By Charles Lam
By R. Scott Moxley
By Taylor Hamby
By Matt Coker
By R. Scott Moxley
By Charles Lam
By LP Hastings
By Taylor Hamby
As they prepare to make war on Iraq, cowboy in chief George W. Bush and his cohorts have pulled out all the stops. They're trying to convince us that this act of pure aggression is a "preemptive" move that will allow Americans to sleep more peacefully in their beds, while the Iraqi masses cheer the conquerors who have starved them for a decade and then bombed them to smithereens.
And that's just for starters. In the imaginations of Bush and his advisers, this Wild West approach to the Middle East stands to knock out Syria's despot, rein in the Saudi royal family, inspire the neighboring Iranians to their own pro-American putsch, banish the Palestinians to Jordan, and clear the way for Israeli settlers.
The doctrine of the preemptive strike is the perfect strategy for ushering in a new century of neocolonialism, unfettered by any need to respect sovereignty or self-determination. Better still, it's going to mean big bucks for whoever gets in on the ground floor. Before the war can begin, the movers and shakers in Washington and around the world have their eyes on divvying up the spoils.Military Vendors
As Bush Senior's secretary of defense, Cheney oversaw the privatization of the military's logistics operations. Journalist Robert Bryce, who has chronicled the construction company in minute detail, reports Brown & Root won contracts of nearly $9 million to help the government implement those policies, giving it a natural leg up. During the 1990s, records show, it earned more than $2.5 billion for military support—much of it during Cheney's time as a top Halliburton executive.
With Cheney back in the White House, Brown & Root's fortunes have only improved. Last spring, the Army Operations Support Command awarded it an open-ended deal to work with army engineers and "provide for the construction of base camps and their infrastructures, including billeting and dining facilities; food preparation, potable water and sanitary systems; showers; laundries; transportation; utilities; warehouses and other logistics support." How much has Brown & Root already made under this contract—and how much does it stand to make in Iraq? We may never know. The numbers are classified.Agricultural Interests
In 1988-89, the United States exported 521,000 tons of rice to Iraq, making it our No. 1 consumer. More recently, the figure has been zero. A spokesperson for the U.S. Rice Federation, which takes a dim view of the sanctions, wouldn't comment on the current situation. But it's safe to say there would be nothing like a war, regime change and the subsequent lifting of sanctions to open this lucrative market once again.Big Oil
At the recent Group of Eight summit in Canada, Russian president Vladimir Putin reportedly told Bush he couldn't care less whether Saddam got the heave-ho, as long as Russia got compensated for about $12 billion in outstanding loans to Iraq and $4 billion owed them for transporting Iraqi oil. Meanwhile, the Russian oil companies are scrambling to save their recent deals. LUKoil, for one, signed an exploration contract in 1997. "We're against this war," said LUKoil's flack Dmitry Dolgov in Moscow. "We don't know about the United States, [but] we know that our government and our president promised us to back all our interests in Iraq under any possible event." And Slaveneft—which, according to one story, is actually financed by Saddam Hussein himself—wants in.
The French, too, want American assurances they won't lose oil concessions. "We have no operations right now, as it isn't legally possible," said Tomas Fell of Totalfinaelf, the giant French oil concern hungry to develop two fields in southern Iraq. "If we could legally operate in Iraq, we would be very interested in working there."
Other smaller outfits are hoping to cash in on oil deals: Petro Vietnam, China's National Petroleum Corporation, and Indonesian companies are all eyeing the Iraqi fields.
Publicly, the big international oil companies remain above it all. When asked if the Exxon Mobil had any operations in Iraq, flack Lynn Durano of Exxon Mobil said, "Absolutely not." As for the upcoming war, Durano added, "It would be totally inappropriate to speculate on a war with Iraq. Exxon has not been involved with any topical discussions regarding a war in Iraq." A Shell spokesperson likewise had no comment on the sanctions or the possibility of war, saying only, "We obey the law."
However, it is well-known that the majors, reeling from attacks on their environmental policies and with an invidious history of meddling in the third world, need stability to drill oil and protect the billion-dollar-plus investments in pipelines. Lucio Noto, former Exxon Mobil vice chairman, said in a recent interview, "I think in many cases [sanctions] do not achieve the intended objective. In many cases, they hurt groups of people we are not intending to hurt. I believe they take us out of the ball game and leave the playing field to other people. And I think if you look at the track record, they have been singularly ineffective."
The prospect of a black-gold rush in Iraq means the United States can exchange oil futures for support for the war. But over the long haul, the war may produce unanticipated consequences for the oil companies—and thus for their native son George W. Bush. Robert Mabro, who heads the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, a British think tank, argues there is no doubt that a new pro-American Iraqi government will initially seek to maximize the volume of production. "This output-maximization policy, particularly if pursued at a time when the market is oversupplied, could cause prices to collapse" and thus destabilize the region. "Bad seeds sowed now will inevitably produce in the end their poisonous flowers," warns Mabro.Additional research by Gabrielle Jackson, Rebecca Winsor and Josh Saltzman.