US policies in Middle East

[alpha]

There was an interesting article printed in Opinion section of Sunday's LA Times. I thinks it will of great interest to the members of our forum concerned with the US policies in the Middle East. It would be interesting to know your views about the subject matter as well.

 

Beyond Regime Change

The administration doesn't simply want to oust Saddam Hussein. It wants to redraw the Mideast map.

By Sandy Tolan

Sandy Tolan, an I.F. Stone Fellow at the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley, reports frequently on the Middle East. Jason Felch, a student in Tolan's "Politics and Petroleum" class, contribu

 

December 1 2002

 

BERKELEY -- If you want to know what the administration has in mind for Iraq, here's a hint: It has less to do with weapons of mass destruction than with implementing an ambitious U.S. vision to redraw the map of the Middle East.

 

The new map would be drawn with an eye to two main objectives: controlling the flow of oil and ensuring Israel's continued regional military superiority. The plan is, in its way, as ambitious as the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between the empires of Britain and France, which carved up the region at the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The neo-imperial vision, which can be ascertained from the writings of key administration figures and their co-visionaries in influential conservative think tanks, includes not only regime change in Iraq but control of Iraqi oil, a possible end to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and newly compliant governments in Syria and Iran -- either by force or internal rebellion.

 

For the first step -- the end of Saddam Hussein -- Sept. 11 provided the rationale. But the seeds of regime change came far earlier. "Removing Saddam from power," according to a 1996 report from an Israeli think tank to then-incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was "an important Israeli strategic objective." Now this has become official U.S. policy, after several of the report's authors took up key strategic and advisory roles within the Bush administration. They include Richard Perle, now chair of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense; and David Wurmser, special assistant in the State Department. In 1998, these men, joined by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz (now the top two officials in the Pentagon), Elliott Abrams (a senior National Security Council director), John Bolton (undersecretary of State) and 21 others called for "a determined program to change the regime in Baghdad."

 

After removing Hussein, U.S. forces are planning for an open-ended occupation of Iraq, according to senior administration officials who spoke to the New York Times. The invasion, said Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya, would be "a historic opportunity that is as large as anything that has happened in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire." Makiya spoke at an October "Post-Saddam Iraq" conference attended by Perle and sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute.

 

Any occupation would certainly include protecting petroleum installations. Control of the country's vast oil reserves, the second largest in the world and worth nearly $3 trillion at current prices, would be a huge strategic prize. Some analysts believe that additional production in Iraq could drive world prices down to as low as $10 a barrel and precipitate Iraq's departure from OPEC, possibly undermining the cartel. This, together with Russia's new willingness to become a major U.S. oil supplier, could establish a long-sought counterweight to Saudi Arabia, still the biggest influence by far on global oil prices. It would be consistent with the plan released by Vice President Dick Cheney's team in June, which underscored "energy security" as central to U.S. foreign policy. "The Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy," the report states.

 

Some analysts prefer to downplay the drive to control Iraqi oil. "It is fashionable among anti-American circles ... to assume that U.S. foreign policy is driven by commercial considerations," said Patrick Clawson, an oil and policy analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, in an October talk. Rather, Clawson said, oil "has barely been on the administration's horizon in considering Iraq policy.... U.S. foreign policy is not driven by concern for promoting the interests of specific U.S. firms."

 

Yet Clawson, whose institute enjoys close ties with the Bush administration, was more candid during a Capitol Hill forum on a post-Hussein Iraq in 1999: "U.S. oil companies would have an opportunity to make significant profits," he said. "We should not be embarrassed about the commercial advantages that would come from a re-integration of Iraq into the world economy. Iraq, post-Saddam, is highly likely to be interested in inviting international oil companies to invest in Iraq. This would be very useful for U.S. oil companies, which are well positioned to compete there, and very useful for the world's energy-security situation."

 

Indeed, Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi, whose close ties with Perle, Wurmser, Rumsfeld and Cheney predate the current Bush administration, met recently with U.S. oil executives. Afterward, Chalabi, the would-be "Iraqi Karzai" and the hawks' long-standing choice to lead a post-Hussein Iraq, made it clear he would give preference to an American-led oil consortium. He also suggested that previous deals -- totaling tens of billions of dollars for Russia's Lukoil and France's TotalFinaElf -- could be voided.

 

Next month, key Iraqi exiles will meet with oil executives at an English country retreat to discuss the future of Iraqi petroleum. The conference, sponsored by the Center for Global Energy Studies and chaired by Sheik Zaki Yamani, the former Saudi oil minister, will feature Maj. Gen. Wafiq Samarrai, the former head of Iraqi military intelligence, and former Iraqi Oil Minister Fadhil Chalabi, now executive director of the center.

 

Fadhil Chalabi estimates that total oil reserves in Iraq could exceed Saudi Arabia's and that daily production one day could reach 10 million barrels, making it the world's largest producer. Hence, on the center's conference agenda is a discussion of Iraq as a "second Saudi Arabia," and the prospect of a world without OPEC. Oil executives and analysts heading to the country retreat will also be able to purchase the center's 800-page analysis of the prospects for exploration in Iraq. The cost: $52,500.

 

But taking over Iraq and remaking the global oil market is not necessarily the endgame. The next steps, favored by hard-liners determined to elevate Israeli security above all other U.S. foreign policy goals, would be to destroy any remaining perceived threat to the Jewish state: namely, the regimes in Syria and Iran.

 

"The War Won't End in Baghdad," wrote the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Ledeen in the Wall Street Journal. In 1985, as a consultant to the National Security Council and Oliver North, Ledeen helped broker the illegal arms-for-hostages deal with Iran by setting up meetings between weapons dealers and Israel. In the current war, he argues, "we must also topple terror states in Tehran and Damascus."

 

In urging the expansion of the war on terror to Syria and Iran, Ledeen does not mention Israel. Yet Israel is a crucial strategic reason for the hard-line vision to "roll back" Syria and Iran -- and another reason why control of Iraq is seen as crucial. In 1998, Wurmser, now in the State Department, told the Jewish newspaper Forward that if Ahmad Chalabi were in power and extended a no-fly, no-drive zone in northern Iraq, it would provide the crucial piece for an anti-Syria, anti-Iran bloc. "It puts Scuds out of the range of Israel and provides the geographic beachhead between Turkey, Jordan and Israel," he said. "This should anchor the Middle East pro-Western coalition."

 

Perle, in the same 1998 article, told Forward that a coalition of pro-Israeli groups was "at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein." And Perle, Wurmser and Feith (now in the Pentagon), in their 1996 Israeli think tank report to Netanyahu, argued for abandoning efforts for a comprehensive peace in favor of a policy of "rolling back" Syria to protect Israel's interests.

 

Now, however, Israel is given a lower profile by those who would argue for rollback. Rather, writes Ledeen, U.S. troops would be put at risk in order to "liberate all the peoples of the Middle East." And this, he argues, would be virtually pain-free: "If we come to Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran as liberators, we can expect overwhelming popular support."

 

Perle concurs on Iraq -- "The Arab World ... will consider honor and dignity has been restored" -- as well as Iran: "It is the beginning of the end for the Iranian regime."

 

Now, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has joined the call against Tehran, arguing in a November interview with the Times of London that the U.S. should shift its focus to Iran "the day after" the Iraq war ends.

 

The vast ambition of such changes to the Middle Eastern map would seem an inherent deterrent. But it is precisely this historical sweep, reminiscent of Sykes-Picot and the British arrival in Iraq in 1917, that many close to the administration seek. Publicly, Perle and Ledeen cling to the fantasy that American troops would be welcomed in Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus with garlands of flowers. Yet they are too smart to ignore the rage across the Arab and Muslim worlds that would surely erupt in the wake of war on multiple Middle Eastern fronts.

 

Indeed, the foreshadowing is already with us: in Bali, in Moscow, in Yemen and on the streets of Amman. It's clear that even in Jordan, a close ally of the U.S., the anger at a U.S. attack on Iraq could be hard to contain.

 

Indeed, the hard-liners in and around the administration seem to know in their hearts that the battle to carve up the Middle East would not be won without the blood of Americans and their allies. "One can only hope that we turn the region into a caldron, and faster, please," Ledeen preached to the choir at National Review Online last August. "That's our mission in the war against terror."

[Azat]

Dear Alpha,

Very interesting article. I am not the person to answer this as well, but being and Armenian kits amen tegh petka mtsnem.

 

I actually very much agree with the first part of the article. I do feel that US is going to go to war against Iraq for only 1 reason. OIL. It is not because of terrorism or because of humanitarian reasons. It is just for Oil and to thicken the wallets of the oil company executives.(And also to allow every Armenian kid in the streets of LA to drive a huge SUVs as gas will be cheap.)

 

As long as Israel is occupying the Palestinian lad there is going to be no peace in the middle east and people of the middle east are going to hat Israel and the countries that support Israel. I am sure the administration knows this, but they just don't want to tell that to the public. So, one of the reasons why I am not sure about the redrawing of the map in the middle east is because the people in the middle east will continue to hate the US and terrorism will continue and redrawing of the map will not do anything. US needs to step up to the plate and fix the problem of Israel first.

[15levels]

Little old but good news for the Armenian community here in Israel, in particular in the Old City- the dispute over Der Baron property near Betlehem is resolved. Israel is prepared to relocate the fence and compensate for damage. Actually its the first time in a long long time Israel is doing something "right" in regards to the Armenians, (it was "wrong" in the first place, to take over the property of the Armenian church, but here everyone is paranoid about the security and when it comes to it - the fence is suppose to prevent terrorists from infiltrating to Israel- then moral sides of this are not really considered). I think its also a wise decision not to push Armenians even further away- sooner or later the Old City Jerusalem will be divided butween Israel and the Palestinians, and it will be up to Armenians to decide which side of the fence they wanna be. Well, my personal opinion is that there is very little guarantee that the law and order will apply to Armenians if Palestinians going to rule over the Armenian Quarter- Israel however can ensure it- but what kind of law is it going to be? Until now it only discriminated Armenians (and everybody else nonjewish). So basicly until Israel adopts a principal that all its citizens (including christian and muslim) are EQUAL there is little hope that Armenian community will enjoy well treatment from the state.

 

So which one of the two evils are we going to choose? Anarchy of Arafat or Israel's "law and order" (to be precise- "law and order" of the right government of Sharon and alikes. There ARE israeli politicians (like Yossi Beilin, Yossi Sarid and others) who will do the policy change when/if they come to power)?

 

[ December 08, 2002, 04:02 AM: Message edited by: Rouben Malayan ]

[THOTH]

Good observations MJ. I agree that often the public is quick to jump onto the simple conspiracy theory explanation and ignore the many - often oposing or at least tangental - forces that normally are at work in situations like this. All that being said to some degree I think this article is perhaps close to the truth in some areas - how close remains to be sen of course. And like you I'm not sure this is such a bad thing - however caution is always warrented (particualrly when one talks of war - as if it is a known event with entirely predictable outcome - its not.) I do think this idea that we (the US) will be applauded (at home and worldwide - particualrly in the Middle East) by pursuing this war and overthrowing Iraq is very shortsighted. In fact I predict the opposite. Everyone wants to hate the US now - and this is just the sort of thing that will spark opposition (external of course - but internally it could really cause a major split within the US) - even if - for most in the world - the outcome would actually proably be a good thing. Still I am not in favor of aggression versus Iraq at this time in general - though I could see circumstances where it could be justified.

 

You might be surprised to learn that I supported the idea to (temporarily) occupy Southern Iraq after the last war (and partition Iraq into thirds - with the Kurds being given much greater autonomy and protected status in the north). I would have used oil profits (nationalized) from the occupied areas to pay off the war and to pay for and position certain future defenses against potential Iraqi (or Iranian?) aggression in the Gulf and I would have tied the return of these lands/assets to Iraqi compliance with UN mandates - including disarmement (and such) and perhaps even certain civil reform measures - all things that I think we now we wish we could force. What right some may say? Well we must remember that Iraq initiated this war and through its actions threatend to destabalize the entire world economy. Sadaam/Iraq lost and surrendered unconditionally - so harsh terms should be expected (IMO) - much as Ottomans/Turkey deserved something like Sevres after WWI.

 

And bottom line - this region and its resources are too important to be left at such risk from these despotical tyrants. I don't necessarily propose the US going it alone and such - but if the rest of the world is paralized by inaction at some point the nation with the means and the will may be forced to act (in the interest of us all) - I mean how long can we continue on the brink of economic ruin? (I should also add a plug here for alternative energy - now! How stupid we have been...) Of course we must also be aware of world reaction and of the conditions/situations that are contributing to the tension and instability. It is for this reason that an acceptable "solution" (though it will never be quite that) must be had between Israel and the Palestinians and Arabs in general and an eventual lessening of the war footing between the West and the Muslims must also be a priority. But, lacking that I think that it is ludicrouse to be forced to inaction when the power is in our hands - the threats are real and ultimatly it could be possible to achieve a win-win situation (from certain perspectives at least) with Western economies more secure and maybe a few nasty tyrants properly dealt with. Is this really such a bad thing?

 

Anyway food for thought...

[Rubo]

MJ>Dick Cheney has been an elective official or a holder of executive position all his life, and until he has retired he has never had anything to do with energy. After his retirement, he has held an executive position in an energy service company and not an energy company, i.e. a company which manufactures supplies for energy companies such us pipelines, valves, etc. This has lasted eight years. Now he is qualified as "sellout" to Oil Industry

 

This observation is obviously tainted by partisan motivations therefore worthless!let’s do read who Chaney is-note no conspiracie theories here!

 

Cheney's Black Gold:Oil Interests May Drive US Foreign Policy

by Marjorie Cohn

 

What do the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea and the Balkans have in common? U.S. domination in these areas serves the interests of corporate multimillionaires such as Dick Cheney. As George Bush's secretary of defense, Cheney was chief prosecutor of Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Humanitarian rhetoric notwithstanding, the bombing of Iraq--which continues to this day--was primarily aimed at keeping the Persian Gulf safe for U.S. oil interests. Shortly after Desert Storm, the Associated Press reported Cheney's desire to broaden the United States' military role in the region to hedge future threats to gulf oil resources. Cheney is CEO of Dallas-based Halliburton Co., the biggest oil-services company in the world. Because of the instability in the Persian Gulf, Cheney and his fellow oilmen have zeroed in on the world's other major source of oil--the Caspian Sea. Its rich oil and gas resources are estimated at $4 trillion by U.S. News and World Report. The Washington-based American Petroleum Institute, voice of the major U.S. oil companies, called the Caspian region, "the area of greatest resource potential outside of the Middle East." Cheney told a gaggle of oil industry executives in 1998, "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But Caspian oil presents formidable obstacles. Landlocked between Russia, Iran and a group of former Soviet republics, the Caspian's "black gold" raises a transportation dilemma. Russia wants Caspian oil to run through its territory to the Black Sea. The United States, however, favors pipelines through its ally, Turkey. Although the cheapest route would traverse Iran to the Persian Gulf, U.S. sanctions against Iran block this alternative. Cheney has lobbied long and hard, as recently as June, for the lifting of those sanctions, to lubricate the Iran-Caspian connection. This is consistent with his position, described in a 1997 article in The Oil and Gas Journal, that oil and gas companies must do business in countries with policies unpalatable to the U.S. Cheney also favors the repeal of section 907 of the 1992 Freedom Support Act, which severely restricts U.S. aid to Azerbaijan because of its ethnic cleansing of the Armenians in Nagorno Artsax, a mountainous enclave in Azerbaijan. Why would Cheney choose to ignore Azerbaijan's human-rights violations? Because Azerbaijan, key to the richest Caspian oil deposits, is, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "in fact, the focal point of the next round in the Great Game of Nations, a dangerous, hot-headed place with a Klondike of wealth beneath it. It is Bosnia with oil." Cheney's oily fingerprints are all over the Balkans as well. Last year, Halliburton's Brown & Root Division was awarded a $180 million a year contract to supply U.S. forces in the Balkans. Cheney also sits on the board of directors of Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defense contractor. Replacing munitions used in the Balkans could result in $1 billion in new contracts. War is big business and Dick Cheney is right in the middle of it. Meanwhile, our energy and gasoline prices continue to soar in many parts of the United States. OPEC controls the oil production in the Persian Gulf. Cheney, worried about a falloff in investment, spoke in favor of OPEC cutting oil production so oil and gasoline prices could rise. Cheney is ineluctably invested in keeping the world safe for his investments. Although he stepped down as CEO of Halliburton, he still owns shares of stock in the conglomerate and his financial interests in the Persian Gulf, the Caspian region and the Balkans will invariably continue. Chosen by George W. Bush to bring foreign-policy expertise to the GOP presidential ticket, we can expect a Republic administration to increase U.S. intervention in regions when it suits Dick Cheney's oil and other corporate concerns. Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.

 

According to the Financial Times of London, between September 1988 and last winter, Cheney, as CEO of Halliburton, oversaw $23.8 million of business contracts for the sale of oil-industry equipment and services to Iraq through two of its subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which helped rebuild Iraq's war-damaged petroleum-production infrastructure. The combined value of these contracts exceeded those of any other U.S. company doing business with Baghdad.

Halliburton was among more than a dozen American firms that supplied Iraq's petroleum industry with spare parts and retooled its oil rigs when U.N. sanctions were eased in 1998. Cheney's company utilized subsidiaries in France, Italy, Germany, and Austria so as not to draw undue attention to controversial business arrangements that might embarrass Washington and jeopardize lucrative ties to Iraq, which will pump $24 billion of petrol under the U.N.-administered oil-for-food program this year. Assisted by Halliburton, Hussein's government will earn another $1 billion by illegally exporting oil through black-market channels.

With Cheney at the helm since 1995, Halliburton quickly grew into America's number-one oil-services company, the fifth-largest military contractor, and the biggest nonunion employer in the nation. Although Cheney claimed that the U.S. government "had absolutely nothing to do" with his firm's meteoric financial success, State Department documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times indicate that U.S. officials helped Halliburton secure major contracts in Asia and Africa. Halliburton now does business in 130 countries and employs more than 100,000 workers worldwide. Its 1999 income was a cool $15 billion.

In addition to Iraq, Halliburton counts among its business partners several brutal dictatorships that have committed egregious human rights abuses, including the hated military regime in Burma (Myanmar). EarthRights, a Washington, D.C.-based human rights watchdog, condemned Halliburton for two energy-pipeline projects in Burma that led to the forced relocation of villages, rape, murder, indentured labor, and other crimes against humanity. A full report (this is a 45 page pdf file - there is also a brief summary) on the Burma connection, "Halliburton's Destructive Engagement," can be accessed on EarthRights' Web site, www.earthrights.org

 

[MJ]

I do agree that US has an objective of redrawing the Middle East map, however not in the physical sense of the word. Isn’t it good or bad, though? Isn’t it apparent that the culmination of world problems has its focal point at the Middle East? Something has to be done and I think this is obvious. The question is what has to be done (and the bigger question for us, Armenians, as a non-existent player in this game, however a party which would be indirectly but strongly affected by it, is what should our position be in it).

 

There are two ‘insights’ illuminated by the author – Israel and Oil. While both items are significantly valid issues in the region, it is very simplistic, moreover primitive and incompetent attempt to explain the very deep processes as driven by Israel and Oil agendas. If I am not mistaken, among the countries that have border with Israel, only Egypt and Jordan have recognized its right to exist. Furthermore, on a relevant proximity of Israel only Turkey has normal relationship with Israel. Obviously, this regional policy pushes Israel into such a corner that it naturally prompts Israel to appeal to all available means to secure its place under the sun. Furthermore, US having strategic interests in the region, cannot be indifferent to the future of Israel, as much as the consecutive American administrations have had strong resentment towards many of the local Israeli policies. It is noteworthy that a significant part of the American Jewry (if not more than the half) does express deep discontent with the local Israeli policies. However, when the landscape is uneven, things are always seen on a relative basis when analyzing all available alternatives.

 

Few words about Oil... Oil is an important commodity and is of strategic significance. There is no alternative to it in the foreseeable future. The production of Oil in the Middle East and other regions has become due to American investments from the times of Rockefeller and on. It was the American investments, which have provided the rest of the world (most importantly Europe) with access to significant oil resources, of which their entire economy is dependent. It is also apparent that some of the countries of the region are contemplating on using Oil as weapon against the western countries. Should it be allowed? There are two states that are most vocal regarding the current Iraqi crisis – Russia and France. Iraq owes Russia about $7 billion. This is a sum that Russia cannot afford not to receive. Additionally, it will speak out loudly in opposition of war against Iraq and use it as a bargaining chip to reduce its foreign debt. So will do Turkey – play a game back-and-forth, to reduce or have its foreign debt forgiven. Clearly, it is primarily American capital behind the IMF and the World Bank.

 

France has arrangements with Iraq to explore some of its Oil and bring to world markets. It is concerned that if US deposes Saddam, these arrangements would not be honored. France is going to make all the noise possible to be given guarantees that it is going to get what it wants to get. Anyone who wants to get something is going to make a lot of noise with the purpose of getting a stake. I think they all are going to get a stake, eventually. But it is going to be a prolonged bargain, especially that the discussion here is about "splitting the fur of the bear which has not been yet killed." My personal projection is that at the end of the day, every country is going to be behind US. But on the surface, given that most of the European countries (especially), as well as Canada, are under a heavy pressure from their lefts, their governments are going to make out loud speeches condemning the "imperialistic policies of US." This is not a new game.

 

One of the things that puzzles me in the media is the "revelation" of all these correspondents who "know" with such certainty what is in the minds of the "secret think-tanks" and they know the "ins-and-outs" of Oil Industry, while not being energy experts to any degree. It is a tested thing throughout history that the masses always jump on the "conspiracy" theories. For centuries it has been the "Jewish conspiracy," then the Freemasons. Now, these darn conspiring Oil Industry executives represented by the current US Administration (Note that Bush is a failed Energy Executive – he has tried to get into the middle of the big guys game in his younger days and has failed big time and gotten out of it. Dick Cheney has been an elective official or a holder of executive position all his life, and until he has retired he has never had anything to do with energy. After his retirement, he has held an executive position in an energy service company and not an energy company, i.e. a company which manufactures supplies for energy companies such us pipelines, valves, etc. This has lasted eight years. Now he is qualified as "sellout" to Oil Industry. )

 

In general, it is very funny to watch how every irrelevant (don’t take this word offensively) and unaware person "cracks" the problem immediately – "its all Oil." By virtue of profession, I have somewhat related to the Oil industry position and some of my salary comes [indirectly] from there. I also have access to some of the non-public information. With all that, I don’t see what the people with "special insight" see. I don’t see such evidence. I certainly see things being much more complex and uncertain than the one which could be simply phrases and portrait with a brush of hand, "It’s all Oil."

 

As a statement descriptive of methodologies based on "corroborative evidence," I would say that on such level as in the article above, one may come up with 100 different theories, given that all that is going to be based on "conspiracy" theories and the threshold of acceptance with such theories is always very low – more sensational and less factual, more mysterious it would look, more "truthful" it would be. And once there is something mysterious, who else may be behind it other those "blood-sucking capitalists." "

Just a couple of short comments:

 

So what is wrong or so bad about it? Wouldn’t the entire world benefit from it rather than guaranteeing cash flow into the pockets of extremist regimes, which after covering their "bottom line" are entering into the domain of "dominant civilizations?" Additionally, who is going to be the front-line facing the consequences of these types of "civilization wars," you think?

 

You can bring hundred such arguments by the experts, but if someone has already made his/her mind on "conspiracies," it wouldn’t matter. They will always find some "hidden connection" with the "administration" and with the "oil industry." This is a very simple way – the more incompetent one is the higher his confidence in "what he knows."

 

I think this last one is a significant angle, which has something (big time) to do with the future of Armenia. One can speculate all he/she wants and exercise all the conspiracy theories. The impact of all this on Armenia would be tremendous and irreversible, however. And rather than hyperventilating on the subjects which one has almost no knowledge about or has no control over, whatsoever, one can appeal to the help of the Armenian proverb: "Vodkerd vermagid hamemad yergaratsru!"

 

I am tired…

 

[ December 15, 2002, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: MJ ]

[Azat]

MJ, If it is not oil(and I agree that oil is not the only reason) then would you please tell us what it is. For what did the congress and Senate in early October give George Bush the power to call for war on Iraq? The Administration keeps saying that they know things that others don't know and they can't tell us right now and hopes that we all will jump on the bandwagon and say "Hail Caesar". Even the politicians like Tom Dashel(sp?) when asked why he voted for this powers to be granted to Bush said "just to move on". Just to move on? Give me a break. Tell us why we need to go and remove Saddam from power. We are not the idiots that they think we are.(maybe I am, but Joe Public is not) I just have a sinking feeling that we are creating another Caesar.

 

I agree that Saddam is a bad guy. He has done much harm to his countryman and to the world in general, but why the sudden need to remove him from office. It cannot be because he is holding us by the balls by not selling us oil. He well be willing to sell us all the oil in the world if we allowed him to do so. Is it not the UN that has put limits to his oil selling abilities? Also, have we(the world) not shown that we can do okay without the oil from Iraq? After all the last 10 years we have done okay. Not great but okay.

 

In regards to the media, while it may be true that they jump on every conspiracy theory, I personally do give them more credit than just plainly ignoring them. When everything is a secret, one can only look at the conspiracy theories as the Administration is not giving them any of the truth. BTW, I do not think that Bush or Chaney are doing any of these things out of their own interest or any of those nutty theories.

 

In regards to the money that America and others have invested in the oil infrastructure in Iraq. Was it the state department or private companies?

[Azat]

Thanks for your explanation Martin. I just wan not clear about the last part weather private entities had invested the money or the government(which I did not believe) and you did clarify that. I personally have absolutely no problem with private entities that make money. in fact the more money they make the happier I am as I am a true believer of trickle down economics(I know many can prove that it does not work on the absolute global level). In fact I celebrate every time XOM goes up with a bottle of wine.

 

And in terms of a state telling high level secret stuff to me: I am not interested in that, but I guess I want more than just "we have evidence believe me". War is a very serious matter, and I guess I am more upset at people around me(Joe Public) who seems not to care and wants to attack Iraq, yet when you ask anyone why they think we should they have no good answers.

 

Once again, thanks for the clear and organized answers.

[MJ]

Azat,

 

You are raising big questions and to be able to contain this conversation, I would limit myself to addressing just your question – within the limits of my competence. Obviously, being a private citizen, I do not have the necessary grasp on the issues to address them on comprehensive, and perhaps persuasive levels.

 

Middle Eastern region indeed is an oil reach region, and this is one of the reasons why it attracts so much focus.

 

However, the problems accumulated in this region are way beyond oil. As it always has been the case in history, this region is of enormous geopolitical significance. It is a region with huge conflicts, almost starving 300-400 million population and it is the hotbed of modern state and individual terrorism. It is a region where the interests of Europe, USA, Russia and other regional/super powers clash. The clash of the variety of interests is not triggered by oil – this clash is as old as the Roman Empire.

 

Few things about Iraq: Iraq has signed capitulation treaty as a result of the Golf War. It has committed itself to the elimination of its relevant arsenal – primarily the weapons of mass destruction. Due to the lax attitude of the previous administration, Iraq has not honored its commitments, moreover, constantly has sabotaged the efforts of the arms inspectors to conduct compliance inspections. There exists a wide spread belief in this administration and, from what I understand, that given the opportunity, Iraq would use weapons of mass destruction against its population, its neighbors (even Syria and Iran not being US allies are concerned about this) or at least it will blackmail them. Moreover, given an opportunity, there is a belief that Iraq may strike US – perhaps not directly, but through a sponsoring of terrorist networks.

 

You complain that the Administration doesn’t disclose its evidence. First of all, show me one administration in the world, please, that would disclose intelligence information unless it feels it is safe for its future intelligence efforts to disclose it. Second, Iraq has made its report available only on December 7th. It is being studied, currently. Perhaps the time will come that the administration would disclose its evidence so that to make the case for invading Iraq, if things go to that level.

 

It is clear to me that if this administration had not brought down all the pressure on Iraq, UN and the NATO members, it would have been impossible to accomplish even the current level of cooperation from Iraq or UN. How would things proceed, I don’t know – I don’t get CIA briefings. However, I believe that there are Intelligence Committees both in the Senate and the House of Representative, which get the briefings. Both committees, including the whole Congress have cleared the way, as you have mentioned. Additionally, there is no argument in the International Community (at least in the Western Society - on governmental levels) that the government of Iraq has to be removed. The argument is about whether the US should accomplish that task on its own mandate or should seek UN mandate.

 

Each problem has an angle from which one approaches it so that to provide whatever solutions. The Middle East is one hell of a problem. Apparently, by the opinion of those who are able to solve problems of such magnitude, or at least have grasp of their scale, it is deemed that Iraq is that angle. Iraq is the center of gravity around which a regional stability may be built and facilitated. (And it is in the utmost interests of Armenia to see that regional stability is established in its proximity, among other things.)

 

Sure, if this region was not of interest from the perspective of world economy there would have been not much interest to it other than perhaps humanitarian – such as in some regions of Africa. But the fact is that the region is of interest to the world and it is not a bad thing. It is not just the availability of the vast energy resources in the region, but also the existing and potential roads, the straits, railroads, pipelines, electricity transmission lines, fiber optics cables, all other relevant infrastructures, etc, are of interest. This region connects Europe with Asia. Its stability is of enormous interest to the entire Eurasian continent. Europe, and increasingly so, Asia, are stable regions with huge potential. But there is a huge corridor between them - corridor of human misery, bloodshed, petty tribal interests, phony philosophical concepts, etc. The establishment of stability of this region would benefit first of all the starving people of the region by facilitating an increased utilization of the European, American and Asian resources.

 

While the current status quo in the region facilitates the birth of "prophets," "visionaries," "warlords" – small people bringing big misery to whole nations and regions of the world. And then, small countries like Armenia get trapped in their own parochial misery.

 

Your argument about Iraq’s readiness and desire to sell all the oil the rest of the world may want to buy is a proof on its own that this is not simply about oil. Otherwise, indeed, why not to buy it and limit the ability of the Saudi Arabia to exercise market power? Thank God, those at power are not that cynical. Same with Iran.

 

We have not done OK in the last 10 years – we have pretended that we were doing OK. We have just shifted the burden from one administration to another, at least from one generation to another. Give the ‘bad guys" some more time, and it would be much harder to fight them. The indifference has given all the space to the tyrants to terrorize the world in the future. Should one act only when another plane, this time with weapons of mass distractions, for example, lands at the Empire State building, or do the States have obligation to prevent disasters rather than retaliating after they take place?

 

To answer your last question, "State Departments" never have money - unless we are talking about regimes such as the USSR or Cuba. States don’t have their own money (short of the revenues collected through taxes, which is still not state’s money). Good States have obligation of creating climate, regulations, guaranties and securities for the private companies to create the prosperity for the people and they oversee that the "rules of the game are observed."

 

And lastly, why this paranoia about oil? What is wrong with people exploring, producing, transporting oil? should it be done or should it not? Why "oil" is worse that grain or computer chips, for example?

 

Sorry, didn’t have much time to be better organized.