Control of Iraq’s oil not Bush’s goal

With the world debating the war, many opposed to military action
have embraced a derisive and possibly disingenuous slogan: "No War
For Oil." Shouting their four-word mantra in marching unison, the
peace demonstraters succinctly capture the popularly perceived
motivation of President George W. Bush’s call for disarmament
and regime change in Iraq.

But where is the evidence that the United States seeks to
control Iraq’s oil? Where is the analysis that supports this
frequently assumed but seldom challenged claim? Is there really a
direct line of reasoning to legitimize the crassly superficial
accusation?

Presently, the United States is already paying dearly for the
military option. Domestic oil and gas prices have skyrocketed.
Crude prices have also risen sharply despite increased global
production. Bush’s Iraq doctrine certainly cannot help the
U.S. economy recover, and conservative cost estimates for even a
brief conflict run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, not to
mention unknown post-war security costs.

Military action in Iraq will most certainly apply extra
pressures to the world oil markets. We must import slightly more
than 65 percent of the oil we use; the oil is purchased from
Canada, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and a half-dozen other countries.
We have directly imported some Iraqi oil in the past, but more
typically through Russian vendors. However, no one doubts that war
against Saddam Hussein will inevitably cause us to pay more no
matter who supplies us. Clearly, our confrontational policy
regarding Iraq will not get us more or cheaper oil any time soon,
and even increasing our own more costly domestic production will
not mitigate the inflating overseas price cycles that a war will
quickly generate.

If the current Iraqi regime topples, what will happen to
Iraq’s vast oil assets? Recalling Saddam Hussein’s
infamous scorched earth policies of the past, the U.S. will control
the country’s vulnerable oil fields. This will prevent
Hussein from burning Iraq’s oil infrastructure ““ a
desperate action only capable of causing greater suffering for
Iraqis who depend on oil as their one source of substantial
international revenue. Instead of destroying Iraq’s
livelihood, the United States will lead a U.S./U.N. structured and
monitored plan that will use Iraq’s oil revenues to rebuild
the country and aid the people. The humanitarian and refugee
efforts will probably need the most immediate and urgent support,
and the United States will no doubt also lead that agenda.

I have seen many signs and slogans waved these past few months.
But I have seen no likely, persuasive case offered for the almost
wacky theory that the United States will in any way control the
inventory, production, sales, or profits of Iraq’s resources.
However, recent history does record the gross and blatant attempts
by Iraq to steal the oil assets of its neighbors ““
intolerable actions which resulted in a broad coalition of
countries responding with uncompromising force. Peaceful measures
didn’t restore Kuwait’s sovereignty, just as posturing
negotiations didn’t bring the inspectors back.

Another core question remains: who currently has the big bucks
invested in Iraqi oil and gas reserves? For the past decade France
and Russia have been Iraq’s two most loyal and consistent
supporters, as well as primary commercial partners in scores of oil
and military contracts, joint ventures, and substantial long-term
loans.

Trade between Iraq and cash-starved Russia is approximately $4
billion annually ““ a very important link in the former Soviet
state’s precarious fiscal quagmire. The Russian firm Lukoil,
which is contracted to extract over 667 million tons of crude from
Iraq’s West Qurna oil field, values that one deal at $20
billion. Also, Iraq still owes Russia over $7 billion for weapons
purchased during the Cold War. Obviously, a regime change in Iraq
could put all of Russia’s expected compensation and
development plans in question.

France’s financial stake is also great; the status of
Iraqi oil could have a critical impact on its own ailing
economy’s recovery efforts. The largest long-term contract in
Iraq’s oil-for-food program is with the economically
beleaguered Paris. The French companies ELF-Aquitaine-Total have
agreed in principle with Iraq to sign for development of the
Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields- an estimated $40 billion dollar
deal.

Despite France’s commitment to help develop industrial
support for Iraqi military and electronics facilities, the
regime’s cunning dictator has also manipulated France’s
interest, causing the French to reconsider their own U.N. sanctions
position last year. President Chirac, recently re-elected on a
virulent anti-U.S. platform, has skillfully exploited complex
social and political frustrations that his country now faces. But
the French leader pragmatically refuses to support any position
imperiling his political base or alienating voters already
overburdened with increased taxes. War-driven oil prices will
further strain France’s own struggling fiscal crisis,
possibly disrupting lucrative deals both countries have jointly
crafted.

In the past, reluctant French leadership has similarly opposed
both NATO and European Union initiatives. Could it be that, once
again, they are simply looking out for their own financial
interests, while vacuously championing themselves as the
world’s most committed, level-headed peace promoters?

It is no secret that if Hussein is overthrown, the next regime
to emerge, although unpredictable in nature and composition, will
likely cancel existing contracts. There will then be new rounds of
bargaining between oil companies from around the globe. There will
also be new mechanisms, alliances, and markets to compete within.
What’s more, anticipated advantages or incentives will be
rendered null and void. It will essentially be a clean slate for
all major customers seated at the oil table ““ a prospect
causing certain deal-holding countries great concern.

France and Russia are not the only agents involved who have a
stake in Iraqi oil. Chinese state-run companies are lobbying to
develop the billion-barrel Ahdab field. Germany and Belgium have
similar projects planned, while Turkey is looking towards a huge,
joint pipeline project to supply Ankara. Another major, multi-year
deal involves several Italian companies developing the massive
al-Nasiriya oil field in southern Iraq.

At this grave and uncertain moment of high stakes and high
emotion, let us not be confused about the fact that every principal
player in this world crisis is pursuing its own self-interested
agenda. All involved have tangible advantages to tally or squander.
Those calling for peace must more closely examine those who stand
to gain and lose from their “stated” positions. Those
who are responsibly dissenting against U.S. policy cannot merely
parrot their reactionary slogans in place of reasoned arguments
supported by facts.

“No war for oil” is an easy, fashionably reactionary
assertion to make these days. But in reality America is not going
after Iraq’s sovereign resources. The United States is not
looking to conquer or control the region’s destiny beyond the
issue of proliferation of doomsday weapons to our self-declared
enemies. Yet it is increasingly clear to many observers that some
countries, furiously maneuvering now to soothe, ignore, or appease
Hussein’s maniacal menace, have a great deal to lose with his
permanent absence.

Matsas is the Staff Development Coordinator for Student
Affairs.