'Fight Smart' Update - 11 June 2006
Don't
Take the Bait - Fight Smart
ANIMATED 911 SUMMARY - CLICK HERE
Who is the enemy?
Iraq As Permanent US
'Protectorate'
US War Bill Deletes Prohibition On
Permanent Military Bases In Iraq
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/WATIraqUSProtectorate.htm
Get The Picture?
'It's The Oil Stupid! Stupid!'
"Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend."
General John Abizaid, Commander of the United States Central Command overseeing US operations in Iraq,
confirming to a US Congressional Committee that the United States needs permanent military bases in Iraq in order to maintain access to Gulf oil
Reuters, 15 March 2006
All The Time There Remain
Worthwhile Amounts Of Oil In The Persian Gulf
The US Neoconservatives Have No Intention Of Leaving Iraq
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Open Your Eyes Please
Does This Picture Look Like The Neocons Are Getting Ready To Pack Their Bags
Now That Iraq Has Its Own 'Sovereign' Government?
 |
"Building work at the
104-acre US Embassy complex, known locally as 'George W's palace', is supposed to be
secret, but it is impossible to disguise the cranes dominating the Baghdad skyline." Meanwhile the US Republican Party is pushing legislation through Congress which will allow the Bush Administration to use war funding to establish permanent military bases in Iraq |
"Congressional Republicans killed
a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record
against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and
congressional aides said on Friday.... As originally passed by the House of
Representatives, the Pentagon would have been prohibited from spending any of the funds
for entering into a military basing rights agreement with Iraq. A similar amendment passed
by the Senate said the Pentagon could not use the next round of war funding to 'establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq, or to exercise United States control over the oil infrastructure or oil
resources of Iraq.'.... Senate
aides said Republican staffers removed the provisions from
the bills before House and Senate negotiators convened this week in a late-night work
session."
Iraq war bill deletes US military base prohibition
Reuters,
9 June 2006
"On the west bank of the Tigris on the edge of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone a forest of cranes marks the progress of Iraq's newest monument: a US embassy that will be the largest in the world. Once an army of more than 3,500 construction workers have completed it in June 2007, the vast complex will be the new hub of the American administration in Iraq. Protected by 15ft thick walls and ringed by military guards, it signals the seriousness of America's intentions to retain a large and long-term presence in the country. The £315 million building's existence is meant to be a secret. Any request for a comment from the US State Department is met with a terse rebuff, and a plea for a photo opportunity is deemed out of the question. But it is impossible to keep hidden a complex that will be the size of Vatican City with the population of a small town, especially when it is lit up at nightfall to permit work on it to continue 24 hours a day. America's largest existing embassy, covering 10 acres and consisting of five buildings, is in Beijing. It will soon be dwarfed by the new Baghdad mission.... It is only in recent weeks that Iraqis have begun to realize the new complex is being built. Last month a local newspaper became the first to write an article on it."
US super-embassy emerges in the heart of Baghdad
Daily Telegraph, 7 June 2006"There will be impressive residences for the Ambassador and his deputy, six apartments for senior officials, and two huge office blocks for 8,000 staff to work in.....Iraqi politicians opposed to the US presence protest that the scale of the project suggests that America retains long-term ambitions here. The International Crisis Group, a think-tank, said the embassy’s size 'is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country'".
In the chaos of Iraq, one project is on target: a giant US embassy
London Times, 3 May 2006
Graphic Of New US Embassy Site In Baghdad
London Times, 3 May 2006"'After three years of occupation, the US military has taken steps that suggest that a total pullout of its 130,000 troops in Iraq 'is unlikely for years to come', a US magazine has said. The tipoff: the Pentagon has asked for a $348-million emergency grant this year to expand its more than 70 'forward operating bases' (FOBs) scattered across Iraq, according to the June issue of The Atlantic Monthly. Some of the FOBs consist only of a handful of barracks 'but more than a dozen of them are vast complexes' reminiscent of America's garrisons in West Germany during the Cold War, wrote author Fred Kaplan. 'The larger bases are fortified chunks of Middle America, surreally plunked down in the desert, replete with Burger Kings, Pizza Huts, Internet cafes, first-run movie theaters, gyms and swimming pools,' Kaplan said. Camp Anaconda, for example, is built around two 3,350-meter (ll,000-foot) runways, covers 40 square kilometers (15 square miles), and is a home and workplace to 20,000 US troops and 2,500 contractors, the article says. Camp Cooke, which contains 2,700 square meters of retail shopping, is so big that a shuttle bus runs back and forth from one end to the other. 'There's nothing provisional about these places,' writes Kaplan, an authority on national security. 'They're often referred to as 'enduring bases', and there are plans to keep them operating in American hands, even if all our combat regiments go home.'"
US troops may remain in Iraq 'for years to come', US magazine says
Middle East Times, 15 May 2006"The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect oil supplies, the army general overseeing US operations in Iraq has said. While the Bush administration has downplayed prospects for permanent US bases in Iraq, General John Abizaid told a House of Representatives subcommittee on Tuesday he could not rule that out.... Abizaid cited the need to fight al-Qaida and other extremists groups and 'the need to be able to deter ambitions of an expansionistic Iran' as potential reasons to keep some level of troops in the region in the long term.... 'Clearly our long-term vision for a military presence in the region requires a robust counter-terrorist capability,' Abizaid said.... Abizaid also said the United States and its allies have a vital interest in the oil-rich region. 'Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend,' he said.... Representative David Price, a North Carolina Democrat, questioned 'what kind of signal that sends to the American people and to the Iraqis and the region ... if somehow there is ambiguity on our ultimate designs in terms of a military presence in Iraq'".
US 'may want to keep Iraq bases'
Reuters, 15 March 2006So What's New?
If Gulf War I Was About Oil When Saddam Hussein Had WMDs And Invaded Another Country
What Was Gulf War II About When He Didn't?"Energy is vital to a country's security and material well-being. A state unable to provide its people with adequate energy supplies or desiring added leverage over other people often resorts to force. Consider Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, driven by his desire to control more of the world's oil reserves, and the international response to this threat. The underlying goal of the U.N. force, which included 500,000 American troops, was to ensure continued and unfettered access to petroleum...."
Richard G. Lugar and R. James Woolsey (Former Director of the CIA)
The New Petroleum - Foreign Affairs January/February 1999"....For the most part, U.S. oil policy has relied on maintenance of free access to Middle East Gulf oil and free access for Gulf exports to world markets, relying heavily on military preparedness. The U.S. has forged a special relationship with certain key Middle East exporters that had an expressed interest in stable oil prices and, we assumed, would adjust their oil output to keep prices at levels that would neither discourage global economic growth nor fuel inflation. Taking this dependence a step further, the U.S. government has operated under the assumption that the national oil companies of these countries would make the investments needed to maintain enough surplus capacity to form a cushion against disruptions. But recently, things have changed. These Gulf allies are finding their domestic and foreign policy interests increasingly at odds with America’s strategic considerations. They have become less inclined to lower oil prices in exchange for security of markets, and evidence suggests that adequate investment is not being made in a timely enough manner to increase production capacity in line with growing global needs....... The resulting tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key 'swing' producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government."
STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY: CHALLENGES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND THE COUNCIL FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS, APRIL 2001"When President George W. Bush took office last January.... Members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) were producing at capacity and a supply interruption of significant international dimensions loomed on the horizon, whether because of internal conflict in an oil-producing country, political manipulation by Iraq or another oil-producing government, or surging energy demand.... "
STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY UPDATE
JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND THE COUNCIL FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS, SEPTEMBER 2001"The super-giant fields of southeastern Iraq are the largest concentration of super-giants to be found anywhere in the world.... large parts of Iraq are still virgin - its large hydrocarbon reserves are still waiting to be developed to their full potential, while most other Middle East countries are fully exploiting their reserves. ....International oil companies are looking forward with great anticipation to the opening of Iraq... ."
Assessing Iraq’s Oil Potential
Geotimes, October 2003"The global market will need increasing volumes of oil from members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries after non-OPEC production reaches a maximum of about 50 million b/d between 2007 and 2011... A question crucial to future oil supply, therefore is: Can OPEC's old fields deliver.... The oil fields of Iraq are the least depleted and least developed of any of the Persian Gulf oil producing countries, and Iraq has the potential to rapidly increase oil output.... Only Iraq has undeveloped supergiant oil fields (West Qurna, Majnoon, and East Baghdad) and the potential to rapidly increase production to 8-10 million b/d......."
Oil Supply Challenges - 2: What Can OPEC Deliver?
Oil and Gas Journal, 7 March 2005".... every morning for the past week, staff from the Ministry of Irrigation have arrived for work at their new office -- the parking lot of their charred government complex. Little remains of the ministry, save massive metal desks too heavy for looters to carry and a toilet or two. The former minister has vanished. Years of records and plans literally went up in smoke when US missiles slammed into the 10-story building..... a tour of Baghdad's 22 ministries demonstrates just how complex the task of rebuilding the government will be. In some cases, the obstacles are physical: The Ministry of Trade, for example, is a blackened edifice still smoldering from fires set by looters.... Only a few agencies, such as the Ministry of Oil, are intact..... At the Ministry of Oil, staff members point out with some irony that theirs is the one ministry in town without a scratch. Inevitably, suspicions are raised that the ministry was deliberately spared, so that the United States can profit from Iraq's oil. The phalanx of US soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division guarding the ministry and frisking all those coming in and out only heightens resentment. 'I am not happy because we are occupied by the Americans, in my country, in my city, and in my ministry, ' said Lawahith al-Qaissi, the chief of engineers. 'And if it is not for our oil, then why are they here?' Indeed, of all the ministries, it is the sprawling Oil Ministry that has the most hustle and bustle inside, as cleaners mop up dust from recent sandstorms and as newly returning employees hug and kiss one another for the first time since the war began. Plans are apace to get oil, Iraq's lifeblood, flowing fully again.... Now there are dreams to do far more at the Ministry of Oil, like woo foreign investment and technology to more than double the barrels of oil that Iraq could pump per day, to 7 million."
Rebuilding of ministries is key hurdle
Boston Globe, 29 April 2003"Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said that oil was one of the reasons for the US-led invasion of Iraq, a Swedish news agency reports. 'I did not think so at first. But the US is incredibly dependent on oil,' news agency TT quoted Blix as saying at a security seminar in Stockholm. 'They wanted to secure oil in case competition on the world market becomes too hard.' Blix, who helped oversee the dismantling of Iraq's weapons programs before the war, said another reason for the invasion was a need to move US troops from Saudi Arabia, TT reported. Competition over oil is creating tension between the United States and China, Blix said........."
Blix says war motivated by oil
Australian Associated Press, 7 April 2005
"America
began a historic reshaping of its presence in the Middle East yesterday, announcing a halt to active military operations in Saudi Arabia and the removal of
almost all of its forces from the kingdom within weeks. The withdrawal ends a contentious
12-year-old presence in Saudi Arabia and marks the most dramatic in a set of sweeping
changes in the deployment of American forces after the war in Iraq. Withdrawal of 'infidel' American forces from Saudi Arabia has been
one of the demands of Osama bin Laden,
although a senior US military official said that this was 'irrelevant'.... Behind the dry
talk of rearranging America's military 'footprint' in the Gulf, the great imponderables
were bin Laden and Muslim radicals' complaints about the presence of 'infidels' in the
birthplace of Islam. That presence was cited as one of the main justifications for the
September 11 attacks. Despite American insistence that the withdrawal had not been
'dictated' by al-Qa'eda and that bin Laden was 'irrelevant', there can be little doubt
that undercutting a central plank of al-Qa'eda's platform is one of several advantages
offered by withdrawal from Saudi Arabia."
America to withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia
Daily
Telegraph, 30 April 2003
"America's announcement of its
intention to withdraw its military bases from Saudi Arabia [following the moving of US
troops into Iraq] answers Osama bin Laden's most persistent demand. More than any other
cause it was the presence of 'crusader' forces in the land of Islam's holiest sites -
Mecca and Medina - that turned bin Laden from Afghan jihadi [and US ally] into an
international terrorist [and US opponent]. A wealthy Saudi with royal connections, bin Laden fell out with the House of Saud largely because it
permitted US bases in the country. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden
offered his own forces to the Saudi regime to help expel the Iraqis from the Gulf. He was
enraged when the Saudi royal family turned instead to Washington and more than 500,000 US
troops were sent. The same year the Americans
arrived, bin Laden fled Saudi - where he faced house arrest - and established his base in
Sudan. He and his al-Qa'eda forces moved to Afghanistan in 1996, issuing
the first of his international fatwas through the London-based Al Quds Al Arabi newspaper.
After railing against the persecution of Muslims around the world, bin Laden stated: 'The
latest and greatest of these aggressions incurred by Muslims since the death of the
Prophet … is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places - the foundation of
the House of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place
of the noble Ka'ba, the Qiblah of Muslims, by the armies of the American Crusaders and
their allies. We bemoan this and can only say 'No power and power acquiring except through
Allah'. '.... The US withdrawal from Saudi will not be enough to satisfy bin Laden or his
followers. It may, however, make life easier for the Saudi regime, which has been
struggling to quell growing dissent within the kingdom over the presence of 'infidel'
soldiers."
Bin Laden's main demand is met
Daily
Telegraph, 30 April 2003
"Former UN chief weapons inspector
Hans Blix has said that oil was one of the reasons for the US-led invasion of Iraq, a
Swedish news agency reports. 'I did not think so at first. But the US is incredibly
dependent on oil,' news agency TT quoted Blix as saying at a security seminar in
Stockholm. 'They wanted to secure oil in case competition on the world market becomes too
hard.' Blix, who helped oversee the dismantling of Iraq's weapons programs before the war,
said another reason for the invasion was a need to
move US troops from Saudi Arabia, TT
reported. Competition over oil is creating tension between the United States and China,
Blix said........."
Blix says war motivated by oil
Australian Associated Press, 7
April 2005
So
Why Were Those US Troops In Saudi Arabia In The First Place?
Yes, You've Got It - It's The Gulf Oil Stupid
"For just so
long Kuwait, a small country at the head of the Persian Gulf, had been set free and
independent from its long-time British protector. And during that time Kuwait had
developed its oil fields and become immensely rich. Saddam Hussein claimed that Kuwait was
part of Iraq. To have and to hold it would put him on the way to achieving something that
the Soviets had yearned for right after the Second War and been denied by the intervention
of the United Nations, which was to be sovereign of the Gulf - and so, as Churchill
foresaw and warned about, soon to be able to conquer Europe without a war by possessing
60% of the oil Western Europe lived by and so be able to dictate to countries like
Britain, France, Germany, that they should abandon their precious democratic ways and get
themselves governments friendly to Iraq.....[Following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait]
President Bush - the first that is - called a dawn meeting of the National Security
Council at which the likely commander of any military action, one General Schwarzkopf,
expressed the general feeling that the United States might fight for Saudi Arabia but
hardly for Kuwait. President Bush told the press there was no thought of American
intervention. The United Nations anyway had voted to impose a total embargo on Iraq. Two
days after the invasion President Bush took a half day out to keep a promise to the
British prime minister who was addressing a conference in Aspen, Colorado, a resort town
in the Rockies. He found Mrs Thatcher in finer fighting fettle than all but one of his own
advisers. She stressed that fighting for Kuwait now might be a necessary step to saving
Saudi Arabia from invasion later on. ..... What so swiftly transformed the views and
policy of the United States and the onlooking allies-to-be was the recognition, first
pressed on President Bush by Mrs Thatcher and then rather late in the day realised by the
King of Saudi Arabia, that once he held Kuwait there was nothing to stop Saddam from
seizing the Saudi oil
fields."
Alistair Cooke's Letter From
America
BBC
Online, 24 June 2002
"[In
1981] Osama bin Laden, son of the founder of the Bin Laden Group, the largest construction
company in Saudi Arabia, travels to Afghanistan to help the mujahadeen in their bloody war
against the Soviet Union.....[In 1989] The Soviets pull out of Afghanistan after the CIA
spends (US) $3-billion on the largest covert operation in its history. Osama bin Laden
returns to Saudi Arabia, angry with how the Americans abandoned Afghanistan after the
Soviet retreat.... [In 1991] The first Gulf War occurs, whereby George H. W. Bush is
determined to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait to
ensure the Iraqi dictator doesn’t have a stranglehold on world oil markets. Osama bin Laden urges the Saudi royal family to find an Arab solution,
by raising an army on their own to fight Hussein. When the royal family invites the U.S.
in to do the job instead, Bin Laden becomes disenchanted with the House of al-Saud. His anger grows when after the war the US leaves 20,000 troops
behind in Saudi Arabia. Soon Bin Laden makes a deal
with the Saudi royal family: he is allowed to leave the kingdom with his fortune, and will
receive funding for al Qaeda from various Saudi charities and banks, but in return he must
not launch attacks against the royal family. Bin Laden settles in the Sudan, aiming his
ire at the US."
The Saudi Connection
CBC News (Canada), 29
October 2003
Post 9/11 The US Moved Its Combat
Troops Out Of Saudi Arabia And Into Iraq
Because It Feared Its Continuing Military Presence In Saudi Arabia Would Lead To
The Fall Of The Western Friendly House Of Saud
And Threaten Oil Supplies To The West
But The US Still Needed A Platform From Which To Police Access To Gulf Oil
Resources
Hence 'Destination Iraq' - A Non-Theocraticly Governed Society Strategically
Situated Between Both Saudi Arabia And Iran
Saudi Arabia, Iran, And Iraq Have The World's Three Largest Reserves Of Oil
"Contrary
to much of the conventional wisdom about Osama bin Laden, the Saudi fugitive is hardly a
madman. In fact, he has developed a stunningly deceptive regional war calculus that stands
a reasonable chance of success. Despite the massive build-up of allied forces, bin Laden's
strategy depends on a set of well-conceived geopolitical assumptions that he fervently
believes can turn Western military capability to his strategic advantage. His strongest
belief is that Saudi Arabia can be brought to its knees, the House of Saud deposed and a
new theocracy, based on his version of a pure and uncontaminated Islam, can rise to power
in the Arabian peninsula. Hoping to seize state power as Ayatollah Khomeini did in Iran in
1979, bin Laden plans to use Afghanistan as a staging ground for self-declared leadership
in exile. The overriding goal is to return to Saudi Arabia in triumph and put an end to
the existing regime. Such an accomplishment would dramatically tilt the Middle Eastern
balance of power in favour of radical forces led by Iraq, Iran, Syria and, of course, the
global terrorist network. Even before the attacks on New York and Washington, bin Laden's
power was felt at the highest level of the Saudi regime..... To bin Laden, King Fahd's
departure can only be considered a victory in his campaign to rid Saudi Arabia of the
contamination of American rule through their surrogates in the House of
Saud. With King Fahd's health maintained on a 24-hour medical watch, and
the Saudi royal family divided between the conservative, religious faction of Crown Prince
Abdullah and that of the defence minister, King Fahd's full brother, Prince Sultan, Saudi
Arabia's future political course and, with it, the stability of the Gulf is about to be
decided. Bin Laden has waited for this since 1991, when he was cast aside by the Saudis
for offering his fighting forces in defence of the kingdom against Saddam Hussein. Bin
Laden is intimately aware of the fragility of the Saudi power structure.... He came to
despise what he saw as a corrupt and malignant power structure indistinguishable from the
American political system. Undeterred by deference and loyalty, he understood that the
legitimacy of the Saudi royal family could be undermined by championing an alternative,
indigenous religious ideology. Large numbers of young disaffected Saudis felt increasingly
alienated by a regime that could neither defend itself by its own means nor maintain a
standard of living that has dropped from $18,000 per capita in the 1980s to $6,000 in
2000. With a deteriorating economic and political environment, bin Laden may decide that
the time is approaching to activate the thousands of Saudi dissidents in the kingdom who
form the core of his support, and thereby exploit the schism between Abdullah and Sultan
to launch the destabilisation of the Saudi monarchy.... The more it is seen that the Saudi
royal family can no longer maintain internal cohesion and consensus within the royal
family, the greater the probability that Saudi religious dissidents will heed the call of
bin Laden and rise up against the regime..... Such a scenario provides a clear escape
route for bin Laden from the closing ring of fire around Afghanistan. Should he be able to
escape and seek refuge among the thousands of supporters in Saudi Arabia, he will no doubt
be greeted as a Mahdi, whose arrival on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia will mark a
dramatically new geopolitical landscape. The radicalisation of Iran by the ayatollahs
pales by comparison. Possibilities of widespread regional conflict may emerge as the
latest military equipment and the vast reserves of
Saudi oil become available to facilitate bin Laden's strategic goal - to destabilise and
undermine the Western economic system."
Bin Laden's secret goal is to overthrow the House of Saud
Daily
Telegraph, 27 September 2001
The Problem Is That
Bin Laden's 1996 Fatwa Relates To The Removal Of Infidel Troops
From The Whole Of The Arab Peninsula Not Just Saudi Arabia (The Most Important
Location)
Now The US Faces The Same Problem Simply Transferred To Iraq
"A year ago, President
Bush boldly said: 'Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does
America.' Yet Congress is posed to finalize the president's $82 billion request for the
Iraq war that includes a half-billion dollars for permanent military bases and another
half-billion for building the world's largest embassy. Despite the president's assurances,
the United States is preparing for a lengthy stay in Iraq.... the extent of the U.S.
occupation in Iraq is often overlooked. Currently, the United States operates out of about
50 locations including 14 'enduring bases' in Iraq. That's a huge presence in a country
the size of California.... Adding new and larger facilities will serve as a daily reminder
that Iraq is under a foreign military occupation. The
U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia was Osama bin Laden's chief recruiting tool there,
and the same dynamic appears to be working for Iraq's insurgents. While Bush has been extremely vocal about promoting democracy
for Iraqis, this new construction is decidedly undemocratic. There has been little role
for Iraqis in approving U.S. plans for adding new facilities."
Building permanent U.S. bases in Iraq sends wrong signal
Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, 15 May 2005
"The [Saudi government]
regime betrayed the Ummah [Arab community] and joined the Kufr [unbelievers], assisting
and helping them against the Muslims. It is well known that this is one of the ten
'voiders' of Islam, deeds of de-Islamisation. By opening the Arab
peninsula to the crusaders the regime disobeyed and
acted against what has been enjoined by the messenger of Allah... It is out of date and no
longer acceptable to claim that the presence of the crusaders is necessity [following the
1991 Gulf war] and only a temporary measures to protect the land of the two Holy
Places. Especially when the civil and the military infrastructures of Iraq were savagely
destroyed showing the depth of the Zionist-Crusaders hatred to the Muslims and their
children, and the rejection of the idea of replacing the crusaders forces by an Islamic
force composed of the sons of the country and other Muslim people. Moreover the
foundations of the claim and the claim it self were demolished and wiped out by the
sequence of speeches given by the leaders of the Kuffar in America. The latest of these
speeches was the one given by William Perry, the [US] Defense Secretary, after the
explosion in Al-Khobar saying that: the presence of
the American solders there is to protect the interest of the USA. The imprisoned Sheikh Safar Al-Hawali, may Allah hasten his release,
wrote a book of seventy pages; in it he presented evidence and proof that the presence of
the Americans in the Arab Peninsula is a pre-planed military occupation..... It is a duty now on every tribe
in the Arab Peninsula to fight, Jihad, in the cause of Allah and to cleanse the land from those
occupiers."
'Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the
Land of the Two Holy Places'
Bin Laden's Fatwa, first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper,
in August, 1996
Text
Provided By PBS News, USA
[Addendum: Unlike Kuwait Iraq is not normally considered part of the Arab Peninsula, although it joins it at the start of the Persian Gulf. However, the 1996 Bin Laden Fatwa specifically condemns the treatment of Iraq after the first Gulf war stating that "More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children." Bin Laden's ensuing Fatwa of 1998 states that "If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation [of the Arabian Peninsula], all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless. .... despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors."]
"There has been a marked fall in the
number of voters who say that British troops should stay in Iraq for as long as it takes
to make sure that the country is a stable democracy, to 32 per cent, from 38 per cent in
February and 49 per cent in October 2004. By contrast, 58 per cent believe that British
troops should be 'withdrawn from Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely
stable'.... This shift in opinion on Iraq has also been reflected in views about the US.
Fewer than three fifths (58 per cent) believe that it is important for 'Britain’s
long-term security that we have a close and special relationship with the US'. This
compares with 71 per cent as recently as two months ago.... However, earlier analysis by
Professor Sir Robert Worcester, of Ipsos/MORI, highlights the distinction between
attitudes towards the policies of the US Administration and the country and its people.
Consequently, more than two thirds of British voters say that they like Americans and
would like to go on holiday in the US."
Britons begin to turn away from alliance with America
London Times, 7 June
2006
|
So Come On Americans, The Brits Like You
Just Ditch The Lunatics Who Govern You And Bring You Nothing But Relentless Terror And
National Dishonour
And Take On People Who Are Honest, Competent, And Can Build You A Sustainable Energy
Policy Instead
"With President Bush's job approval
numbers languishing in the low 30s, not even Osama bin Laden can come to the rescue, a new
Zogby Interactive survey shows. And Wednesday's death of Iraqi al-Qaeda leader Al-Zarqawi
is unlikely to improve the President's numbers much, Pollster John Zogby said. The
interactive survey, conducted May 15-16, 2006, included 1,538 respondents and carries a
margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points. It shows that, even if U.S. military forces
were to capture bin Laden, it wouldn't provide much of a bump to Bush's job approval
numbers. Asked how much credit would be due President Bush if bin Laden were caught, 52%
said they would give him no credit because he turned his attention instead to Iraq after
the war in Afghanistan. Twenty-eight percent would give him all the credit, while 17% said
he would deserve some of the credit. The President's job approval rating in fighting
against terrorism would be at 42% if bin Laden were found, the poll shows, which is about
where he is right now -- with bin Laden still on the loose. A Zogby telephone poll in May
showed his job approval for fighting terrorism at 41%, which was down from 44% in
February.... Pollster John Zogby: 'Americans across the board do want Osama bin Laden to
be captured. The poll numbers show that. The magical question is, would it help Bush's
approval ratings for his leadership against terrorism, and the answer appears to be 'no.'
The problem for the President is that the country is badly split over the war, and those
who oppose it are unlikely to change their minds because of a single development.
Interestingly, the poll shows that Americans are catching up with themselves. In the
immediate aftermath of 9/11, the attitude was 'Catch bin Laden, dead or alive' and
Americans were willing to give up some of their civil rights in order to catch other
terrorists. Now, we're coming back to our more traditional views toward freedoms and
rights, and when it comes to bin Laden, more Americans say they would rather he be
captured and brought to America to stand trial -- not shot on sight, not taken to
Guantanamo Bay, not tortured."
Zogby: Sagging Job Approval Numbers no Bush Boost even if Bin Laden Captured
BBS News, 9 June 2006
Reuters
Congressional War Bill Deletes Prohibition On Permanent US Military Bases In Iraq
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N09199214.htm Iraq war bill deletes US military base prohibition By Richard Cowan WASHINGTON, June 9 (Reuters) - Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and congressional aides said on Friday. The $94.5 billion emergency spending bill, which includes $65.8 billion to continue waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is expected to be approved by Congress next week and sent to President George W. Bush for signing into law. As originally passed by the House of Representatives, the Pentagon would have been prohibited from spending any of the funds for entering into a military basing rights agreement with Iraq. A similar amendment passed by the Senate said the Pentagon could not use the next round of war funding to "establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq, or to exercise United States control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq." The Bush administration has said it does not want to place any artificial timelines on a U.S. presence in Iraq and that it wants to begin withdrawing troops when Iraqi security forces are better able to protect the country. But it has not ruled out permanent bases in Iraq. While the Pentagon does not necessarily plan to use any of the emergency funds to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq, congressional Democrats wanted Congress to be on record against such a long-term military arrangement. Doing so, they argued, could help overcome Middle East fears that the United States intended to control the region militarily, at least in part to oversee foreign oil reserves. "The perception that the U.S. intends to occupy Iraq indefinitely is fueling the insurgency and making our troops more vulnerable," said Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat who won House approval of her amendment on permanent bases. "The House and Senate went on record opposing permanent bases, but now the Republicans are trying to sneak them back in in the middle of the night," Lee said. Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authored the Senate language. Senate aides said Republican staffers removed the provisions from the bills before House and Senate negotiators convened this week in a late-night work session to write a compromise spending bill. Wisconsin Rep. David Obey, the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, tried to reinsert the language, but it was opposed by Rep. Jim Kolbe, the Arizona Republican responsible for foreign affairs portions of the spending bill. Next week, the House is scheduled to have a wide-ranging debate about the Iraq war at which time Democrats are likely to raise this issue again. |
"Congressional Republicans killed a
provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record
against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and
congressional aides said on Friday.... As originally passed by the House of
Representatives, the Pentagon would have been prohibited from spending any of the funds
for entering into a military basing rights agreement with Iraq. A similar amendment passed
by the Senate said the Pentagon could not use the next round of war funding to 'establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq, or to exercise United States control over the oil infrastructure or oil
resources of Iraq.'....
Senate aides said Republican staffers removed the
provisions from the bills before House and Senate negotiators convened this week in a
late-night work session."
Iraq war bill deletes US military base prohibition
Reuters,
9 June 2006
Graphic Of New US Embassy Site In Baghdad
London Times, 3 May
2006
"The
question puzzles and enrages a city: how is it that the Americans cannot keep the
electricity running in Baghdad for more than a couple of hours a day, yet still manage to
build themselves the biggest embassy on Earth? Irritation grows as residents
deprived of air-conditioning and running water three years after the US-led invasion watch
the massive US Embassy they call 'George W’s palace' rising from the banks of the
Tigris.... Officially, the design of the compound is supposed to be a secret, but you
cannot hide the giant construction cranes and the concrete contours of the 21 buildings
that are taking shape. Looming over the skyline, the embassy has the distinction of being
the only big US building project in Iraq that is on time and within budget. In a
week when Washington revealed a startling list of missed deadlines and overspending on
building projects, Congress was told that the bill for the embassy was $592 million (£312
million).... There will be impressive residences for the Ambassador and his deputy, six
apartments for senior officials, and two huge office blocks for 8,000 staff
to work in.....Iraqi politicians opposed to the US presence protest that the scale of the
project suggests that America retains long-term ambitions here. The International Crisis Group, a think-tank, said the
embassy’s size 'is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in
their country'".
In the chaos of Iraq, one project is on target: a giant US embassy
London Times, 3 May
2006
"On the west bank of
the Tigris on the edge of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone a forest of cranes marks the progress of Iraq's newest monument: a US embassy
that will be the largest in the world. Once an army of more than 3,500 construction
workers have completed it in June 2007, the vast complex will be the new hub of the
American administration in Iraq. Protected by 15ft thick walls and ringed by military
guards, it signals the seriousness of
America's intentions to retain a large and long-term presence in the country. The £315 million building's existence is meant to be a secret.
Any request for a comment from the US State Department is met with a terse rebuff, and a
plea for a photo opportunity is deemed out of the question. But it is impossible to keep
hidden a complex that will be the size of Vatican City with the population of a small
town, especially when it is lit up at nightfall to permit work on it to continue 24 hours
a day. America's largest existing
embassy, covering 10 acres and consisting of five buildings, is in Beijing. It will soon
be dwarfed by the new Baghdad mission....
It is only in recent weeks that Iraqis have begun to realize the new complex is being
built. Last month a local newspaper became the first to write an article on it."
US super-embassy emerges in the heart of
Baghdad
Daily
Telegraph, 7 June 2006
"'After three years of occupation,
the US military has taken steps that suggest that a
total pullout of its 130,000 troops in Iraq 'is unlikely for years to come', a US magazine has said. The tipoff: the Pentagon has asked for a
$348-million emergency grant this year to expand its more than 70 'forward operating
bases' (FOBs) scattered across Iraq, according to the June issue
of The Atlantic Monthly. Some of the FOBs consist only of a handful of barracks
'but more than a dozen of them are vast complexes' reminiscent of America's garrisons in
West Germany during the Cold War, wrote author Fred Kaplan. 'The larger bases are
fortified chunks of Middle America, surreally plunked down in the desert, replete with
Burger Kings, Pizza Huts, Internet cafes, first-run movie theaters, gyms and swimming
pools,' Kaplan said. Camp Anaconda, for
example, is built around two 3,350-meter (ll,000-foot) runways, covers 40 square
kilometers (15 square miles), and is a home and workplace to 20,000 US troops and 2,500
contractors, the article says. Camp Cooke, which contains 2,700 square meters of retail
shopping, is so big that a shuttle bus runs back and forth from one end to the other.
'There's nothing provisional about these places,' writes Kaplan, an authority on national
security. 'They're often referred to as 'enduring bases', and there are plans to keep them
operating in American hands, even if all our combat regiments go home.'"
US troops may remain in Iraq 'for years to come', US magazine says
Middle
East Times, 15 May 2006
"The United States may
want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect oil supplies,
the army general overseeing US operations in Iraq has said. While the Bush administration
has downplayed prospects for permanent US bases in Iraq, General John Abizaid told a House
of Representatives subcommittee on Tuesday he could not rule that out.... Abizaid cited
the need to fight al-Qaida and other extremists groups and 'the need to be able to deter
ambitions of an expansionistic Iran' as potential reasons to keep
some level of troops in the region in the long term....
'Clearly our long-term vision for a military presence in the region requires a robust counter-terrorist capability,' Abizaid
said.... Abizaid also said the United States and its allies have a vital interest in the oil-rich region. 'Ultimately it comes down to the
free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody
else in the world depend,' he said....
Representative David Price, a North Carolina Democrat, questioned 'what kind of signal
that sends to the American people and to the Iraqis and the region ... if somehow there is
ambiguity on our ultimate designs in terms of a military presence in Iraq'".
US 'may want to keep Iraq bases'
Reuters, 15 March
2006
"The Pentagon has requested hundreds
of millions of dollars in emergency funds for military construction in Iraq, fanning the
debate about US long-term intentions there. The money will add to an existing bill
of $1.3bn for military construction in the Middle East and South Asia - primarily Iraq and
Afghanistan - in the last five years. Much of the 2006 emergency funding is earmarked for
beefing up security and facilities at just a handful of large airbases in Iraq. This
has prompted some to wonder whether the US has plans to maintain a permanent military
presence - something the government has repeatedly denied. But those concerned
include the US House Appropriations Committee, which has demanded a 'master plan' for base
construction from the Pentagon before the money can be spent. In a 13 March report
accompanying the emergency spending legislation, it said the money was 'of a magnitude
normally associated with permanent bases'. A week later, after top US General John
Abizaid refused to rule out a long-term presence, the House of Representatives passed an
amendment to the bill stating its opposition to permanent bases.... The scale of the bases
and the range of facilities offered to service personnel are impressive. Some 25,000
US military and civilian personnel are stationed at the Balad base, which boasts its own
neighbourhoods and airline. At about 7km by 5km (four-and-a-half miles by three miles),
the al-Asad base is so big two bus routes are needed. ....Some observers have interpreted
the lavish funds being spent on upgrading a number of air bases as a signal that the US is
anything but eager to vacate the country completely."
Iraq bases spur questions over US plans
BBC Online, 30 March 2006
"America is
to spend £1billion on an embassy in Baghdad 'more secure than the Pentagon'...Plans for four huge military bases placed strategically
around Baghdad are also being drawn up. The
superbases will be in central Iraq, close to the capital, and also to the north, west and
east of Baghdad. Several other Middle Eastern and American building firms are tendering
for the remaining budget. Funding will probably come from Iraqi oil revenues channelled
into redeveloping the country. America has a string of 'secret' military bases throughout
the Gulf states, including Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar. The huge desert complexes, including
airstrips and aircraft hangars, are up to 20 miles square and are not featured on civilian
maps. They started to appear after the first Gulf War 15 years ago, infuriating Islamic
extremists and the al-Qaeda terror network."
Billion Dollar Bunker
Daily
Mirror, 3 January 2006
"A year ago,
President Bush boldly said: 'Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither
does America.' Yet Congress is posed to finalize the president's $82 billion request for
the Iraq war that includes a half-billion dollars for permanent military bases and another
half-billion for building the world's largest embassy. Despite the president's assurances,
the United States is preparing for a lengthy stay in Iraq.... the extent of the U.S.
occupation in Iraq is often overlooked. Currently, the United States operates out of about
50 locations including 14 'enduring bases' in Iraq. That's a huge presence in a country
the size of California.... Adding new and larger facilities will serve as a daily reminder
that Iraq is under a foreign military occupation. The U.S. military presence in Saudi
Arabia was Osama bin Laden's chief recruiting tool there, and the same dynamic appears to
be working for Iraq's insurgents. While Bush has been extremely vocal about promoting
democracy for Iraqis, this new construction is decidedly undemocratic. There has been
little role for Iraqis in approving U.S. plans for adding new facilities."
Building permanent U.S. bases in Iraq sends wrong signal
Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, 15 May 2005
No WMDs, Saddam Captured, New
Government Installed
Why Are Bush And Blair Still 'Squatting' In Iraq?
"Why has Tony Blair flown to
Baghdad? This day of all days he should stay away. Everyone should stay away. Leave
the new prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, at least to appear to be his own man and not a
coalition puppet the day after he has been sworn in. How would Blair have reacted if, the
day after his first election, George Bush had flown to London to 'lend him his
encouragement'?... For Maliki to succeed he must seem his own man. The thesis that 'it
will take six months for him to bed down' and that American and British troops are
required for that to happen is the opposite of the truth. Most Iraqi ministers and
ministries already rely on either tribal or private security guards. The coalition's role
in maintaining security in Iraq is confined to roadblocks, occasional patrols (dangerous
for patrollers and patrolled) and defending the green zone and airports. Ninety per cent
of its time and effort goes on its own protection and logistics. The occupation no longer has anything to do with national
building. It is the world's most expensive squat."
An unwelcome visitor
Guardian,
22 May 2006
"A final fallback has been that
British troops would leave when asked to do so by the Iraqi government. Most of the 110
coalition bases would be handed over to local brigades. A start would be made this summer
with the British vacating Maysan and Muthanna provinces. The Americans would retreat
initially into their dozen or more super-bases, and perhaps be offered long-term leases.
This exit strategy was galvanised last week when the
new Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, said that he expected coalition troops to leave
16 of Iraq's 18 provinces by the end of the year. The only remaining American troops would be in lawless Sunni Anbar and in
Baghdad, where Maliki needs the Americans to protect his green zone fortress and airport.
His statement implied a total withdrawal from all Shia provinces, including the British
from the south. Maliki's statement should have been music to London's ears. Here was an
elected leader eager to appear his own man, to show the militias, clerics, warlords and
ubiquitous Iranian agents that he was master and not a coalition puppet. The coalition has
every interest in bolstering such determination and expediting the withdrawal he requests.
It is supported by the shrewd American ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad. So why did Blair rush to Baghdad last week and dismiss
Maliki's request out of hand? His spokesman
indicated that Iraq would not be remotely 'ready' for such a British troop departure by
the end of the year. Offered a window
through which to escape, Blair slammed it shut. Told to prepare to leave by the very democratic leader he had helped install, he
refused to listen. The suspicion is that Washington and London will withdraw only at the
moment of their choosing, when it can be orchestrated as a victory.... The occupation is
plainly not bringing peace to Iraq nor is it preventing civil war, however defined. Almost
all coalition forces are now hunkered down in their barracks protecting themselves. Even
reconstruction, such as it is, has been subcontracted to private mercenaries. Iraq is a
failed state. Its democracy is meaningless without order, and order is beyond Britain's
capacity to deliver. Now Blair has been
asked by the elected ruler of Iraq to leave by the end of the year. By what conceivable
right does he refuse?"
Blair has been blinded by an imperialist illusion
Guardian, 31 May
2006
This Is What Would Constitute 'Victory' In Iraq
US And Britain Are Waiting For A Deal On Permanent Military Bases With The New Iraqi
Government
"The United States may want to keep a
long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region
and protect the flow of oil, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq
said on March 14.... Abizaid said that policy would be worked out with a unified,
national Iraqi government if and when that is established... "
"Ultimately
it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own
nation and everybody else in the world depend." |
"In an annual security conference on
Saturday, Donald Rumsfeld assured the audience, 'We don't intend to occupy [Iraq] for any
period of time. Our troops would like to go home and they will go home.' Why, then,
would the United States be building an enormous embassy in Baghdad and a base so large it
eclipses Kosovo's Camp Bondsteel, which had been the largest foreign US military base built since
Vietnam? The new embassy, which occupies a space two-thirds the area of the
national mall in Washington DC, comprises 21 buildings that will house over 8,000 government officials.... The gargantuan military base, Camp Anaconda,
occupies 15 square miles of Iraqi soil near Balad. The base is home to 20,000 soldiers and
thousands of 'contractors,' or mercenaries. The aircraft runway at Anaconda is the second
busiest in the world, behind only Chicago's O'Hare airport. And, depending on which report
you read, between six and fourteen more US military bases are under construction in Iraq.
It doesn't appear we'll be leaving anytime soon - or anytime, really."
Stop the Beast
Truthout,
5 June 2006
And You Thought Kosovo Was A Humanitarian Mission?
“How much should we spend on the armed services? ... My view is we don’t spend on you, we invest in you. The men and women in the armed services are not a drain on our economic strength. Indeed you safeguard it. You’re not a burden on our economy, you are the critical foundation for growth.”
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
addressing US troops at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, 5 June 2001
US Defense Department Press Release
"Today, the circumstances which we
have created here have changed. Today, it is absolutely necessary to guarantee the
stability of Macedonia and its entry into NATO.
But we will certainly remain here a long time so that we can also guarantee the security
of the energy corridors which traverse this country."
General Michael Jackson, commander of KFOR in Macedonia
Italian daily, Sole 24 Ore, 13
April 1999
"Macedonia, with its large Albanian
minority, was the KLA's next target. In February [2001], its forces moved against this
small and newly independent democracy..... [In May 2001 Bush Administration] U.S. diplomat
Robert Fenwick, ostensibly the head of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe, in Macedonia, met secretly in Prizren, Kosovo, with the leaders of the Albanian
political parties and KLA representatives. Macedonian officials were not invited. It was
clear the United States was backing the Albanian terrorist cause. This was confirmed a
month later, when a force of 400 KLA fighters was surrounded in the town of Aracinovo near
the capital, Skopje. As Macedonian security forces moved in, they were halted on NATO
orders. U.S. army buses from Camp
Bondsteel in Kosovo arrived to remove all
the heavily armed terrorists to a safer area of Macedonia. German
reporters later revealed that 17 U.S. military advisors were accompanying the KLA terrorists in Aracinovo. In August, fearing the
Macedonian forces might be able to defeat the KLA, U.S. Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice
flew to Kiev and ordered the Ukrainian government to stop sending further military
equipment to Macedonia. Since Ukraine
was the only country supplying Macedonia with
military assistance, the Macedonians realized continued resistance against the KLA
terrorists, the EU and NATO
was futile. Macedonia was forced to concede defeat and obliged to accept all the terrorist
demands.”
James Bisset, former Candian Ambassador to Yugoslavia
War on terrorism skipped KLA
National Post (Canada), 13
November 2001
"Albania, Bulgaria and Macedonia
have given the go ahead for the construction of a $1.2bn oil pipeline that will pass
through the Balkan peninsula. The project
aims to allow alternative ports for the shipping of Russian and Caspian oil, that normally
goes through the Bosphorus straits.
It aims to transport 750,000 daily barrels of oil. The pipeline will be built by the
US-registered Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian Oil Corporation (AMBO). The pipeline will run
for nearly 900 kilometres from the Bulgarian port of Burgas, over the Black Sea to the
Albanian city of Vlore on the Adriatic coast, crossing Macedonia.... According to AMBO
president Edward Ferguson, work on the pipeline will begin in 2005 and it is expected to
be ready in three or four years. He added that the company had already raised about $900m
from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) - a US development agency - the
Eximbank and Credit Suisse First Boston, among others."
Go-ahead for Balkan oil pipeline
BBC Online, 28 December 2004
"The political stakes are high and
the financial risks many but the spoils are huge for investors seeking a way to pipe
Russian and Caspian oil around the treacherous Turkish straits to the energy-hungry West.
Oil producers lost at least $700 million last winter as bad weather and heavy seas kept
their tankers stuck for as long as two weeks at the Bosphorus and Dardanelles
straits —- the only way for sea-bound crude to exit the Black Sea. Delayed for
years by political wrangling and environmental fears, several billion-dollar pipeline
projects are finally inching toward start dates, with countries and investors around the
vast Black Sea vying for pole position. 'An exit-Black Sea pipeline is a necessity,
because the oil market requires diversified supplies,' said Max Shein, chief equity
strategist at Moscow-based Broker Credit Service..... 'One day the ships will carry the
oil to us,' said Nikolov, whose company, the Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian Oil Corporation
(AMBO), aims to link the Bulgarian Black Sea port of Bourgas with Vlore, on Albania’s
Adriatic coast. The need is clear: already booming oil production in the Urals and the
Caspian Sea regions is expected to double crude traffic through the Turkish straits
through 2015. Russia has increased exports by 50 percent since 2001 to become the
world’s second largest oil exporter behind Saudi Arabia, and Kazakhstan expects to
more than double its output of 1.3 billion tonnes of crude in the next decade. AMBO hopes
to build a 912-km (567-mile) pipeline from Bourgas through Macedonia to Vlore, a deep port
accessible to huge tankers. Analysts warn the pipeline’s length and political risks
in the region continue to hinder the plan, which originally surfaced in 1994, but Nikolov
said a deal could be imminent. 'I expect the final political accord on the pipeline to be
endorsed next year,' he said. 'No pipeline will ever lose money. But a pipeline is as much
economics as it is politics.'.... Alongside the AMBO plan is a project to run a link
between Romania’s Black Sea port of Constanta to Italy’s Trieste......"
Black Sea Pipelines Look to Bypass Straits
Reuters, 28 November 2005
The path to friendship goes via the oil and gas fields
Colonel Gadafy is just the latest beneficiary of a cynical strategy
Michael Meacher
Saturday March 27, 2004
The Guardian(Extract)
".....Negotiations for a rehabilitated public image for Colonel Gadafy, linked to improved western access to Libyan oil, began to surface in August 2002 with the visit by the Foreign Office minister, Mike O'Brien, to Sirte, near Tripoli. As the BBC said at the time, Libya was keen to re-enter the world economy, and the UK did not want to lose out on potentially lucrative oil contracts.
For both the UK and US, an energy crisis is looming. The latest BP statistical review of world energy predicted that UK proven oil and gas reserves will last, respectively, only 5.4 and 6.8 years at present rates of use. It has been estimated that by 2020 the UK could be dependent on imported energy for 80% of its needs. The US energy department has calculated that net imports of oil, already at 54%, will rise to 70% by 2025 because of growing demand and declining domestic supply......
Nor is this rapid shift from terrorist to statesman confined to Libya. The US backing of Islamic terrorism in the Balkans provides another example. As the official Dutch inquiry into the 1995 Srebrenica massacre has now revealed, a secret alliance was formed between the Pentagon and radical Islamist groups to assist the Bosnian Muslims in violation of the UN arms embargo. A vast secret conduit of weapons smuggling through Croatia was organised by US, Turkish and Iranian clandestine agencies, together with Afghan mojahedin and pro-Iranian Hizbullah. Aircraft from Iran Air were used, joined by a US-sponsored fleet of C-130 Hercules.
The 78-day bombing of Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999, directed by the US general Wesley Clark, was said to be stopping an alleged "genocide" by the Serbs in Kosovo (some 2,000 bodies were later exhumed, a horrifying number but far short of the 100,000 the US predicted). The US goal was to assist the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Yet the year before, the US state department had branded the KLA a terrorist organisation, financing its operations from the heroin trade and funds from Islamic countries and individuals, including Osama bin Laden.
As James Bissett, the former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, has subsequently reported: "This did not stop the US from arming and training KLA members in Albania and sending them back into Kosovo to assassinate Serbian mayors, ambush Serbian policemen and intimidate hesitant Kosovo Albanians ... Despite a UN arms embargo, and with the support of the US, arms, ammunition and thousands of fighters were smuggled into Bosnia to help the Muslims ... Bin Laden and his network were also active in Kosovo, and KLA members trained in his camps in Afghanistan and Albania." According to reports in April 1999, assistance was also provided by Britain's SAS.
Through much of the 1990s, US support for Islamic militants in former Yugoslavia was backed up by covert US airdrops of arms, especially at Tuzla in northern Bosnia. These took place in the face of Operation Deny Flight, the UN-imposed and Nato-policed no-fly zone over Bosnia. The US House of Representatives also failed to authorise the war under the War Powers Act, making it illegal (shades of Iraq). But the airdrops were only the tip of the iceberg. Retired US officers heading Military Professional Resources Inc, a private paramilitary firm based in Virginia, planned the bloody Croatian "liberation" of the Serb-held Krajina enclave, which resulted in the ethnic cleansing of 200,000 Serbs.
US goals in the use of the KLA as a proxy force, similar to the funding of the Contras against the leftwing Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the 1980s, were partly to remove Milosevic and break up Yugoslavia as one of the remaining Communist regimes. But related motives were to break Russia's monopoly over oil and gas transport routes and secure pro-western governments in the strategic Black Sea-Caspian Sea oil-rich basin. A crucial oil corridor, called the Trans-Balkan pipeline, designed to become the main route to the west for oil and gas extracted in central Asia, was to run from the Black Sea to the Adriatic via Bulgaria, Macedonia near the border with Kosovo, and Albania. Another was to run across Serbia to Adriatic ports in Croatia and Italy, fed by a pipeline running from a Black Sea port in Romania.
The implications of this are stark. The US played a major role in creating and sustaining the mojahedin to fight the invading Soviet army in the Afghan war of 1979-92. Then from 1992-95 the Pentagon assisted the movement of thousands of Islamic fighters from central Asia to fight alongside Bosnian Muslims and remove the Milosevic barrier, and so extend US influence in a key area of oil geopolitics - a "pact with the devil", as Richard Holbrooke, America's former chief Balkans peace negotiator put it. It has proved quite another thing to rein them back in again. Before President Bush trumpets his dedication to his war on terror, he should reflect on his country's links with terrorism over the past decade where it has suited US interests."
Oil and US Geopolitical Objectives in the Balkans Click here
It's The US Economy Stupid!
From ...... A further report by commentator Paul Stuart confirms that Houston (also the home of Enron) based Brown & Root's Balkan contract work includes the building of Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. This is the biggest 'from scratch' foreign US military base built since the Vietnam War and is nearing completion. Just as with the work now going on in Afghanistan it should come as no surprise to discover that Bondsteel is located close to another energy transit corridor in the planning, in this case the US sponsored Trans-Balkan oil pipeline known as the '8th corridor'. As Stuart points out "The New York based AMBO (Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria Oil) Trans-Balkan pipeline will pump oil from the tankers that bring it across the Black Sea to the Bulgarian oil terminus at Burgas, through Macedonia to the Albanian Adriatic port of Vlore. From there it will be pumped on to huge 300,000 ton tankers and sent on to Europe and the US, bypassing the Bosphorus Straits—the congested and only route out of the Black Sea where tankers are restricted to 150,000 tons." Or in the simpler words of the US Energy Information Administration 'the Balkans are becoming an important transit center for energy supplies from the Black Sea area and beyond to Europe'. As with the war in the Balkans, the fact that the 'war-against-terrorism' is being prosecuted primarily for economic reasons related to the United States' ravenous appetite for oil and gas is by now an open secret. The bogus nature
of America's public condemnation of terrorism is graphically illustrated by a Dutch government
report published in April confirming that the US had previously been facilitating the
use of Hezzbolah and other
Islamic terrorists to push back the Serbs during the civil war in Bosnia. A
BBC report in June 2001 also confirmed that during the same conflict the US had been
secretly arming the Bosniaks (mostly Bosnian Muslims) and Croats, and was bugging UN
commanders and diplomats as part of the process. Whatever the stated 'moral' reason on each occasion, it is clear that America's military interventions overseas are now being driven by its overwhelming economic imperative. Confirmation of this reality was provided to US troops at Camp Bondsteel by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld himself 5 June 2001: “How much should we spend on the armed services? ...My view is we don’t spend on you, we invest in you. The men and women in the armed services are not a drain on our economic strength. Indeed you safeguard it. You’re not a burden on our economy, you are the critical foundation for growth.” That's funny Mr Secretary, Sir, because the State Deparment's official position on 'U.S. and NATO Objectives and Interests in Kosovo' back in March 1999 was "to stop the killing and achieve a durable peace that prevents further repression and provides for democratic self-government for the Kosovar people". No mention of the US economy in that document at all, Sir..... |
US Backed Islamic Terrorism In The Balkans - Click Here
US Marines Guard Iraq's Ministry of Oil
After The Invasion Of 2003
"....every morning for the past
week, staff from the Ministry of Irrigation have arrived for work at their new office --
the parking lot of their charred government complex. Little remains of the ministry,
save massive metal desks too heavy for looters to carry and a toilet or two. The former
minister has vanished. Years of records and plans literally went up in smoke when US
missiles slammed into the 10-story building..... a tour of Baghdad's 22 ministries
demonstrates just how complex the task of rebuilding the government will be. In some
cases, the obstacles are physical: The Ministry of Trade, for example, is a blackened
edifice still smoldering from fires set by looters.... Only a few agencies, such as the
Ministry of Oil, are intact..... At the Ministry of Oil, staff members point out with some
irony that theirs is the one ministry in town without a scratch. Inevitably, suspicions
are raised that the ministry was deliberately spared, so that the United States can profit
from Iraq's oil. The phalanx of US soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division guarding the
ministry and frisking all those coming in and out only heightens resentment. 'I am not
happy because we are occupied by the Americans, in my country, in my city, and in my
ministry, ' said Lawahith al-Qaissi, the chief of engineers. 'And if it is not for
our oil, then why are they here?' Indeed, of all the ministries, it is the sprawling Oil
Ministry that has the most hustle and bustle inside, as cleaners mop up dust from recent
sandstorms and as newly returning employees hug and kiss one another for the first time
since the war began. Plans are apace to get oil, Iraq's lifeblood, flowing fully again....
Now there are dreams to do far more at the Ministry of Oil, like woo foreign investment
and technology to more than double the
barrels of oil that Iraq could pump per day, to 7 million."
Rebuilding of ministries is key hurdle
Boston
Globe, 29 April 2003
"Since US forces rolled into central
Baghdad a week ago, one of the sole public buildings untouched by looters has been Iraq's
massive oil ministry, which is under round-the-clock surveillance by troops. The imposing
building in the Al-Mustarisiya quarter is guarded by around 50 US tanks which block every
entrance, while sharpshooters are positioned on the roof and in the windows.... Baghdad
residents have complained that US troops should do more to protect against the looters,
most of them Shi'ite Muslims repressed by Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated regime who live
in the vast slum known as Saddam City on the northern outskirts.But while museums, banks,
hotels and libraries have been ransacked, the oil ministry remains secure. The symbolism
is loaded, considering how vehemently the United States and Britain denied war opponents'
accusations that the campaign to oust Saddam was driven by oil lust. 'They came from the
other side of the world. Do you believe they're going to do much for me? They've just come
for the oil,' fumed Salam Mohammad Hassan, a doctor who lives near the ministry. Residents
noted that the irrigation ministry, just next door, was torched. US forces, who say they
cannot prevent looting across the capital of five million, respond that they are not
trying to seize Iraq's oil resources but preserve them."
Oil ministry an untouched building in ravaged
Baghdad
Agence France
Presse, 16 April 2003
Preserve Them? You Bet!
From Falling Into The Hands Of The Chinese
"The recent US strategy is
calculated to maintain economic, political and military hegemony over oil-rich areas of
the world. A 1992 draft of the Pentagon Defense Planning Guidance on post Cold War
Strategy that was leaked to the New York Times said, 'Our overall objective is to remain
the predominant outside power in [the Middle East and Southwest Asia to] preserve US and
Western access to the region's oil.'"
Stop the Beast
Truthout,
5 June 2006
"Until recently, China's view of the
global energy map focused narrowly on the Middle East, which holds roughly two-thirds of
the world's oil. Special attention was
directed toward one well-supplied country: Iraq. Through cultivation of Saddam Hussein's
government, China sought to develop some of Iraq's more promising reserves. Beijing advocated lifting the United Nations sanctions that
prevented investment in Iraq's oil patch and limited sales of its production. Then the
United States went to war in Iraq in 2003, wiping out China's stakes.... In little more
than a decade, China has changed from a net exporter of oil into the world's
second-largest importer, trailing only the United States. Concern is mounting about future
prospects for China's domestic oil production, which supplies about two-thirds of the
country's crude oil needs. China's government estimates that it will need 600 million tons
of crude oil a year by 2020, more than triple its expected output. Worldwide, the best oil
fields are already claimed.... 'Many people argue that oil interests are the driving force
behind the Iraq war,' said Zhu Feng, a security expert at Beijing University. 'For China,
it has been a reminder and a warning about how geopolitical changes can affect its own
energy interests. So China has decided to focus much more intently to address its
security.'.... For China's leaders.... buying foreign oil and gas fields in the name of
energy security has become a central mission. Throughout the 1990s, China made deals to
lock in long-term supplies and buy installations from Africa to Latin America. In 2002,
Cnooc became the largest offshore oil producer in Indonesia when it bought a field from
the Spanish firm Repsol YPF SA. The Iraq war substantially intensified the foreign push.
Most immediately, it destroyed China's hopes of developing large assets in Iraq. China had been waiting for the end of sanctions to begin
work on the Al-Ahdab field in central Iraq, under a $1.3 billion contract signed in 1997
by its largest state-owned firm, China National Petroleum Corp. The field's production
potential has been estimated at 90,000 barrels a day. China was also pursuing rights to a
far bigger prize -- the Halfayah field, which could produce 300,000 barrels a day.
Together, those two fields might have delivered quantities equivalent to 13 percent of
China's current domestic production. But
the larger impact of the war was on China's understanding of the rules of the global
energy game. 'The turning point in China's energy strategy was the Iraq war,' said Tong
Lixia, an energy expert at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic
Cooperation, which is affiliated with China's Commerce Ministry. 'After 2003, both the
companies and the government realized China could not rely on one or two oil production
areas. It's too risky.'... With so much competition for assets, China has pursued deals
with international pariah states that are off-limits to Western oil companies because of
sanctions, security concerns or the threat of bad publicity. China National Petroleum is
the largest shareholder in a consortium running much of the oil patch in Sudan, a country
accused by the United States of genocide in its western region of Darfur. Last year, China
signed a $70 billion oil and gas purchase agreement with Iran, undercutting efforts by the
United States and Europe to isolate Teheran and force it to give up plans for nuclear
weapons. If Cnooc acquires Unocal, it would have gas fields and a pipeline in Burma, whose
operation by the U.S. company has been criticized by human-rights groups. 'No matter if
it's rogue's oil or a friend's oil, we don't care,' said an energy adviser to the central
government who spoke on the condition he not be identified, citing the threat of
government disciplinary action. 'Human rights? We don't care. We care about oil. Whether
Iran would have nuclear weapons or not is not our business. America cares, but Iran is not
our neighbor. Anyone who helps China with energy is a friend.'"
Big Shift in China's Oil Policy
Washington
Post, 13 July 2005
"Former UN chief weapons inspector
Hans Blix has said that oil was one of the reasons for the US-led invasion of Iraq, a
Swedish news agency reports. 'I did not think so at first. But the US is incredibly
dependent on oil,' news agency TT quoted Blix as saying at a security seminar in
Stockholm. 'They wanted to secure oil in case competition on the world market becomes too
hard.' Blix, who helped oversee the dismantling of Iraq's weapons programs before the war,
said another reason for the invasion was a need to
move US troops from Saudi Arabia, TT
reported. Competition over oil is creating
tension between the United States and China,
Blix said........."
Blix says war motivated by oil
Australian Associated Press, 7
April 2005
"It was the
wartime petroleum shortage of 1917 and 1918 that really drove home the necessity of oil to
British interests and pushed Mesopotamia [Iraq] back to center stage. Prospects for oil
development within the empire were bleak, which made supplies from the Middle East of
paramount importance. Sir Maurice Hankey, the extremely powerful secretary of the War
Cabinet, wrote to Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour that, 'oil in the next war will occupy
the place of coal in the present war, or at least a parallel place to coal. The only big potential supply that
we can get under British Control is the Persian [Iranian] and Mesopotamian [Iraqi] supply.' Therefore, Hankey said, 'control over these oil supplies
becomes a first-class British war aim.' But the newly born 'public diplomacy' had to be considered.....
Foreign Secretary Balflour worried that explicitly pronouncing Mesopotamia a war aim would
seem too old-fashionably imperialistic. Instead, in August 1918, he told the Prime
Ministers of the Dominions that Britain must be the 'guiding spirit' in Mesopotamia, as it
would provide the one natural resource the British empire lacked. 'I do not care under what system
we keep the oil,' he said, 'but I am quite clear it is all-important for us that this oil
should be available.'
To help make sure this would happen, British forces, already elsewhere in Mesopotamia,
captured Mosul after the armistice was signed with Turkey."
Daniel Yergin - The Prize, 1991
First
published in Great Britain by Simon and Schuster Ltd, 1991
"Citing Churchill to support Bush’s war to
rid Iraq of alleged weapons of mass destruction was particularly ironic in light of
Churchill’s own record with respect to WMDs in Iraq. As colonial secretary in 1919, Churchill wanted to use gas against the ‘unco-operative Arabs’ in Iraq. He
explained, in terms that Saddam might have used to justify his gassing of Iraqi Kurds,
‘I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour
of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.’"
Churchill for dummies
The Spectator, 24 April 2004
Winston Churchill's Quest For Oil And The Seizing Of Mesopotamia (Iraq) - Click Here
"Fifty years
ago this week, the CIA and the British SIS orchestrated a coup d'etat that toppled the
democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh [in Iran]. The prime minister and
his nationalist supporters in parliament roused Britain's ire when they nationalised the oil industry in 1951, which had previously been exclusively
controlled by the Anglo-Iranian
Oil Company [later renamed as BP]. Mossadegh argued that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves. The British government tried to enlist the Americans in planning a
coup... The crushing of Iran's first democratic
government ushered in more than two decades of dictatorship under the Shah... The author
of All the Shah's Men, New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer, argues that the coup planted the seeds of resentment against
the US in the Middle East, ultimately leading to the events of September 11.... The coup and the culture of covert
interference it created forever changed how the world viewed the US, especially in poor,
oppressive countries. For many Iranians, the coup was a tragedy from which their country
has never recovered. Perhaps because Mossadegh represents a future denied, his memory has
approached myth."
The spectre of Operation Ajax
Guardian, 20 August 2003
"United Press
International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and
former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA
declined to comment on the report. While many have thought that Saddam first became
involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war,
his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a [failed]
CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd
al-Karim Qasim.... According to current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on condition
of anonymity, Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War
with the Soviet Union.... Washington watched in marked dismay as Qasim began to buy arms
from the Soviet Union and put his own domestic communists into ministry positions of 'real
power,' according to this official.... In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA
operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed 'close ties' with Qasim's ruling Baath Party, just
as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd
Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council
staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the
authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party 'as its instrument.' According to another
former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a
part of a [failed] U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim.... during this time Saddam was making
frequent visits to the American Embassy where CIA specialists such as Miles Copeland and
CIA station chief Jim Eichelberger were in residence and knew Saddam, former U.S.
intelligence officials said.... In February 1963 Qasim was killed in a Baath Party
coup.... Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq's communist, the CIA provided
the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who
were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S.
intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions. Many suspected
communists were killed outright, these sources said. Darwish told UPI that the mass
killings, presided over by Saddam, took place at Qasr al-Nehayat, literally, the Palace of
the End....The CIA/Defense Intelligence Agency relation with Saddam intensified after the
start of the Iran-Iraq war in September of 1980."
Saddam Key in Early CIA Plot
United Press International, 11 April 2003
"Iraq started
the war [with Iran] with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry
as the conflict wore on. Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was
driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian
human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its
interests, began supporting Iraq... The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq
war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and
describing Iraq's 'almost daily' use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy
review and decision to support Iraq in the war... Following further high-level policy
review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated
November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war.... It
states, 'Because of
the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian
Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly
with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic.' It does not mention chemical weapons....
Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld .... was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential
envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to
establish 'direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam
Hussein,'..."
Shaking Hands with Saddam
Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984
US National Security
Archive, George Washington University, 25 February 2003
"A victory by
Tehran, which seemed imminent, would pose a major threat to US interests in the Gulf, such
as access to the
region's oil.... For
the next five years, Washington would quietly ensure that Saddam received all the military
equipment he needed to stave off defeat, even precursor chemicals that could be used
against Iranian soldiers and Kurdish civilians.... How much more of this intimate
relationship Saddam will recall when he gets a public forum [at his trial following his
capture] is undoubtedly a concern of many current and past administration figures.... the
CIA was tasked to ensure that its former charge not run short of either weapons or vitally
needed intelligence on the disposition of Iranian forces, a task, according to a 1995
affidavit by Teicher, that then CIA director William Casey took to with abandon. Casey,
for example, used a Chilean arms company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that
he thought would be particularly effective against Iranian 'human wave' tactics. In
addition to the credit, equipment and covert military assistance, Saddam also received
diplomatic help from Washington at the United Nations and elsewhere in fending off
condemnations of his use of banned weapons during the war, as well as efforts in Congress
to cut off US help. The CIA was still providing intelligence and other help when
Saddam used poison gas that killed some 5,000 Kurdish non-combatants in Halabja in March
1988."
Rumsfeld and his 'old friend'
Saddam
Inter Press Service, 17
December 2003
"An
investigation of US corporate sales to Iraq, headed by Republican Congressman Donald
Riegle and published in May 1994, listed some of the biological agents exported by US
corporations with George Bush's approval as head of the CIA and later as vice-president
under Ronald Reagan. The Iraqis are reported to have acquired stocks of anthrax,
brucellosis, gas gangrene, E. coli and salmonella bacteria from US companies."
Who Armed Iraq?
Janes Defence News,
17 March 2003
"The National
Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of
declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early
1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967.
The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had
invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would 'probably'
include 'an eventual nuclear weapon capability,' harbored known terrorists in Baghdad,
abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on
Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence
and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level
presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).
The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic
reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use
concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision
directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region
[which included] preserving access to oil...."
U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN
IN EARLY 1980s
DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
US National Security
Archive, George Washington University, Press Release 25 February 2003
"For just so
long Kuwait, a small country at the head of the Persian Gulf, had been set free and
independent from its long-time British protector. And during that time Kuwait had
developed its oil fields and become immensely rich. Saddam Hussein claimed that Kuwait was
part of Iraq. To have and to hold it would put him on the way to achieving something that
the Soviets had yearned for right after the Second War and been denied by the intervention
of the United Nations, which was to be sovereign of the Gulf - and so, as Churchill
foresaw and warned about, soon to be able to conquer Europe without a war by possessing
60% of the oil Western Europe lived by and so be able to dictate to countries like
Britain, France, Germany, that they should abandon their precious democratic ways and get
themselves governments friendly to Iraq.....[Following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait]
President Bush - the first that is - called a dawn meeting of the National Security
Council at which the likely commander of any military action, one General Schwarzkopf,
expressed the general feeling that the United States might fight for Saudi Arabia but
hardly for Kuwait. President Bush told the press there was no thought of American
intervention. The United Nations anyway had voted to impose a total embargo on Iraq. Two
days after the invasion President Bush took a half day out to keep a promise to the
British prime minister who was addressing a conference in Aspen, Colorado, a resort town
in the Rockies. He found Mrs Thatcher in finer fighting fettle than all but one of his own
advisers. She stressed that fighting for Kuwait now might be a necessary step to saving
Saudi Arabia from invasion later on. ..... What so swiftly transformed the views and
policy of the United States and the onlooking allies-to-be was the recognition, first
pressed on President Bush by Mrs Thatcher and then rather late in the day realised by the
King of Saudi Arabia, that once he held Kuwait there was nothing to stop Saddam from
seizing the Saudi oil
fields."
Alistair Cooke's Letter From
America
BBC
Online, 24 June 2002
"The key holdout is Saudi Arabia --
and it is indeed aggravating that even though we went
to war in 1991 principally to protect its oil, they
are unwilling to let us launch air strikes [on Iraq] from their country."
James Woolsey - The Former CIA
Director Speaks on Iraq
TIME,
18 February 1998
"We're there because the fact of
the matter is that part of the world controls the world supply of oil, and whoever controls the supply of oil,
especially if it were a man like Saddam Hussein, with a large army and sophisticated
weapons, would have a stranglehold on the American economy and on — indeed on the
world economy."
Dick Cheney, US Secretary of Defense 1990
New York Times, 24
February 2006
"Energy is vital to a country's
security and material well-being. A state unable to provide its people with adequate
energy supplies or desiring added leverage over other people often resorts to force.
Consider Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, driven by his desire to control more of
the world's oil reserves, and the international response to this threat. The underlying
goal of the U.N. force, which included 500,000 American troops, was to ensure continued and unfettered access to petroleum...."
Richard G. Lugar and R. James Woolsey (Former Director of the CIA)
The New Petroleum - Foreign Affairs
January/February 1999
"Years before
George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the
direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to
get Saddam Hussein out of power... The group was never secret about its aims. In its 1998
open letter to Clinton, the group openly advocated unilateral U.S. action against Iraq....
Of the 18 people who signed the letter, 10 are now in the Bush administration. As well as
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, they include Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage ... "
Were Neo-Conservatives’
1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?
ABC News, 10
March 2003
"We are writing you because we are convinced that current
American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding..... It
hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of
mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course,
the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the
moderate Arab states, and
a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard."
Open Letter To President Bill Clinton, 26 January 1998
Signed by: Elliott Abrams, Richard L.
Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis
Fukuyama, Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman,
Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber., Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey,
Robert B. Zoellick
"Donald
Rumsfeld, the US defense secretary, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz wrote to President Bill
Clinton in 1998 urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a
'hazard' to 'a
significant portion of the world's supply of oil'. In the letter,
Rumsfeld also calls for America to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations and says
the US should not be 'crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security
Council'. Those who signed the letter,
dated January 26, 1998, include Bush's current Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle; Richard
Armitage, the number two at the State Department; John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky,
under-secretaries of state; Elliott Abrams, the presidential adviser for the Middle East
and a member of the National Security Council; and Peter W Rodman, assistant secretary of
defense for international security affairs. It reads: 'We urge you to seize [the]
opportunity and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the US and
our friends and allies around the world. 'That strategy should aim, above all, at the
removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power..... If Saddam does acquire the capability
to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along
the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies
like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil, will
all be put at hazard."
Rumsfeld Urged Clinton to Attack Iraq
Sunday
Herald, 16 March 2006
In The 1990s America Knew That
An Oil Crunch Was Coming Driven By Already Falling US Production,
The Prospect Of A Global Peak In Production Early In The Next Century,
And Rising Demand Competition Especially From China
Center for Strategic and
International Studies The Changing
Geopolitics of Energy – Part I August 12, 1998 · Oil and gas energy use rises by 75% in BTUs between 1997 and 2020.
|
"Optimists about world oil
reserves, such as the Department of Energy, are getting increasingly lonely. The
International Energy Agency now says that world production outside the Middle Eastern
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (opec) will peak in 1999 and world production overall will peak between 2010 and 2020. This projection is supported by influential recent articles in
Science and Scientific American. Some knowledgeable academic and industry voices put the
date that world production will peak even sooner—within the next five or six years.
The optimists who project large reserve quantities of over one trillion barrels tend to
base their numbers on one of three things: inclusion of heavy oil and tar sands, the
exploitation of which will entail huge economic and environmental costs; puffery by opec
nations lobbying for higher production quotas within the cartel; or assumptions about new
drilling technologies that may accelerate production but are unlikely to expand reserves.
Once production peaks, even though exhaustion of world reserves will still be many years
away, prices will begin to rise sharply. This
trend will be exacerbated by increased demand in the developing world..... The recent report by the President's Committee of Advisers
on Science and Technology... concluded 'A plausible argument can be made that the
security of the United States is at least as likely to be imperiled in the first half of
the next century by the consequences of inadequacies in the energy options available to
the world as by inadequacies in the capabilities of U.S. weapons systems. It is
striking that the Federal government spends about 20 times more R&D money on the
latter problem than on the former.'... The nearly $70 billion spent annually for imported
oil represents about 40 percent of the current U.S. trade deficit.... Research is
essential to produce the innovations and technical improvements that will lower the
production costs of ethanol and other renewable fuels and let them compete directly with
gasoline. At present, the United States is not funding a vigorous program in renewable
technologies.... The United States cannot afford to wait for the next energy crisis to
marshal its intellectual and industrial resources....Our growing dependence on
increasingly scarce Middle Eastern oil is a fool's game—there is no way for the rest
of the world to win. Our losses may come suddenly through war, steadily through price
increases, agonizingly through developing-nation poverty, relentlessly through climate
change—or through all of the above."
Richard G. Lugar and R. James Woolsey (Former Director of the CIA)
The New Petroleum - Foreign Affairs
January/February 1999
"For the
world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to
offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new
demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global
oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline
in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an
additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil
companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains
fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil
opportunities, the
Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the
prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there,
progress continues to be slow."
Dick Cheney, Chief Executive of Halliburton,
now Vice President of the United States
Speech at London
Institute of Petroleum, Autumn Lunch 1999
"... the mideast will increasingly become the source of the world's oil, and this is a strategic problem for us and for many other countries."
"....For the
most part, U.S. oil policy has relied on maintenance of free access to Middle East Gulf oil and free
access for Gulf exports to world markets, relying heavily on military preparedness. The U.S. has forged a special
relationship with certain key Middle East exporters that had an expressed interest in
stable oil prices and, we assumed, would adjust their oil output to keep prices at levels
that would neither discourage global economic growth nor fuel inflation. Taking this
dependence a step further, the U.S. government has operated under the assumption that the
national oil companies of these countries would make the investments needed to maintain
enough surplus capacity to form a cushion against disruptions. But recently, things have
changed. These Gulf
allies are finding their domestic and foreign policy interests increasingly at odds with
America’s strategic considerations. They have become less inclined to lower oil prices in exchange for
security of markets, and evidence suggests that adequate investment is not being made in a
timely enough manner to increase production capacity in line with growing global needs.
The opening of new media outlets in the Middle East has also increased the likelihood that
a linkage will emerge in the minds of citizens there between the U.S. alliance with Israel
and cooperation on oil prices. Moreover, a trend toward anti-Americanism could affect
regional leaders’ abilities to cooperate with the U.S. in the energy area. The resulting tight markets have
increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue
potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq
has become a key 'swing' producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S.
government."
STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY:
CHALLENGES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND THE
COUNCIL FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS, APRIL 2001
"Israel stands to benefit
greatly from the US led war on Iraq, primarily by getting rid of an implacable foe in
President Saddam Hussein and the threat from the weapons of mass destruction he was
alleged to possess. But it seems the
Israelis have other things in mind. An
intriguing pointer to one potentially significant benefit was a report by Haaretz on 31
March that minister for national infrastructures Joseph Paritzky was considering the
possibility of reopening the long-defunct oil pipeline from Mosul to the Mediterranean port of Haifa. With Israel lacking
energy resources of its own and depending on highly expensive oil from Russia, reopening
the pipeline would transform its economy....
All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is part of a masterplan to reshape
the Middle East to serve Israel's interests. Haaretz quoted Paritzky as saying that the
pipeline project is economically justifiable because it would dramatically reduce Israel's
energy bill. US efforts to get Iraqi oil to Israel are not surprising. Under a 1975
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the US guaranteed all Israel's oil needs in the event
of a crisis. The MoU, which has been quietly renewed every five years, also committed the
USA to construct and stock a supplementary strategic reserve for Israel, equivalent to
some US$3bn in 2002. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from restrictions on
oil exports from the USA. Moreover, the USA agreed to divert oil from its home market,
even if that entailed domestic shortages, and guaranteed delivery of the promised oil in
its own tankers if commercial shippers were unwilling or not available to carry the crude
to Israel. All of this adds up to a potentially massive financial commitment. The USA has another reason for supporting Paritzky's
project: a land route for Iraqi oil direct to the Mediterranean would lessen US dependence
on Gulf oil supplies. Direct access to the world's second-largest oil reserves (with the
possibility of expansion through so-far untapped deposits) is an important strategic
objective."
Oil from Iraq : An Israeli pipedream?
Jane's
Foreign Report, 16 April 2003
"When
President George W. Bush took office last January, energy matters were a high-priority
issue of public policy. Heating-oil and gasoline prices were reaching historic levels and
consumers throughout the industrial world were concerned about what their governments were
doing to relieve their burden. Natural gas prices in the United States had risen 400
percent over the previous 18 months, forcing many industrial users of gas to shut
operations rather than make uneconomic fuel purchases. Electric power shortages disrupted
daily life as well as economic growth in California and other U.S. states, as well as in
Brazil, India, and other areas of rapid economic expansion. Members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC) were producing at capacity and a supply interruption of significant
international dimensions loomed on the horizon, whether because of internal conflict in an oil-producing country, political manipulation by Iraq or another oil-producing government, or surging energy
demand.... One of the first acts of the new U.S. administration was to convene an energy
policy task force, chaired by Vice
President Dick Cheney.
The task force was given high political importance and charged with formulating a coherent
approach toward energy policy that would aim to provide long-term solutions to the critical shortages looming
along the energy supply chain. The vice president’s chairmanship gave the administration an
opportunity to consolidate and assess the inevitably contradictory interests of different
government departments, which themselves reflected contradictory interests among the
American public. This review created a process that for the first time allowed
international strategic concerns to be balanced against domestic energy interests — hence the participation of both
the State and Energy Departments.... Even before the [2000] presidential election occurred, the
James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University and the Council on
Foreign Relations had decided to convene their own task force on strategic energy policy.
The aim was to bring together individuals representing various public and private energy
constituencies in order to map out for the new administration and for the public at large
the main issues at stake. Our task force report was issued before the administration was
able to produce its own study. Our report warned that years of negligence by policymakers
had brought the U.S. energy sector to critical condition... it is incorrect for the public or for
policymakers to assume that the oil situation is 'solved' or was simply fabricated all
along.... it is certain that without an energy policy, energy shortages and temporary
dislocations can easily reemerge once economic growth resumes its earlier accelerated
path, or if international political events, extreme weather, or accident tilts demand back
above available supply in certain locations.... reliance on volatile Middle East oil resources could
increase dramatically over the next two decades unless policies are put in place to promote oil
development in other regions, to shift to alternative sources, or to rein in unbridle or
wasteful consumption.... Failure to respond would, in turn, leave the country vulnerable
to the unacceptable future costs, as well as to the leverage that foreign adversaries could
exert over our economy, if we were unnecessarily exposed to the possibility of recurrent
dislocations stemming from a fresh round of volatile energy prices.....[more effective
proposals are required for] Making progress in fostering the reopening of key oil-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia to foreign
investment in their hydrocarbons sector......[and] Putting together more-realistic
strategies in the
Caspian Basin, which
appear to be easing both decision-making on resource projects in the region and the speed
with which new resources will be brought to market..... The administration has correctly
shifted debate away from discussion of the need for U.S. energy independence. Such independence is not
attainable at a reasonable cost. Policy
must therefore focus on increasing the number of energy suppliers.... [We recommend that] U.S. encourages reopening of international
investment in foreign oil fields [which] Provides U.S. firms long-term presence in important oil producing countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait;
encourages capacity expansion; strengthens U.S. ties to oil producers and open investment opportunities for
U.S. firms...."
STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY UPDATE
JAMES
A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND THE COUNCIL FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS, SEPTEMBER
2001
"Our industry can certainly be proud
of its past achievements. Yet the challenges we will face in the coming years will be
every bit as great as those encountered in the past, due in part to ever-increasing global
energy use. For example, we estimate that world oil and gas production from existing
fields is declining at an average rate of about 4 to 6 percent a year. To meet projected
demand in 2015, the industry will have to add about 100 million oil-equivalent barrels a
day of new production. That's equal to about 80 percent of today's production level. In other words, by
2015, we will need to find, develop and produce a volume of new oil and gas that is equal
to eight out of every 10 barrels being produced today."
John Thompson, President of ExxonMobil Exploration
The
Lamp (published for ExxonMobil shareholders), 2003, Vol. 85 No.1
"Those people
and others have been telling the various US administrations, especially the current one,
that if you want to control the world you need to control the oil. Therefore the
destruction of Iraq is a pre-requisite to controlling oil. That means the destruction of
the Iraqi national identity, since the Iraqis are committed to their principles and rights
according to international law and the UN charter. It seems that this argument has
appealed to some US administrations especially the current one that if they control the
oil in the Middle East, they would be able to control the world. They could dictate to
China the size of its economic growth and interfere in its education system and could do
the same to Germany and France and perhaps to Russia and Japan. They might even tell the
same to Britain if its oil doesn't satisfy its domestic consumption. It seems to me that
this hostility is a trademark of the current US administration and is based on its wish to
control the world and spread its hegemony."
Saddam Hussein - Interview with Tony Benn
Guardian, 5 February 2003
"George Bush
asked for Tony Blair's backing to remove Saddam Hussein from power just nine days after
the 11 September attacks, over a private dinner at the White House, a US magazine reported
last night. Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to Washington, was at the
dinner table as Mr Blair replied that he would rather concentrate on ousting the Taliban
and restoring peace in Afghanistan. In a 25,000-word article in this month's American
edition of Vanity Fair, Sir Christopher recounts Mr Bush as responding: 'I agree with you
Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come
back to Iraq.' Mr Blair, Sir Christopher writes, 'said nothing to demur' at the prospect.
Sir Christopher's account presents a new challenge to Mr Blair's assertion that no
decision was taken on the invasion of Iraq until just days before operations began, in
March 2003. It implies regime change in Iraq was US policy immediately after 11
September."
Blair Told US
Was Targeting Saddam 'Just Days After 9/11'
Independent, 4 April 2004
“Fuel is our
economic lifeblood. The price of oil can be the difference between recession and recovery.
The western world is import dependent. We base our policy on diversity of supply. You in
the US import from 50 different countries, no one of which supplies more than 15 per cent
of total imports. The EU pursues roughly the same policy. So: who develops oil and gas,
what the new potential sources of supply are, is a vital strategic question. We have the
best energy companies in the world. Yet I don't believe that collectively, we have a
sufficient strategy for ensuring that the political and corporate world co-operate
together in ensuring the diversity of supply continues or in our policy towards energy.
The Middle East, we focus on naturally. But the Caspian, Russia and Angola will be vital
sources of supply in the future.”
Tony Blair, Speech at George Bush Snr Library
10 Downing St, 7 April 2002
"The foreign
secretary, Jack Straw, yesterday pinpointed for the first time security of energy sources
as a key priority of British foreign policy. Mr Straw listed energy as one of seven
foreign policy priorities when he addressed a meeting of 150 British ambassadors in
London. The US and British governments officially deny that oil is a factor in the looming
war with Iraq, but some
ministers and officials in Whitehall say privately that oil is more important in the
calculation than weapons of mass destruction.... Mr Straw told ambassadors that, following a review he ordered
last year, the Foreign Office drew up a list of seven medium to long-term strategic
priorities, including 'to bolster the security of British and global energy
supplies'."
Straw admits oil is key priority
Guardian, 7 January 2003
".... our
energy system faces new challenges.... Our energy supplies will increasingly depend on
imported gas and oil..... we need access to a wide range of energy sources."
British Prime Minister,
Foreword to DTI Energy White Paper, February 2003
"The UK is a
net exporter of oil, so we have no need of the Iraqi oil."
British
Prime Minister, House of Commons, 14 April 2003
"British forces went into battle in the Iraq war without protective equipment against weapons of mass destruction -- the very 'threat' used by Tony Blair to justify joining the American-led invasion. Not one single tank or armoured vehicle was fitted with the required filter to guard against chemical and biological attacks..... according to a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) published today."
Soldiers in Iraq 'did not have WMD protection'
Independent, 12 December 2003
"Britain has
been given its first alarming glimpse into a future when the North Sea's oil begins to dry
up. In September, oil
imports exceeded exports for the first time since August 1991. The turnabout from a £400 million
surplus to a £63 million deficit helped to widen the trade gap to a record £3.9
billion.... the UK Offshore Operators Association predicts a bleak trend for oil
production in the UK. North
Sea oil output peaked at 2.9 million bpd in 1999, but is expected to be just 1.6 million bpd in four
years' time."
UK dips toe in nightmare
future of disappearing oil
London Times, 12 November 2003
"The Bush administration made plans
for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between
neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's
Newsnight has revealed..... Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced
US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the
US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered. In fact there were two
conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the
Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of 'Big Oil' executives and US State
Department 'pragmatists'. 'Big Oil' appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by
Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American
oil industry consultants. Insiders told Newsnight that planning began 'within weeks' of
Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US....The
industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion
in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was
crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through
massive increases in production above Opec quotas. The sell-off was given the green light
in a secret meeting in London headed by Ahmed Chalabi shortly after the US entered
Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel. Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a
fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight
he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department. Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's 'back-channel' to Saddam, claims
that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003,
helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.
'Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, you're losing your
resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life
miserable,' said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco. 'We saw an increase in the
bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming.' Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control
of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the
sell-off scheme.... Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation,
told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields..... New
plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US
Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by
the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of
the James Baker Institute in Texas. Formerly US Secretary of State, Baker is now an
attorney representing Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi Arabian government.... "
Secret US plans for Iraq's oil
BBC News, 17 March 2005
".... every morning for the past
week, staff from the Ministry of Irrigation have arrived for work at their new office --
the parking lot of their charred government complex. Little remains of the ministry,
save massive metal desks too heavy for looters to carry and a toilet or two. The former
minister has vanished. Years of records and plans literally went up in smoke when US
missiles slammed into the 10-story building..... a tour of Baghdad's 22 ministries
demonstrates just how complex the task of rebuilding the government will be. In some
cases, the obstacles are physical: The Ministry of Trade, for example, is a blackened
edifice still smoldering from fires set by looters.... Only a few agencies, such as the
Ministry of Oil, are intact..... At the Ministry of Oil, staff members point out with some
irony that theirs is the one ministry in town without a scratch. Inevitably, suspicions
are raised that the ministry was deliberately spared, so that the United States can profit
from Iraq's oil. The phalanx of US soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division guarding the
ministry and frisking all those coming in and out only heightens resentment. 'I am not
happy because we are occupied by the Americans, in my country, in my city, and in my
ministry, ' said Lawahith al-Qaissi, the chief of engineers. 'And if it is not for
our oil, then why are they here?' Indeed, of all the ministries, it is the sprawling Oil
Ministry that has the most hustle and bustle inside, as cleaners mop up dust from recent
sandstorms and as newly returning employees hug and kiss one another for the first time
since the war began. Plans are apace to get oil, Iraq's lifeblood, flowing fully again....
Now there are dreams to do far more at the Ministry of Oil, like woo foreign investment
and technology to more than double the
barrels of oil that Iraq could pump per day, to 7 million."
Rebuilding of ministries is key hurdle
Boston Globe, 29 April 2003
"The
super-giant fields of southeastern Iraq are the largest concentration of super-giants to
be found anywhere in the world....unlike neighbor Saudi Arabia, Iraq has been unable to
deploy the latest technology, such as 3-D seismic, to find its reserves. Present reserve
estimates of Iraq's oil are based on 2-D seismic technology from the 1980s. Still, the
estimated success rate in Iraq ranges from one in two in the Mesopotamian Basin to one in
four in the western and northwestern stable platform, with the overall success rate
exceeding 72 percent - perhaps
the highest success rate achievable anywhere in the world. Oil exploration costs are among the
cheapest globally, with the current cost estimated at around 50 cents per barrel....To
date, petroleum geologists have delineated and mapped over 526 prospects - drilling 131
prospects to discover 73 major fields. They have identified some 239 as having a high
degree of certainty, but those prospects remain undrilled. Thirty fields have been
partially developed and only 12 fields are actually onstream. Undrilled structures and undeveloped fields could
represent the largest untapped hydrocarbon resource anywhere in the world.....Clearly, large parts of Iraq are
still virgin - its large hydrocarbon reserves are still waiting to be developed to their
full potential, while most
other Middle East countries are fully exploiting their reserves. The main challenges facing the new Iraqi
authority are to establish law and order as well as security. Once these issues are resolved, Iraq will perhaps
be the most exciting place on Earth with regard to oil development and exploration....International oil companies are
looking forward with great anticipation to the opening of Iraq, as they have been waiting
for the past 40 years. Hopefully, Iraq will soon be able to offer them acreage, thereby
allowing proper development of its huge potential. Open and fair competition will enable
oil companies to apply the latest technologies in the search for, and development of, the
country's hydrocarbon resources - thus helping Iraq realize its full hydrocarbon
potential."
Assessing Iraq’s Oil
Potential
Geotimes, October 2003
"Congressional Republicans killed a
provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record
against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and
congressional aides said on Friday.... As originally passed by the House of
Representatives, the Pentagon would have been prohibited from spending any of the funds
for entering into a military basing rights agreement with Iraq. A similar amendment passed
by the Senate said the Pentagon could not use the next round of war funding to 'establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq, or to exercise United States control over the oil infrastructure or oil
resources of Iraq.'.... Senate
aides said Republican staffers removed the provisions from
the bills before House and Senate negotiators convened this week in a late-night work
session."
Iraq war bill deletes US military base prohibition
Reuters,
9 June 2006
"The
question puzzles and enrages a city: how is it that the Americans cannot keep the
electricity running in Baghdad for more than a couple of hours a day, yet still manage to
build themselves the biggest embassy on Earth? Irritation grows as residents
deprived of air-conditioning and running water three years after the US-led invasion watch
the massive US Embassy they call 'George W’s palace' rising from the banks of the
Tigris.... Officially, the design of the compound is supposed to be a secret, but you
cannot hide the giant construction cranes and the concrete contours of the 21 buildings
that are taking shape. Looming over the skyline, the embassy has the distinction of being
the only big US building project in Iraq that is on time and within budget. In a
week when Washington revealed a startling list of missed deadlines and overspending on
building projects, Congress was told that the bill for the embassy was $592 million (£312
million).... There will be impressive residences for the Ambassador and his deputy, six
apartments for senior officials, and two huge office blocks for 8,000 staff
to work in.....Iraqi politicians opposed to the US presence protest that the scale of the
project suggests that America retains long-term ambitions here. The International Crisis Group, a think-tank, said the
embassy’s size 'is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in
their country'".
In the chaos of Iraq, one project is on target: a giant US embassy
London Times, 3 May
2006
"The global
market will need increasing volumes of oil from members of the Organisation of Petroleum
Exporting Countries after non-OPEC production reaches a maximum of about 50 million b/d
between 2007 and 2011... A question crucial to future oil supply, therefore is: Can OPEC's
old fields deliver.... The oil
fields of Iraq are the least depleted and least developed of any of the Persian Gulf
oil producing countries, and Iraq has the potential to rapidly increase oil
output.... Only
Iraq has undeveloped supergiant oil fields (West Qurna, Majnoon, and East Baghdad) and the
potential to rapidly increase production to 8-10 million b/d...... As the different components of
supply reach their maximum production rate, a series of crises in oil supply is likely
over the coming decades. The first, related to the peak and decline of non-OPEC
production, is practically upon us and underpins the currently high oil prices. Other
factors are burgeoning world oil demand, driven primarily by China and the USA, and
restricted output from Iraq. The imminent inability of non-OPEC production to meet
incremental demand and its decline after 2010 precipitates the second crisis as
OPEC’s diminishing spare capacity (even with Iraq’s production back to
preinvasion levels) becomes less and less able to accommodate short-term fluctuations. The
timing and depth of the crisis depend on world oil demand and OPEC investment in new
capacity. While OPEC countries will have every incentive to make the necessary
investments, the pace of past decision-making is not encouraging, and enough spare
capacity may not be available in time. The third crisis, due to OPEC’s
incremental supply being unable to meet incremental demand, follows in the first half of
the next decade. This assumes that OPEC’s reserves are as published. If OPEC’s
reserves are higher than published, this crisis may not occur until the latter half of the
next decade and may be muted, particularly if demand moderates. These crises will have global
economic and geopolitical significance: The oil price will be high and volatile, and
demand growth will have to be curtailed..."
Oil Supply Challenges - 2: What Can OPEC
Deliver?
Oil and
Gas Journal, 7 March 2005
"America began a historic reshaping
of its presence in the Middle East yesterday, announcing a halt to active military operations in Saudi Arabia and the removal of
almost all of its forces from the kingdom within weeks. The withdrawal ends a contentious
12-year-old presence in Saudi Arabia and marks the most dramatic in a set of sweeping
changes in the deployment of American forces after the war in Iraq. Withdrawal of
'infidel' American forces from Saudi Arabia has been one of the demands of Osama bin
Laden, although a senior US military official said that this was 'irrelevant'.... Behind
the dry talk of rearranging America's military 'footprint' in the Gulf, the great
imponderables were bin Laden and Muslim radicals' complaints about the presence of
'infidels' in the birthplace of Islam. That presence was cited as one of the main
justifications for the September 11 attacks. Despite American insistence that the
withdrawal had not been 'dictated' by al-Qa'eda and that bin Laden was 'irrelevant', there
can be little doubt that undercutting a central plank of al-Qa'eda's platform is one of
several advantages offered by withdrawal from Saudi Arabia."
America to withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia
Daily
Telegraph, 30 April 2003
"[In 1981] Osama bin
Laden, son of the founder of the Bin Laden Group, the largest construction company in
Saudi Arabia, travels to Afghanistan to help the mujahadeen in their bloody war against
the Soviet Union.....[In 1989] The Soviets pull out of Afghanistan after the CIA spends
(US) $3-billion on the largest covert operation in its history. Osama bin Laden returns to
Saudi Arabia, angry with how the Americans abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet
retreat.... [In 1991] The first Gulf War occurs, whereby George H. W. Bush is determined
to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait to ensure the
Iraqi dictator doesn’t have a stranglehold on world oil markets. Osama bin Laden urges the Saudi royal family to find an Arab solution,
by raising an army on their own to fight Hussein. When the royal family invites the U.S.
in to do the job instead, Bin Laden becomes disenchanted with the House of al-Saud. His anger grows when after the war the US leaves 20,000 troops
behind in Saudi Arabia. Soon Bin Laden makes a deal
with the Saudi royal family: he is allowed to leave the kingdom with his fortune, and will
receive funding for al Qaeda from various Saudi charities and banks, but in return he must
not launch attacks against the royal family. Bin Laden settles in the Sudan, aiming his
ire at the US."
The Saudi Connection
CBC News (Canada), 29
October 2003
"When Iraq invaded Kuwait a year
later, Saudi Arabia and the United States forged a strong alliance, with U.S. and other
troops pouring into the kingdom. Bin Laden saw this as U.S. occupation and, shifting his
base to Sudan, declared a jihad to evict the new invaders from Islam's holy lands. The
Saudis stripped him of his Saudi citizenship and forced Sudan to evict him."
Inside Osama Bin Laden
United Press
International, 4 January 2001
"America's announcement of its
intention to withdraw its military bases from Saudi Arabia [following the moving of US
troops into Iraq] answers Osama bin Laden's most persistent demand. More than any other
cause it was the presence of 'crusader' forces in the land of Islam's holiest sites -
Mecca and Medina - that turned bin Laden from Afghan jihadi [and US ally] into an
international terrorist [and US opponent]. A wealthy Saudi with royal connections, bin
Laden fell out with the House of Saud largely because it permitted US bases in the
country. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden offered his own forces to
the Saudi regime to help expel the Iraqis from the Gulf. He was enraged when the Saudi
royal family turned instead to Washington and more than 500,000 US troops were sent. The
same year the Americans arrived, bin Laden fled Saudi - where he faced house arrest - and
established his base in Sudan. He and his al-Qa'eda forces moved to Afghanistan in 1996,
issuing the first of his international fatwas through the London-based Al Quds Al Arabi
newspaper. After railing against the persecution of Muslims around the world, bin Laden
stated: "The latest and greatest of these aggressions incurred by Muslims since the
death of the Prophet … is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places - the
foundation of the House of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message
and the place of the noble Ka'ba, the Qiblah of Muslims, by the armies of the American
Crusaders and their allies. We bemoan this and can only say 'No power and power acquiring
except through Allah'.... The US withdrawal from Saudi will not be enough to satisfy bin
Laden or his followers. It may, however, make life easier for the Saudi regime, which has
been struggling to quell growing dissent within the kingdom over the presence of 'infidel'
soldiers."
Bin Laden's main demand is met
Daily
Telegraph, 30 April 2003
Post 9/11 The US Moved Its Combat Troops Out Of Saudi
Arabia And Into Iraq
Because It Feared Its Continuing Military Presence In Saudi Arabia Would Lead To
The Fall Of The Western Friendly House Of Saud
And Threaten Oil Supplies To The West
But The US Still Needed A Platform From Which To Police Access To Gulf Oil
Resources
Hence 'Destination Iraq' - A Non-Theocraticly Governed Society Strategically
Situated Between Both Saudi Arabia And Iran
Saudi Arabia, Iran, And Iraq Have The World's Three Largest Reserves Of Oil
"Contrary to much of the
conventional wisdom about Osama bin Laden, the Saudi fugitive is hardly a madman. In fact,
he has developed a stunningly deceptive regional war calculus that stands a reasonable
chance of success. Despite the massive build-up of allied forces, bin Laden's strategy
depends on a set of well-conceived geopolitical assumptions that he fervently believes can
turn Western military capability to his strategic advantage. His strongest belief is that
Saudi Arabia can be brought to its knees, the House of Saud deposed and a new theocracy,
based on his version of a pure and uncontaminated Islam, can rise to power in the Arabian
peninsula. Hoping to seize state power as Ayatollah Khomeini did in Iran in 1979, bin
Laden plans to use Afghanistan as a staging ground for self-declared leadership in exile.
The overriding goal is to return to Saudi Arabia in triumph and put an end to the existing
regime. Such an accomplishment would dramatically tilt the Middle Eastern balance of power
in favour of radical forces led by Iraq, Iran, Syria and, of course, the global terrorist
network. Even before the attacks on New York and Washington, bin Laden's power was felt at
the highest level of the Saudi regime..... To bin Laden, King Fahd's departure can only be
considered a victory in his campaign to rid Saudi Arabia of the contamination of American
rule through their surrogates in the House of Saud. With King
Fahd's health maintained on a 24-hour medical watch, and the Saudi royal family divided
between the conservative, religious faction of Crown Prince Abdullah and that of the
defence minister, King Fahd's full brother, Prince Sultan, Saudi Arabia's future political
course and, with it, the stability of the Gulf is about to be decided. Bin Laden has
waited for this since 1991, when he was cast aside by the Saudis for offering his fighting
forces in defence of the kingdom against Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden is intimately aware of
the fragility of the Saudi power structure.... He came to despise what he saw as a corrupt
and malignant power structure indistinguishable from the American political system.
Undeterred by deference and loyalty, he understood that the legitimacy of the Saudi royal
family could be undermined by championing an alternative, indigenous religious ideology.
Large numbers of young disaffected Saudis felt increasingly alienated by a regime that
could neither defend itself by its own means nor maintain a standard of living that has
dropped from $18,000 per capita in the 1980s to $6,000 in 2000. With a deteriorating
economic and political environment, bin Laden may decide that the time is approaching to
activate the thousands of Saudi dissidents in the kingdom who form the core of his
support, and thereby exploit the schism between Abdullah and Sultan to launch the
destabilisation of the Saudi monarchy.... The more it is seen that the Saudi royal family
can no longer maintain internal cohesion and consensus within the royal family, the
greater the probability that Saudi religious dissidents will heed the call of bin Laden
and rise up against the regime..... Such a scenario provides a clear escape route for bin
Laden from the closing ring of fire around Afghanistan. Should he be able to escape and
seek refuge among the thousands of supporters in Saudi Arabia, he will no doubt be greeted
as a Mahdi, whose arrival on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia will mark a dramatically new
geopolitical landscape. The radicalisation of Iran by the ayatollahs pales by comparison.
Possibilities of widespread regional conflict may emerge as the latest military equipment
and the vast reserves of Saudi oil become available
to facilitate bin Laden's strategic goal - to destabilise and undermine the Western
economic system."
Bin Laden's secret goal is to overthrow the House of Saud
Daily
Telegraph, 27 September 2001
The Problem Is That Bin Laden's 1996 Fatwa
Relates To The Removal Of Infidel Troops
From The Whole Of The Arab Peninsula Not Just Saudi Arabia (The Most Important
Location)
Now The US Faces The Same Problem Simply Transferred To Iraq
"A year ago, President
Bush boldly said: 'Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does
America.' Yet Congress is posed to finalize the president's $82 billion request for the
Iraq war that includes a half-billion dollars for permanent military bases and another
half-billion for building the world's largest embassy. Despite the president's assurances,
the United States is preparing for a lengthy stay in Iraq.... the extent of the U.S.
occupation in Iraq is often overlooked. Currently, the United States operates out of about
50 locations including 14 'enduring bases' in Iraq. That's a huge presence in a country
the size of California.... Adding new and larger facilities will serve as a daily reminder
that Iraq is under a foreign military occupation. The
U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia was Osama bin Laden's chief recruiting tool there,
and the same dynamic appears to be working for Iraq's insurgents. While Bush has been extremely vocal about promoting democracy
for Iraqis, this new construction is decidedly undemocratic. There has been little role
for Iraqis in approving U.S. plans for adding new facilities."
Building permanent U.S. bases in Iraq sends wrong signal
Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, 15 May 2005
"The [Saudi government]
regime betrayed the Ummah [Arab community] and joined the Kufr [unbelievers], assisting
and helping them against the Muslims. It is well known that this is one of the ten
'voiders' of Islam, deeds of de-Islamisation. By opening the Arab
peninsula to the crusaders the regime disobeyed and
acted against what has been enjoined by the messenger of Allah... It is out of date and no
longer acceptable to claim that the presence of the crusaders is necessity [following the
1991 Gulf war] and only a temporary measures to protect the land of the two Holy
Places. Especially when the civil and the military infrastructures of Iraq were savagely
destroyed showing the depth of the Zionist-Crusaders hatred to the Muslims and their
children, and the rejection of the idea of replacing the crusaders forces by an Islamic
force composed of the sons of the country and other Muslim people. Moreover the
foundations of the claim and the claim it self were demolished and wiped out by the
sequence of speeches given by the leaders of the Kuffar in America. The latest of these
speeches was the one given by William Perry, the [US] Defense Secretary, after the
explosion in Al-Khobar saying that: the presence of
the American solders there is to protect the interest of the USA. The imprisoned Sheikh Safar Al-Hawali, may Allah hasten his release,
wrote a book of seventy pages; in it he presented evidence and proof that the presence of
the Americans in the Arab Peninsula is a pre-planed military occupation..... It is a duty now on every tribe
in the Arab Peninsula to fight, Jihad, in the cause of Allah and to cleanse the land from those
occupiers."
'Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the
Land of the Two Holy Places'
Bin Laden's Fatwa, first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper,
in August, 1996
Text
Provided By PBS News, USA
But That's Not The Only Problem
The Undeclared Energy War Against China
"Former UN chief weapons inspector
Hans Blix has said that oil was one of the reasons for the US-led invasion of Iraq, a
Swedish news agency reports. 'I did not think so at first. But the US is incredibly
dependent on oil,' news agency TT quoted Blix as saying at a security seminar in
Stockholm. 'They wanted to secure oil in case competition on the world market becomes too
hard.' Blix, who helped oversee the dismantling of Iraq's weapons programs before the war,
said another reason for the invasion was a need to
move US troops from Saudi Arabia, TT
reported. Competition over oil is creating
tension between the United States and China,
Blix said........."
Blix says war motivated by oil
Australian Associated Press, 7
April 2005
"The U.S. and China, the world's top two oil consuming
nations, must work together to avoid a competition for foreign supplies that might lead to
military conflict, U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman said.... China's demand for oil is
forecast to grow 2.9 percent a year between now and 2025, and U.S. demand will grow 1.5
percent a year. Efforts
by each nation to use imports to meet growing demand may escalate competition for oil to
something 'as hot and dangerous' as the nuclear arms race between the U.S. and Soviet
Union, Lieberman, 63, said in a speech today in Washington.... 'There is a problem because China, like the United States, is
tying its energy deals to military assistance,' said Michael Klare, author of 'Blood and Oil: The
Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum.' 'In the
short term, it's more a case of stirring up local conflicts, where the U.S. and China are
competing for the loyalty of oil producing countries, but that does have a tendency over time to escalate into
something bigger,' said Klare, a professor at Hampshire College in Amherst,
Massachusetts." |
"The world faces the real threat of a new conflict over oil as China
competes with existing world powers for scarce resources to feed its growing economy,
according to a report published today. The
State of the World 2006, released by the Worldwatch Institute, says that last year China
became the second- largest importer of oil, after the US... While environmentalists are concerned about the
impact on the world's climate and the drain on its resources, strategists fear that the
competition for energy, particularly oil, could destabilise the planet. According to the report, China was nearly
self-sufficient in oil in the mid-1990s. But over the past decade its consumption has
doubled and it has now overtaken Japan as the second-largest importer of oil, with 3.2
million barrels a day in 2004. It predicts that if the economies of China and India
continue to grow at their current rate, the world will not be able to produce enough oil
to meet demand by 2050, when consumption will have grown from the current 85 million
barrels a day to 200 million barrels. 'Few geologists believe that output will reach even
half those levels before beginning to decline,' the report says. As a result China
is already looking for new oil suppliers from Siberia to Sudan, often dealing with
notorious regimes, such as the junta in Burma. Of even greater concern is the possibility that open
conflict could break out between nations competing for resources or trying to protect
their supply lines, such as key trade routes, currently patrolled by the US Navy."
'Find a couple of spare planets or face global oil war'
London Times, 12
January 2006
"This comfortable world, as we have
known it, is coming to a crucial turning point. And energy, specifically the cost and
security of energy supply, lies at the apex of this turning point.... So, while some of the problems, such
as Kyoto, have had much attention, others, such as the long-term security of energy supply
upon which our prosperity has depended, have been neglected. Now, suddenly, new risks are
appearing on the horizon. There
are new dangers that could alter our quality of life over the next 20 years. They could
put at risk the comfortable social order we have created for ourselves, to which most of
the rest of the world has been conditioned to aspire. A key factor in the changing
balances of world energy is Russia.... So perhaps we should heed some distant storm
warnings. Perhaps we should be concerned when Russia and China seem to be coming to
recognise the scale of opportunity that a strategic partnership can offer them in terms of
energy security and global influence? And when the US Department of Energy forecasts that, by 2020, the annual shortfall
in Opec oil production, against global demand, will exceed the biggest-ever production of
Saudi Arabia, the traditional swing producer. And when we expect Canadian gas exports
to the US to dwindle and shortly cease because of the need for energy for the processing
of tar sands.... What
we believe to have been the definitive triumph of the Western democratic way over the
sterile misery of the Soviet system may be turning out not to have been the victorious end
of the Cold War after all, but just one battle in an unending struggle for global power
and influence. The
key weapon in the battle lines now being drawn is energy. Even if market forces prevail in
setting costs of oil and gas, it seems clear that having so heavily depleted its own
relatively low-cost hydrocarbon reserves, the OECD will have no influence over the supply
or over the very much higher future costs of that supply."
Energy question may spell end of the good life for the West
London
Times, 27 December 2005
".... the implications of China's exploding thirst for crude oil are epic in scope... Based on our analysis of the intense economic, crude oil, and military confrontations developing among the China Rim region’s largest economies,
we believe that the most aggressive crude oil price targets calling for $100 per barrel within the next three years will prove to be conservative.... it is our opinion that the 'likely direction of surprise' in crude oil prices will continue to be to the upside.... There is not just one new economic behmoth emerging in the China Rim region, there are two... The simultaneous economic rise of China and India will have a huge impact on worldwide crude oil markets.... The rapid and simultaneous rise of at least two behmoth economies, China and India, comes at time when the world's oil production appears poised to peak. A sustained upward move in crude oil prices is likely to create drilling economics that will favor the exploitation of reserves that were previously uneconomical to tap. However, the marginal increase in reserves that might result is unlikely, in our view, to substantially offset the crude oil impact of an eventual worldwide 'peak' in crude oil production...While China's economic rise is fostering a worldwide grab for crude oil reserves, it is also creating a 'war chest' with which China is financing the rapid modernization of the People's Liberation Army (PLA). The PLA, in turn, is the ultimate guarantor of China's energy security. One of the key purposes of this analysis is to provide our research users with a 'context' or 'unified theory' for interrelating economic, crude oil, and military developments on the China rim.... The Laguna Research Partners Energy Security Index measures total military expenditures per barrel of crude oil consumed. We calculate ESI for nations and regions.... These figures lend credence to our view that the US is currently critical to the energy security of both India and Russia - in defence of sea lanes and oil fields, respectively - vis-a-vis China... Our ... calculations show that China and the United States make estimated non-core military expenditures of US $47.01 AND US $42.38 per barrel of crude oil imported, respectively...[Japan, South Korea, India and Taiwan] have been beneficiaries of the US energy security umbrella. China's economic, crude oil, and military emergence, though, is prompting all of these leading China Rim crude oil importers to implement increasingly aggressive defence postures... From a short-term standpoint, worldwide crude oil demand is continuing to expand, but the world's crude oil production infrastructure is running at 'near full' capacity. From a long-term perspective, major new China Rim region buyers of crude oil - China and India - are emerging during a period when worldwide crude oil is approaching a peak. Meaningful new crude oil demand from Brazil will likely add to demand-side pressures during this critical 'peak oil' transition...""Saudi
Arabia, long the largest supplier of oil to the United States, has cut U.S. sales
dramatically and may soon no longer be among the top five largest U.S. suppliers. The Saudi kingdom's new largest customer is China.... Saudi Arabia's turn away from the
U.S. market began at the end of 2002 as the United States was preparing to go to
war in Iraq.... Placke said China recently surpassed Japan in its oil consumption
and is currently the world's second-largest oil market behind the United States. Lippman
said, however, that building consumption might be only part of the reason Saudi Arabia is
turning its attention to China. 'It seems to me that there is a certain logic for the
Saudis in looking around and saying, well wait a minute, we need a good relationship with
a country that is a permanent member of the (U.N.) Security Council, is a strong a growing
market for our oil, is a nuclear power and, by the way, is untainted by having invaded any Arab countries,'
Lippman said."
Saudi Arabia cuts oil sales to U.S., ups China
Washington
Times, 16 September 2005
"Move over,
Big Oil. There's a new oilman on the world stage - China. China's takeover bid for Unocal
Corp. makes clear to sticker-shocked Americans that the 1.3 billion Chinese people are
demanding an ever-larger supply of the world's energy to fuel their booming economy and
are willing to get it wherever necessary. From Central Asia to Latin America, Africa, the
Middle East and even Canada, Chinese firms are pumping oil and natural gas in many areas
that the United States was counting on to meet its own record-high demand.... While the Bush administration tries to build international
pressure against Iran over its nuclear aspirations, China has signed a $70 billion long-
term oil and gas supply deal with the Tehran... Chinese
firms signed numerous contracts to co-produce oil and natural gas. Iran is China's largest single source of foreign oil,
providing 13 percent of China's total annual imports..."
China on global hunt to quench its thirst for oil
San
Francisco Chronicle, 26 June 2005
"Vice
President Dick Cheney has been entrusted with a task regarded as vital to bolstering the
Bush administration's sagging political popularity: the search for additional crude oil in
order to help stabilize U.S. gasoline prices over the next few months. Mr. Cheney was
recently sent to Central Asia and other regions to coax allies to significantly increase
supplies to stabilize U.S. gasoline prices for the summer. Administration sources said Mr.
Cheney has run into significant difficulties as he has found that many of the potential
suppliers have become committed to China. 'We're
in a race with China and so far we're losing,' an administration source familiar with Mr. Cheney's trip said.... The sources
said Mr. Cheney, who has long-time contacts in the industry, has been designated to find
oil supplies both for the short- and medium-term. They said Mr. Cheney's visit to Central Asia was based on the assessment of the
U.S. intelligence community that Middle East oil supplies will become increasingly
precarious after 2008.... The sources said
Mr. Cheney found his hosts in Central Asia to be distrustful of U.S. intentions, with some
Muslim countries fearful of a regime change as that which took place in 2005 in
Kyrgyzstan, regarded as the most pro-American country in the region. Mr. Cheney also was
informed of the contracts China has already signed with Central Asian republics. In April,
Turkmenistan signed a deal to supply China with 30 billion cubic meters of gas per year
from 2009 to 2039....A key target of Mr. Cheney's visit was Kazakhstan, regarded as the
richest oil and natural gas state in the region. The vice president, in contrast to the
other countries he visited, did not discuss the need for democracy in Kazakhstan, whom he
described as a 'key strategic partner of the United States.' 'Obviously Kazakhstan
is important given their considerable resources,' Mr. Cheney said on May 5 on his return
to Washington. 'It's one of the few places where we're going to see an increase in oil
production from a non-OPEC state over the next few years.' The sources said Mr. Cheney
sought to exploit a rift between Russia and states in Central Asia. The vice president was
highly critical of Moscow's use of energy, particularly transport rights, to intimidate
its neighbors. At the same time, the Bush administration has been pressuring Kazakhstan to
export oil through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that would bypass Russia and supply
Europe and the United States. The sources said the Kazakh agreement to join the
trans-Caspian project could be signed in June."
The great oil race: Cheney discovers U.S. is losing out to China
Insight Magazine, 16
May 2006
No Solution In Sight? |
'PEAK
OIL'
GLOBAL ENERGY CRISIS LOOMING
Click
Here For More Information
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/energycrisis.htm
NATURAL
LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@btinternet.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex
