Tony Blair's Justifications for War on Iraq Do Not Wash

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Tony Blair's Justifications for War on Iraq Do Not Wash
Growing Contention Between the Big Powers Evident at Anglo-French Summit

The Oil Reckoning
Post-Saddam Iraq: Linchpin of a New Oil Order

US War Drive Has to Be Defied
Echoes of the São Paulo Forum

As the final preparations for an Anglo-American aggression against Iraq are put into place, Tony Blair has stepped up his efforts to provide this crime against the peace with justifications. With endless phone calls and visits to heads of states around the world, he has shamelessly turned himself into the international salesman for Anglo-American war and aggression, while in Britain he is losing no opportunity in trying to overcome the mass opposition of the people to his warmongering plans.

On January 29 and February 3, Blair appeared in Parliament to argue once more for the "necessity" of launching aggression against Iraq. The extremely dangerous course on which the government is proceeding was made clear when Blair in response to a question as to which country would be next, answered "we have to confront North Korea about its weapons programme". When asked when this would all end, he added: "When the threat to our security is properly and fully dealt with [!]" It is clear from these responses that the planned aggression against Iraq, following on from the aggression against Afghanistan and Kosovo, is part of a broader plan. The almost hysterical justifications for endless war and aggression are put forward against all reasonable evidence and in the face of the will of the vast majority. It is becoming increasingly plain that such a plan will bring disaster not only to the people of Iraq but itself presents a grave threat to world peace and security. While Bush and Blair are insistent on war and international gangsterism almost to the point of insanity, not only is such insistence being resolutely opposed globally, but the widespread conclusion is being drawn that the alternative must be brought into being, that the world order which Bush and Blair represent must itself be opposed and one based on the people’s will and the concerns of human beings established in its place. This is a critical time in world history, it is widely acknowledged, in which the momentum of the people’s movement is reaching a take-off point, but in which also the lawless authority of the administration of the United States of America is aiming to impose its interests and values globally by dictate. This is the context in which Blair's justifications take place.

The Prime Minister once again repeated that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and as such poses a threat to the world. He failed to explain why Britain's huge arsenals of weapons of mass destruction do not pose a threat to the world, especially in light of his earlier declaration that he intended to confront various countries. He further stated that Iraq is in breach of its UN obligations, from Resolution 687 which ended the last Gulf War in 1991 to Resolution 1441 which was passed in November last year and that this was a sufficient justification for war. He did not explain why Israel's violation of numerous UN resolutions did not provide ample justification for the UN to declare war on that country. Nor did he address why he would want to push for another UN resolution that would itself be a violation of international law, if such a concept has any meaning beyond what Britain and the US assert as its meaning. Nor, indeed, did he refer to the unending loss of life through Anglo-US bombing in the "no-fly zones" which have no international authority despite all the disinformation to the contrary. Tony Blair claims that the genocidal effect of the sanctions is Saddam Hussein’s responsibility, but if the Anglo-Americans had any humanitarian concern they would end the sanctions. This shows that they themselves are the guilty parties.

As evidence to support his claims about Iraq violations, Blair resorted to the discredited disinformation about the so-called "chemical warheads", "classified documents in a scientist's home" and a sentence in Hans Blix's January 27 report to the Security Council that "the rocket warheads could be the tip of an iceberg". Recognising the flimsy character of his "evidence", Blair protested that it was not "for us to come along and prove that Saddam is a guilty party". He did not clarify whether or not this new standard of guilty until proven innocent (an assumption which Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN chief nuclear weapons inspector, has made clear is implicit in Resolution 1441) should apply to all countries including Britain and the USA.

Instead he cited the example of how the South African government closed down its nuclear programme, as the model that Iraq should follow. He failed to say, however, as the leader of one of the nuclear powers, whether or not it was his intention to get Britain to follow the South African model of disarmament which he was recommending to Iraq. Finally he stated that war should be declared on the basis of whether or not "co-operation is forthcoming from Iraq". He did not make it clear whether or not any country which failed to "co-operate" with the UN should be subject to military attack. On February 3, while making his statement on his trip to Washington, he declared "we are entering the final phase of a 12 year history of the disarmament of Iraq". On the questions of who has decided that this should be the "final phase" and on the basis of what authority this decision had been made, Blair was absolutely silent.

Turning to his declared intention to seek a second UN resolution, Blair declared that this must be "a way of resolving the issue, not delaying or avoiding dealing with it". In other words, the UN must violate its charter and endanger world peace by giving the Anglo-US imperialists the green light to attack Iraq, if not it would have "avoided dealing with the issue". He praised the UN process as "having integrity" while refusing to be bound by any UN decision not to attack Iraq. He failed to mention that this "process of integrity" is one in which the vast majority of the 191 member states of the UN are held hostage by the five veto-wielding members of the organisation who marginalise the majority and make all the decisions themselves. He made no mention of the fact that in October last year at the only debate in which the member states of the UN have had a chance to give their views on the Iraq crisis, the overwhelming majority rejected outright Anglo-American plans for aggression against Iraq. Further, Blair declared that "nations which defy the world over weapons of mass destruction" must be confronted. Who would decide who these nations were, was not made clear by Blair. He did not see fit to explain whether it would be the member states of the UN through the General Assembly or the five big powers through pressure and blackmail in the Security Council.

Tony Blair's attempts to justify the unjustifiable do not wash. They reflect the deep crisis of justification which the Anglo-American plans for war and aggression are mired in. The need of the times is to step up the opposition to imperialist wars, with or without UN backing, and to build the alternative to end war and aggression.

The Prime Minister Tony Blair has failed to get total French support for Anglo-American plans for war against Iraq, according to reports from the summit meeting with the French President, Jacques Chirac, held on Tuesday in the French town of Le Touquet.

The Anglo-French summit, which had been postponed from last year because of earlier differences over the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, did conclude with joint declarations on co-operation between the two countries towards Africa and on further developing the European Security and Defence Policy, agreed at the St Malo summit in 1998. There was also joint agreement on the further tightening of measures to combat "illegal immigration". However, discussion on the main item on the agenda of the Le Touquet summit meeting, the preparations for a war against Iraq, concluded without total agreement and can be seen as a setback for the strategy being adopted by Tony Blair of attempting to establish a coalition of European countries, under Britain’s leadership, to stand alongside the US.

Tony Blair’s main aim at the summit was to pressure the French government to support and accept a second UN resolution that would clear the way for a US-led attack on Iraq. However, at the conclusion of the summit President Chirac reiterated the French government’s position, which is that action against Iraq should only be taken by the UN after UN inspectors have been given sufficient time to carry out their inspections. He stated: "We need to give those inspectors the amount of time they need to carry out the work we have entrusted to them. That is my position. I feel that war is always the worst possible solution…in that region above all others we don’t want any more wars. We need to wait." However, when asked if France was prepared to use its veto in the UN Security Council he added, "France will fulfil its responsibilities as it sees fit at the appropriate time and in the light of circumstances at that time," a comment which clearly left the door open for subsequent French support for an invasion of Iraq.

Tony Blair and the British government have been attempting to drum up European support for military action against Iraq ahead of US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation of "new evidence" to the UN Security Council on Wednesday. Last week Blair had secured the support of the leaders of Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, who all signed a public statement expressing their unity with the US. France’s apparent reluctance to enthusiastically support the Anglo-American war plans reflects the contention that exists between the major European powers, France and Germany, and Britain and the US over Iraq, as well as a Franco-German concern to pursue their own interests in the world, and to strengthen the EU for this purpose. The French government has had strong links in Iraq, and the giant French oil monopoly TotalFinaElf is said to have its own designs on Iraq’s oilfields. The British government, on the other hand, sees the interests of its own big monopolies as best served by being "a bridge between both parts of the Atlantic" and the leading ally of the US in Europe.

It remains to be seen whether France will fall into line behind the Anglo-American warmongers, or will maintain its new entente with Germany. Russia and China, who could also exercise their power of veto in the Security Council, have also voiced their reservations. The Russian government is reported to have claimed that it had seen no evidence justifying military action against Iraq, while China’s Foreign Minister, Tang Jiaxuan, stated that China also wanted to "keep the peace". There is no doubt that Tony Blair and the British government have demonstrated that they are the most zealous supporters of US imperialism and the most active warmongers throughout the world

They are attempting to whip up war hysteria throughout the world as if there is no alternative and even suggesting that their actions will make the world a safer place. But their warmongering is increasing the contention between all the big powers, and creating an extremely dangerous and unstable situation in the world.

By Paul Rogers, December 31, 2002 *

It now seems clear, some would say abundantly clear, that the Bush administration is intent on terminating the Saddam Hussein regime, and it is frankly difficult to see how war will be prevented. All of the political signals coming out of Washington indicate a conflict within the next three months, and there are numerous indications that the final phase of the build-up of military forces is imminent.

War is likely, whether or not the UNMOVIC staff make progress, and the immediate rejection of the Iraqi offer of access to the CIA is a further indication that the Bush administration will not be diverted from its purpose.

This leads us back to one of the key questions surrounding this crisis – just why is Washington so committed to this path? Earlier articles in this series pointed to issues of weapons of mass destruction and the changes in US security policy when Bush came to power, but we also have to look closely at the significance of the region's oil reserves.

It is odd how little attention is being given to this aspect of the crisis, but this is partly because of a lack of understanding of the importance of Gulf oil reserves. This, in turn, relates to a question of time scales.

There is an argument that US control of Iraqi oil fields would diminish the importance of a potentially unstable Saudi Arabia and would also present a remarkable investment opportunity for US oil majors. A counter-argument is that any war raises the risk of a disruption to the oil markets, this being presumed to be bad news for the oil companies.

This is rarely the case in practice. During previous periods of rapidly rising oil prices, such as 1974 and 1979, many of the oil companies were able to return record profits. This was mostly due to their ability to put retail prices up almost immediately after they rose at the point of production, even though there could be a 100-day supply chain. For example, oil at source might rise 20% in price. This price rise is then passed on to the consumer within 15 days, leaving 85 days worth of oil in the supply chain, which has been bought at the old price but sold at the new. In most circumstances, primary energy companies tend to benefit from "bull" markets, so if the coming war does lead to a sudden oil price surge, we can expect very good oil company returns within a year.

Even so, the Iraq crisis does not just relate to short-term gains for oil companies; the oil connection is actually much more concerned with long-term trends.

To get an idea of the importance of Iraqi oil in the coming decades, look at it this way. Take the total known oil reserves for the Caspian Basin outside of Iran, then add the oil reserves of Siberia. Add to these the remaining North Sea oil reserves and then include the West Shetland fields. Finally, put in the entire oil reserves of the United States, including the Alaska fields that have yet to be developed.

If we put all of these together, we get fairly close to 10% of all the oil reserves in the world. Iraq alone has more than this, and adding the other Gulf States we get close to 70% of world reserves.

This gives us some sense of perspective but only in the form of a snapshot. What is much more significant is the nature of the long-term trends in reserves, production, and consumption. When we include this, we get a clear indication of the steadily increasing significance of Persian Gulf oil relative to every other part of the world. Thirty years ago, the United States was virtually self-sufficient in oil supplies but it now imports over 60% of its needs, with oil imports from the Middle East increasing steadily.

The recognition of this is nothing new – it was one of the deciding factors behind the development of the original Rapid Deployment Force nearly 25 years ago. Moreover, it was a situation that was clearly recognized by the Republicans who came to power with Ronald Reagan, 20 years before George W Bush, and was clearly demonstrated by one of the first pronouncements of the Reagan era.

Each year the committee of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff issues a Military Posture Statement (MPS) for the forthcoming financial year. The MPS for 2004, for example, will be published in a couple of months' time. Back in 1991, immediately after Ronald Reagan had been elected, the 1992 MPS was eagerly awaited as a clear statement of the "re-arming of America" in the face of the perceived Soviet threat that had helped Reagan into office.

The MPS certainly had a lot to say about East-West relations but its opening chapter was, to the surprise of many, much more concerned with the increasing vulnerability of the United States to resource conflict. Map after map portrayed a world in which the US was increasingly dependent on imported resources – 93% for bauxite, 95% for cobalt, 97% for manganese, and 98% for columbium [niobium] and tantalum. Most of these meant little to the non-expert but they underpinned the workings of a major industrial economy, and the Reaganites were fearful of Soviet interference in Africa, Asia, and other sources of supply.

Much more significant, and subject to more detailed analysis, was the concern over oil supplies. Remember, this was over 20 years ago when US dependence on imported oil was much less than now, yet the Posture Statement went into substantial detail about US vulnerabilities and the need to ensure Gulf security.

It is fair to say that much of this was in the context of the supposed Soviet threat to Persian Gulf oil supplies, but it was also in the immediate aftermath of the Iranian Revolution, and the Reagan security advisers were already becoming concerned over regional "threats" to Gulf oil supplies.

Over twenty years later we see the trend toward increasing dependence on Gulf oil as a long-term phenomenon, stretching well into the future, but this was already recognized in the early 1980s. Moreover, many of the security hawks in the Reagan era of the 1980s are back in power with Bush Jr, often in positions of greater influence.

There is, therefore, a deep and pervading recognition at the heart of the Bush administration that the most significant future vulnerability for the United States is its steadily growing dependence on Gulf oil. Mexico, Colombia, and Venezuela may be useful sources of supply, albeit of a poorer quality, and the Caspian Basin and Siberia may help out somewhat. These, though, are essentially short-term answers to a persistent problem.

The Persian Gulf is where the oil is, and what has to be done is to make absolutely sure that the Gulf is securely controlled for many years to come. It is an unusual example of strategic thinking, not a common phenomenon in political circles, and permeates the Bush administration to an extent that is rarely acknowledged.

The crisis with Iraq that now seems to be coming to a head is part of a much larger game-plan concerning long-term influence over oil supplies. Recognizing this enables us to see just how important it is, in the view of the Bush administration, that the Saddam Hussein regime be terminated and replaced, to ensure a more acceptable overall framework of power in the region.

 

* This article was first published in its entirety on the global issues website http://www.opendemocracy.net as part of an ongoing debate about Global Security. Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies at Bradford University and is openDemocracy's international security correspondent. He is a consultant to the Oxford Research Group. The second edition of his book Losing Control has just been published by Pluto Press.

By Michael Renner, Worldwatch Institute
Michael Renner is a Senior Researcher at Worldwatch Institute and a policy analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at http://www.fpif.org).

Oil Forever

The Bush administration’s ties to the oil and gas industry are beyond extensive; they are pervasive. They flow, so to speak, from the top, with a chief executive who grew up steeped in the culture of Texas oil exploration and tried his hand at it himself; and a second-in-command who came to office with a multi-million dollar retirement package in hand from his post of CEO of Halliburton Oil. Once in office, the vice president developed an energy policy under the primary guidance of a cast of oil company executives whose identities he has gone to great lengths to withhold from public view. Since taking office, the president and vice president have assembled a government peopled heavily with representatives from the oil culture they came from. These include Secretary of the Army Thomas White, a former vice president of Enron, and Secretary of Commerce Don Evans, former president of the oil exploration company Tom Brown, Inc., whose major stake in the company was worth $13 million by the time he took office.

The Bush administration’s energy policy is predicated on ever-growing consumption of oil, preferably cheap oil. US oil consumption is projected to increase by one-third over the next two decades. The White House is pushing hard for greater domestic drilling and wants to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to the oil industry. Even so, the administration’s National Energy Policy Development Group, led by Vice President Cheney, acknowledged in a May 2001 report that US oil production will fall 12% over the next 20 years. As a result, US dependence on imported oil – which has risen from one-third in 1985 to more than half today – is set to climb to two-thirds by 2020.¹

Since the 1970s, the US has put considerable effort into diversifying its sources of supply, going largely outside of OPEC and outside the Middle East. The current administration is advocating greater efforts to expand production in such far-flung places as the Caspian area, Nigeria, Chad, Angola, and deep offshore areas in the Atlantic basin and is looking to leading Western Hemispheric suppliers like Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela.² West Africa is expected to account for as much as a quarter of US oil imports a decade from now.³

But there is no escaping the fact that the Middle East – and specifically the Persian Gulf region – remains the world’s prime oil province, for the US and for other importers. Indeed, the Cheney report confirms that "by any estimation, Middle East oil producers will remain central to world oil security." The Middle East currently accounts for about 30% of global oil production and more than 40% of oil exports. With about 65% of the planet’s known reserves, it is the only region able to satisfy the substantial rise in world oil demand predicted by the Bush administration.⁴ The Cheney report projects that Persian Gulf producers alone will supply 54-67% of world oil exports in 2020.⁵

Saudi Arabia is a pivotal player. With 262 billion barrels, it has a quarter of the world’s total proven reserves and is the single largest producer.⁶ More importantly, the Saudis have demonstrated repeatedly – after the Iranian revolution, and following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait – that they are prepared to compensate for losses from other suppliers, calming markets in times of turmoil. Today, Riyadh could raise its production of 8 million barrels per day (b/d) to 10.5 million b/d within three months, making up for any loss of Iraqi oil during a US military assault.⁷

Iraq: From Pariah to Fabulous Prize

The pariah state of Iraq, however, is a key prize, with abundant, high-quality oil that can be produced at very low cost (and thus at great profit). At 112 billion barrels, its proven reserves are currently second only to Saudi Arabia’s. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the US Department of Energy estimates that additional "probable and possible" resources could amount to 220 billion barrels. And because political instability, war, and sanctions have prevented thorough exploration of substantial portions of Iraqi territory, there is a chance that another 100 billion barrels lie undiscovered in Iraq’s western desert. All in all, Iraq’s oil wealth may well rival that of Saudi Arabia.⁸

At present, of course, this is mere potential – the Iraqi oil industry has seriously deteriorated as a result of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, the 1991 Gulf War, and inadequate post-war investment and maintenance. Since 1990, the sanctions regime has effectively frozen plans for putting additional fields into production. It has also caused a severe shortage of oil field equipment and spare parts (under the sanctions regime, the US has prevented equipment imports worth some $4 billion). Meanwhile, questionable methods used to raise output from existing fields may have damaged some of the reservoirs and could actually trigger a decline in output in the short run.⁹

But once the facilities are rehabilitated (a lucrative job for the oil service industry, including Vice President Cheney’s former employer, Halliburton) and new fields are brought into operation, the spigots could be opened wide. To pay for the massive task of rebuilding, a post-sanctions Iraq would naturally seek to maximize its oil production. Some analysts, such as Fadhil Chalabi, a former Iraqi oil official, assert that Iraq could produce 8-10 million b/d within a decade and eventually perhaps as much as 12 million.¹⁰

The impact on world markets is hard to overstate. Saudi Arabia would no longer be the sole dominant producer, able to influence oil markets single-handedly. Given that US-Saudi relations cooled substantially in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks – rifts that may widen further – a Saudi competitor would not be unwelcome in Washington. An unnamed US diplomat confided to Scotland’s Sunday Herald that "a rehabilitated Iraq is the only sound long-term strategic alternative to Saudi Arabia. It’s not just a case of swapping horses in mid-stream, the impending US regime change in Baghdad is a strategic necessity."¹¹

Washington would gain enormous leverage over the world oil market. Opening the Iraqi spigot would flood world markets and drive prices down substantially. OPEC, already struggling with overcapacity and a tendency among its members to produce above allotted quotas (an estimated 3 million barrels per day above the agreed total of 24.7 million b/d), might unravel as individual exporters engage in destructive price wars against each other.¹²

A massive flow of Iraqi oil would also limit any influence that other suppliers, such as Russia, Mexico, and Venezuela, have over the oil market. Lower prices could render Russian oil – more expensive to produce – uncompetitive, which would cloud the prospects for attracting foreign investment to tap Siberian oil deposits.¹³ Russia’s weak economy is highly dependent on oil export revenues. Its federal budget is predicated on prices of $24-25 per barrel.¹⁴ Aleksei Arbatov, deputy chairman of the Russian parliament’s defence committee, predicts that if a new Iraqi regime sells oil without limits, "our budget will collapse."¹⁵

Oil Company Interests

To repair and expand its oil industry, Iraq will need substantial foreign investment. Thus, for eager oil companies, Iraq represents a huge bonanza – a "boom waiting to happen," according to an unnamed industry source.¹⁶

Leading Oil Companies, 2000 The 10 leading companies in each category are highlighted in the respective columns.
	Oil Reserves (billion barrels)	Oil Production (million b/d)	Refining Capacity (million b/d)	Product Sales (million b/d)
Saudi Aramco	261.8	8.6	2.1	3.0
INOC (Iraq)	112.5	2.6	0.4	0.4
KPC (Kuwait)	96.5	1.7	1.0	0.9
NIOC (Iran)	89.7	3.8	1.5	1.3
PDV (Venezuela)	77.7	3.3	3.1	3.2
ADNOC (United Arab Emirates)	53.8	1.4	0.2	0.2
Pemex (Mexico)	28.3	3.5	1.5	2.1
NOC (Libya)	23.6	1.3	0.3	0.3
Lukoil (Russia)	14.3	1.6	0.5	0.9
NNPC (Nigeria)	13.5	1.3	0.4	0.3
ExxonMobil (US)	12.2	2.6	6.2	8.0
PetroChina	11.0	2.1	1.9	1.1
Royal Dutch/Shell (UK/Netherlands)	9.8	2.3	3.2	5.6
British Petroleum	7.6	1.9	3.2	5.5
TotalFinaElf (France)	7.0	1.4	2.6	3.1
ChevronTexaco (US)	8.5	2.0	2.1	4.0
Petrobras (Brazil)	8.4	1.3	1.9	2.2
Sinopec (China)	3.0	0.7	2.6	1.3
Nippon Mitsubishi (Japan)	0.05	0.05	1.3	1.4
WORLD	1,046.2	74.5	81.6
Source: Adapted from Energy Intelligence Group. State-owned companies are in italics (state ownership is 100 percent, except for the following: PetroChina (90 percent), Sinopec (57 percent), and the majority privately owned Petrobras (32.5 percent) and Lukoil (14.1 percent)).

Prior to the OPEC revolution in the early 1970s, a small number of companies (referred to as the "majors" or "Seven Sisters") called the shots in the industry, controlling activities from exploration and production to refining and product sales. But they lost much of their reserve base, as nationalization spread through the Middle East and OPEC nations. Today, state oil companies own the vast majority of the world’s oil resources. Even though private companies still do much of the exploring, drilling, and pumping, in many countries they have access to the oil only under prices and conditions set by the host government. Although oil companies have managed to adjust to this situation, a directly owned concession would offer them far greater flexibility and profitability.

The dominant private companies (ExxonMobil and Chevron-Texaco of the US, Royal Dutch-Shell and BP of Britain and the Netherlands, TotalFinaElf of France), which are largely the result of recent mega-mergers, sell close to 29 million barrels per day in gasoline and other oil products. But production from fields owned by these "super-majors" came to 10.1 million barrels per day in 2001, or just 35% of their sales volume.¹⁷ Although these corporations have poured many billions of dollars into discovering new fields outside the Middle East, their proven reserves stood at just 44 billion barrels in 2001, 4% of the world’s total and sufficient to keep producing oil for only another 12 years at current rates.¹⁸ The situation is similar for other oil companies. Thus, the oil-rich Middle East, and particularly Iraq, remains key to the future of the oil industry.

If a new regime in Baghdad rolls out the red carpet for the oil multinationals to return, it is possible that a broader wave of denationalisation could sweep through the oil industry, reversing the historic changes of the early 1970s. Squeezed by a decade of sanctions, the current regime has already signalled that it is prepared to provide more favourable terms to foreign companies.¹⁹ Such an invitation by Baghdad would be in tune with larger changes that are afoot, as a growing number of oil producing countries are opening their industries to foreign direct investment.²⁰

Rivalries & Quid Pro Quos

Several European and Asian oil companies have in recent years signed deals with Iraq that, if consummated, would give them access to reserves of at least 50 billion barrels and a potential output of 4-5 million barrels per day (another estimate says that Russian companies alone have signed deals involving about 70 billion barrels). In addition, a number of contracts have been signed for exploration in the western desert.²¹

Russian, Chinese, and French companies in particular have tried to position themselves to develop new oil fields and to rehabilitate existing ones, once UN sanctions are lifted. Russia’s Lukoil, for instance, signed an agreement in 1997 to refurbish and develop the West Qurna field (with 15 billion barrels of oil reserves). China’s National Petroleum Corporation signed a deal for the North Rumailah reservoir. And France’s TotalFinaElf has set its eyes on the giant Majnoon deposits (holding 20-30 billion barrels).²²

Iraq has sought to use the lure of oil concessions to build political support among three permanent Security Council nations – France, Russia, and China – for a lifting of sanctions. Although the international consensus in favour of sanctions has badly eroded, this gamble has failed to pay off in the face of determined US and British opposition. (In December 2002, Iraq cancelled a contract with three Russian companies, out of frustration that the firms – in deference to sanctions – had not commenced oil exploration work.) As long as Saddam Hussein stays in power, US and British companies will be kept out of Iraq, but ongoing sanctions will also thwart existing oil development plans.

"Regime change" in Baghdad would reshuffle the cards and give US (and British) companies a good shot at direct access to Iraqi oil for the first time in 30 years – a windfall worth hundreds of billions of dollars. US companies relish the prospect: Chevron’s chief executive, for example, said in 1998 that he’d "love Chevron to have access to" Iraq’s oil reserves.²³

In preface to the passage of Security Council Resolution 1441 on November 8, there were thinly veiled threats that French, Russian, and Chinese firms would be excluded from any future oil concessions in Iraq unless Paris, Moscow, and Beijing supported the Bush policy of regime change. Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile opposition group favoured by the Bush administration, said that the INC would not feel bound by any contracts signed by Saddam Hussein’s government and that "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil" under a new regime. US and British oil company executives have been meeting with INC officials, manoeuvring to secure a future stake in Iraq’s oil.²⁴ Meanwhile, the State Department has been coaxing Iraqi opposition members to create an oil and gas working group involving Iraqis and Americans.²⁵

Nikolai Tokarev, general director of Russia’s Zarubezhneft, a state-owned oil company, reflected in late 2002: "Do Americans need us in Iraq? Of course not. Russian companies will lose the oil forever if the Americans come."²⁶ Fears of being excluded from Iraq’s oil riches and losing influence in the region have fed Russian, French, and Chinese interest in constraining US belligerence. These countries nonetheless are eager to keep their options open in the event that a pro-US regime is installed in Baghdad, avoiding the "risk of ending up on the wrong side of Washington," as the New York Times put it.²⁷

Rival oil interests were a crucial behind-the-scenes factor as the permanent members of the UN Security Council jockeyed over the wording of Resolution 1441, intended to set the conditions for any action against Iraq. It is likely that backroom understandings regarding the future of Iraqi oil were part of the political minuet that finally led to the resolution’s unanimous adoption. US promises that the other powers would get a slice of the pie, hinted at in broad terms, were apparently inducement enough to win their nod. It is thus unlikely that French, Russian, and Chinese companies will be completely locked out of a post-Saddam Iraq, though they could find themselves in a junior position.

From Surrogates to Direct Control

Throughout the history of oil, sorting out who gets access to this highly prized resource and on what terms has often gone hand in hand with violence. At first it was Britain, the imperial power in much of the Middle East, that called the shots. But for half a century, the US – seeking a preponderant share of the earth’s resources – has made steady progress in bringing the Persian Gulf region into its geopolitical orbit. In Washington’s calculus, securing oil supplies has consistently trumped the pursuit of human rights and democracy.

US policy toward the Middle East has long relied on building up proxy forces in the region and generously supplying them with arms. After the Shah of Iran, the West’s regional policeman, was toppled in 1979, Iraq became a surrogate of sorts when it invaded Iran. Washington aided Iraq in a variety of ways, including commodity credits and loan guarantees, indirect arms supplies, critical military intelligence in Baghdad’s long battle against Iran, a pro-Iraqi tilt in the "tanker war," and attacks on Iran’s navy.

Beginning in the 1970s, but particularly in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War, the US supplied Saudi Arabia and allied Persian Gulf states with massive amounts of highly sophisticated armaments. After the Gulf War, US forces never left the region completely. By pre-positioning military equipment and acquiring access to military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, Washington prepared the ground for future direct intervention as needed.

In the Persian Gulf and adjacent regions, access to oil is usually secured by a pervasive US military presence. From Pakistan to Central Asia to the Caucasus and from the eastern Mediterranean to the Horn of Africa, a dense network of US military facilities has emerged – with many bases established in the name of the "war on terror."

Although the US military presence is not solely about oil, oil is a key reason. In 1999, General Anthony C. Zinni, then the head of the US Central Command, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Persian Gulf region is of "vital interest" to the US and that the country "must have free access to the region’s resources."²⁸

Bush administration officials have, however, categorically denied oil is one of the reasons why they are pushing for regime change in Iraq. "Nonsense," Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft in mid-December 2002. "It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil."

But oil industry officials interviewed by 60 Minutes on December 15 painted a different picture. Asked if oil is part of the equation, Phillip Ellis, head of global oil and gas operations for Boston Consulting replied, "Of course it is. No doubt."

In fact, oil company executives have been quietly meeting with US-backed Iraqi opposition leaders. According to Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, "The future democratic government in Iraq will be grateful to the United States for helping the Iraqi people liberate themselves and getting rid of Saddam." And he added, "American companies, we expect, will play an important and leading role in the future oil situation in Iraq."

 

Foot Notes

Statement by RCWP-RPC CC

Leaders of capitalist countries including Russia, as well as the entire spectrum of bourgeois media, have unleashed a sickening whining concerning the alleged threat by the DPRK government, which declared its withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The fact that has been completely ignored is that the decision taken by the DPRK government is a pure necessity and the only possible response to the long series of US subversive plots against the socialist state in the Korean peninsula. This is a step taken by the DPRK leadership to defend their freedom, independence and state sovereignty.

What the world gendarme, the USA, hates is the current political system in North Korea. In the attempt to break the endurance of the Korean people in their resistance and consolidation of the socialist achievements, the US administration has branded DPRK a part of the "axis of evil" and has declared that a pre-emptive nuclear attack on that country is possible. US turned South Korea into a permanent location for conducting military manoeuvres directed against the DPRK. They used the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to introduce sanctions against the country they see as unfavourable. The US is working in every possible way to prevent the programme of peaceful unification between Korean North and South.

In 2002, the US leadership suppressed oil deliveries to DPRK, having violated the only part of the Korean-American Agreed Framework they have been fulfilling. At the same time, the US has ignored the proposals by the Korean leadership to sign a non-aggression treaty. In these conditions, it became an urgent necessity for DPRK to take a step to defend the country from the American political, economic and military threats.

RCWP-RPC CC pledges its support to the political leadership and brave people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, who are firmly resisting all the US plots. We support the DPRK government’s actions taken to increase their country’s defence capacity. We condemn the Wild-West politics of the US who have granted themselves the right to divide peoples into the ranks of the civilised and the rogues and to threaten anyone who does not play the game according to their rules. This war drive against the population of DPRK and of other sovereign states has to be stopped.

It is time to stop the aggressors!

Viktor Tiulkin, Anatolii Kriuchkov

Co-chairmen Central Committee Communist Workers’ Party — the Party of Communists, Russia

We are reprinting extracts from two articles, Echoes of the São Paulo Forum, written by Jose Reinaldo Carvalho, vice-president of Communist Party of Brazil (PcdoB), responsible for International Relations. The articles were published in Diario Vermelho (Red Daily) on December 19 and 26, 2002. The first article in this series was reprinted in Workers’ Daily Internet Edition, Year 2002 No. 219, December 13, 2002.

Among the relevant issues dealt with in the Declaration of the 11th Meeting of the São Paulo Forum, which took place from December 2 to 4 in Antigua, Guatemala, the solidarity with the anti-colonial and pro-independent struggle of Puerto Rico stands out. The matter is rarely present in the international papers of the media and is unknown to the public and even to militants of the Brazilian left.

Puerto Rico is known as the "51st state of the United States of America" with the statute of "Associate Free State". It is a small Caribbean archipelago very near to the Dominican Republic inhabited by about four million people. About the same number of Puerto Ricans live in the United States.

The conquest of Puerto Rico in 1898, which belonged to the domains of the Spanish crown during 400 years, signalled the beginning of US imperialism. During the same period, the United States were also taking hold of Filipinas, Guam island and incorporating formally Hawaii, its domain since 1875. Cuba also fell under the US control during the Spanish-American war, acquiring formal independence in 1902.

The archipelago, formed by the Puerto Rico, Culebra and Vieques islands, plays a strategic military role to the United States due to its privileged geographic position. For that reason the US Navy started to use the island of Vieques, a municipality island inhabited by about 10 thousand people, as base and exercise camp. In 1941 the Navy started a process of mass expropriation regarding the inhabitants in order to take definitive hold of the territory.

Since then the life of the inhabitants of the island turned into a nightmare. The military exercises of the US naval base affected seriously the agricultural and fishing activities of the inhabitants and have caused much environmental damage. The bombardments carried out there are responsible for the destruction of delicate ecosystems. In long term, the bombardments provoke a grave contamination of the environment due to the toxic residues of the military materials used, including impoverished uranium. The action of the Navy has caused tens of deaths and the collateral effects of the military materials they use have been the increase of cancer cases among the population.

An episode that took place three years ago on April 19, 1999, changed the life of Vieques. On that day a Puerto Rican citizen, David Sanes Rodriguez, was killed by a bomb. The tragic fact started a new stage in the uneven struggle that the Puerto Rican population wages against the US occupation and for national independence. In May of the same year the population peacefully occupied the 12 firing perimeters of Vieques. The bombardments were interrupted for one year. A movement of civil disobedience of vast proportions involving fishers, students, the clergy, politicians, unionists, intellectuals and artists began. The US government brutally repressed the movement, dispersing the encampments with force. The US Navy restarted the military exercises, including bombardments, but the movement does not feel defeated. It was an important episode in the struggle for independence that contributed to raising the national and social awareness of the population. In the course of that struggle, the Puerto Rican parties and movements were politically and organisationally strengthened, namely the Puerto Rican New Independence Movement and the Socialist Front, both participants of the São Paulo Forum.

The Meeting of the São Paulo Forum was hosted in the Guatemalan city of Antigua, which holds the most valuable treasury of ruins and buildings representing the colonial period in the Americas. The Santo Domingo, the hotel and convention centre where the meeting took place, is sited on one of those ruins. In that place the Dominicans founded one of the first monasteries of the New World in the 16th century.

Antigua is placed 1,500 metres above sea level and "lays" on the Panchoy Valley among gigantic volcanoes – Água, Fogo and Acantenango – which are from 3 to 4 thousand metres high. Declared a "Monument of the Americas" in 1942, it was honoured with the title of "World Heritage", granted by UNESCO in 1979. Its population of 45,000 inhabitants is constituted of Indians and mestizos. Capital of Guatemala during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, Antigua lived moments of splendour. The University of São Carlos was founded in the city in 1668. During the first half of the 18th century, the period of greatest progress, its population totalled 50,000 inhabitants. After a series of earthquakes, the capital was transferred to the Ermida Valley, where the City of Guatemala was raised, which now is the main political, economic, administrative and cultural centre of the country.

The cradle of the Maya civilisation, Guatemala bore the distress of the Spanish conquest. During the colonisation, two thirds of the original population was slain. The massacre of these populations leaves indelible marks right up to the present, resulting in the marginalisation of immense portions of the Indian peoples that constitute half the country’s population.

From its modern history, we highlight as its peak the year of 1944, when a popular rebellion brought down a long-lasting dictatorship. A new stage began, the possibility of building a democratic life and following the road towards development and social justice was made possible. In 1950, with the support of the communists, Jacobo Arbenz was elected President of the Republic, a progressive leader who promoted the agrarian reform, expropriated US companies and started a sovereign foreign policy free from the tutorship of the United States. Imperialism backed up a military coup that made the country sink in the whirlwind of repression, dictatorship and violation of human rights when, along with the police-like action of the armed forces under the monitoring of imperialism, the death squads of extremist right-wing groups were present. Those are days remembered with sadness.

The guerrilla movements appeared during the ’60s, placing themselves in the centre of a long armed political conflict lasting almost four decades. In 1982 the four main guerrilla organisations were united, giving rise to the URNG (the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity).

Thirty-six years of civil war resulted in the death of 150,000 people and 50,000 disappeared. After a process of discussion, the government and the URNG signed a peace agreement in 1996, establishing the re-incorporation of the guerrillas to civil life and the concession of legal warranties to Indian populations. When the agreement became effective in 1997, the URNG was transformed into a political party.

Self-defined as a "left-wing democratic, revolutionary and socialist political party that practices international solidarity", the URNG takes part actively in the national political life. It is represented by six representatives and numerous mayors and city counsellors. The URNG governs 13 municipalities and eight departments (provinces). Ten out of those 13 mayors are Indians.

The 11th Meeting of the São Paulo Forum manifested solidarity with the struggle of the Guatemalan people, raising concerns due to the failure in fulfilling the peace agreements in its entirety, since they included an agenda of nation building with social justice, an agenda that is being substituted by neo-liberal policies, by repressive actions and the resurgence of extreme right-wing groups. The URNG is preparing itself for the future electoral battles and launched the candidacy of Rodrigo Astúrias, son of the famous writer Miguel Angel Astúrias, to the Presidency of the Republic.