|
CounterPunch
February
13, 2003
It's the Oil, Stupid
Markets of Mass
Destruction
By JASON LEOPOLD
Why is it so difficult to accept the fact that
America's thirst for oil is the primary reason for waging a war
against Iraq? For months, foreign journalists have reported that
the United States has been running low on oil--a fact--and only
by using military force in Iraq would the U.S. be able tap into
the region's oil wells to meet the threat of supply shortages
here.
But to try and argue in the mainstream
media that the U.S. is only interested in starting a war with
Iraq because of its vast oil supplies and you're immediately
branded a conspiracy theorist. That's why most U.S. journalists
don't even bother to explore the possibility, according to media
experts.
"The media doesn't want to cross
the president," said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a media expert
and senior scholar at the University of Southern California's
School of Policy, Planning and Development. "I've only seen
one or two articles in the mainstream media about oil being the
reason for a war against Iraq. There is not real investigative
reporting in the mainstream media here because reporters don't
care or have the kind of energy necessary to investigate thoroughly
that oil could be behind a war with Iraq. But it's appropriate
to ask that question and debate it."
Even a mountain of evidence prepared
by Bush's cronies that proves the Administration discussed military
action in Iraq prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks in
an effort to secure oil from the region is not enough to sway
Western journalists who instead report that Iraq's alleged weapons
of mass destruction is the reason behind a possible U.S. led
initiative to attack the country. But that's not accurate nor
is it the truth. Simply put, demand for oil in the U.S. has reached
an all-time high. We can no longer depend upon the Oil Petroleum
Exporting Countries, or OPEC, to increase production to quench
our thirst and make up the shortfall by the embargo the United
Nations placed on Iraqi oil after the first Gulf War. The only
solution is to tap into new sources. That's where Iraq comes
in and it's the reason the U.S. is prepared to launch a full-scaled
attack on the country.
Since the United Nations embargo on Iraqi
and Kuwaiti oil in August 1990, some 5 million barrels per day
of oil has been removed from the market. Other OPEC countries
increased their production capacity to make up the shortfall.
Since the embargo, however, "the
resulting tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability
to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence
over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key "swing"
producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government,"
according to an April 2001 report that was used to help shape
Bush's National Energy Policy.
In order to set the stage for securing
Iraqi oil the U.S. should "review policies toward Iraq to
lower anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere; set
the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment
restrictions," the report says. 'Like it or not, Iraqi (oil)
reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity
to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil
trade."
The Washington, D.C. Council on Foreign
Relations, whose members include Vice President Dick Cheney and
former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and the James A. Baker
III Institute for Public Policy prepared the report, Strategic
Energy Policy, Challenges for the 21st Century. Key executives
in the energy industry helped prepare the report, including former
Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay, who according to the New York Times,
is under investigation for selling his stock in the disgraced
energy company shortly before it imploded in a wave of accounting
scandals in October 2001.
In Bush's State of the Union address
last month, he said he would ask Congress to approve research
into using alternative fuels, such as hydrogen, to be used for
developing a new type of automobile, which the President lifted
directly from the Baker report.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield
has been asked numerous times whether the U.S. is after Iraq's
oil supplies and if that's what is driving this war. Rumsfield's
most recent response to the question was "absolutely not."
Yet the Baker report suggests that the
U.S. should explore the possibility of a regime change in Iraq,
line up "key allies" in Europe and Asia and "target
(Iraq's) ability to maintain and acquire weapons of mass destruction"
as the reasons behind attacking the country all in an effort
to import oil into the U.S.
"The United States 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 the goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore
a cohesive coalition of key allies," according to the report.
"Goals should be designed in a realistic fashion, and they
should be clearly and consistently stated and defended to revive
U.S. credibility on this issue. Actions and policies to promote
these goals should endeavor to enhance the well being of the
Iraqi people. Sanctions that are not effective should be phased
out and replaced with highly focused and enforced sanctions that
target the regime's ability to maintain and acquire weapons of
mass destruction. A new plan of action should be developed to
use diplomatic and other means to support U.N. Security Council
efforts to build a strong arms-control regime to stem the flow
of arms and controlled substances into Iraq. Policy should rebuild
coalition cooperation on this issue, while emphasizing the common
interest in security. This issue of arms sales to Iraq should
be brought near the top of the agenda for dialogue with China
and Russia."
The report also says that once an arms
control program is in place the once an arms-control program
is in place, the U.S. could consider reducing restrictions on
oil investments inside Iraq, a move the Bush administration is
against.
"However, such a policy will be
quite costly as this trade-off will encourage Saddam Hussein
to boast of his "victory" against the United States,
fuel his ambitions, and potentially strengthen his regime,"
the report says. 'Once so encouraged and if his access to oil
revenues were to be increased by adjustments in oil sanctions,
Saddam Hussein could be a greater security threat to U.S. allies
in the region if weapons of mass destruction sanctions, weapons
regimes, and the coalition against him are not strengthened.
Still, the maintenance of continued oil sanctions is becoming
increasingly difficult to implement."
"Until the emerging constraints
are overcome, government will need to increase its vigilance
and be prepared to deal with sudden supply disruptions. The consequences
of inaction could be grave," according to the report. .
Russia's resistance to back the U.S.
in a war against Iraq has more to do with how adding capacity
to world oil markets will hurt Russia's economy than with the
absence of a smoking gun that proves Iraq has weapons of mass
destruction.
"Russia could lose from having sanctions
eased on Iraq, because Russian companies now benefit from exclusive
contracts and Iraqi export capacity is restrained, supporting
the price of oil and raising the value of Russian oil exports,"
according to the report. "If sanctions covering Iraq's oil
sector were eased and Iraq benefited from infrastructure improvements,
Russia might lose its competitive position inside Iraq, and also
oil prices might fall over time, hurting the Russian economy."
Jason Leopold
can be reached at: jasonleopold@hotmail.com
Yesterday's
Features
Alexander Cockburn
The
Largest Anti-War Out Cry in History
Tom Gorman
Bill
O'Reilly's Fascism, Part 2:
Goebbels Would've Been Proud
Theodore McDowell
Searching for a Christian Response to War:
Iraq: a Call for Repentance and Resistance
Emrah Göker
Turkey and War:
94 Percent Oppose Invasion of Iraq
R.S. Zaharna
The
New Bin Laden Tape:
How It Plays in the Arab World
Maria Tomchick
Powell's Evidence Unravels
Harry Browne
The
View from Dublin:
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Iraq
Aviv Lavie
Partners in Pain:
Arabs Study the Holocaust
Bernard Weiner
Artistic Sign Language:
Symbols of the Coming Bush Fall
Mano Singham
What War Looks Like
Charles Sullivan
Manifest Destiny Rides Again
Nick Ring
A Student's View of the New Bin Laden Tape
Website of the Day
Petition:
Allow New Yorkers to Say No to War!
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|