South Africanarmy and police, respondedby hiring a PR firm to run ananti-boycott campaign.

ByTHE 1980scriti-cism of Shell's op-erations wasspreading. FromInuit in Canada

and Alaska, to Aborigines inAustralia and Indians inBrazil, indigenous communi-ties were affected by Shell'soperations. In the Peruvianrainforest, where Shell con-ducted exploration activities,an estimated 100hitherto un-contactedNahua Indians diedafter catching diseases towhich they had no immunity.Shell denies responsibility,and says that it was loggerswho contacted the Nahua.By the end of the decade,

the company's image was suf-fering in the US and UK,too.In April 1988,440,000gallonsof oil was discharged into SanFrancisco Bay from the com-pany's Martinez refmery, kill-

Colorado Department of Fishand Game had documentedabnormal behaviour in thelocal wildlife, and took hisconcerns to Shell, whoreplied: "That's just the costof doing business if we arekilling a few birds out there.As far as we are concerned,this situation is all right."But the truth was different.

"By 1956Shell knew it had amajor problem on its hands,"recalled AdamRaphael in theObserver in 1993."It was thecompany's policy to collectallduck and animal carcasses inorder to hide them beforescheduled visits by inspectorsfrom the Colorado Depart-ment of Fish and Game."After operations ceased in1982,the site was among themost contaminated places onthe planet, although Shell isnow trying to make it into anature reserve.At Rocky Mountain, Shell

produced three highly toxicand persistent pesticidescalled the "drins": aldrin,dieldrin and endrin. Despitefour decades of warning overtheir use, starting in the1950s,Shell only stopped pro-duction of endrin in 1982,ofdieldrin in 1987and aldrin in1990,and only ceased sales ofthe three in 1991.Even afterproduction was stopped,stocks of drins were shippedto the Third World.Another chemical Shell

began manufacturing in the1950s was DBCP, or l,2-Di-bro mo-3-Chloro pro pane,which was used to spray ba-nanas.' This was banned bythe USEnvironmental Protec-tion Agency in 1977for caus-ing sterility in workers. In1990, Costa Rican workerswho had become sterile from

paign, and even the contro-versy over Brent Spar, noteveryone will agree with theauthorised biography's ver-sion of Shell's history. Here isa less authorised approach.After it merged in 1907with

its rival Royal Dutch, theRoyal Dutch Shell companywas formed; its first chair-man was the Dutchman HenriDeterding. By the 1930s,De-terding had become infatu-ated with Adolf Hitler, andbegan secret negotiationswith the German military toprovide a year's supply of oilon credit. In 1936, he wasforced to resign over his Nazisympathies.During the eaJtly 1940s,as

the world waged war, Peruand Ecuador had their ownarmed border-dispute - overoil. Legend in Latin Americasays that it was really apower struggle between Shell,based in Ecuador, and Stan-dard Oil in Peru. The com-pany left a lasting reminderof its presence in the country:a town called Shell. Activistsin Ecuador are seeking to getthe town renamed Saro-Wiwa.In the post-war years, Shell

manufactured pesticides andherbicides on a site previ-ously used by the USmilitaryto make nerve gas at RockyMountain near Denver. By1960a game warden from the

THE QUEENand theDuke of Edinburghwent to the ShellCentre on theThames riverside

near Waterloo last Tuesday,to crown the company's cente-nary celebrations. Criticsclaim the timing of theQueen's visit was slightly un-fortunate: it came just oneday after the second anniver-sary of Ken Saro-Wiwa'sdeath in Nigeria: he was cam-paigning against Shell's oilexploitation in the region.The Shell Transport and

Trading Company(STTC)hasrisen from its humble roots ina cramped offiCein the EastEnd to become one of themost successful corporationsof the century. What we col-lectivelyknow as "Shell" is infact more than 2,000compa-nies. Last year, the ShellGroup's profit was a record£5.7billion, the proceeds fromsales of £110 billion. "Wereour founder, Marcus Samuel,to reappear today, I do notthink he would be displeasedwith what has grown from hisefforts," says Mark Moody-Stuart, STTC'schairman.As part of the centenary

celebrations, the cream of theCity were invited to a recep-tion at the Guildhall. There isalso to be a commemorativebook. Whilst it may mentionthe Shell Better Britain Cam-

f