US Oil Grab Coming?

[wollensak]

According to this month's McLeans magazine, there is a document published by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) called "Vision for Post-conflict Iraq". Part of the plan calls for the privatization of Iraq's state-owned companies IE the state-owned oil company, within 18 months.

Apparently USAID is submitting US government tenders to US
construction companies for the rebuilding of Iraq. Since the UN has been administering the "Food for Oil" program until the war started, there may be a jurisdictional conflict about who gets to handle the oil revenues. The US will be seeking money from oil sales to pay for the rebuilding. Look for Bush & company to try an end-run around the UN, arguing that it has lost the "moral authority" to administer the peace.

This could get really ugly. I believe Bush will use this as an opportunity to bring down the UN and advance the cause of US
unilateralism.

Saw an excellent documentary on "the Passionate Eye" on CBC
Newsworld tonight that explained the events leading up to the last Gulf War. Very balanced and fair-minded and explained why Saddam attacked Kuwait, and how he's been ripping off his own people with the help of corrupt customs officials in neighbouring Arab states by exporting oil under the table to be resold by
importing countries. Also how he controls access to the relief supplies by a voucher system. If you cause trouble they take you off the "list" and you get no food.

I look in vain to the US media for any backgrounfd info like this - they are too busy leading a cheering section. CNN is a complete disgrace. ABC has Peter Jennings (Canadian eh) but the US conservatives want to censor him. Those who complain about "lefties in the media" should consider the overwhelming ownership of media by the social conservatives (right).

 

[submissivedave]

Post-war rebuilding is always political. Fortunately the Japanese had the guts, courage and the samurai spirit to control their own economy and government. If not, the Japanese would only be a mere US proxy and puppet government in East Asia.

I wish the Iraqis too will have this courage and to be self sufficient after the war so that their economy and government is "ligitemately soverign" without US/UK telling them what to do.

Freedom and democracy comes from the grassroots. You can force it onto people ...

BTW, (s)wollensack (just joking) ... do you think the IMF or World Bank will help the Iraqis after the war? Or do you think there will just be a scramble for Iraqi oil leaving the Iraqi people in desparation.

Damn ... I hope Iraq does not end up like Nigeria where the gov't is so corrupt and that companies such as Royal Dutch Shell just exploit those Nigerians for their oil.

 

[Timberwolf]

Where have you guys been. Both the U.S. and Brition have publically disclosed that all revenues from Iraqi oil is to be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people.

Look, if the issue was oil all the States had to do was lift the sanctions on Iraq, allow the oil to flow freely and reep the rewards. Also, don't forget the U.S. owns large oil reserves in Libya. The U.N. has removed its sanctions regarding oil there but the U.S. has not. So, again, all the States has to do is give the go ahead to American companies to start pumping. But it does not.

Furthermore, ALL the oil the U.S. imports from ALL the Arab countries COMBINED amounts to 4% of its consumption. There are many alternatives if, in fact, it is all about oil, which, of course, it is not.

 

[ocean976124]

Capitalism requires as much privitization as possible. There is no reason to for the oil fields to be nationalized...

 

[wollensak]

4%

Something wrong with the math here. Iraq has 40% of the worlds oil, but the US is only using 4% of it? Not a chance.

The purpose of the exercise is to obtain a permanent armed camp where the US can CONTROL the flow of oil rather than relying on shaky so called allies like Saudi Arabia. There's a reason none of these countries are democracies. If the people were in charge in this region of the world, you have to believe
they would be restricting oil supplies to the US already.
The Iraqis will be glad to see the end of Saddam, but the US is held in very low esteem there, for obvious historical reasons..

 

[Timberwolf]

You did not read correctly. The U.S. uses less than 4% of ALL reserves in the Arab world, COMBINED.

If what you say is true then the Americans would have done this in 1991.

 

[mr. x]

Re: 4%

Something wrong with the math here. Iraq has 40% of the worlds oil, but the US is only using 4% of it? Not a chance.

if only 4% of iraqs oil goes to the US, that is probably right...

most of the oil the US gets is from its own reserves (texas, alaska,...), from Canada, from Mexico and from Venezuela.

europe gets its oil from russia and from the middle east, and nigeria.

japan gets its oil from the middle east and from asia (brunei, etc.)

in addition, that is oil reserves they are probably talking about, not current production. with sanctions and the lack of investment, production is probably way less than 40% of current world output.

 

[mr. x]

Capitalism requires as much privitization as possible. There is no reason to for the oil fields to be nationalized...

does not!

though of course, "as possible" means different things to different people. canada as public healcare, and we had air canada, the cbc, cn, ontario hydro and other companies that were publically owned, and our form of capitalism worked very well.... in some respects, privatising some of these things has not been all that beneficial, or at the very least, there was no compelling reson to privatise them.

in the case of iraq, there is no reason that ownership or control of the oil fields has to be privatised. of course, it is likely that iraq will need comapnies to come in and fix, manage and maintain its oil production, under contract... in the same way that if someone owned, say, an apartment building, they would hire managers and outsource maintenance and cleaning.

 

[jano]

Control of a large and cheap oil supply is an objective of this war. The US govt knows that the Saudi royal family can be overthrown in the near future and whoever takes over will certainly be an Islamic extremist. Control of Iraqi oil is insurance against loss of Saudi Arabia. Whoever believes that the chief aim of this war is "liberation of the Iraqi people" better think again.

Many of us do not support this war, but the powerful always get their way until something more powerful thwarts them. The US will most likely win this war but they will lose the peace based on their arrogance and disregard for the opinions of other nations. US Middle East adventurism will make this world a more dangerous place than it is now. How many more Osama Bin Ladens will this war produce?

 

[onthebottom]

Where the US

gets it's oil is irrelevant. The issue is price not supply. The more oil on the market the lower the oil costs, the better for the US economy. If the only aim of this war were lower oil costs the US could have caved in and allowed the sanctions to end on Iraq. That would have, over time, flooded the world with more oil lowering the cost.

Given that Japan and Germany are not states of the US I think your assertion that the US will grab the country is a bit misguided. What I would agree with is that US firms will get many of the contracts to rebuild Iraq, at the expense of French, Russian and German firms.

OTB

 

[ocean976124]

at the expense of French, Russian and German firms.

Too bad. The US and UK will pay in the blood of their best young men and women for a new Iraq. Why shouldn't they get the "benefits"?

The issue is price not supply

I think the book is Bush at War that makes the case that Bush cares little about the price of oil. The book is not kind to Bush so its not simply a propaganda piece. According to the book, Bush believes its the obsession with cheap oil that led Iraq to invade Kuwait (Kuwiat has been selling oil cheaper than Iraq) and lead us to the point we are at now. The book makes a case that there is something personal in this war for Bush, he personally wants to get Saddam.

 

[submissivedave]

This maybe a controvertial thing to raise, but has anyone read the book "The Clash of Civilizations" by Samuel Huntington?

Does anyone see that what the book says is coming true?

Perhaps Bush has read it and is acting aggressively to prevent it ...

And I agree with the person who said that this war is for oil. I mean the first thing the US says is "Do not burn the oil fields". If they really did care, they'd be saying stuff life, "Humanitarian aid available at X and when". Plus, archealogist and historians are so concerned about the artifacts. You dont see US troops telling people not to destroy them.

Check out the leaflets dropped by US planes. 7 of 10 of them are telling people not to burn oil fields.

US motives speaks for themselves thru their actions ...

 

[papasmerf]

I guess the question is. What is wrong with using the profits from oil to rebuild the country????

Call me silly but the enhancement of life for a countries people by usingg its resources sound reasonable. As a government run project how did it end poverty?

 

[ocean976124]

And I agree with the person who said that this war is for oil. I mean the first thing the US says is "Do not burn the oil fields".

WIthout oil Iraq has no major cash-cow, at least none that I am aware of. Torching the oil fields causes problems for the new Iraqi government's ability to raise money...

 

[TravellingGuy]

Once Saddam is gone and they've removed any WMD

Dubya finally got his war but the world didn't really buy his reasons for the attack.

So far all reports are of NO WMD found. I'm sure they'll "find" them eventually, else they'd have a lot of explaining to the world wouldn't they.

 

[Goober Mcfly]

I'm sure they'll "find" them eventually...

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

So the US is going to plant evidence of WMD?

*tosses tin-foil hat to TravellingGuy*

 

[Goober Mcfly]

*tosses nearlynormal a tin-foil hat as well*

 

[Bababooie]

It's not about Oil

Why all the talk about oil? The conflict started because "terrorists" attacked the US on 9-11. If anybody doesn't think the Hussein regime has no ties to terrorists, you obvioulsy have been asleep for the past 20 years. The war on terrorism means getting everybody involved, including those who sponsor it, but don't necessarily act it out. No difference in my opinion. The war can not be won until all those involved are eliminated. I for one appreciate a President with the balls to complete the mission. The world will be better off without Hussein, and so will his people. I'm not saying they'll embrace democracy, because half the morons in this country don't even appreciate it. But they will be in greater control with their own destiny once the war is over.

If the US wanted the oil they could have taken it anytime they wanted to. I'm really sick of the intelectually lazy always looking for the easiest decending opion. I'm also getting pretty sick of continuing to help countries who don't appreciate it. Do you really think Hussein ever invested all the wealth the Iraqi oil brings in on his own people? If so, then why is 80% of the country in poverty. That money went for Palaces and WMD, and he didn't give a fuck about his people.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Ok...

OK...

Lets all just step away from the keyboard before someone gets hurt!

 

[Goober Mcfly]

NN:

I will not watch your propaganda. Real Networks is the devil.

*dons tin-foil hat himself*

Seriously, if Saddam has WMD, I think he'll use them as a last resort. In that case, I guess we'll know. That said, though, I'll bet you a gazillion dollars that if he uses chemical/biological weapons, there will be someone who will say that it was the US framing him, and that the US used those weapons on their own troops.

In many ways, the truth is what you choose to believe, I guess.