 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| UPDATE: 11-16-2005 A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress. The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated. Washington Post |
| WAR FOR OIL: THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN POLICY AND PRACTICE By Duke 1676 |
|
It's been a familiar sight on the evening news, throngs of people weaving serpent-like through city streets, or individuals standing in small groups on lonely rural highways, holding homemade signs and waving banners, all chanting the modern mantra of resistance to government they feel no longer represents their intersts; "No Blood for Oil". "simplistic" for not grasping the full nuances of modern global realities, the "No Blood for Oil" protesters see the war in Iraq as an extension of a growingly aggressive US energy policy. Like all blanket indictments, the idea that the foreign policy |
||||||
| of the worlds most powerful nation could be written in the boardrooms of Exxon-Mobile or Chevron-Texaco sounds farfetched to many. But like all popular myths, the notion that this nation was dragged into a seemingly endless war in Iraq solely to fill the coffers of malevolent oil interests is in fact based on more than a kernel of truth. Although future historians will no doubt write volumes on the motivations that led this nation to war, listing a quest for empire and global economic hegemony, misguided altruism, self defense, fear, revenge, greed and hubris among them, the need to secure oil for an increasingly energy dependent nation will undoubtedly be included high on the list. |
The idea that nations go to war to secure natural resources should not be shocking to anyone. Throughout
history few wars have been fought for any other reason. At the time, during the heat of the battle, it is
usually difficult to discern the true motivations for war. Patriotic fervor and war-time propaganda can
prevent rational analysis. Most people believe that a peaceful nation would never go to war for sugar,
bananas, rubber, cotton, coal or animal hides, yet history proves that we have fought wars for all those very
reasons.
Few would argue that the first Gulf War was about anything but oil. Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait and
was poised to do the same to Saudi Arabia, threatening to destabilize world oil supplies. In response to that
threat a global effort was organized in order to thwart his expansion. This current situation does not appear
to be quite as clear cut. The weaving of a popular narrative involving 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, and
an evil dictator have clouded and obscured the facts. In order to see how oil has affected our current
foreign policy we need only go back and look at the events that led up to the current situation in Iraq.
history few wars have been fought for any other reason. At the time, during the heat of the battle, it is
usually difficult to discern the true motivations for war. Patriotic fervor and war-time propaganda can
prevent rational analysis. Most people believe that a peaceful nation would never go to war for sugar,
bananas, rubber, cotton, coal or animal hides, yet history proves that we have fought wars for all those very
reasons.
Few would argue that the first Gulf War was about anything but oil. Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait and
was poised to do the same to Saudi Arabia, threatening to destabilize world oil supplies. In response to that
threat a global effort was organized in order to thwart his expansion. This current situation does not appear
to be quite as clear cut. The weaving of a popular narrative involving 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, and
an evil dictator have clouded and obscured the facts. In order to see how oil has affected our current
foreign policy we need only go back and look at the events that led up to the current situation in Iraq.
| BUSH BEGINS TO SET THE STAGE |
revise US policy vis-à-vis Saddam Hussein and oil. In his "A Vision for America" he discussed Iraq and oil.
world markets has increased...Iraq is now the fastest growing oil supplier to the United States…as spare production capacity becomes tighter, Iraq is moving into a position to become an important “swing producer,” with an ability to single handedly impact and manipulate global markets…. Perhaps most ominously, Saddam Hussein is threatening to cut back production and is again…" |
| CHENEY'S ENERGY TASK FORCE |
President Dick Cheney to look into the energy situation. The exact details of who participated in the meetings and what was discussed have been shrouded in mystery. The White House fought a protracted legal battle to keep the information secret, but it is known that representatives of major energy and oil interests participated, and Iraq was a chief topic of conversation. Cheney's Energy Task Force authored a variety of documents, many relating to the oil industries of Iraq, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia.
forgone conclusion by the Cheney Task Force. One entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts", dated March 5, 2001, includes a table listing 30 countries which have interests in Iraq's oil industry, including the names of companies, the oil fields with which they are associated, as well as the statuses of those interests. Another titled "Map of Iraq's oil fields" shows markings for "supergiant" oil fields of 5 billion barrels or more, other oil fields, fields "earmarked for production sharing," oil pipelines, operational refineries, and tanker terminals. |
| BAKER'S INDEPENDENT TASK FORCE |
an independent task force cosponsored by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University and the Council on Foreign Relations entitled; Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21ST Century Members of this task force included:
The findings of this Task Force were forwarded to Cheney’s Energy Task Force and were used as a basis for many of its recommendations. According to the Baker report:
that provide prices which foster economic growth. It is also in the strategic interest of the United States to assure that appropriate national and international mechanisms are in place to prevent disruptions in energy supplies…" "Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a "Pan Arab" leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel, and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and political/diplomatic assessments." |
| MILITARY REACTION |
nation's energy interests. Tommy Franks, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee in April 2001, said the (military) stood ready to protect American vital interests throughout the Central Command area of responsibility.
resources. The Persian Gulf region contains roughly 68 percent of the world's known oil and natural gas reserves -more than 40 percent of which pass through the Strait of Hormuz," Franks said. "And so, one of our responsibilities - in fact, one of our objectives - is to maintain access to these energy resources at the same time that we maintain access to markets in the region," he remarked. "Iraq, of course, is the main disturber of the peace in the region" |
| BUSH INCREASES STRATEGIC OIL RESERVES |
was turned up and the propaganda machine went into full swing. It was not long before the majority of the American people supported military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In order to offset any disruption in the flow of oil from the region the Bush administration began to stockpile American oil reserves in anticipation that global supplies would be disrupted and oil prices would rise due to possible upcoming hostilities. Oil shipments into America’s strategic reserve reached record levels by July of 2002, adding some 150,000 barrels a day. The White House aimed to add more than 100 million barrels to the reserve, which would bring it close to its 700 million barrels capacity |
| OIL INTERESTS VIE FOR IRAQS RICHES |
began to vie for the spoils from Saddam's impending demise. In Sept. Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation published, "The Road to Economic Prosperity for a Post-Saddam Iraq", in which he proposed that Iraq's oil industry split up into three large, privately owned companies, along the lines of ethnic separation, with one company in the largely Shia south, another in the Sunni region, and the last in the Kurdish north. He also recommended that a post Saddam Iraq should shun membership in OPEC and not abide by their price controls. In October, Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the US supported Iraqi National Congress, met executives of three US oil multinationals to negotiate the carve-up of Iraq's massive oil reserves. Although Russia, France and China had existing deals with Iraq, Chalabi made clear that he would reward the US for removing Saddam with lucrative oil contracts, telling the Washington Post that: "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil."
would soon be squeezed out of post-war Iraq even before the first shot had been fired in any US-led land invasion. Into the fall more meetings followed. In November, a meeting of oil executives gathered at an English country retreat to discuss Iraq and the future of the oil market. The conference, hosted by Sheikh Yamani, the former Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia, featured a former Iraqi head of military intelligence, an ex-Minister and various financiers. "Topics for discussion include the country's oil potential, whether it could become as big a supplier as Saudi Arabia, and whether a post-Saddam Iraq might have the economic power to destroy the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries". A new Iraq, with a privatized oil industry and the power to break OPECS stranglehold on worldwide oil markets was seen by many to be a major benefit of military action in Iraq. Larry Lindsey, President Bush's economic adviser, claimed in September, 2002 that "When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy". Twenty months into the Bush administration's tenure it became obvious that the recommendations made in the first months of power were going to be acted upon |
Over time the administrations claims about the reasons we went to war have varied. There was 9/11,
weapons of mass destruction, to "fight the terrorists there, and not here", to spread democracy, to free an
oppressed people and the list goes on. One underlying thread runs through all the claims that have been
made during the run-up and execution of the war: oil. Although only time will eventually reveal the true
motivation behind the Bush administration's decisions, no matter what their ultimate rationale turns out to
be, it is safe to assume that the wheels of war were greased by oil.
weapons of mass destruction, to "fight the terrorists there, and not here", to spread democracy, to free an
oppressed people and the list goes on. One underlying thread runs through all the claims that have been
made during the run-up and execution of the war: oil. Although only time will eventually reveal the true
motivation behind the Bush administration's decisions, no matter what their ultimate rationale turns out to
be, it is safe to assume that the wheels of war were greased by oil.
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| © 2005 IraqFact Working Group |