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 : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (22143)3/23/2003 12:01:37 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 27734
 
BUSINESS WORLD

A War for France's Oil
The real reason Chirac backed Saddam.

BY HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR.
Sunday, March 23, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

Those who think the Iraq war is about oil ought to consider a different possibility--that the war might have been avoided if France and Russia, lured by the promise of Iraqi petroleum deals, had not steadily fed Saddam Hussein's belief that he could outlast the U.S. in the sanctions war. Consider a little history and geology to light the way:

Iraq is the least explored, least developed of the Mideast oil states. Not since the 1970s, using now-antiquated techniques, has an inventory of its oil reserves even been taken. Even so, Iraq is reckoned to possess 120 billion barrels in proven reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia's 250 billion barrels.

Baathist nationalization in the 1970s, Saddam's destructive wars and the sanctions he brought down on his country's head have kept Iraq from acquiring technology to exploit these discoveries and to chart new ones, especially in unexplored western Iraq and in deep Jurassic and Triassic layers throughout the country. Had it been otherwise, Iraq today would likely be sitting on proven reserves of 300 billion barrels or more, according to various estimates, including those of the U.S. government.

The irony is that Saddam would have had an economic power, perfectly legitimate in the eyes of the world, far greater than any he gets from terror weapons.

Iraq makes a new exhibit for the argument that natural resources are more a curse than blessing. Since his earliest days, Saddam has channeled the country's oil revenue through his personal accounts and used it to amass weapons and buy off supporters. Oil has also been the most visible card he has played in a 12-year game with the international community--and was still playing in the weeks before hostilities began.
The latest round saw Russian emissaries traveling back and forth, as the clock was ticking, trying to clinch an on-again, off-again deal to develop Iraq's giant West Qurna field.

A previous agreement had been revoked in mid-December when word leaked that Russian negotiators were seeking assurances from the U.S. and from Iraqi exiles that any deal would be honored by a successor government. Saddam's regime turned on a dime again and reactivated the deal when trying to secure Russian opposition to a U.N. war resolution. The minister who had signed the original production-sharing arrangement had been conspicuously removed from his post. Now he was conspicuously reinstated.

In pursuit of such deals, Russia and France persistently undermined sanctions and the effort to disarm Saddam and bring him into compliance with his own commitments by means short of war. "Politics is about interests. Politics is not about morals," Iraq's U.N. ambassador explained to the Washington Post a year ago. "If the French and others will take a positive position in the Security Council, certainly they will get a benefit. This is the Iraqi policy."

Thus the huge Majnoun and Nahr Umr fields were reserved for TotalFinaElf, partly owned by the French government. Not even Jacques Chirac can pretend that such concessions weren't France's reward for acquiescing in Iraq's diligent strategy to escape sanctions and resume its pursuit of exotic weapons.

The drama of recent weeks was a visible coda to the drama of the past 12 years, in which the U.S. and Britain were alone in trying to make Saddam obey the U.N. resolutions and peace terms his regime agreed to. All the while Saddam was encouraged to hold out by countries that made it clear that they would readily support a waiving of sanctions and anything else Saddam wanted in return for oil contracts and other financial benefits.

Saddam was bound to miscalculate, as he continued to miscalculate last week, thinking that it's the U.S. and Britain that are "hated and isolated," that Saddam and the world are allied against George Bush and Tony Blair. For this reason serious people consider it entirely plausible that Saddam might see terrorism, even support of al Qaeda, including support for Sept. 11, as serving his strategy. At home, he uses lavish rewards combined with cruel punishment to control those he wants to control. He wouldn't be Saddam if he didn't believe the same logic applies abroad.

In the end, of course, French interests are not U.S. interests. The French aren't the ones bearing a commitment without end to protect the Kurds in northern Iraq and the Shiites in the south from Saddam's military. The U.S. and Brits have been stuck maintaining the no-fly zones even as putative "allies" pushed to erode the sanctions that prevent Saddam from developing weapons of mass intimidation to strengthen his hand in a final showdown with America.
The French answer to the U.S.: That's your problem.

Nor would it be French troops who would be tapped to solve the problem when Saddam finally chose his moment to break out of his box. Again, the French and others say to the U.S.: That's your problem.

It ought to be a bracing wake-up call to Americans to realize how little collective security means to our allies when it's not their narrow interests on the line but instead the lives and tax dollars of Americans.

Deutsche Bank recently estimated that Iraq had signed deals with foreign oil companies in recent years covering 50 billion barrels. Iraqi exile nationalists insist it would be compromising to a new government to be seen favoring U.S. and British oil companies. Many others suggest a good way to patch up an illusion of Western comity would be to welcome bidding from French and Russian companies, and where appropriate, even to honor oil contracts signed by Saddam's oil ministry.

That's fine. U.S. policy ought to be that all companies will have equal rights to bid for Iraqi oil deals when the fight is over--but only when Mr. Chirac and the likes of Thierry Desmarest, head of TotalFinaElf, are also gone along with the outlaw Iraqi regime they abetted.

URL:http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/hjenkins/?id=110003238



To: calgal who wrote (22143)3/23/2003 12:10:22 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 27734
 
Why We Must Fight — and Now!
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
By William J. Bennett

Three weekends ago, millions of demonstrators across the globe protested on behalf of "human rights." Their marches, slogans, placards and speeches did not declaim against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, did not cite the human rights reports detailing his tyranny and torture, did not take account the plaints of Iraqis fortunate enough to live in exile.

Rather, they protested the U.S. and the U.K. and their efforts to topple Saddam and liberate Iraq. Now, we are seeing more television advertisements along these lines, and even a "virtual march on Washington."

Just after the celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, it is appropriate to remember his lament: "The world has never had a good definition of the word ‘liberty.’" With Saddam flouting international law, and President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair attempting to enforce it, portrayals of Bush as Adolf Hitler — as we saw and heard in the "human rights" protests — betray an ignorance of liberty, an ignorance of right and wrong, an ignorance of commonsense. Because Bush and Blair are putting together a coalition of countries to oust Saddam, they are labeled the warmongers and tyrants. We live in a confusing time indeed.

Lincoln described liberty by a useful analogy: "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty." Lincoln made it clear who the sheep was and who the wolf was. It is equally important to recognize who the liberator is.

Those who march against the U.S. and the U.K. today, those who condemn Bush and Blair and remain silent when it comes to Saddam, are in league with the wolf’s view that the shepherds are destroying liberty. The people of Iraq will soon know what Afghanis know. The true wolf was devouring Afghanis, the true shepherd saved them.

It is worth remembering what those in the former Soviet republics know and what the anti-American Western street has forgotten: It was, and is, U.S. and British resolve that truly liberates the oppressed and that defends the lives and liberties of the free against the appetites and ill-will of the world’s dictators.

In 1998 then-President Bill Clinton stated: "What if he [Saddam] fails to comply [with disarmament] and we fail to act? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then go right on building up his arsenal. Someday, someway, I guarantee you, he'll use that arsenal." Last year, former Vice President Al Gore stated, "[W]e know that he [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country."

It is not President Bush who woke up one day to discover that Saddam was making and harvesting weapons of mass destruction. Yet it is Bush who is blamed for doing something about it. Saddam may be mad, but he is not a scientist. He does not collect chemical and biological weapons for mere pleasure and intrigue. Just ask the survivors of Halabja. So when Saddam acts, it will be Bush and America who are blamed for inaction, for appeasement. We will be liable for such blame because we are the only ones who can do something about it.

We are not at war with Muslims or Arabs around the world; we are at war with some Muslim and Arab leaders who misinterpret their religion and put a primacy on war over peace and slavery over freedom. But among the leadership in the world’s moral democracies there is no misinterpretation, and nowhere is that more true than in the case of the U.S.

This is not a new role for us, but is a unique role we proudly inherit as the world’s liberator. As Wolf Blitzer pointed out: "Over the past two decades, almost every time U.S. military forces have been called into action to risk their lives and limbs, it's been on behalf of Muslims. ... [T]o assist the Afghan mujahadin … during the Soviet invasion in the 1980s, to liberate Kuwait following the Iraqi invasion of 1990, to help Somali Muslims suffering at the hands of a warlord in Mogadishu, to help Muslims first in Bosnia and then in Kosovo who faced a Serb onslaught, and more recently to liberate Afghanistan from its Taliban and Al Qaeda rulers."

Those who protest against the U.S. just now are legatees of those who protested against the U.S. in the 1980s, when we fought the focus of evil then, the Soviet Union. But ask a former Soviet, or East Berliner, if he is better off now than he was, say, 15 years ago. Ask a Nicaraguan. Ask a Bosnian Muslim. U.S. resolve can be thanked for all that, even as those who protested our defense and military postures marched in favor of appeasement.

Indeed, we live in a strange time when the anti-nuclear movement and its leaders of yesterday can today suggest a course of inaction such that Saddam will be able to join North Korea in becoming a nuclear power. The only logical conclusion one can reach is that for the protesters today, weapons in the hands of the U.S. are to be met with outrage while weapons in the hands of Saddam are to be met with silence.

We seek to liberate Iraq today, not only because for Saddam "[t]orture is not a method of last resort in Iraq, it is often the method of first resort," according to Kenneth Pollack, President Clinton’s director of Gulf Affairs at the NSC. We seek to liberate Iraq because after Sept. 11, 2001, we were put on notice. We were put on notice that civilized people can no longer live in a bubble and hope for the best. We were put on notice that there are fanatics and tyrants who want nothing from us but our death. And this notice requires action: the action of the brave, the action of the unthanked, the action of the free.

In Iraq as in other contemporary situations, the responsibility to act has been ours because the ability has been ours. The responsibility has been ours because oppressed people look to us for their deliverance. There is a duty in being the nation that Abraham Lincoln, speaking of our Declaration of Independence, called "a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression." That is who we happen to be. And it is an honor.

William J. Bennett, chairman of Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, is a former secretary of Education and the author of Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism, re-released and updated in paperback (Regnery, 2003).

URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81450,00.html