Carrol Cox:
> We built a fairly strong anti-Gulf War movement here in
> Bloomington-Normal, and at most of our rallies and forums the prevailing
> position of the speakers was that Kuwait was an artificial construct
> with no right to exist as a state. I would still argue that. Its only
> reason for existing is to deny Iraq access to the sea. That was the
> reason England created it a century more or less ago. The very existence
> of Kuwait is an infringement on Iraq's sovereignty.
It has been my very strong impression that Iraq is also an artifice, not only in that it's a nation-state, a common sort of artifice, but particularly a creation of British imperialism. If such a thing as "Iraq's sovereignty" can be said to exist in such a way as to be infringed upon, then surely Kuwait's not dissimilar sovereignty is likewise infringeable. They are, in effect, two like scripts for killing and enslaving people, usually leaning against each other and others and thus holding each other up. One fell down: big deal. It was propped up again: another big deal. The important thing was to keep the oil and money flowing, and to keep the people named in the scripts ignorant and subjugated. I can't see much difference between them; that drawing such distinctions was politically effective surprises me.