With the world debating the war, many opposed to military action have embraced a derisive and possibly disingenuous slogan: "No War For Oil." Shouting their four-word mantra in marching unison, the peace demonstraters succinctly capture the popularly perceived motivation of President George W. Bush’s call for disarmament and regime change in Iraq.
But where is the evidence that the United States seeks to control Iraq’s oil? Where is the analysis that supports this frequently assumed but seldom challenged claim? Is there really a direct line of reasoning to legitimize the crassly superficial accusation?
Presently, the United States is already paying dearly for the military option. Domestic oil and gas prices have skyrocketed. Crude prices have also risen sharply despite increased global production. Bush’s Iraq doctrine certainly cannot help the U.S. economy recover, and conservative cost estimates for even a brief conflict run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention unknown post-war security costs.
Military action in Iraq will most certainly apply extra pressures to the world oil markets. We must import slightly more than 65 percent of the oil we use; the oil is purchased from Canada, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and a half-dozen other countries. We have directly imported some Iraqi oil in the past, but more typically through Russian vendors. However, no one doubts that war against Saddam Hussein will inevitably cause us to pay more no matter who supplies us. Clearly, our confrontational policy regarding Iraq will not get us more or cheaper oil any time soon, and even increasing our own more costly domestic production will not mitigate the inflating overseas price cycles that a war will quickly generate.
If the current Iraqi regime topples, what will happen to Iraq’s vast oil assets? Recalling Saddam Hussein’s infamous scorched earth policies of the past, the U.S. will control the country’s vulnerable oil fields. This will prevent Hussein from burning Iraq’s oil infrastructure – a desperate action only capable of causing greater suffering for Iraqis who depend on oil as their one source of substantial international revenue. Instead of destroying Iraq’s livelihood, the United States will lead a U.S./U.N. structured and monitored plan that will use Iraq’s oil revenues to rebuild the country and aid the people. The humanitarian and refugee efforts will probably need the most immediate and urgent support, and the United States will no doubt also lead that agenda.
I have seen many signs and slogans waved these past few months. But I have seen no likely, persuasive case offered for the almost wacky theory that the United States will in any way control the inventory, production, sales, or profits of Iraq’s resources. However, recent history does record the gross and blatant attempts by Iraq to steal the oil assets of its neighbors – intolerable actions which resulted in a broad coalition of countries responding with uncompromising force. Peaceful measures didn’t restore Kuwait’s sovereignty, just as posturing negotiations didn’t bring the inspectors back.
Another core question remains: who currently has the big bucks invested in Iraqi oil and gas reserves? For the past decade France and Russia have been Iraq’s two most loyal and consistent supporters, as well as primary commercial partners in scores of oil and military contracts, joint ventures, and substantial long-term loans.
Trade between Iraq and cash-starved Russia is approximately $4 billion annually – a very important link in the former Soviet state’s precarious fiscal quagmire. The Russian firm Lukoil, which is contracted to extract over 667 million tons of crude from Iraq’s West Qurna oil field, values that one deal at $20 billion. Also, Iraq still owes Russia over $7 billion for weapons purchased during the Cold War. Obviously, a regime change in Iraq could put all of Russia’s expected compensation and development plans in question.
France’s financial stake is also great; the status of Iraqi oil could have a critical impact on its own ailing economy’s recovery efforts. The largest long-term contract in Iraq’s oil-for-food program is with the economically beleaguered Paris. The French companies ELF-Aquitaine-Total have agreed in principle with Iraq to sign for development of the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields- an estimated $40 billion dollar deal.
Despite France’s commitment to help develop industrial support for Iraqi military and electronics facilities, the regime’s cunning dictator has also manipulated France’s interest, causing the French to reconsider their own U.N. sanctions position last year. President Chirac, recently re-elected on a virulent anti-U.S. platform, has skillfully exploited complex social and political frustrations that his country now faces. But the French leader pragmatically refuses to support any position imperiling his political base or alienating voters already overburdened with increased taxes. War-driven oil prices will further strain France’s own struggling fiscal crisis, possibly disrupting lucrative deals both countries have jointly crafted.
In the past, reluctant French leadership has similarly opposed both NATO and European Union initiatives. Could it be that, once again, they are simply looking out for their own financial interests, while vacuously championing themselves as the world’s most committed, level-headed peace promoters?
It is no secret that if Hussein is overthrown, the next regime to emerge, although unpredictable in nature and composition, will likely cancel existing contracts. There will then be new rounds of bargaining between oil companies from around the globe. There will also be new mechanisms, alliances, and markets to compete within. What’s more, anticipated advantages or incentives will be rendered null and void. It will essentially be a clean slate for all major customers seated at the oil table – a prospect causing certain deal-holding countries great concern.
France and Russia are not the only agents involved who have a stake in Iraqi oil. Chinese state-run companies are lobbying to develop the billion-barrel Ahdab field. Germany and Belgium have similar projects planned, while Turkey is looking towards a huge, joint pipeline project to supply Ankara. Another major, multi-year deal involves several Italian companies developing the massive al-Nasiriya oil field in southern Iraq.
At this grave and uncertain moment of high stakes and high emotion, let us not be confused about the fact that every principal player in this world crisis is pursuing its own self-interested agenda. All involved have tangible advantages to tally or squander. Those calling for peace must more closely examine those who stand to gain and lose from their “stated” positions. Those who are responsibly dissenting against U.S. policy cannot merely parrot their reactionary slogans in place of reasoned arguments supported by facts.
“No war for oil” is an easy, fashionably reactionary assertion to make these days. But in reality America is not going after Iraq’s sovereign resources. The United States is not looking to conquer or control the region’s destiny beyond the issue of proliferation of doomsday weapons to our self-declared enemies. Yet it is increasingly clear to many observers that some countries, furiously maneuvering now to soothe, ignore, or appease Hussein’s maniacal menace, have a great deal to lose with his permanent absence.
Matsas is the Staff Development Coordinator for Student Affairs.