Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat. [...]
The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.
There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.
He makes several startling points - assumptions really - for a self-described "liberal interventionist" pundit regarding the motivations for the war in Iraq and the critical geopolitical role control of the Middle East region's oil resources played
These strange arguments consist of these sage observations (from a liberal who just wrote a book on the war in Iraq and US foreign/military power in general:
I think the evidence is clear that the Bush administration went to war in Iraq because it's run by crazy people. The oil money more plausibly comes into play in explaining the desire to stay at war forever. After all, these companies (or their corporate ancestors) had oil contracts in Iraq in the past and now they're getting them back "36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power." Nationalization, you see, is a substantial risk of doing business -- especially natural resource business -- in unstable countries. But a given government is much, much, much less likely to nationalize western countries' assets if it's dependent on external U.S. military support and especially if its security services are nicely enmeshed with the U.S. military.
Our troops can "curb Iranian influence" and provide "stability" all of which is good for business. But don't call it imperialism, we're there to help!
So many things wrong here. Even the noxious Alan Greenspan has recognized the fact that, yes, oil was a huge factor behind the 2003 invasion (or "should have been".)
From comments to the post:
Oil is currently the lifeblood of the world economy whether or not we wish this to be true. A stable supply is crucial in determining whether we'll have a long glide path to alternate energy sources, or a world depression with associated wars and chaos. This is why countries like South Korea and Japan along with most of the other important industrialized democracies supported the invasion to overturn Saddam, and even autocracies like Russia and China were prepared to go along before France, much to their bemusement, decided to pull the plug. Of course, the giant deal Saddam signed with Total/Fina/Elf to develop fully one third of Iraq's vast reserves might have had something to do with that.
It is far less important who participates in the development of Iraq's reserves than that they be developed and put on the world market, where attentive readers may note that they are purchased rather than "grabbed".
and . . .
Nationalization, you see, is a substantial risk of doing business -- especially natural resource business -- in unstable countries.
Not true, historically. A Strongman who nationalizes oil brings relative stability to an unstable region, and buying into a cartel ups the profit. When Iraq (or anyone else) nationalized oil, did they just hire their own people to get the job done or bring in Bigass Oil Countries?
For more on the role Middle East oil supply is playing for the global economy, see this article by Robert Weissman (and this one from last September, too).
Update: Perhaps Yglesias should check out this editorial by Tom Engelhardt.
0 comments:
Post a Comment