|
|
Post by justjohn on May 14, 2008 3:27:23 GMT -7
   International Relations The oily truth about America’s foreign policyBy Gideon Rachman 13 May 2008 (Financial Times) With the oil price heading upwards and President George W. Bush heading for Saudi Arabia, as part of a Middle Eastern tour, it is time to accept the truth. The pursuit of oil is fundamental to US foreign policy. The importance of oil to American foreign policy is both obvious and curiously difficult to acknowledge in public. In the run-up to the Iraq war it was left to the left to make the argument that this was a “war for oil”. Establishment people – those in the know – rolled their eyes at this “conspiracy theory”. Yet in recent months, both Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Senator John McCain have come close to saying that Iraq was indeed about oil. In his memoirs Mr Greenspan said he regretted that it was “politically inconvenient” to acknowledge that “the Iraq war is largely about oil”. More here: www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/31031 
|
|
|
|
Post by Atlantis5 on May 14, 2008 7:25:22 GMT -7
It would so seem, Mr. Gidion Rachman has illuminated a very valid truth in his post- mortom analysis of both wars of {Kuwait and Iraq} as being of human rights and the common good. But, with the primary impetus being of protection of oil resources kept in the hands of The Arab and Kuwait ruling families.
With 1st of that Kuwait was initially cutting the whole sale price of oil {thus cutting into profits of Iraqi oil} then of very large loans to Iraq for financing of their war against Iran, then with refusal by the Kuwait Royal family of forgiveness of the loan. Further aggravation of a then sensitive situation, was a case of Kuwait cross drilling into Iraqi owned oil fields bordering both countries.
History then describes further of the Iraqi Republican Guard invasion of Kuwait. Subsequent to the event, the American response culminating in the demise of the Iraqi invasion forces.
Then the fear of invasion by theses same Republican Guard Iraqi forces fielded the fear with the neighbouring Saudi Arabia of a similar action against them. Prompted a request by King Fahd {of Saudi Arabia} to President Bush for protection with use of Saudi territory for use as a staging area for air/land forces to invade of Iraq.
History is self explanatory of the results to the present.
One question though that has never been fielded. So what if Iraq had of annexed both that of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia with acquisition of oil fields owned by those various royal families.
Then, would have oil business continued? For business is business, it is a matter of only of which hand(s} the payment is given. For the Arab and Kuwait countries are not democratic, but owned by Royal Families to do as they wish.
At present, the cost of military lives and equipment to date, was this worth the price? For in the end, with the last of the oil pumped out, the Arabs will do what they have always lived by, herding small animals with their great mother, the desert.
And of the armies past and present? They are as they have been over the ancients and to present, they come, they conquer, they leave.
Just some thoughts whilst drinking some tea and munching over a cookie.
Charles
|
|
|
|
Post by jimpres on May 14, 2008 9:35:30 GMT -7
Charles, right on
Arabs will do what they have always lived by, herding small animals with their great mother, the desert.
And of the armies past and present? They are as they have been over the ancients and to present, they come, they conquer, they leave.
They can march and kill themselves as much as they want.
Just stay away from us.
|
|
|
|
Post by justjohn on May 21, 2008 2:59:56 GMT -7
From The Times May 20, 2008 Iraq could have largest oil reserves in the world Sonia Verma in Sharm el-Sheikh Iraq dramatically increased the official size of its oil reserves yesterday after new data suggested that they could exceed Saudi Arabia’s and be the largest in the world. The Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister told The Times that new exploration showed that his country has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, with as much as 350 billion barrels. The figure is triple the country’s present proven reserves and exceeds that of Saudi Arabia’s estimated 264 billion barrels of oil. Barham Salih said that the new estimate had been based on recent geological surveys and seismic data compiled by “reputable, international oil companies . . . This is a serious figure from credible sources.” The Iraqi Government has yet to approve a national oil law that would allow foreign companies to invest. Mr Salih said that the delay was damaging Iraq’s ability to profit from oil output, robbing the country of potentially huge revenues. With oil selling for more than $125 dollars a barrel and demand rising, Mr Salih is frustrated that Iraq still struggles over the establishment of a regulatory framework. “There is a real debate in the Government and among political leaders about the type of oil management structures we should have. I am for liberalising this sector and allowing the private sector to come in to develop these vast resources.” BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and Total have been queuing for rights to exploit Iraqi reserves. Mr Salih confirmed that Iraq was negotiating the outlines of two-year deals with some of the companies. He was optimistic that a draft law could be approved in the near future. “We need to recognise after so many decades of mismanagement of the oil industry that we need to call a spade a spade,” he told a group of delegates at the World Economic Forum in Sharm el-Sheikh. “We can regulate it, but we need private investment to develop Iraq’s production capacities.” He said that Iraq was pumping 2.5 million barrels of oil a day at present, earning about $70 billion (£35.9 billion) in revenue this year. The price of oil bounced back to record highs yesterday when Opec refused to increase supplies following Saudi Arabia's promise to the US that it would provide an extra 300,000 barrels a day. In New York, the price of light, sweet crude for June delivery rose from $125.92 to US$126.35. In London, Brent crude for July delivery was up 82 cents at $125.81 per barrel.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaima on May 21, 2008 9:55:11 GMT -7
The Iraqi Government has yet to approve a national oil law that would allow foreign companies to invest. Mr Salih said that the delay was damaging Iraq’s ability to profit from oil output, robbing the country of potentially huge revenues. With oil selling for more than $125 dollars a barrel and demand rising, Mr Salih is frustrated that Iraq still struggles over the establishment of a regulatory framework. “There is a real debate in the Government and among political leaders about the type of oil management structures we should have. I am for liberalising this sector and allowing the private sector to come in to develop these vast resources.” As I understand it from foreign press - definitely NOT from American media! - this oil law is one of the major problems facing the Iraqi parliment. Many view the law as drafted as re-establishing oil colonialism under the Americans. I have not seen what alternates are proposed nor anything that stated what alternative system would result in long term benefit for the Iraqi people or state. On a smaller scale we face the same problems in Alaska. We have a natural resource that once taken is gone forever. Hungary had this with its minerals, which were mainly in today's Slovakia, and 400 years later the mines are exhausted and there is nothing but perhaps residual pollution for the people today. That is what Iraq and Alaska face in its future. It is quickly recognized and accepted that business and oil companies are out to maximize profits, but less accepted is the concept of how can the State maximize the benefits to the people, today and tomorrow. I have never heard anyone say "how can we maximize the tax on oil and still get the oil companies to drill, develop and get sufficient (but not too much!) profit?" I see these two positions as complimentary and opposite positions seeking the balance between maximum benefit to the company and maximum benefit to the people. So the tug of war will always continue. Kai |
|
