Oil is the obvious motive for US interest in Iraq

Installing a pro-U.S. regime in Iraq would clearly open up lucrative possibilities for US oil companies and guarantee the US long-term access to oil reserves.

by Linda McQuaig*

There's a cartoon which depicts two cows laughingly dismissing conspiracy theories as they stand in line outside a slaughterhouse. I was reminded of that cartoon the other day when one of those ubiquitous Washington think-tank experts blithely dismissed a CBC radio interviewer's question about whether oil might be the real motive for the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq.

"I think any rational analysis would expose that as a conspiracy theory," the expert said, bringing that line of questioning abruptly to an end.

Why, any fool can see that steak and hamburger grow on trees.

Similarly, we can assume that the mention of oil draws nothing but blank looks from the former oil executives who now occupy the two top positions in the U.S. administration. "Oil? Why would we care about that?," one can imagine the president saying to the vice-president, as they draw up plans to wage war on Iraq, driven by their deep commitment to advancing the democratic aspirations of the Iraqi people.

The main reason given by the Bush administration for invading Iraq is the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The White House has maintained this position, even after North Korea, another enemy nation, admitted last month to having nuclear weapons, which, experts agree, are still no more than a gleam in Saddam Hussein's eye. While simple consistency would demand North Korea be invaded first, Bush has resolutely kept his focus on nuclear-challenged Iraq.

Another motive suggested - including by President Bush himself last week - is the U.S. desire to bring about freedom and democracy in Iraq. Most commentators, including those who think war against Iraq is a bad idea, accept the premise that Washington is motivated by a desire to advance the cause of democracy in the Middle East.

A lengthy article in the Atlantic Monthly by prominent U.S. writer James Fallows, for instance, spells out the problems of a U.S. occupation of Iraq, and then goes on to consider the benefits of establishing democracy there. Fallows quotes some high-level Bush types talking about Iraq as an opportunity to show that Arabs are capable of democracy. (Who, other than the Bush crowd, suggested that they weren't?)

Fallows rejects the notion that Arabs are incapable of democracy, but seems to accept at face value the Bush supporters' line that Washington is concerned about democracy in the Middle East.

Certainly, lack of democracy has never prevented the U.S. from supporting dictatorial regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and countless other U.S.-friendly nations in the Middle East and elsewhere. Indeed, Washington engineered the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran in the 1950s - after Mossadegh nationalized foreign oil interests - and then replaced Moassadegh with the brutal, widely-hated Shah. For the following two decades, Iranians were spared the nuisance of having to vote - a situation that some might consider undemocratic, but that the U.S. magazine Newsweek once described sympathetically as "an experiment in guided democracy."

Still, the notion remains that Washington, deep down, cares about democracy. Anything else is largely swished aside as a conspiracy theory.

Which brings us back to oil. Although I'm sure it's of no relevance, I'll just point out that U.S. oil companies contributed $26 million to George Bush's Republicans in the 2000 election campaign, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics. Bush and vice-president Dick Cheney are, of course, close to big oil. George Bush Sr. made the Bush family fortune in oil, and Cheney headed the oil equipment company Halliburton Energy.

U. S. oil multinationals - as well as oil interests in France, Russia and China - are already jockeying for control of Iraqi oil in the post-Saddam era, according to the London Observer. Under the headline, "Carve-up of oil riches begins," the Observer noted that the U.S.-supported Iraqi exile group, known as the Iraqi National Congress, held meetings with three U.S. oil multinationals in Washington last month to negotiate the carve-up of Iraq's reserves. A further meeting between oil executives and Iraqi exiles will be held next month at a retreat near Sandringham, England.

The installation of a pro-U.S. regime in Iraq would clearly open up lucrative possibilities for U.S. oil companies and guarantee the U.S. long-term access to oil. It would also, the Observer reports, advance Washington's longtime goal of weakening OPEC, the oil producing countries' cartel.

Iraq's oil supply is immense; its proven reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's. Furthermore, the Observer noted, the U.S. Energy Department believes Iraq has undiscovered reserves that put its total oil potential well ahead of even Saudi Arabia's.

But don't expect dossiers about any of this to end up on the President's desk; he's too busy working on a democratic model for the Iraqi people.

And slaughterhouses are fun-filled vacation homes for cows.

________________
*Linda McQuaig is an economic journalist and a columnist with the Toronto Star, in which this column originally appeared. She is the author of All You Can Eat: Greed, Lust and the New Capitalism (Penguin $34.00)

Source: http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature.cfm?REF=733