According to the Party of Peace, the Bush led war is all about oil. (Although "The Independent's" Robert Fisk believes its about American Colonialism and the Jewish interests!) But, if I read this US Department of Energy report, dated October 2002, correctly, IT IS about oil--with just the opposite interests at work! Below is an excerpt from <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html> In recent weeks and months, Iraq reportedly has signed a flurry of deals with companies from Italy (Eni), Spain (Repsol YPF), Russia (Tatneft), France (TotalFinaElf), China, India, Turkey, and others. According to a report in The Economist, Iraq has signed over 30 deals with various oil companies, offering generous rates of return ("on the order of 20%") as part of its "Development and Production Contract" (DPC) model. Iraq introduced the DPC in 2000 to replace the previous "Production Sharing Contract" (PSC) arrangement. . . . ----------------------------- Can you say re-divide and conquer? --Orson
Your qualification: 'If I read US Department of Energy report, dated October 2002, correctly, IT IS about oil' is interesting, because if you have read it incorrectly and merely jumped to a conclusion, your conclusion is problematical. If anything, the signing of contracts with the Iraqi oil industry suggests a monetary motive for the 'peace at an price' movement (a minority in the current 'no war just yet' majority movement). Russia is owed enormous sums by the Iraqi government (USD8 billion, or thereabouts) and the cheapest way (financially if not morally) to get it back is by these type of new contracts. That France and China are in the market for Iraqi contracts too, suggests less than pure motives, assuming we can align economic interests perfectly to diplomacy. But Italy and Spain are signatories to the 'coalition of the willing' and their governments support the UD/UK/Australian governments' stance. If the US wants more oil it can re-open its markets with Libya and Iran. Venezuela is a temporary affair. The world is not short of oil supplies in markets that set the price for purchase. You oinly have to pay the dollar price per gallon. Opting for a war close to oil fields is not the most attractive of options, or the least expensive, or even the most certain to produce the alleged result. Resort to markets is far simpler, less controversial and more certain. The oil connection is a conspiracy fantasy, mixed with anti-US sentiments (impute sordid motives to the US; ignore the moral case against Sadam). The facts are more mundane. For some years the infrastructure of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction programmes have been recovering from the earlier UN inspection regime's interventions to 1998. Nobody, except Iraq, claims these programmes did not and do not exist. External monitoring of long chains of supplies needed to re-start them showed no obvious activity by Iraq directly, or through secondary agencies. It is sensible if the animal you wish to catch needs to drink water, that you watch the water holes. Sooner or later he will turn up to drink. Last year, tracks were picked up showing Iraqi interest in acquiring some of the elements needed to re-start a nuclear programme. Once the hunt for confirmatory information began in earnest, more tracks were found, amounting to a 'cause for concern'. This brought Iraq up the agenda, not the oil contracts, which anyway, for reasons hinted at above, were of less importance than its recovery of its WMD programmes. The potential for terrorist groups acquiring access to small supplies of bilogical agents, dirty nuclear bombs, or other horrors, that do not need ballistic missiles to deliver them, is far too serious to ignore. The real issue is between those who think the time to act is now (US/UK/Australia and others) and those who do not think it is appropriate to do so until the 'inspection' regime proves it necessary. It is one of timing, not substance, because to my knowledge nobody (except Iraq and Osma) believes that it may not be necessary to implement a military intervention sometime (sooner or later, presently later). The exception to the above is the position of Germany, which seems to be saying 'never', but is not clear if they mean this. All permanent members of the Security Council are in the 'sooner of later' camp. If the German position prevailed, the UN would be reduced to the format of the League of Nations, which failed to intervene to stop either German Militarism or Italian colonial ventures, contrary to its purpose, in the 1930s. The UN Charter allows for international intervention. It is not a pacifist organisation - to become one it would need to change its Charter. The German position is also contrary to its recent post-War history in NATO, an organisation that was willinging to go to war (including nuclear) to deter a Soviet invasion of the then West Germany, even if the Soviets attemtped to invade half a city called West Berlin. Wlling to accept this commitment but not to accept intervention at some time, should it be necessary, such as continued non-compliance with Resolution 1441 by Iraq strikes me as pure humbug, and a corner into which the German government has backed itself. No doubt diplomacy will help Germany out of its corner in due course.
Professor Kennedy-- I agree entirely with your analysis. Yet I'm still not sure that Iraqi intervention can achieve anything more than modest goals, or that simply withdrawing and waiting--an Islamic reservation policy that lets Muslims decide when to adopt values consonant with liberty--is not the wiser course for the US. (The US can then support nascent Muslim democracies like Turkey, Indonesia, and Afghanistan, pursuing the War on Terror in policing actions.) Richard Perle, in Ireland On-Line, puts the above case against the appeasers more bluntly: "France accused of oil-for-peace deal with Iraq" 14/02/2003 - 09:15:20 A senior Pentagon adviser today accused France of striking a deal with Saddam Hussein to oppose military action in return for a lucrative oil contract. Richard Perle, a former US Assistant Defence Secretary, said the French anti-war stance was driven by economic interests. French oil giant TotalFinaElf has exclusive exploration contracts worth €60bn - €75bn to develop the massive Majnoon and Bin Umar oilfields in southern Iraq, he said. “What’s distinctive about the Total contract is that it’s not favourable to Iraq, it’s favourable to Total,” Mr Perle, the chairman of the Pentagon’s Defence Policy Board, said during an address in New York. “One can suspect that there’s some arbitrage there, that in between the real value of that contract and the cash value of that contract there’s a certain amount of political support. “It’s entirely possible that Saddam negotiated that deal because that along with the revenues, he could get something else.” He said oil experts who had analysed the deal described it as “extraordinarily lopsided” in favour of the French company. “This is not your normal oil exploration contract.” Total is currently barred from working on the oil fields because of the economic sanctions against Iraq. http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=62244490&p=6zz45y96 --------------------------------- This "Peace Movement" makes it extremely tough for any thinking man to associate with them! --Orson
It's not about oil. It's about oil COMPANIES. I mean, think about it. In the last Gulf War, Japan wanted to simply stand aside because they, being whoever controlled Kuwait, had to sell the oil to SOMEBODY. Japan saw, and I saw, no significant difference between the Emir of Kuwait, that paragon of liberal virtue, and Sadaam Hussein. But who gets the profits from developing and exploiting those fields? Even our glorious Seretary of Defense has growled that, if France and Germany don't support the US in making war, French and German oil companies might find their contracts for Iraqi oil will be dishonored by the US military government. BRITISH Petroleum? AMCO? Nosborne, JD
TRUE! Nosborne--no doubt! WHO else has the expertise to develop new oil fields? But let's think this through further. NO OTHER mid-East oil state gives away their oil producing lands. A joint operating agreement will have to be the result after the US authorized government begins to function. If the lead time for new field's development is three to five years, that might also be about the length of time needed for the US get Iraqi self-government through its baby steps. It's been suggested that MacArthur's benign military rule in Japan may be the model the US pursues in Iraq. I can't imagine a more respectable choice, or a better career capper, than for General Powell to take the helm! Just imagine: Powell, the black American former Secretary of State, doing for a mid-East nation what MacArthur did for Japan! Them's big shoes to fill--but if not Powell, who? (I can't imagine anyone....) --Orson
The conquest of Iraq could be accomplished in days with few casualties. Any attempted occupation or divying up of oil rights would lead to unacceptable casualties. I think the best the US can hope for is to replace the government and provide this government with tools to maintain power and to get their troops out fast.
