HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
by
Alexandros Pagidas
May
14, 2003
Mr Blair, I think the purpose of this war
is to get control over Iraqi oil. If you don't agree, please provide us with
the evidence.
Let me provide you with two bits of
evidence or argument here. The first is, let me say, for the UK, we're an
exporter of oil. So, we don't need Iraqi's oil. We export oil. (MTV Interview,
6th of March 2003, http://www.labour.org.uk/tbmtv/)
Premise: Britain is an
exporter of oil.
Conclusion: Britain
doesn’t need Iraqi oil.
Let us compare a bit,
Bit of Cheese
Argument:
France is an exporter
of cheese.
France doesn’t need
Greek cheese.
Now
there seems to be something wrong with Mr. Blair’s bit.
Simply
because you’re an exporter of a product, that doesn’t mean that you don’t need
it from another country. The reason being that French Roquefort cheese is different
from Greek Feta cheese.
So
the crucial question to ask is this:
How
is Iraqi oil different from the British, and how true can it be that Britain
does not need it?
1.
The Future
Iraq
has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world. Britain’s oil will end
sooner than Iraq’s, or become too expensive to extract. Therefore, Britain will
cease being an exporter of oil and consequently need oil from countries
like Iraq that would still have it.
2.
Less Costs, More Profit
Many
multinationals can make the same products in their own country. Many American
corporations can make exactly the same products if they based their factories
in the United States – why have most of them left?
Cheap
labour, less environmental restrictions, less taxes, less laws.
They
didn’t need to ‘export’ their factories to other countries; but it was
less costly and more profitable to do so.
British
and American oil companies have their own oil sources, either in or out of
their country; why shouldn’t they increase their profits (and their competitive
advantage over other companies) by being the first companies to profit from the
oil wealth of Iraq? Why shouldn’t (exclusively) British and American
corporations profit from the multi-billion reconstruction projects that are needed
to rebuild Iraq?
They
don’t need to – nor do the rich ‘need’ to get any richer – but they
will.
3.
Power Politics
The
economies of the world, to a large extent rely on oil. It is what drives our
factories, our cars, our power plants. Fortunately this is beginning to change,
mainly because of its detrimental effects on the environment. However, oil is
still a very valuable resource. Controlling oil gives you not only the
necessary component to run your oil-dependent economy, but also the ability to
control the economies of others that are in need of it.
The
point is not whether a country has some oil, but how much. Its power will be
proportional to the amounts of oil it can control. As its oil resources
decrease, so will its dependence on foreign states with oil increase. Its
economy will depend on a country other than itself. For countries like Britain
and the United States, this is anathema.
The
first point pretty much proves that it is not necessarily the case that Britain
does not need Iraqi oil. Britain uses and will use oil for the next decades, to
say the least. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, will still have oil when Britain’s own
resources will be scarce or too expensive to extract. This is one of the
reasons why predominantly US but also British policy, focuses on these
countries, and is willing to support dictatorial or appalling regimes (like
their support to Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath party, the Shah of Iran, and that
other violator of human rights, the Saud Monarchy in Saudi Arabia [1]) provided
they behave according to US or British interests.
The
second point shows that it is a bit irrelevant whether you need oil. The
point is whether British (and American) corporations can profit from the
situation and establish themselves in Iraq as the primary competitors in the
oil & reconstruction markets.
The
third point is connected with the second, and makes the connection with
politics and power. More oil under your control means less dependence on
foreign
states and more political and economic power.
I’m
not saying that this war was exclusively for oil. However, it would
require more than just the fact that Britain exports oil to convince anyone
acquainted with the history of US & British policy in the region, that this
war had nothing to do with oil.
Prime
Minister Tony Blair (continuation from the MTV Interview cited earlier)
Secondly, there is a very simple way of
dealing with this issue because whatever happens - what happens in a situation
like this, there is always a conspiracy theory. It's not to do with the reasons
they say: it's some terrible conspiracy machination, we want to seize the Iraqi
oil.
A simple way out of this: we should make
sure, if there is a conflict, in any post-conflict Iraq there is a proper UN
mandate for Iraq and that oil goes into a trust fund and we don't touch it, the
Americans don't touch it without UN authority. Now, we can't say fairer than
that. And the idea that this is about oil, I understand why people think it
because they're told it the whole time. We may be right, we may be wrong, but
it's nothing to do with oil - not for us, not for the UK, not for the US - and
the best way of testing that is let the thing be done under a proper UN mandate
so no one touches the Iraqi oil except where it's needed for the Iraqi people
because it's their oil, not ours. (Ibid.)
So
the second bit of evidence is that “in any post-conflict Iraq there is a proper
UN mandate for Iraq and that oil goes into a trust fund and we don't touch it,
the Americans don't touch it without UN authority”.
Unfortunately,
recent history shows that British and US governments speak of evidence, but
have a hard time presenting any. They still haven’t found any evidence of
Weapons of Mass Destruction, which served as the basic reason for this war in
the first place. To make the matters even more awkward, they have rejected the
help of the credible team of the UN inspectors led by Dr. Blix. [2] I think
that the common sense point of view is that when you really want to find
something, and a credible team of experts wants to help in the quest, you
accept rather than reject their help. This rejection does nothing but create
suspicion.
In
a recent article in the Guardian one can read the following:
America and Britain yesterday laid out
their blueprint for post-war Iraq in a draft resolution to the United Nations
security council, naming themselves as "occupying powers" and giving
them control of the country's oil revenues.
The proposal, which would relegate the UN
to an advisory role, alongside the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund, while lifting economic sanctions, was expected to pass despite serious
concerns from some permanent members. [3]
Later
in the same article we find a comment on the European Union’s commissioner for
aid and development, Poul Nielson:
[...] Poul Nielson, who accused America
of seeking to seize control of Iraq's vast oil wealth, [...] just returned from a three-day fact-finding
mission to Iraq [and] said the US was "on its way to becoming a member of
Opec", the Middle Eastern oil cartel.
"They will appropriate the
oil," he told the Danish public service DR radio station. "It is very
difficult to see how this would make sense in any other way.
"The unwillingness to give the UN a
genuine, legal well-defined role, also in the broader context of rebuilding
Iraq after Saddam ... speaks a language that is quite clear."
Now
these news seem to contradict Mr. Blair’s second bit of evidence.
These
news do not speak in favour of a “trust fund” that the British or the Americans
“don't touch...without UN authority”. The role of the UN is limited “to an
advisory capacity on a board that will monitor the spending of Iraq's oil
revenue on reconstruction” [4] while “control of oil revenues would pass to the
"Iraqi Assistance Fund" to be held by the Central Bank of Iraq,
managed by US and UK officials.” [5] Which basically reverses what Mr. Blair
said in the MTV interview. The oil revenues will go to a trust fund that the UN
“can’t touch” without approval from the US and UK authorities. No wonder the
International Development Secretary Clare Short resigned over this issue. In
her resignation letter she writes:
I am afraid that the assurances you gave
me about the need for a UN mandate to establish a legitimate Iraqi government
have been breached. The security council resolution that you and Jack have so
secretly negotiated contradicts the assurances I have given in the House of
Commons and elsewhere about the legal authority of the occupying powers, and
the need for a UN-led process to establish a legitimate Iraqi government. [6]
The
most that the UN can do, is be in the
“advisory board with [...] envoys from other international financial
institutions [that] would oversee the disbursement of the revenues, and make
recommendations” [7]
Once
the resolution is signed, the effects of the resolution will be almost
irreversible; UN’s role in post-Saddam Iraq will be marginal – not vital.
In
an unfortunate but possible scenario, Britain and the US might decide to occupy
Iraq for more time than the Iraqi people can tolerate. If a new resolution is
put to vote that demands that Britain and the US give back Iraq to the Iraqi
people, it can be effectively vetoed by Britain or the US.
This
won’t only lead to continuous civil unrest, but will be yet another blow to the
UN and a further isolation of the US and Britain – not to mention the
insurgence of additional terrorist activity.
Meanwhile,
The impression that Iraq is becoming a
carpetbaggers' free-for-all was reinforced at the Ronald Reagan International
Trade Centre in Atlanta this week when lawyers, consultants and business people
streamed in, all hoping for a piece of the action. They heard a presentation by
the US Agency for International Development (USAid), which is handing out
contracts worth $1.5bn (£0.9bn) to rebuild the healthcare system. The USAid
contracts total about $70m. If America fulfils its sweeping promise to rebuild
Iraq's entire infrastructure, the total may reach several hundred billion
dollars. The contracts will be paid for from Iraqi oil revenues, controlled by
America and Britain and audited by an international firm of accountants. [8]
Which
connects with our second point on the commentary of the first ‘bit’ of
evidence. Instead of an international bid monitored by the UN, exclusively
American (and any British) companies will make billions of dollars by rebuilding
Iraq with Iraqi oil money [9] managed not by the Iraqis nor the UN, but by the
“Iraqi Assistance Fund” managed by “US and UK officials”. This must be what
they call ‘free market’ under ‘democracy’.
As
far as Mr. Blair’s bits of evidence are concerned, they seem unfortunately as
drenched in oil as my Greek Feta cheese in my native Greek salad.
The
only difference being crudeness and quality.
Alexandros Pagidas is currently
doing his MA in Philosophy at the University of Reading, UK, and can be reached
at: alexandros@mailbox.gr.
* See also Alexandros Pagidas, “The Blair Witch Project”:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles2/Pagidas_BlairWitch.htm
(1)
For its human rights violations see: http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/briefing/9.html
(2) See David Usborne in New York, “US Blocks Return of UN Arms Inspectors,” May 11 2003, The Independent: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=405122
(3)
Gary Younge in New York and Ian Black in Brussels, “Blueprint Gives Coalition Control Of Oil,” May 10 2003, The
Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,952927,00.html
[4] David Usborne in New York, Rupert Cornwell in Washington and
Phil Reeves in Baghdad, “Iraq Inc: A joint venture built on broken promises,”
10 May 2003, The Independent: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=404877
[5] Ibid.
[6] The Guardian, May 12 2003: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,954287,00.html
[7] In “Iraq Inc: A joint venture built on broken promises.”
[8] Ibid.
[9] Due to the sanctions imposed on Iraq,
a large amount of Iraqi oil money went to the UN Oil-for-food program which
exchanged oil for food and medicine. However, in an article by Evelyn Leopold
we find that “The new proposed U.S. resolution, according to diplomats and
administration officials, would legally end and phase out the complicated
multibillion oil-for-food program, which is akin to dissolving a small
corporation.” (U.S. promises action on Iraq sanctions, May 8th 2003, Yahoo
News, Reuters, http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030508/80/dzhpj.html).
Which raises some concerns when we remember an article dated March 10th 2003 by
Seiji Yamada and Tai Ho-Chen who warn that “Over 60% of the population is
dependent on the Oil for Food Program, run by the Government of Iraq.” (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030508/80/dzhpj.html).
Does this resolution propose to
“legally end and phase out” the 60% of the population that depends on it? Are
there counter-measures in the resolution that ensure the well-being of this
60%? I hope the humanitarian agencies cry out this vital question.