Orson Scott Card speaks out on the War on Terror

Nonsense your history is absurd.

The civil war started in idea if not action in Lebanon around 1950 when Muslims were irate with both their perception of moral shortcomings of both the Christians and their own government, and the fact that Palestinian refugees had begun to surge within their capital.

In 1975 the perception of Israel, the desire to merge with Syria, and the hatred of moral degradation in their society split them into a civil war. However no attacks on Israel occured to at least 3 years later, the battlefield was mainly Christians, warlords, the PLO and muslims in four corners fighting against different parts.

The battlefield that was Lebanon was an easy territory for the PLO and other terrorist groups to use, and hence caused eventual Israeli reaction, however blaming Israel for what happened to Lebanon is absolutely ridiculous and complete FUD! It was by and large initially a reaction against Christians, and what was perceived as Western imperialism in Israel and the pervasive lax culture that was offensive.

You realize of course that most offensive western things like night clubs, european restaurants, christian churches and the like were quickly looted and burned to the ground during the first month or two of the war.

You should talk to the people who lived their during the time, they'll tell you the same thing.
 
The Lebanese Civil war started when Jabril (not Ahmed, gotta find his first name now; I can't get the name Ahmed Jabril out of my mind now...) amushed a bus full of Palestinian civilians. Tit-for-tat violence started then. The Christian 'majority' suddenly realized it was actually the 'minority' and the unrepresentative power structure found itself under attack. Class warfare played as much part in Lebanon as did religon, maybe even more. Like Battista's Cuba.

Israel backed Jabril because Jabril called for "Lebanon for Lebanese" and was anti-Palestinian and anti-Syrian. The USA (Kissenger) and Israel threatened that if Syria didn't go in, then Israel would have to go in.

The war in Lebanon is as confusing as Lebanon's makeup itself. There are seculded villages in Lebanon where they still speak a variant of Aramaic...

You should talk to the people who lived their during the time, they'll tell you the same thing.

I know. I have. Friend's husband actually...
 
It is noteworthy that the idea that the US must remain involved in Iraq's and Afghanistan’s transformation is nearly an unchallenged notion. Consequentially the idea that if the US were to back down from the challenge that terrorist groups have offered would also be a massive error as well is also fairly obvious. But to echo what I and others here have suggested. (As well as many others) Here I run the risk of actually quoting George Bush directly which by some is considered a most atrocious act and unjustly so.

George Bush said:
The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world and increase dangers to the American people and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region.

I am really impressed with the goals that the current administration has set forth. It is a stance of boldness and a real step towards leadership and actually accomplishing something particularly with regards to the Middle East dilemma. There is less of a cause for these cultures to point at America as if it is the sole explanation for their economic and social ales then their societies think. Most of their tribulations come from their own backward dictatorial models and government run, strictly controlled economies. Worst of all there is nearly a complete lack of democratic models for Arabic populace at all. Now I do not say that democracy is the end all, beat all and most certainly it will not immediately cure all that ales their societies (Particularly if they insist that America is inexplicitly the source of all their problems.) but it unquestionably it is a step in the right direction. This agenda, it seems, is ignored by the left almost entirely but the simple fact of the matter is that Bush is pushing vigorously for democratic reform all throughout the Middle East, where are all the left wing democracy supporters? The move is completely unprecedented and shows credible leadership on behalf of George Bush and his administration. One should ask why this is not an issue for Europeans, where is their praise for Bush on these matters? Why are they not contributing to the democratization process in the Middle East at all? Let me take a few more quotes that George Bush made after signing the 87 billion dollar aid package for Afghanistan and Iraq.

George Bush said:
In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep, and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling, whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead. These are not the failures of a culture or a religion. These are the failures of political and economic doctrines.

George Bush said:
Iraqi democracy will succeed, and that success will send forth the news from Damascus to Tehran that freedom can be the future of every nation," he said. "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution.

Also some foreboding words for Syria and Iran.

George Bush said:
Bush said the Tehran government "must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people or lose its last claim to legitimacy."
He added, "Dictators in Iraq and Syria promised the restoration of national honor, a return to ancient glories. They've left instead a legacy of torture, oppression, misery and ruin.

Wise words for the Palestinian people and their leaders.

George Bush said:
For the Palestinian people, the only path to independence and dignity and progress is the path of democracy," Bush said.
"And Palestinian leaders who block and undermine democratic reform and feed hatred and encourage violence are not leaders at all. They are the main obstacles to peace and to the success of the Palestinian people.

Accepts that the west (That would explicitly include European countries as well.) must recognize a certain degree of accountability for what has been let to happen in the Middle East and suggest that indeed if it is let to continue that terrorist type organizations will continue to flourish there.

George Bush said:
Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said.

"As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export."

Here we find the motives are not as imperialistic as left wing thinkers would have everyone think.

George Bush said:
We are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us

George Bush said:
Working democracies always need time to develop, as did our own," Bush said. "We've taken a 200-year journey toward inclusion and justice, and this makes us patient and understanding as other nations are at different stages of this journey

George Bush said:
Bush dismissed those who argue that Islam is not compatible with democracy, calling that belief "cultural condescension." More than half of Muslims in the world "live in freedom under democratic societies,"

Still, he said, some men and groups of men "have gained influence in the Middle East and beyond through an ideology of theocratic terror. Behind their language of religion is the ambition for absolute political power."

The president also spoke briefly about nations outside the Middle East.
He said China has only "a sliver, a fragment of liberty. Yet China's peoples will eventually want their liberty pure and whole."

"Our commitment to democracy is tested in countries like Cuba and Burma and North Korea and Zimbabwe, outposts of oppression in our world.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/06/bush.democracy/index.html

This is not the dialogue of a disciple, rather a strong willed leader which is something that is sorely lacking throughout the world in my humble opinion. When will the leaders of Europe get in line stop being hypocrites and support the spread of democracy? George Bush’s agenda is admirable so where is all the praise?
 
Well sab the US hasnt always been a bastion for spreading democracy. The idea that Europe has failed worse here is not true. Europe wants democracy more so. It didnt want the war which could have had serious consequences.

Europe certainly wants democracy in Iraq and I agree they should help. But you cant forcibly input faith in them that the war was the best way to achieve this.
 
pax said:
Well sab the US hasnt always been a bastion for spreading democracy. The idea that Europe has failed worse here is not true. Europe wants democracy more so. It didnt want the war which could have had serious consequences.

Europe certainly wants democracy in Iraq and I agree they should help. But you cant forcibly input faith in them that the war was the best way to achieve this.

Well Pax I don't necessarily disagree with what you say but in 6 months or so time Iraq will be holding its own free elections and have their own constitution in place by that time. So European countries can say want but I dare say that the time line for expansion of democratic values has been dramatically accelerated. So while Europeans sit in their ivory towers looking down their noses at Americans .... the US is spreading democracy and will be noted for doing this in the future. All the while Europeans withheld all their support of the spread of democracy because they wanted to make deals with Saddam's bloody regime for Iraqi oil. That is sick.
 
Sabastian said:
All the while Europeans withheld all their support of the spread of democracy because they wanted to make deals with Saddam's bloody regime for Iraqi oil. That is sick.
I'm not sure you can, with such force and certainty, assign such motives to the French/German actions.

It is disappointing, however, that even at this stage, they're not interested in helping Iraq.
 
The idea that Europe for a few measly oil deals wanted saddam to stay in power is pure BS. You cant make that equation as the money involved is ridiculously low. Europe opposed the war because it feared retaliation , clash of civs, a bloodbath in Iraq, WW3... It also suspected the war was mainly for oil if it could be privatized which was something impossible under saddam.... thats talking trillions and not a few billions...
 
Im also dissapointed they arent doing more at this point Russ... That is indeed politics at this point as the reasons they feared the war are the same why they should now help Iraq. Im not surprised they arent willing to give troops or money but they should be willing to lend a lot more than they have so far...
 
RussSchultz said:
Sabastian said:
All the while Europeans withheld all their support of the spread of democracy because they wanted to make deals with Saddam's bloody regime for Iraqi oil. That is sick.
I'm not sure you can, with such force and certainty, assign such motives to the French/German actions.

It is disappointing, however, that even at this stage, they're not interested in helping Iraq.

I know that Russ. But it does seem a very likely scenario. I doubt that they had altruistic motives for opposing regime change in Iraq. It is more then likely that they had something to loose should Saddam be dethroned. Now they are plainly humiliated for not assisting and it would be political suicide for them to make an about face considering all the anti American rhetoric that runs wild amongst their electorate. But they should do the right thing and support the US in this process and forget all the left wing paranoia about US imperialism.
 
pax said:
The idea that Europe for a few measly oil deals wanted saddam to stay in power is pure BS. You cant make that equation as the money involved is ridiculously low. Europe opposed the war because it feared retaliation , clash of civs, a bloodbath in Iraq, WW3... It also suspected the war was mainly for oil if it could be privatized which was something impossible under saddam.... thats talking trillions and not a few billions...

Well, I think that it indeed was an alternative reason behind the scenes. Further it would allow for their oil for food scam to continue. There were all sorts of political and economic reasons for not supporting the US actions. As well as it being logically correlated with oil deals there is also the matter of the UN power struggle that the US was supposed to cave into. France, Germany and Russia would then be able to say that they were in some sort control over US military might adding to their credibility. Instead their effort to manage the foreign policy of the US backfired on them leaving them with egg on their face.
 
Pax, your argument doesn't wash. You can't on the one hand claim, that Europe's intentions were moral and pure, but on the other hand, hat the US was doing it for oil profits just by waving a magical "privatization" buzzword, which isn't going to happen as we know and probably never was going to happen to the oil. The US didn't "privatize" the Kuwaiti oilfields, and they aren't going to in Iraq.


Fact is, roughly 50% of the 112 billion barrels of proven reserves were contracted out by Saddam in 2002 to foreign firms in Russia, France, and Germany according to a Deutsche-bank report and The Guardian At $20 per barrel, that's over a trillion.

Sorry, if France (with a 26 billion barrel contract) gets a free pass (no assumption of profit motive in their foreign policy) than so does the US.


3 Table of Foreign Interests in Iraqi Oil Industry - Before the Invasion
Oil Field
Proven (Probable Reserves)
Company (country)
Contract Description
Cost

Majnoon
20-bil bbls
TotalFinaElf (France)
TotalFinaElf would have exclusive rights to this field
$3-4 b

West Qurna
15-bil bbls
Lukoil (Russia) [cancelled]
Lukoil would have the right to extract 667 million metric tons of oil
$3.7 b

Tatneft (Russia)



Rosneft (Russia)



Zarubezhneft (Russia)

$380m

Basneft (Russia)

$190m

East Baghdad
11-bil bbls +




Kirkuk
10-bil bbls +
Tatneft (Russia)
They secured agreements to drill 45 wells


Zaubezhneft (Russia)


Rumaila
10-bil bbls +
Zarubezhneft (Russia)
Zarubezhneft secured agreements to drill 100 wells.


CNPC (China)
CNPC has a contract to develop a portion of the fields.


Mashinoimport (Russia)

$160m

Bin Umar (Nahr Umar)
6-bil bbls +
Zarubezhneft (Russia)
Right to extract 3.3 billion barrels of oil
$3.4 b

possibly TotalFinaElf (France)



Halfaya
5-bil bbls
BHP (UK)
All have shown interest in developing this field, no agreements.
$2 b (both)

Agip (Italy)

Bai Hassan
2-bil bbls
Tatneft (Russia)



Zaubezhneft (Russia)



Buzurgan
2-bil bbls




Khabbaz
2-bil bbls




Nasiriya
2-bil bbls
Eni (Italy)

$1.9 b (both)

Repsol (Spain)


Khormala
2-bil bbls


$250 m

Ratawi
2-bill bbls
Shell (US)

$1.3 b (all three)

Petronas (Malaysia)


CanOxy (Canada)


Abu Ghirab
1.5-bil bbls




Tuba
1-bil bbls
ONGC (India)

$500 m (all three)

Sonatrach (Algeria)


Pertamina (Indonesia)


Gharaf
1-bil bbls
Japex (Japan), TPAO (Turkey)

$500 m

Suba-Luhais
.5-bil bbls
Slavneft (Russia)

$2-300 m

Mashinoimport (Russia)
 
Thats not what I said demo. If oil is privatized under pressure from the US then yes the war was at least partly for oil. This hasnt happend yet and if it doesnt happen then its celar the war wasnt for oil.

The numbers on the European side however dont wash for them to risk the kind of confrontation they just had with the US. In that Sabastian cant make a valid arguement... Ive never read about a plan to privatize oil under saddam it was only developpment deals that was only for infrastructure of whic the largest contract was 40 billion for a French firm.

If we find out this wasnt the case and other countries had 50-50 scam deals in the pipe then this is a whole other ballgame.
 
Sxotty said:
Ozymandis said:
I wish I hadn't have read those. I really did enjoy his books, but the man's a hypocrite and a fool.

So that is what you call someone who doesn't agree with you?

No. That's what I call someone who insists that we were in Vietnam and Korea for "genuinely altruistic reasons".
 
pax said:
Thats not what I said demo. If oil is privatized under pressure from the US then yes the war was at least partly for oil. This hasnt happend yet and if it doesnt happen then its celar the war wasnt for oil.

The numbers on the European side however dont wash for them to risk the kind of confrontation they just had with the US. In that Sabastian cant make a valid arguement... Ive never read about a plan to privatize oil under saddam it was only developpment deals that was only for infrastructure of whic the largest contract was 40 billion for a French firm.

If we find out this wasnt the case and other countries had 50-50 scam deals in the pipe then this is a whole other ballgame.

No pax, you claimed that the US stood to get trillions from privatization whereas Europe "only" would get billions, therefore, Europe had no profit incentive in their position, but the US did.

But Elf in France had a contract with Saddam to develop a field with 20 billion barrels of reserves, which at $20/bbl yields $400 billion in revenue. That that's just Elf's one field. Fact is, Russia +France + Germany + others had 50 billion barrels of reserves to develop, with a potential revenue of $1 trillion.

What I was correcting you on was your dismissal that the opposition powers didn't have a significant stake. They had a stake in $1 trillion worth of oil, of which, according to the partnership revenue sharing deal with Saddam's government, they get 20% or $200 billion. These are facts, not "back door deals". The Iraq production sharing agreements are public.

So you would have me believe that Russian contracts to develop 20 billion barrels and French contracts to develop 20 billion barrels don't influence the much smaller economies of Russia and France, but some theoretical plan under which the US develops all Iraqi oil and keeps 100% of the money for itself will influence the US, even though the benefit to an $11 trillion economy won't be as large, and the fact that such a deal did not occur in Kuwaiti post-1991.

Either this war is about oil or it is not. Your attempt to imply that for the US, war was about oil, but for France, Russia, and Germany, their trillion dollar oil contracts had no influence, and everything was purely because of the kindness of their heart.
 
The developement deals with europe, as far as Ive always read, did not include a share of the oil sales. That the us and british companies would do to Iraq what they did to Saudi Arabia however is not idle speculation. Its happened before thus could happen again. Just because foreigners help develop an oil field doesnt mean they will get to share in the oil sales.

Kuwait had virtually all its oil fields developped by foerign firms who dont share a penny in the subsequent oil sales. Only stupid or corrupt govs would give such a handout.

If you can prove this point that the european contracts included such a saudi type scam, something which you hadnt argued on in the past as this isnt the first time this subject has come up over the last year or so, Id be very interested to read up on it.
 
Ok, first you claim that no govt would give a percentage of oil sales, and then in the same breath, you assert that the Americans and British have just such a deal with the Saudi's, but you also claim they do not have such a deal with the Kuwait's? Sorry, you're not making sense. What is the "Saudi" scam? You know, the heinous plot perpetrated by American and British oil companies, unlike those ethical French and Russian companies which do not bribe or conduct sweetheart deals with other countries? I support Elf only takes a "fair rate of return" whereas the evil US/UK companies just take everything?

Anyway, I suggest you look up "production sharing contract". Typically, a share of the crude oil production on the land with which the foreign company has been contracted to develop is owned by the foreign company. Different contracts use different formulas, but typically, is consists of a share that is enough to recoup costs, plus guarantee a return on the investment equity at ludicrous rates of return (e.g. how'd you like an investment that is guaranteed to return 20% growth every year for 30 years)

Thus, France TotalElf would have invested $4-6 billion in their 20bbl block. They would get a share of production equal to minimum, $4-6 billion(cost) plus a $4 billion equity fund which returns 20% every year for 30 years (typically). The value of this annuity rises as the value of the underlying shares go up, the same as if I own stock in a company that rises. So depending on market performance, TotalElf's return could be anywhere from $30 billion (worse case scenario) to $300 billion (value of field raises 10x). Need I mention that Elf has the highest earnings of any French company and a shock to it could do significant damage?
 
Saudi fields are developped mostly by us and brit firms. The biz deals that the saudis allowed are well known in the mid east as the greatest scams perpetrated on the area. They are regularly compared to abuses during colonial days and are a serious irritant...

Im not saying the other european firms havent such deals elsewhere. I just havent read anything that even mentions this type of scams had by french german or russian firms. The saudi 50-50's are the worst of their kind.

Several in depth articles last winter came out with this and they scrutinized the oil deals in the area but I didnt read any such scam deals by other european firms... Kuwait's oil deals contain no oil sales sharing plan. Kuwait only contracted out the work needed done thru bidding... This was expected to change in post gulf war 1 but the Kuwaitis realized it was gonna cost them too much so they simply reneged on the verbal promise...

Mid east oil is easy to extract. Any gov that gives up a share of the oil ON TOP OF offering profitable construction and development contracts is simply scamming their own people.

If any evidence comes out that says the oil deals the europeans had with saddam were similar in nature as the us brit deals in saudi then Ill certainly cast as much blame on them for their political stance as Ive done on the US if only as a warning to be wary of the us and brits behavior in post war iraq. But so far I havent read such.
 
The Saudi fields were developed before there was large international competitive bidding on these contracts, and where on land that was conceded. TotalElf holds such concessions in Yemen, Sudan, and Angola today. (a "concession" is different than a "production sharing contract")

Some countries, like Iraq, because of political instability have to add extra incentives, ala Production Sharing Contracts to entice foreign firms to brave the risk of huge multibillion dollar investments. Otherwise, foreign firms would have to buy up land, explore it (may not be any oil underneath), and develop it, all under political instability.


Your assertion that oil companies are making money simply off the "development deals" to "develop" the oil fields is ridiculous. These companies would then be equivalent to construction companies that build skyscapers or railroads, and therefore, their huge $100 billion market capitalizations would not be justified.

Elf's networth is based on the fact that they get a share of crude oil from fields they have explored and developed, PERIOD. Elf isn't a company which sells drills and builds pipelines and that's it. Clearly, they are taking a cut of the transaction. Oil exploration and development companies SELL CRUDE, they don't just sell construction and exploration service.



For example, Elf Nigeria is a joint venture between the government of Nigeria and Elf. Elf owns 40% of this corporation from its investments, and hence, 40% of the facilities, 40% of the revenues, 40% of the production, and 40% of the profits, depending on how the finances are managed.

Elf had sales of $100 billion in 2002. Please explain how they got $100 billion in revenue without selling oil. And if they were selling oil, how do you think they got it? You think they bought all of it from their own oil fields, which they own huge stakes of and simply made up the difference in refining and thru speculation on future's markets? And BTW, those revenues have doubled from $50 billion in 1999, coincidently, when new west african fields came online.


Sorry pax, when a foreign company invests $4 billion in exploration and join development, they end up owning a chunk of the resulting joint-venture company, and get a chunk of the production. The only difference is simply what percentage of joint-venture ownership the nation is willing to tolerate: 80/20, 60/40, 50/50, etc
 
Obviously if a country cant borrow or buy the infrastructure like Kuwait has and Iraq has for the previous 40 years since oil was nationalized there then it might be understandable. But we arent talking about nigerian or other oil fields not in the area or where its hard to exploit and countries dont have access to funds or from lending. If elf has similar deals in yemen and other countries in the area, its as guilty of being an irritant if the case warrants.

Question is if kuwait could gain access to funds to avoid having to rely on foreign investments and oil sales sharing, as the oil in the area is so easy to exploit, and its very existance would give any bank enough collateral then why would local govs sign away trillions in oil sales?

Certainly had the bad saudi deals which were scrutinized last year been no worse than what elf has done elsewhere elf would have recieved the same criticism. Everything Ive read pointed to the oil deals saddam had were only for developpment and he probably would have relied on more borrowing... Iraq has 120 billion in foriegn debt but its nothing next to the trillions it has in oil... In fact most govs will lend the money to other countries when they have the kind of collateral saddam had.
 
I do not know if some of this information is provided in Democoders post but as some sort of supplementary to Democoders post here is more information with regards to oil deals between Iraq and France, Germany and Russia. (BTW as a side note Democoder is an extremely knowledgeable poster, even on my more articulate arguments I have to work at it while he on the other hand seems to spit out eloquent posts effortlessly.)

Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power by The Heritage Foundation
WebMemo #217 (With references.)
February 28, 2003

France
a. According to the CIA World Factbook, France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq's imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.[2] In 2001 France became Iraq's largest European trading partner.

b. Roughly 60 French companies do an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad annually under the U.N. oil-for-food program.[3]

c. France's largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated a deal to develop the Majnoon field in western Iraq. The Majnoon field purportedly contains up to 30 billion barrels of oil.[4]

d. Total Fina Elf also negotiated a deal for future oil exploration in Iraq's Nahr Umar field. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country's reserves.[5]

e. France's Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq's telephone system.[6]

f. From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq's arms imports.[7]
Germany

a. Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.[8]

b. It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany's "firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq." It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.[9]

c. During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.[10]

d. In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for German trucks and spare parts.[11]

e. German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein's Al Fao Supercannon project.[12]
Russia
a. According to the CIA World Factbook, Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq's annual imports.[13] Under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Russia's total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.[14]

b. According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food program are to be signed over the next three months.[15]

c. Soviet-era debt of $7 billion through $8 billion was generated by arms sales to Iraq during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

d. Russia's LUKoil negotiated a $4 billion, 23-year contract in 1997 to rehabilitate the 15 billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq. Work on the oil field was expected to commence upon cancellation of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The deal is currently on hold.[16]

e. In October 2001, Salvneft, a Russian-Belarus company, negotiated a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field in Southern Iraq.[17]

f. In April 2001, Russia's Zaruezhneft Company received a service contract to drill in the Saddam, Kirkuk, and Bai Hassan fields to rehabilitate the fields and reduce water incursion.

g. A future $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic agreement, reportedly signed in 2002, would allow for extensive oil exploration opportunities throughout western Iraq.[18] The proposal calls for 67 new projects, over a 10-year time frame, to explore and further develop fields in southern Iraq and the Western Desert, including the Suba, Luhais, West Qurna, and Rumaila projects. Additional projects added to the deal include second-phase construction of a pipeline running from southern to northern Iraq, and extensive drilling and gas projects. Work on these projects would commence upon cancellation of sanctions.[19]

h. Russia's Gazprom company over the past few years has signed contracts worth $18 million to repair gas stations in Iraq.[20]

i. The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.[21]
China
a. According to the CIA World Factbook, China controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq's annual imports.[22]

b. China National Oil Company, partnered with China North Industries Corp., negotiated a 22-year-long deal for future oil exploration in the Al Ahdab field in southern Iraq.[23]

c. In recent years, the Chinese Aero-Technology Import-Export Company (CATIC) has been contracted to sell "meteorological satellite" and "surface observation" equipment to Iraq. This contract was approved by the U.N. oil-for-food program.[24]

d. CATIC also won approval from the U.N. in July 2000 to sell $2 million worth of fiber optic cables. This and similar contracts approved were disguised as telecommunications gear. These cables can be used for secure data and communications links between national command and control centers and long-range search radar, targeting radar, and missile-launch units, according to U.S. officials. In addition, China National Electric Wire & Cable and China National Technical Import Telecommunications Equipment Company are believed to have sold Iraq $6 million and $15.5 million worth of communications equipment and other unspecified supplies, respectively.[25]

e. According to a report from SIPRI, from 1981 to 2001, China was the second largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying over 18 percent of Iraq's weapons imports.[26]
http://www.lilesnet.com/patriotic/Iraq/who_benefits_with_saddam_in_powe.htm
The French Connection
Joshua Levine, 07.07.03
Oil giant Total has long played a dangerous game in Iran, Sudan and Burma. Now it's trying to get back into Iraq.
Total S.A., The French oil major that has been in Iraq since 1927, isn't saying much these days about how it's going to maneuver its way back in. But that doesn't mean it can't dream. Word is that it has already had informal discussions with ExxonMobil about forming a joint venture to exploit Iraq's Majnoon and Nahr bin Umar oilfields as soon as a new Iraqi government is formed. Together those two fields have the potential to pump out 1 million barrels a day of sweet, easily extracted and supremely profitable Iraqi crude. There might be 250 billion barrels under Iraq, good for $3 trillion of gross profit. Not something the world's pushiest oil company wants to leave on the table.

How galling for the globe's fourth-largest--and only French-speaking--petroleum outfit. Particularly since Total (nyse: TOT - news - people ) had negotiated a contract for Bin Umar with Saddam Hussein, and Elf Aquitaine, which Total acquired in 2000, had done the same with Majnoon. The Paris-based outfit regards Iraq as its historical turf.
The rest of the article is here.
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/0707/062.html
The Economic Facts
For these nations, Iraq is a major player. France alone sells Iraq nearly one-quarter of all its imports. Russia and China each control 5.8 percent of Iraqi imports. Germany is believed to have $1.35 billion in annual trade with Iraq, directly or indirectly. Iraqi Trade Minister Mohammed Mehdi Salah announced that, as of early 2001, UN sanctions had cost $200 billion in lost trade to Iraq’s trading partners, including $40 billion to Russia, $35 billion for France and $25 billion to China. As one FrontPage author pointed out some time ago, even the UN itself benefited economically from the sanctions and inspections regime. Perhaps this accounts, in some small measure, for these entities’ lenient stance toward Iraq.
And Iraqi trade continued growing, even through last year. France has become Iraq’s top European trading partner, displacing Russia. Nearly 60 percent of French companies have business ties with Iraq, pulling in $1.5 billion annually. France ranks as Iraq’s third largest trading partner under the UN’s Oil-for-Food program, raking in $3.1 billion since 1996. (Russia is number one, incidentally, with a cool $4.3 billion.) France has felt no need to go to war to leverage Iraq’s oil; the French oil company Total Fina Elf has received the option to explore an estimated 25 percent of Iraq’s oil supply.
Nor is France alone in getting a piece of Saddam’s oil. Russia’s LUKoil inked a $4 billion deal to rehabilitate a West Qurna oil field, effective upon the lifting of UN sanctions; while Zaruezhneft (also of Russia) signed a projected $40 billion pact with Hussein last year allowing the company to explore oil fields in western Iraq.
The "silent partner" in the anti-liberation force, China, also signed an agreement for a 22-year-long exploration in the Al Ahdab oil fields.
The full article is here.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=7216
 
Back
Top