SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (34899)7/24/2002 11:24:56 AM
From: teevee  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
The article below provides another perspective on Bush's war on Iraq. Increasing global competition for oil and gas resources, dwindling reserves and production from the North Sea, and OPEC still a force to be reckoned with, is the kind of mounting pressure that explains why Bush and Blair want to invade Iraq ASAP and replace Saddam with a new puppet regime and leader, friendly to the USA and Britain and understanding of their energy needs. Iraq's oil endowment is second to Saudi Arabia. I believe the USA and Britain will make war to get control of it before it slips from their grasp.

The quest for energy to grow
Far Eastern Economic Review, June 20-26
By David Lague, Hong Kong
Abstract:

Despite a long-standing determination to be energy self-sufficient, demand
for oil in China is accelerating far beyond domestic output, and increasingly
it is Middle East suppliers, including Iran, Oman, Yemen and Saudi Arabia,
that make up the difference. This is one key reason why Beijing, in preparing
to negotiate its first big offshore energy deal, invited bids from Indonesia
and Australia, in competition with Middle East producer Qatar, to supply
liquefied natural gas worth $13 billion over two decades for power plants
in southern China's Guangdong province.

Full Text:

China is mounting a determined effort to safeguard the energy supplies
that are vital to its development. It won't be easy, with demand for oil
now outstripping stagnant domestic output

IT WAS NEVER MEANT to be this way. More than two decades into China's dizzying
economic boom and a steady stream of giant oil tankers riding low in the
water sails thousands of miles from terminals in the Middle East to the
mainland's booming coastal ports.

Despite a long-standing determination to be energy self-sufficient, demand
for oil in China is accelerating far beyond domestic output, and increasingly
it is Middle East suppliers, including Iran, Oman, Yemen and Saudi Arabia,
that make up the difference.

For industry analysts, this is one key reason why Beijing, in preparing
to negotiate its first big offshore energy deal, on April 21 invited bids
from Indonesia and Australia, in competition with Middle East producer
Qatar, to supply liquefied natural gas (LNG) worth $13 billion over two
decades for power plants in southern China's Guangdong province.

"This sends a message to the world that China wants to diversify its energy
supplies away from the Middle East," says HSBC oil-and-gas analyst Gordon
Kwan from his Hong Kong office. "They have identified targets in Asia than
can be stable sources, including Australia and Indonesia."

Cleaner-burning, if more expensive, LNG also has clear environmental benefits
in a country that still relies on coal for 70% of its energy needs. China's
major cities are choking under dense clouds of pollution from coal-fired
power plants. However, boosting energy security is now a top foreign and
economic priority for the Beijing leadership.

To pessimists, this is the early phase of emerging competition for energy
in East Asia that has the potential to bring China into conflict with other
major energy importers in the region, including Japan and Taiwan, particularly
if the United States decides at some time in the future to wind back its
security presence. They point out that it was insecurity over energy and
rubber that drove Japan to invade energy-rich Southeast Asia in 1941, triggering
a disastrous conflict with Britain and the U.S.

Kent Calder, a Japan specialist at Princeton University in the U.S., is
probably the leading voice warning of the potential dangers of energy competition
among increasingly heavily armed East Asian states.

To others, it is more likely that China's emergence as a major economic
and trading power will lead to greater integration and cooperation. In
the same way that joining the World Trade Organization is supposed to force
China to observe international rules and norms, the argument goes that
Beijing will find it must cooperate with energy suppliers and other major
importers including the U.S and Japan if it wants to maintain economic growth.

This vulnerability is one reason why some students of international relations
believe Beijing would be reluctant to attack Taiwan.

Some oil industry analysts also believe that burgeoning demand from China
will have the effect of increasing international exploration and recovery
of oil and gas, therefore reducing the potential for friction. The country
currently produces only 70% of its oil needs and is searching for more
of the fuel and other sources of power.

Whatever the eventual outcome, in the short term it's clear that Beijing
is deeply concerned about depending on tankers that must cross the Indian
Ocean and navigate narrow and easily-blockaded straits around the Indonesian
archipelago before entering East Asia's shipping lanes. Of the 65 million
tonnes of oil China imported last year, according to Chinese trade figures,
about 60% followed this route.

Apart from the political uncertainty of relying on the troubled Middle
East, what China most fears is the might of the U.S. Navy. Mindful that
Washington has been prepared to enforce economic sanctions against defiant
states, Beijing knows that without a blue-water navy it would be unable
to counter a U.S. move to interrupt its energy supplies in the event of
a serious dispute or conflict.

"The United States is currently the most powerful country in the world
and is perceived by many in China as uncomfortable with China's rising
power," says a recent study by the U.S.-based Rand think-tank. "As a
result, the Chinese government views the United States as the primary threat
to China's energy security."

The challenge for China's security planners is that domestic demand is
outstripping their efforts to diversify energy sources and the gap is likely
to widen, assuming that Beijing can ensure continued economic growth through
reforms of its debt-laden banking system and inefficient state-owned enterprises.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration, or EIA, predicts that China's
oil consumption is likely to increase from 4.78 million barrels a day in
2000 to 10.5 million barrels a day by 2020. On the way, China will overtake
Japan as the world's second-largest oil consumer behind the U.S. Some analysts
believe that on current trends, China will need to import about Go% of
this projected demand. That will make China a dominant player on world
energy markets but also vulnerable to supply disruptions or political manipulation.

Beijing has employed a multifaceted strategy to minimize this exposure.
The authorities have launched a drive to boost domestic exploration and
recovery in the most promising geological structures, particularly the
Ordos Basin in northwest China. Offshore exploration is also a priority,
with most activity now concentrated in the Bohai Sea east of the northern
port city of Tianjin.

"If no effective measures are taken to strengthen petroleum exploration,
China will become more dependent on importing petroleum and the risks to
oil supply will be greatly increased," Land Resources Minister Tian Fengshan
warned at an April 18 energy symposium in Beijing.

China has also invested heavily in foreign oilfields in a bid to guarantee
supply. The state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. has negotiated oil
deals in Venezuela, Peru, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Indonesia, Azerbaijan and
Kazakhstan. These deals have given China control over an estimated 2.7
billion barrels in foreign oil reserves.

The biggest of these agreements is a $4.6 billion commitment to buy 60%
of Kazakh oil company Aktobemunaigaz, with undertakings to assist in development
over two decades. This opens the possibility that China could pipe oil
from Central Asia to domestic refineries, but the cost of this at current
oil prices seems prohibitive to many industry analysts.

Russia's unexpectedly rapid re-emergence as a major player on world oil
markets also offers an opportunity for China to minimize its dependence
on the Middle East. Beijing and Moscow have been holding extensive talks
on the feasibility of pipelines that could supply oil and gas from Siberia
and offshore deposits.

Analysts note that there is also strategic risk in depending on Russia,
a long-standing rival for influence in East Asia. Beijing's current leadership
would well remember the severe energy shortages after the 1960 Sino-Soviet
split when Moscow withdrew its experts and support from China's oil industry.

There are also plans to build a strategic petroleum reserve, like other
major energy importers including Japan and the U. S., in a bid to buffer
its economy against supply disruptions.

Shifting energy demand toward gas is another strategy to boost energy security,
with demand for this fuel expected to rise sharply. According to the EIA
publication International Energy Outlook 2002, natural gas accounted for
23% of world energy use in 1999 but only 3% of China's consumption. However,
demand for gas is expected to expand at a whopping 10% per year over the
next two decades until it accounts for almost io% of consumption.

To meet this demand, Beijing is planning an $18-billion west-to-east pipeline
to link Tarim Basin gas deposits in Xinjiang province to the coastal city
of Shanghai. The Anglo-Dutch oil major, Shell, signed a nonbinding agreement
last year to take a 45% stake in the 3,800-kilometre pipeline that would
also pick up additional gas from the Ordos Basin. However, there are serious
doubts that the venture can turn a profit because of the size of Xinjiang's reserves.

Even if the pipeline and other projects go ahead, a sizeable proportion
of demand will still need to be satisfied from imports, particularly for
markets in southern China that are far from domestic gas fields and planned
supply networks. That is why China invited British Petro- leums Tangguh
oil project in Indonesia, Australia's North West Shelf partners and Qatar's
Ras Laffan LNG Co. to put in bids to supply 3 million tonnes of LNG a year
from December 2005. There has been speculation in the oil industry press
that the size of the order will be increased. Industry analysts report
that in negotiations with the bidders, China has been able to drive a hard
bargain on price because international LNG capacity currently exceeds demand.

"There is just so much gas out there that needs to find a home, so these
companies are highly motivated to do this deal," says Hong Kong-based Salomon
Smith Barney oil-and-gas analyst Tom Hilboldt.

With bidders now awaiting a decision from Beijing, industry experts expect
the contract to be split between the Indonesian and Australian bids. To
boost security and income from these deals, China is also keen to take
equity in the successfull bidders' reserves.

The China National Offshore Oil Corp. has also signed an agreement with
the Fujian authorities to build a 2 million-tonne LNG receiving terminal
in that eastern coastal province. The facility is scheduled to begin operation
by 2006 if the project wins approval in Beijing.

While demand for oil and gas rises sharply, the future of nuclear power
in China is unclear. There is a substantial oversupply of electricity because
too many plants - nuclear and conventional - have been built during the boom
years. This oversupply is likely to be temporary as demand for electricity
is expected to grow at about 5% a year in coming decades. But the increasing
demand is likely to be met mostly by new LNG-fired plants.

Even if all these measures to diversify energy supplies are successful,
some oil-and-gas industry observers believe China will have little choice
but to remain a major customer for Middle East oil if its economy continues
to expand. One sign that Beijing shares this view is the strenuous diplomatic
effort that it is making to increase its influence in that region.



To: JohnM who wrote (34899)7/24/2002 12:28:14 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 281500
 
Fear of Financial Collapse Fuels Iraq War Drive

by Muriel Mirak Weissbach
This article appears in the July 26, 2002 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

larouchepub.com

When on July 15, with stock markets diving, President George W. Bush proclaimed that "our economy is fundamentally strong," the international press was quick to point out that Bush was repeating almost verbatim the dictum of Herbert Hoover on Oct. 25, 1929, "The fundamental business of the country, that is production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis." Bush's tragicomic statement was amplified next day by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's blather about the permanent boom of American consumer spending fuelled by credit from skyrocketting real-estate prices. But stock values plunged further after the President's speech, and survived the Ides of July thanks only to a massive intervention by the Washington-New York "Plunge Protection Team." More of the same followed Greenspan's Senate testimony.

As markets around the world fell, the dollar, also, was traded at parity with the euro for the first time since late 1999, and then fell below that. The benchmark world currency has been sliding vis-à-vis the Swiss franc, the Japanese yen, and the British pound-sterling. Bank of Japan Governor Masaru Hayami told the press on July 17 that "the possibility of a worldwide move to dump the greenback is fairly high," as we detail in our Economics section.

That dollar crisis which Lyndon LaRouche has been forecasting, as a marker of the global breakdown of the world financial, monetary, and economic structures, is now upon the central bankers and national governments. The way out being sought by a panic-stricken financial oligarchy, is war. Their profoundly mistaken assumption is, that once a military attack against Iraq is unleashed, institutional investors will rush to buy the dollar as a safe haven in the ensuing crisis. They make the fatal error of assuming that through military means, they can consolidate that "empire" whose financial foundations are crumbling.

Most straightforward was leading neo-conservative John Podhoretz, in a New York Post article entitled "October Surprise, Please!" Podhoretz, a spokesman for the Christian Zionist war-mongers and the "Likud lobby," put it bluntly: "You're in some domestic political trouble, Mr. President. You need to change the subject. You have the biggest subject-changer of at all at your disposal. Use it.... There's a luscious double trap in starting the war as soon as possible, Mr. President. Your enemies are delirious with excitement about the corporate greed scandals.... If you get your troops on the ground quickly, they will go berserk." Two weeks earlier, fascist "economist" Lawrence Kudlow had told Bush that only a war on Iraq would save the U.S. markets and economy, boosting the stock exchange by 2,000 points.

Calling Up the Troops
Whereas public discussion of the coming war against Iraq has set a timetable for "early next year," it is evident, that with the onrushing dollar and market crash, contingencies are being readied for a nearer-term move. The military scenarios for an Iraq war, have been leaked in the U.S. and British press in July with increasing frequency and detail. For example, the New York Times on July 5, leaked news of a "military planning document [which] calls for air, land, and sea-based forces to attack Iraq from three directions—the north, south, and west—in a campaign to topple President Saddam Hussein, according to a person familiar with the document."

The plans foresee "tens of thousands of Marines and soldiers probably invading from Kuwait," as well as "hundreds of warplanes based in as many as eight countries, possibly including Turkey and Qatar," which "would unleash a huge air assault against thousands of targets.... Special operations forces or covert CIA operatives would strike at depots or laboratories storing or manufacturing Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to launch them."

Though putting all this merely in the preliminary planning stage, the paper added: "Nonetheless, there are several signs that the military is preparing for a major air campaign and land invasion," among them, the following: "Thousands of Marines from the First Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton, California, the Marine unit designated for the Gulf, have stepped up their mock assault drills, a Pentagon adviser said. The military is building up bases in several Persian Gulf states, including a major airfield in Qatar called Al Udeid. Thousands of American troops are already stationed in the region." Furthermore, "the Pentagon has said it has stepped up production of critical munitions. The Air Force is stockpiling weapons, ammunition, and spare parts, like airplane engines, at depots in the United States and in the Middle East." Other press accounts, though presenting variations, agree that the operation is on. The July 16 Wall Street Journal, for example, picked up an earlier wire story regarding a new "mid-size" war plan, which would deploy only 50-75,000 troops and massive air power. This version, would require only two weeks to assemble forces in Kuwait.

The reports of actual troop mobilizations have been independently confirmed by regional sources. Among the deployments cited are the build-up of troops into Turkey's Incerlik Air Base, and the introduction of limited numbers of special forces into Jordan, where bases were to be made available for U.S. forces. Although the Jordanian government immediately denied the story, speculation was fuelled by the appearance of former Crown Prince Hassan at a well-publicized meeting of former Iraqi military officers in London, over the July 13-14 weekend.

The group of 60-90 former officers discussed how to implement "regime change" in Baghdad. Led by Brig. Gen. Najib al-Salihi, they debated what kind of government a post-Saddam Iraq should have, and could not agree. Najib al-Salihi predicted that once the United States were to attack, the Iraqi army would collapse; Saddam Hussein would be isolated and attempt to flee; and with U.S. air cover, rebel ground troops could take Baghdad. He urged the United States to make clear that it was targetting Saddam Hussein only, to avoid "two armies facing each other." A committee of 15 officers, representing all ethnic and religious groups, was set up to plan the grand operation.

A Meeting for Show
According to well-informed regional experts, the crew that gathered in London no more represents a viable military alternative, than does the Ahmed Chalabi-led Iraqi National Congress represent a political alternative. Any comparison to the military capabilities and experience of the Afghan United Front (itself not in such good shape), should be treated with ridicule. The significance of the London meeting was not military, but political and psychological: It merely made very public—thanks to the mass presence of British media—that an operation to remove Saddam Hussein is under way.

The presence there of the former Crown Prince and uncle to Jordanian King Abdullah II, raised enormous concern throughout the Arab world. As Brian Whitaker, in the London Guardian, reported, Prince Hassan strode to the front of the hall, to take a seat next to Sharif Ali bin al-Hussein, cousin to the last king of Iraq. Prince Hassan told reporters he was there as an "observer," adding that he supported the "Iraqis' right to live in democracy, security, and peace."

The following day, the Jordanian Minister of Information, Mohammad Advan, denied that the government knew about the appearance, "which does not conform to the principled Jordanian stand on brotherly Iraq." King Abdullah II also intervened, to counter the impact of Hassan's appearance, reiterating emphatically in an NBC News interview, that no understanding existed between Jordan and the United States for a strike against Iraq. The King also warned that any military action would aggravate Arab frustrations, isolate the United States internationally, and spark violence throughout Iraq.

The facts behind Prince Hassan's actions are not known. It may be, that under massive American pressure exerted on Jordan, using the stick of military might and the carrot of financial aid, some forces in the Kingdom are flirting with the option of covertly accepting the U.S. move. It is reported that other Arab nations, have been briefed by the United States that "this time" the operation will work surgically, quickly, effectively; and that anyone who does not go along will find himself in hot water afterward. Those who choose to comply, could reap the benefits of a redrawn map of the entire region.

The scenarios circulated include options for an Israeli move to expel the Palestinians into Jordan, once the attack on Iraq has begun, according to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's strategy that "Jordan is Palestine." In this event, the Hashemite dynasty would be relocated to a carved up Iraq or an equally carved up Saudi Arabia, and assigned new powers. A gameplan that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz reportedly discussed with regional governments, including Turkey, foresees partitioning Iraq, with a Shiite South, a Sunni Baghdad (with Hashemite presence), a "Turkic" North around Mosul and Kirkuk, and a Kurdish mountain region.

The Stuff That Nightmares Are Made Of
None of the American and British scenarios and war strategies will work as planned, as EIR has shown in detail ("It Will Not Be Desert Storm II," EIR, March 29). As American military professionals have testified, any serious attempt to overthrow the Iraqi government, would require an invasion force of 250,000, which is not readily available. It is a chimera that Kurdish forces in the North and Shi'ite groups in the South could unite to wage effective war, rallying massive popular support. The Kurds' leaders have repeatedly insisted, that they are not eager to be U.S. pawns in a game that could destroy the relative economic and political autonomy they enjoy. Any aggression by Shi'ite groups would open another can of worms, as some are backed by Iran, a major power in the Persian Gulf which no one in Washington wants to enhance.

Lyndon LaRouche stressed in a July 8 interview with Iranian national radio, that such a war against Iraq cannot be won, because as soon as the United States attacks, Israel's Sharon will move to his "final solution" to expel the Palestinians, and most probably attack Iran. Iran, in this case, would not remain idle. Iraq's response is not known, but it would resist. Turkey will be thrown into convulsions. Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz tried to reassure Turkish officials that the United States would not tolerate a Kurdish entity arising from the conflict; but any break-up of Iraq would trigger civil war, whose effects would be felt in Turkey.

That the war would ignite protest and conflict throughout the Arab and Islamic world is, not incidentally, one of the aims of the entire operation. Chaos of precisely this type, threatening governments across North Africa, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, and Central Asia, is conducive to military imposition of a new imperial control.

But this would-be empire is in collapse; such havoc intends (unsuccessfully) to save the stock market shards of a failed financial system.