The ‘Casus Belli’ for war; compare the ‘Gulf’ Wars & the ‘Boer’ Wars

History repeats itself, that’s the ironic part. For starters let’s compare the Anglo-Boer Wars (both of them the 1st and 2nd Anglo-Boer War – one leads to the other) to the last two Gulf Wars (both of them – one leads to the other).  Let’s also take the seldom used ‘Economic History’ model rather than the ‘Political’ History model for a change.

The 2nd Anglo-Boer war (1899 to 1902) started due to a mix of Imperial interests in Africa, the wealth in the ground in the ZAR Republic and Cape Colony – gold and diamonds respectively, a ‘old score’ to settle on the land stemming itself from the 1st Anglo-Boer War (1880-1881), territorial expansionism of both the Imperialist British and the South African Republic and finally the suppression and threat as to civil rights by the South African Republic as to the mainly British citizens working in their Republic on the mines as well as as other indigenous African populations (this last part was the British ‘Casus Belli’ – the justified case for war).

The Gulf War 2 (or Iraq War 2003 – 2011) started due to a mix of USA interests and USA expansionist ‘influence’ in the Gulf, Iraqi expansionism and the wealth in the ground – Oil, the unfinished business on Iraqi expansionism which formed a ‘old score’ to settle caused by Gulf War 1 (1990-1991) and finally the perceived threat to Americans and Israelis (or ‘the world’) from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (entirely fabricated) and threat to civilians in various religious sects, indigenous populations and minorities in Iraq (this last part was the American ‘Casus Belli’ for going to war).

All war is for ‘economic’ benefit, and the Boer and Gulf wars were no different. The  reasons given for the war – mainly that of ‘threat, oppression and persecution’ to minority groups in each case is no different. Like the USA in the modern-day Iraq context (citing oppression of Kurds, Christians, Kuwaitis), Great Britain also put it’s case forward to the ‘world’ (citing oppression by the Boers of British miners) and in both instances the war was passed off as entirely legitimate once it ended for these same reasons … the ‘Casus Belli’ had been made.

In Iraq, America remained as an occupier after their last war – Great Britain did the same in South Africa after their last war– and in both instances the rational given to the ‘world’ was the reconstruction of the state both economically and politically until it’s perceived ‘threat’ was removed and the country was moulded in a likeness of themselves i.e. a more palatable ‘less aggressive’ version to the ‘world’. In both instances they attempted coalition political parties to govern the country as a means to gradually withdraw from direct governance, but retain influence – and in both instances injecting huge economic aid into both to ‘reconstruct’ them.

In both instances, a tiny state took on a superpower and in both instances guerilla warfare as the only real means to fight a superpower.  In both cases civilians were oppressed and randomly imprisoned as a means of removing support to guerilla cells. In the case of South Africa it was to curtail supply to ‘guerilla cells’  and in Iraq it was to curtail supply to ‘terrorist cells’ (both these guerrilla groupings where locally based). In both instances civilians were exploited to achieve these military objectives.

Oil in 1990 is to Gold in 1900. On the economic front the ‘world’ was presented a case that ‘aggressive’ states where not allowed to be in charge of the world economy as they hold the ‘key’ to it, and these states needed to be removed to ensure worldwide economic stability – this was argued by the USA in 1990 and by Great Britain in 1900 with a similar outcome and some support to both.

The ‘Gulf’ wars – lets face it the whole WMD thing was a complete farce, human rights, aggression and expansionist reasons lie behind the war and millions of people were affected and will be for years to come, and whose kidding whom it was also about the MONEY i.e. wealth – same thing with the ‘Boer’ Wars, human rights, aggressive and expansionist reasons lie behind the war, millions of people affected for years to come, and whose kidding whom it was also about the MONEY i.e. wealth.

In summary, the cruel thing about history is that it repeats as it is often only one basic human condition that guides it, wealth generation (expressed by all sides in the conflict, never just one). The reasons for war are always about economic gain but they are also guided by emotional and political convictions (religion, political dogma, ethnic oppression, human persecution etc).

The even crueller thing about both Iraq and South Africa is that ‘world’ opinion will always justify the war because of the strong cases put forward before and after the war by the victor (albeit very flawed cases in both instances). For this reason it is very unlikely that the USA will be compensating Iraqi families 110 years after the war and apologising, the same is also true of Great Britain and South Africa.


Written by Peter Dickens

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s