Some background reading on the countries against a US led strike on Iraq....
France and Russia Have More Than Regional Peace in Mind (11/20/02)
archive.abcnews.go.com
Hopeful for Oil Deals
Saddam badly wants U.N. to revoke its economic sanctions, which ban the sale of most Iraqi oil. As a result, Iraq has lost an estimated $100 billion in oil revenue and is deeply in debt to more than one Security Council member.
Iraq owes cash-strapped Russia $7 billion and France another $5 billion — debts it cannot possibly repay until the sanctions are lifted.
Iraq’s oil production has been throttled from a pre-war 3.5 million barrels per day to roughly 1.3 million, said John Lichtblau, chairman of the Petroleum Research Industry Foundation. Iraq has the potential to produce 4 million to 5 million barrels per day, he added, and both the French and Russians would dearly love to help them reach that goal.
"Iraq owes Russia a lot of money, this will be one easy way of getting it back," he said.
While foreign oil deals represent a new frontier for Russian firms, the French are trying to recapture former market share. "The French would like to reestablish themselves as an oil power in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq," Lichtblau added.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Liberal hypocrisy: high price for UN approval (10/2/02)
townhall.com
The Oct. 7 issue of the New Republic features a fascinating account, written by Asla Aydintasbas, of what these various nations want in return for their votes. China's vote -or abstention, same difference -is considered the cheapest since it has so few commercial interests in Iraq. All they want is for the United States to either support, or turn a blind eye to, a Chinese crackdown on Muslim minorities in Western China. The United States also tossed into the pot an agreement to soften its stance toward the Tibet issue; we're leaning on the Dalai Lama to lighten up in his negotiations with the Chinese government.
Then there's France, which has publicly carved out the most self-righteous position when it comes to American "imperialism" and a potential war with Iraq. Privately, the French are very much open to negotiations. France has huge oil and other commercial interests in Iraq (despite the sanctions). America is working hard to promise the French that if France goes along with its historic ally - I mean America, if you weren't sure - they won't be frozen out of the new Iraqi economic order. Now, the French may not end up supporting a U.S. invasion of Iraq, but if they do support us, money, not principle, will have won the argument.
And then there's Russia. Russia's interests in Iraq aren't as big as France's but they're still considerable. First, Iraq owes the Russians $8 billion, and Russia wants its dough. A starting point of any conversation about Russian support is a promise that Russia will be paid back. Other chips in the deal include America's support for Russia's WTO bid and a quieter U.S. State Department when it comes to Russian human rights abuses in Chechnya and Georgia.
In short, if the United Nations agrees to support an American military effort it won't be because the U.N. put principle above self-interest; it will be because various nations were willing to horse trade with blood and oil. Which raises the question, why is it morally superior to work with the U.N. when working with the U.N. means not only more bloodshed elsewhere in the world, but a deterioration of America's moral authority? I remain baffled. |
