 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
|
NO OIL FOR WAR! ARTICLES MAKING THE LINKS BETWEEN OIL AND WAR
_____________________________________________ 'It's About Oil' This looming war isn't about chemical warheads or human rights: it's about oil. Along with the concern for 'vital interests' in the Gulf, this war was concocted five years ago by oil men such as Dick Cheney I was sitting on the floor of an old concrete house in the suburbs of Amman this week, stuffing into my mouth vast heaps of lamb and boiled rice soaked in melted butter. The elderly, bearded, robed men from Maan - the most Islamist and disobedient city in Jordan - sat around me, plunging their hands into the meat and soaked rice, urging me to eat more and more of the great pile until I felt constrained to point out that we Brits had eaten so much of the Middle East these past 100 years that we were no longer hungry. There was a muttering of prayers until an old man replied. "The Americans eat us now," he said. Through the open door, where rain splashed on the paving stones, a sharp east wind howled in from the east, from the Jordanian and Iraqi deserts. Every man in the room believed President Bush wanted Iraqi oil. Indeed, every Arab I've met in the past six months believes that this - and this alone - explains his enthusiasm for invading Iraq. Many Israelis think the same. So do I. Once an American regime is installed in Baghdad, our oil companies will have access to 112 billion barrels of oil. With unproven reserves, we might actually end up controlling almost a quarter of the world's total reserves. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil? The US Department of Energy announced at the beginning of this month that by 2025, US oil imports will account for perhaps 70 per cent of total US domestic demand. (It was 55 per cent two years ago.) As Michael Renner of the Worldwatch Institute put it bleakly this week, "US oil deposits are increasingly depleted, and many other non-Opec fields are beginning to run dry. The bulk of future supplies will have to come from the Gulf region." No wonder the whole Bush energy policy is based on the increasing consumption of oil. Some 70 per cent of the world's proven oil reserves are in the Middle East. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil? Take a look at the statistics on the ratio of reserve to oil production - the number of years that reserves of oil will last at current production rates - compiled by Jeremy Rifkin in Hydrogen Economy. In the US, where more than 60 per cent of the recoverable oil has already been produced, the ratio is just 10 years, as it is in Norway. In Canada, it is 8:1. In Iran, it is 53:1, in Saudi Arabia 55:1, in the United Arab Emirates 75:1. In Kuwait, it's 116:1. But in Iraq, it's 526:1. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil? Even if Donald Rumsfeld's hearty handshake with Saddam Hussein in 1983 - just after the Great Father Figure had started using gas against his opponents - didn't show how little the present master of the Pentagon cares about human rights or crimes against humanity, along comes Joost Hilterman's analysis of what was really going on in the Pentagon back in the late 1980s. Hilterman, who is preparing a devastating book on the US and Iraq, has dug through piles of declassified US government documents - only to discover that after Saddam gassed 6,800 Kurdish Iraqis at Halabja (that's well over twice the total of the World Trade Centre dead of 11 September 2001) the Pentagon set out to defend Saddam by partially blaming Iran for the atrocity. A newly declassified State Department document proves that the idea was dreamed up by the Pentagon - who had all along backed Saddam - and states that US diplomats received instructions to push the line of Iran's culpability, but not to discuss details. No details, of course, because the story was a lie. This, remember, followed five years after US National Security Decision Directive 114 - concluded in 1983, the same year as Rumsfeld's friendly visit to Baghdad - gave formal sanction to billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other credits to Baghdad. And this forthcoming war is about human rights? Back in 1997, in the years of the Clinton administration, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a bunch of other right-wing men - most involved in the oil business - created the Project for the New American Century, a lobby group demanding "regime change" in Iraq. In a 1998 letter to President Clinton, they called for the removal of Saddam from power. In a letter to Newt Gingrich, who was then Speaker of the House, they wrote that "we should establish and maintain a strong US military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests [sic] in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power". The signatories of one or both letters included Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, now Rumsfeld's Pentagon deputy, John Bolton, now under-secretary of state for arms control, and Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's under-secretary at the State Department - who called last year for America to take up its "blood debt" with the Lebanese Hizbollah. They also included Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defence, currently chairman of the defence science board, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the former Unocal Corporation oil industry consultant who became US special envoy to Afghanistan - where Unocal tried to cut a deal with the Taliban for a gas pipeline across Afghan territory - and who now, miracle of miracles, has been appointed a special Bush official for - you guessed it - Iraq. The signatories also included our old friend Elliott Abrams, one of the most pro-Sharon of pro-Israeli US officials, who was convicted for his part in the Iran- Contra scandal. Abrams it was who compared Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon - held "personally responsible" by an Israeli commission for the slaughter of 1,700 Palestinian civilians in the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre - to (wait for it) Winston Churchill. So this forthcoming war - the whole shooting match, along with that concern for "vital interests" (ie oil) in the Gulf - was concocted five years ago, by men like Cheney and Khalilzad who were oil men to their manicured fingertips. In fact, I'm getting heartily sick of hearing the Second World War being dug up yet again to justify another killing field. It's not long ago that Bush was happy to be portrayed as Churchill standing up to the appeasement of the no-war-in Iraq brigade. In fact, Bush's whole strategy with the odious and Stalinist- style Korea regime - the "excellent" talks which US diplomats insist they are having with the Dear Leader's Korea which very definitely does have weapons of mass destruction - reeks of the worst kind of Chamberlain- like appeasement. Even though Saddam and Bush deserve each other, Saddam is not Hitler. And Bush is certainly no Churchill. But now we are told that the UN inspectors have found what might be the vital evidence to go to war: 11 empty chemical warheads that just may be 20 years old. The world went to war 88 years ago because an archduke was assassinated in Sarajevo. The world went to war 63 years ago because a Nazi dictator invaded Poland. But for 11 empty warheads? Give me oil any day. Even the old men sitting around the feast of mutton and rice would agree with that. ? _______________________________________________ A matter of life, death - and oil. Weapons
of mass destruction are cited as the spur for action. Perhaps the
real motive is something just as urgent? One of the most popular themes on the placards of anti-war demonstrators across the US and Europe is that the looming confrontation is primarily about oil. US and British ministers dismiss such a charge as the stuff of conspiracy theorists, and instead argue that the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, has to be dealt with for one reason: the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. And, yet, western powers have been fighting over Iraq's "black gold" for decades. Travelling through the country, it is immediately obvious why this is such a great prize in energy terms. Around Mosul in the north, flares from oil wells can be seen at regular intervals in the otherwise empty grasslands; even in the centre of the country, in Baghdad, the skyline is lit by the al-Dohra oil refinery; and further south, in the desert scrubland round Basra, there is a huge concentration of wells. Iraq has the second biggest known oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia. But its facilities have been starved of investment over the last few decades, partly because of war and partly because of sanctions. The vast al- Dohra facility is a symbol of all that is wrong. In an advanced state of decay, rusting pipes link a series of large, sand-coloured storage tanks, almost every one of which is crudely patched with sheets of steel. At present Iraq exports around 1.5m barrels a day but energy experts say this could be increased to 6m barrels within five years after reinvestment. The US needs access to new energy reserves. American industry and motorists are guzzling gasoline at a rate that easily outstrips the rest of the world while domestic reserves are running out at a time when demand is set to leap. The US energy department frightened politicians with a study in 2001 known as the Cheney report after the former head of Halliburton oil services group, now US vice- president, who wrote it. He predicted that imported oil would need to rise from 10.4 million barrels a day at present to 16.7 million barrels a day by 2020. The report spelled out the US dependence on a stable energy market and the need for a foreign policy that would protect America's energy supply. "In a global energy marketplace, US energy and economic security are directly linked not only to our domestic and international energy supplies, but to those of our trading partners as well," it said. "A significant disruption in world oil supplies could adversely affect our economy and/or ability to promote foreign and economic policy objectives, regardless of the level of US dependence on oil imports." George Bush, like Mr Cheney, is a former oil man, as are many of his close staff, so they need no lessons on how the energy world works. As politicians, they also know that their voters' commitment to cheap and available petrol for their car is seen as an inalienable right not far short of bearing arms. Traditionally, America looked to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for its crude supplies. But since the September 11 terrorist attacks, carried out in the main by Saudi nationals, the former important Middle East ally has been deemed unreliable while political turmoil in Venezuela has virtually halted exports to the US. Washington has been wooing Russia and African nations to secure future supplies but there is nothing like the ultra- cheap-to-produce reserves in Iraq sitting just below the desert sands. Professor Peter Odell, professor emeritus of international energy studies at Erasmus University in Rotterdam and a visiting professor at the London School of Economics, rejected the view that oil was the main driving force behind the current Iraq frenzy. "Its not all about oil. There are other factors such as US fears about weapons of mass destruction, revenge for earlier failures and the fact they believe Iraq has not behaved properly towards the US for 20 years," he said. "My own view is that an attack will lead to destruction of Iraqi oilfields as happened in Kuwait and there could be severe oil market problems in the short term. Longer-term, Russia and France have pre-emptive rights for deals done or money owned by Iraq but clearly the US will get in on the act [on redeveloping Iraqi oilfields]." Paul Slater, who owned and ran a tanker fleet hired out to Shell and is a leading figure in the independent tanker owners association (Intertanko), is less certain. "I think oil is a major issue which cannot be left out of the equation although whether it is the major driver I don't know." It is not just wild-eyed western peaceniks that believe oil is at the centre - or close to the centre - of the pending conflict. It is quite a commonly held view even in the conservative business world but few are willing to express such things publicly. Fadel Gheit, a former Mobil chemical engineer and now an investment specialist with New York brokerage firm Fahnestock & Co, told 50 of the largest pension funds and financial investors in America before Christmas that the expected war was "all about oil" and that the global fight against terrorism was just "camouflage" to mask the real purpose. Later he told the Guardian: "The Americans have nothing against the people of Iraq but our way of life is dependent on 20m barrels a day and half of it has to be imported. We are like a patient on oil dialysis. It's a matter of life and death. The smart people [in Washington] all know this but its not generally advertised on the kind of shows that most people watch: MTV and soap operas." Mr Gheit said a strike against Iraq has become vital in the eyes of Washington because politicians and security chiefs fear that Saudi Arabia, the traditional provider of US oil, is a political "powder keg" that is going to explode from within. "Of the 22m people in Saudi Arabia, half are under the age of 25 and half of them have no jobs. Many want to see the end of the ruling royal family and whether it takes five months or five years, their days are numbered. If Saudi Arabia fell into the hands of Muslim fundamentalists and the exports were stopped, there is not enough spare oil anywhere else to make up the shortfall." But Dr Charles Tripp, head of politics at the School of Oriental and African Studies, argues that the idea that oilfields need to be physically seized in order to be controlled is outdated. "Oil is a part of this," said Dr Tripp. "But it is as much to do with asserting American power." Oil was key factor in the first Gulf war, along with protecting the sovereignty of a United Nations member. This time round "oil" is a word that politicians and officials in both Washington and London are almost afraid to speak, fearful of how it will play in the Arab world. An independent working group part-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations has just handed over a report to Mr Bush entitled Guilding Principles for US Post-Conflict Policy in Iraq. It argues: "Iraqis have the capability to manage the future direction of their oil industry. A heavy American hand will only convince them, and the rest of the world, that the operation against Iraq was undertaken for imperialist, rather than disarmament reasons. It is in America's interest to discourage such misconceptions." The international oil companies are already circling. The US and British accuse the Russians and especially the French of playing dangerous games with Iraq, keeping in with Baghdad in the hope of securing favourable oil contracts. The French foreign ministry is infuriated by the suggestion. One French diplomat challenged journalists to look at what was really happening and insisted that they would find it was US companies that were making the running to secure a share of Iraqi oil. Senior oil executives generally want to avoid talking publicly about the issue but privately they say it is "rubbish" to suggest that they need Iraq so much that they would support a war. Mark Moody-Stuart, a director of Shell and its former chairman went further, telling the Guardian that a military strike would unhinge the Middle East and was therefore a "recipe for disaster". So what do the people at the centre of the impending war think? "Our oil is the main reason America wants to attack Iraq," said Ali al-Rawi, head of the economics department at Baghdad University. "They want to control our oil and control price and production levels. They know the future oil resources for the world will continue to come from this area for many years." ****US administration's foot on the gas George W Bush Dick Cheney Condoleezza Rice Don Evans Gale Norton Source: Centre for Responsive Politics _______________________________________________ Sunday Herald - 06 October 2002 President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary. Vice-president Dick Cheney, who chairs the White House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report on 'energy security' from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Snr. The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, concludes: 'The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de- stabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments. 'The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.' Baker who delivered the recommendations to Cheney, the former chief executive of Texas oil firm Halliburton, was advised by Kenneth Lay, the disgraced former chief executive of Enron, the US energy giant which went bankrupt after carrying out massive accountancy fraud. The other advisers to Baker were: Luis Giusti, a Shell non-executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of BP and David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco. Another name linked to the document is Sheikh Saud Al Nasser Al Sabah, the former Kuwaiti oil minister and a fellow of the Baker Institute. President Bush also has strong connections to the US oil industry and once owned the oil company Spectrum 7. The Baker report highlights massive shortages in world oil supplies which now leave the US facing 'unprecedented energy price volatility' and has led to recurring electricity black-outs in areas such as California. The report refers to the impact of fuel shortages on voters. It recommends a 'new and viable US energy policy central to America's domestic economy and to [the] nation's security and foreign policy'. Iraq, the report says, 'turns its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so', adding that there is a 'possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time' in order to damage prices. The report also says that Cheney should integrate energy and security to stop 'manipulations of markets by any state', and suggests that Cheney's Energy Policy Group includes 'representation from the Department of Defence'. Unless the United States assumes a leadership role in the formation of new rules of the game,' the report says, 'US firms, US consumers and the US government [will be left] in a weaker position.' MORE ON THE NO WAR FOR OIL CAMPAIGN...... NO WAR FOR OIL PROTESTS ......
|