As always, is it about oil?

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

A friend of mine forwarded this new article to me via email. It was originally published in The Calgary Herald on 9/25/02. All of you are probably already aware of such speculations. Personally, I think that the present war hysteria created by Bush Administration is solely for domestic political purposes to support his sagging popularity ahead of mid-term elections.

This article on the theme that “its all about oil” is interesting read, nonetheless.

Iraq attack would change world oil situation

A U.S.-led invasion of Iraq could sharply retool world oil markets and open Iraq’s vast oil reserves to U.S. energy companies if Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is driven from power, international energy experts say. Although Saddam’s ouster would be the principal objective of a military strike, oil is quickly emerging as an important subtext. American oil producers, although professing caution, are already contemplating enormous potential in a post-Saddam Iraq.

“It would be considered a significant new frontier and a new opportunity for international companies to explore,” said John Kingston, an analyst with Platt’s, a news agency that covers the energy industry.

Iraq boasts the world’s second-largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia, but development has been stifled by more than a decade of UN sanctions. Although Iraq is allowed to export oil under a UN-supervised oil-for-food program, its oilfields are in serious decline after years of neglect and inefficient recovery methods.

A military invasion would have varied effects on world oil prices, energy analysts say. The conflict could cause turbulence in world markets, dwindle supplies and drive up prices.

But a change in Iraqi leadership could open up the country’s untapped reserves, increase world supplies and put “downward pressure” on prices, Kingston said.

Iraq, which most of the world considers a pariah state, could become an influential player in the world’s oil economy, rivaling Saudi Arabia.

Kingston said the potential growth of Iraq’s oil reserves is “so enormous” that Saudi Arabia and other members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries might be forced to cut production to avoid a worldwide oil glut.

2

As they say, where there is smoke there is fire

3

Of course war is about such issues...but the real issue is also about power and the world being 'told' who has it...:)

4

Russia Fears US Oil Companies will take over world’s second-largest reserves

5

If the U.S. didn't have to depend on Saudi Arabia to feed it it's oil addiction then support for that regime would dissipate , is that not a positive side effect?

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
If the U.S. didn't have to depend on Saudi Arabia to feed it it's oil addiction then support for that regime would dissipate , is that not a positive side effect?
[/QUOTE]

thats why Saudis have been opposing the attack on Iraq, not for "brotherhood".

7

Personally, I have no love for Saddam Hussein. As a human being and as a Muslim, I do care about every Iraqi citizen, just as much as I care about innocent people everywhere, regardless of where they are, be it Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, USA or Botswana.

For the last few weeks, various members of the Bush Administration are making a case for attacking Iraq. For the last few weeks, they have offered no statement of fact (or evidence) which suggests anything has changed from last year or last few years. Iraq has launched no invasion, has not gassed its people or threatened USA in any way for the last many years. So, what is different now, that suddenly the whole US Administration is up in the arms against Iraq? What is the urgency at this point?

As a reasonable person, I evaluated every statement I read by US Administration from a logical stand-point. Unfortunately I could find nothing new. Simply speaking, there is no new threat.

Saddam and Al-Qaida
Most recently, Rumsfield again tried to make a case that Saddam and Al-Qaida are partners-in-crime. This claim is nothing new. The premise is that both Saddam and Al-Qaida hate US, so they must be partners. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of the two will immediately say, its a load of bull. Osama and Saddam are poles apart and probably hate each other's guts. Even US terrorism experts are almost unanimous that there is little chance of Al-Qaida and Saddam getting in the bed together. Rumsfield claims that some Al-Qaida are in Iraq and offered protection by Saddam. Yes, that some Al-Qaida escaped from Afghanistan into Iraq, might be true but they are in living in the protection of Kurd war-lords who are under the no-fly-zone. Effectively, they are rebels to Saddam and Iraqi govt has no control over them, and thru no-fly-zone, these Kurds are protected by US.

Saddam attacked his neighbor and gassed his own people
Yes, and that happened prior to 1991. What has changed since then? Nothing.

Saddam has weapons of mass destruction
Iraqi government has invited weapons inspectors in to see. Why don't go through the inspection process first, than to issue unsubstantiated claims to blow a lot of hot air?

So, what has changed?
The short answer is: The ratings. They have dipped

Post Sep 11, President Bush was enjoying 70+% approval ratings. People joined behind their government in a time of crisis. Two months later, US launched attacks into Afghanistan. Decisive action against the enemy means higher ratings. That happened. Unfortunately the war in Afghanistan didn't last long, cz the two parties were so mismatched. Then, with the passage of time, the approval rating started to fall off.

The Bush Administration started frantically to look for enemies so they can rally the American people behind them. Frivolous terror warnings (based on interrogation of Abu Zubaida), playing around with people's fears, increasing security of bridges et al, didn't bring any long term rating success. And unfortunately the economy, which was supposed to pick up in Q3 or Q4, shows no signs of improving. This translates to clear ratings nightmare.

Bush needed an enemy, and he needed it fast. Saddam was most likely candidate. US had tackled him before, and defeated him thoroughly. He is predictable and easy to hate. The jinni of Saddam was again re-created to strike fear into the American people. Even the so-called terror experts were flabbergasted. “Don’t bring Saddam out now! Our allies in Middle East will run away from us and we will have problems fighting Al-Qaida” was the clear message.

*Unfortunately the options for Bush Administration are getting smaller and smaller *. Al-Qaida has not struck in one year, and it is difficult to keep people rallied up when nothing is happening. The Pakistan police cooperates every now and then to arrest some person with Arabic-sounding name, which helps Time magazine to fill a few more pages to speculate on what might have happened, but when nothing actually happens, its not news!

The mid-term elections were fast approaching, and there were no issues to defend. The economy continues going south and people blame the sitting government. Bush could see the control of House of Representatives too going to Democrats.

US allies around the world
UN is also dragging its feet. With Iraq suddenly welcoming back the UN inspectors, very few see the point in dropping multi-million dollar weaponry and kill innocent people to support the mid-term election victory for Republican Party in USA. Europeans, the traditional allies of US, were in no mood to lend a shoulder: Blair being the only exception. German Chancellor went so far as to run his entire campaign promising German people that even with a UN resolution, Germany will not toe the US line and will not participate in a war with Iraq. The relationship is now so frosted; that Bush didn’t even made the customary congratulatory call to Schroeder on his election victory. France is similarly disenchanted. Russia is so far resisting all US attempts at bribery. They are so poor that they only think with their pockets. On one way they see US money funneled through various banks to support Russia for its help in a war against Iraq, on the other hand they see that if Iraq is allowed to join the world community, Russia can still recover some part of its massive outstanding dues from Iraq. Not only that but being the traditional ally of Iraq, Russia can expect favorable treatment in investments and oil revenues. At the end of the day, Russia will just have to make a judgment call on which way there is more profit. So far, they are just holding out to improve the US bid price. China is still the wild card and can go either way.

Middle Eastern allies would love to see Saddam go, but they are unwilling to see their own people riled up in case of a US attack on Iraqi people. It’s a case of their own survival. Talk about between a rock and the hard place.

Oil Lobby
The scientific progress in developing fuel-efficient cars and designing alternatives to crude oil is painfully slow. This has given the lobby of oil companies in the US, enough ammunition to come out with doomsday scenarios where world’s oil suppliers will withhold oil from US, and that will start a mini-Armageddon in Washington. They capitalized on the political fears of US government and showed them the green pastures of Iraqi oil and how that will give US government control over its own destiny.

The situation became so desperate that Bush even came out saying that even if UN doesn’t support US demands of action, we will act unilaterally (with British support, and that’s about it). If this wasn’t bullying, then what is. Still the ratings are going down.

Democratic party is well aware of these tactics. They are crying foul. Yesterday, Tom Dashcle (the Majority leader from Democratic party) in Senate lambasted the US President for “politicizing” the war. He says that unless the UN endorses action against Iraq and there is an international coalition, US should not take any action. The message is clear. Don’t risk the lives of American soldiers and don’t kill innocent civilians to get votes. “Wag the Dog” is a serious reality in US politics. And Iraqi civilians are the likely victims, yet again.

8

*As always, is it about oil? *

It has been always! :)

9

Faisal if you wrote all that for gupshup, you need a life or need to pay more attention at work. It is about the oil. Accept it and move on. We all have.

10

:hehe:

:k:

11

:) No, actually I sent a little modified version to several news organizations and members of US congress in addition to certain ambassadors in the UN. Not that it has anything new in there, but just so because they get all sorts of opinions from others too and it helps to put in your POV too.

12

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
:) No, actually I sent a little modified version to several news organizations and members of US congress in addition to certain ambassadors in the UN. Not that it has anything new in there, but just so because they get all sorts of opinions from others too and it helps to put in your POV too.
[/QUOTE]

Good job.

13

Great work Faisal, this has been in the pipeline a while (pardon the pun), I have information to suggest oil companies have been gearing up for this for some time, I believe it is as simple as everyone thinks.

14

The part in bold is enuff to answer the question.

**(U.S. Oil Thirst Vexes Moderate Muslims) **
By MARK LENZI, Mark Lenzi is a former Peace Corps volunteer and Fulbright scholar working as an environmental engineer in Baku, Azerbaijan.

BAKU, Azerbaijan – Ground breaking last month on the monumental Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline marks the beginning of a project that could affect the average American much more than any war with Iraq, and it is a fascinating case study in how Muslim nations view the U.S.

For years, just the concept of an oil pipeline that would stretch for more than 1,000 miles through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey was thought to be a pipe dream.

However, this region is where Central Asia meets the Middle East, and now that the project is underway it appears that no price is too high for Washington and world oil companies to link the oil of the Caspian Sea region with the Mediterranean Sea without passing through unstable southern Russia or Iran.

Although President Bush hailed the construction as “enhancing global energy security” and “a model for future cooperative efforts in the region,” the fact is that the million-barrel-a-day pipeline will severely harm a region that has already been devastated by years of shameless oil exploitation by the Soviet Union and the West.

The area around the oil fields in Azerbaijan has by far the worst environmental damage I have ever seen. It is an ecological disaster of epic proportions.

Many in this Muslim nation, sandwiched between Iran and Russia, have expressed faint optimism about the pipeline and the possibility that it will bring some economic income. Yet they hold no illusions that anyone other than the leadership, a few oil tycoons with government contacts and the West will benefit. How could they? Gas prices here, right outside oil fields and refineries, are exactly what they are in the U.S.

The Muslims here are moderate and want to give the West the benefit of the doubt, but the underlying view by many is that the U.S., under the leadership of a former oil boss, will go to any length–even 1,100 miles of inhospitable territory–to keep oil prices down.

Lost in the debates about Iraq, the war on terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the underlying fact that Muslims’ exasperation with the U.S. goes much deeper than any of these issues.

If you scratch below the surface, you find what really bothers moderate Muslims: It is that the average American believes it is his or her God-given right to have gasoline at about $1 a gallon and to own a sport utility vehicle; and that practically no one in the U.S. knows or cares that their government overlooks the practices of brutal regimes in places such as Myanmar or Equatorial Guinea in the name of cheap gasoline.

For every American who even knows where Equatorial Guinea is, there are 1,000 Muslims who not only know where it is but view Western oil practices there as exploitive.

For many Muslims here and around the world, places such as Kabul seem just as far away and unknown as they did to Americans before Sept. 11.

However, when you face daily exploitation, by politically corrupt regimes propped up by the West and by the misuse of resources right outside your window, you become angry. Maybe not to the point of taking action, but there are millions of moderate Muslims who are nonetheless angry inside. These are precisely the people the U.S. must win over if the war on terrorism or any long-term plans for the Mideast are to succeed.