News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
http://tinyurl.com/65nohn
It's the Oil, stupid!
BY NOAM CHOMSKY
8 July 2008
The deal just taking shape between Iraq's Oil Ministry and four Western
oil companies raises critical questions about the nature of the US
invasion and occupation of Iraq -- questions that should certainly be
addressed by presidential candidates and seriously discussed in the
United States, and of course in occupied Iraq, where it appears that the
population has little if any role in determining the future of their
country.
Negotiations are under way for Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP -- the
original partners decades ago in the Iraq Petroleum Company, now joined
by Chevron and other smaller oil companies -- to renew the oil
concession they lost to nationalisation during the years when the oil
producers took over their own resources. The no-bid contracts,
apparently written by the oil cor****ations with the help of U.S.
officials, prevailed over offers from more than 40 other companies,
including companies in China, India and Russia.
"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," Andrew E.
Kramer wrote in The New York Times.
Kramer's reference to "suspicion" is an understatement. Furthermore, it
is highly likely that the military occupation has taken the initiative
in restoring the hated Iraq Petroleum Company, which, as Seamus Milne
writes in the London Guardian, was imposed under British rule to "dine
off Iraq's wealth in a famously exploitative deal."
Later re****ts speak of delays in the bidding. Much is happening in
secrecy, and it would be no surprise if new scandals emerge.
The demand could hardly be more intense. Iraq contains perhaps the
second largest oil reserves in the world, which are, furthermore, very
cheap to extract: no permafrost or tar sands or deep sea drilling. For
US planners, it is imperative that Iraq remain under U.S. control, to
the extent possible, as an obedient client state that will also house
major U.S. military bases, right at the heart of the world's major
energy reserves.
That these were the primary goals of the invasion was always clear
enough through the haze of successive pretexts: weapons of mass
destruction, Saddam's links with Al-Qaeda, democracy promotion and the
war against terrorism, which, as predicted, sharply increased as a
result of the invasion.
Last November, the guiding concerns were made explicit when President
Bush and Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki signed a "Declaration of
Principles," ignoring the U.S. Congress and Iraqi parliament, and the
populations of the two countries.
The Declaration left open the possibility of an indefinite long-term
U.S. military presence in Iraq that would presumably include the huge
air bases now being built around the country, and the "embassy" in
Baghdad, a city within a city, unlike any embassy in the world. These
are not being constructed to be abandoned.
The Declaration also had a remarkably brazen statement about exploiting
the resources of Iraq. It said that the economy of Iraq, which means its
oil resources, must be open to foreign investment, "especially American
investments." That comes close to a pronouncement that we invaded you so
that we can control your country and have privileged access to your
resources.
The seriousness of this commitment was underscored in January, when
President Bush issued a "signing statement" declaring that he would
reject any congressional legislation that restricted funding "to
establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing
for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or
"to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."
Extensive resort to "signing statements" to expand executive power is
yet another Bush innovation, condemned by the American Bar Association
as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of
powers." To no avail.
Not surprisingly, the Declaration aroused immediate objections in Iraq,
among others from Iraqi unions, which survive even under the harsh
anti-labour laws that Saddam instituted and the occupation preserves.
In Wa****ngton propaganda, the spoiler to US domination in Iraq is Iran.
U.S. problems in Iraq are blamed on Iran. US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice sees a simple solution: "foreign forces" and "foreign
arms" should be withdrawn from Iraq -- Iran's, not ours.
The confrontation over Iran's nuclear programme heightens the tensions.
The Bush administration's "regime change" policy toward Iran comes with
ominous threats of force (there Bush is joined by both US presidential
candidates). The policy also is re****ted to include terrorism within
Iran -- again legitimate, for the world rulers. A majority of the
American people favours diplomacy and opposes the use of force. But
public opinion is largely irrelevant to policy formation, not just in
this case.
An irony is that Iraq is turning into a US-Iranian condominium. The
Maliki government is the sector of Iraqi society most sup****ted by Iran.
The so-called Iraqi army -- just another militia -- is largely based on
the Badr brigade, which was trained in Iran, and fought on the Iranian
side during the Iran-Iraq war.
Nir Rosen, one of the most astute and knowledgeable correspondents in
the region, observes that the main target of the US-Maliki military
operations, Moktada Al Sadr, is disliked by Iran as well: He's
independent and has popular sup****t, therefore dangerous.
Iran "clearly sup****ted Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraqi government
against what they described as 'illegal armed groups' (of Moktada's
Mahdi army) in the recent conflict in Basra," Rosen writes, "which is
not surprising given that their main proxy in Iraq, the Supreme Iraqi
Islamic Council dominates the Iraqi state and is Maliki's main backer."
"There is no proxy war in Iraq," Rosen concludes, "because the U.S. and
Iran share the same proxy."
Teheran is presumably pleased to see the United States institute and
sustain a government in Iraq that's receptive to their influence. For
the Iraqi people, however, that government continues to be a disaster,
very likely with worse to come.
In Foreign Affairs, Steven Simon points out that current US
counterinsurgency strategy is "stoking the three forces that have
traditionally threatened the stability of Middle Eastern states:
tribalism, warlordism and sectarianism." The outcome might be "a strong,
centralised state ruled by a military junta that would resemble"
Saddam's regime.
If Wa****ngton achieves its goals, then its actions are justified.
Reactions are quite different when Vladimir Putin succeeds in pacifying
Chechnya, to an extent well beyond what Gen. David Petraeus has achieved
in Iraq. But that is THEM, and this is US. Criteria are therefore
entirely different.
In the US, the Democrats are silenced now because of the supposed
success of the US military surge in Iraq. Their silence reflects the
fact that there are no principled criticisms of the war. In this way of
regarding the world, if you're achieving your goals, the war and
occupation are justified. The sweetheart oil deals come with the
territory.
In fact, the whole invasion is a war crime -- indeed the supreme
international crime, differing from other war crimes in that it
encomp***** all the evil that follows, in the terms of the Nuremberg
judgment. This is among the topics that can't be discussed, in the
presidential campaign or elsewhere. Why are we in Iraq? What do we owe
Iraqis for destroying their country? The majority of the American people
favour US withdrawal from Iraq. Do their voices matter?
Noam Chomsky's writings on linguistics and politics have just been
collected in "The Essential Noam Chomsky," edited by Anthony Arnove,
from the New Press. Chomsky is emeritus professor of linguistics and
philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge,
Mass.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is
in charge on this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
-- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"
|
