>>Not so. Those who have fought against the war on Iraq have
>>implicitly or explicitly questioned the right of the state of Kuwait
>>to exist, for instance. While one may correctly point out that all
>>existing states are artificial products of colonialism &
>>neo-colonialism, some are more glaringly artificial than others.
>>Yoshie
>
>Iraq certainly put the right of Kuwait to exist into
>question by invading it, but I fail to recall any of the
>protestors against the Gulf War (incl myself) questioning
>the right to sovereignty of Kuwait.
Those who were against both war & economic sanctions on Iraq were de facto negating "the right to sovereignty of Kuwait."
>Iraq certainly put the right of Kuwait to exist into
>question by invading it, but I fail to recall any of the
>protestors against the Gulf War (incl myself) questioning
>the right to sovereignty of Kuwait. They (we) certainly
>questioned the legitimacy of the Kuwaitii royal
>family, but that wasn't the same thing. Nobody
>was cheering go Saddam, smash Kuwait. It was all
>bring the boys home from something that need not
>concern us, and the royals were not worth protecting.
>There was no preoccupation with Kuwait as a nation
>that had a particular case for not existing.
The argument was not "Go Saddam, Smash Kuwait" but to question Kuwait's status as a "sovereign state," especially as it has nothing to do with popular sovereignty of people who live in Kuwait.
***** Kuwait -- a product of colonialism
By Bill Stevens
Kuwait is a feudal country that some people argue merits its classification as a sovereign state. It is not. It is an ancient sheikhdom that has been nourished and protected and allowed to continue its existence by blatant colonialism. Other nations that have developed in the last two centuries have swept away most relics of such hereditary despotic governments. Without the interference of the imperial powers, Kuwait would likely be a part of a modern Arab nation.
The origin of present Kuwait is usually placed at the beginning of the 18th century, when a number of families of the Anaiza tribe migrated from the interior of Arabia and settled on the shore of the Gulf. As the area was under the domination of the Ottoman Empire, a member of the al Sabah family emerged in 1756 as a sheikh to represent them when dealing with the Ottoman governors in Basra.
Throughout its history, this family has maintained a continuous connection with one imperial overlord or another. The first Western power the al Sabah family associated with was Britain, followed later by the USA.
The Persians occupied Basra between 1776 and 1779, so the British East India Company moved its Gulf base to Kuwait for this period. For the next hundred years, the British and the East India Company protected Kuwait from pirates and internal raiders. It became the leading port for the Arabian trade with India. In 1899 Kuwait, under Sheikh Mubarak, became a British protectorate.
In the first world war, the Arabs generally threw in their lot with the British and French, who were at war with the Ottoman Turks. But in 1917, Sheikh Salim, who supported the Turks, came to power, and the British then blockaded Kuwait.
In 1921, Sheikh Salim was replaced by the pro-British Ahmad al Jabir, who allowed the start of extensive prospecting for oil. In 1934 a joint concession was granted to the US Gulf Oil Corporation and the Anglo-Persian Oil Co., which formed the Kuwait Oil Co. Ltd. The second world war interrupted oil production, and the wells closed down for the duration.
After the war, oil exploration and production mushroomed. Interestingly, the first company to strike oil offshore in Kuwait had as a major partner George Bush! In the early '50s, the Iranian government, under Dr Mossadeq, attempted to nationalise its oil. The reaction of the British and the US was to incite major disorders in Iran, eventually ending in the pro-US coup that placed the shah in power as the despotic ruler for two and a half decades. The troubles in Iran led to a further boom in Kuwait and the other oil-rich states.
On June 19, 1961, Britain ended its protectorate arrangement with Kuwait; six days later Iraq claimed that Kuwait was "an integral part" of Iraq. The British landed troops to forestall an Iraqi invasion and to protect Western oil interests there. Later that yer, these troops were replaced by troops from the Arab League.
Iraq maintained its claim until late 1963, when it found itself with major internal difficulties. Facing domestic turmoil, the government in October withdrew most of its claims over Kuwait (amidst rumours of a substantial cash payment to Iraq). This started a long tradition of Kuwait buying favour by supplying money to Arab countries.
Kuwait is dominated by six family groupings including the ruling al Sabah family. An emir has absolute powers (and, rumour has it, 70 wives). There is a National Assembly of 50 which spends most of its life in suspension. The prime minister is invariably the crown prince (and we mustn't upset dad, must we). Only 6.7% of the population is entitled to vote, but of this less than half bother to register. No woman has voting rights. If you cannot trace your Kuwaiti ancestry earlier than 1920, voting rights are denied you.
Most of the ministers are of the al Sabah family, which comprises about 2000 princes. Other positions in the government and the economy are distributed between the al Sabah and other dominant families.
[This article is slightly abridged from the February-March issue of Fremantle Voice, published by the New Labour Movement.]
This article was posted on the Green Left Weekly Home Page. For further details regarding subscriptions and correspondence please contact greenleft at peg.apc.org
<http://jinx.sistm.unsw.edu.au/~greenlft/1991/02/02p9vpt.htm> *****
Yoshie