Oil in post war Iraq...

[Hayabusa Rider]

Eventually this war will be over, and then plans call for oil to be used in the rebuilding Iraq. I was listining to a radio show, "On Point" and there were representives of the oil industry and experts on oil economics discussing the issue.

First, oil companies will be reluctant to devote resources to Iraq while either the US or a US installed government is in place. That's because the subsequent government would not be legally bound to contracts made by the US for the Iraqis. The legal opinion is that the US or its Iraqi appointees havent the authority to make these contracts since we are not Iraqis, and those who are answer to us, at least for the time being. After the US leaves and whatever government comes in, they could invalidate contracts or even nationalize the oil industry as was done all over the world. The monies invested by oil industries would be lost, and they are therefore reluctant to participate. That creates a nasty catch 22. Iraq cannot be rebuilt without oil money, but getting oil money wont be easy without a stable and autonomous government in place, and that seems unlikely until Iraq is substantially restored.

Next is an issue brought home to me by a rather stunning post of another member here. It was about getting even with the French and Russians by installing a democratic government in Iraq, and us not letting that government deal with the French and Russians. Have a democracy, but not let the people participating have the right to peaceful self determination. Interesting concept. The Iraqis will eventually be free to deal with whom they please, but having a democracy does not mean that automatically mean they will support us. Take France for instance Still, I hope the Iraqis get a democracy if that is what THEY want.

We are and will continue to live in interesting times.

 

[Bulk Beef]

having a democracy does not mean that automatically mean they will support us.

Popular elections in Egypt or Saudi Arabia would have some very interesting results, I think.

 

[Alistar7]

Saudi Arabia is going to be democratic, the royal family has agreed to create a large representative body elected by the people that will eventualy rule the country.

We are also going to be puling ALL of our forces out of their territory.

Don't think this "change of heart" just appeared out of thin air either, you can bet they were pressured immensely by the US. We have tried before but after 9/11 and the obvious SA connection I think they were given the same choice as Saddam, although privately due to our good relationship.

Either way, a democratic Israel, Iraq, and SA, and hopefully a new Pal. state that will also be democratic. Add to that the call for a secular and democratic government in Iran by their youth.
Iran has 62 milion people, over half are under 25. The middle east will not look quite the same very son.

Personally, I think Bush is a dumbass, but I have been suprised at how well he is handling this war. I don't want to hear rants about the failed "diplomatic" process, if you can't look at the reasons that drove the opposition and factor those in, you will never understand why there could have never been UN consensus. If Bush somehow manages to create 3-4 new democratic countries in the middle east and settle the israel-plo situation I might have no choice but to change my assesment of him.

sorry Hay, as for the oil, I agree any new LONG term contracts should be made by Iraqi leaders elected by their people. If they want to do business with countries that made deals with Saddam to gurantee he stayed in power (and sell him illegal arms) while at the same time pretended to condem him, that's their problem. I think the Iraqi people are smart enough to make up their own minds.

 

[Ferocious]

The oil will be sold to pay (primarily) American corporations to rebuild Iraq.

Nothing wrong with that imo.

 

[Alistar7]

thats one of the built in advantages of taking this moron out, the revenue is there to rebuild quickly, and with world class quality, new schools, new hospitals, etc..

his treatment of them and their overall living conditions just make our job easier and them that much easier to impress.

 

[rudder]

Next is an issue brought home to me by a rather stunning post of another member here. It was about getting even with the French and Russians by installing a democratic government in Iraq, and us not letting that government deal with the French and Russians. Have a democracy, but not let the people participating have the right to peaceful self determination. Interesting concept. The Iraqis will eventually be free to deal with whom they please, but having a democracy does not mean that automatically mean they will support us. Take France for instance Still, I hope the Iraqis get a democracy if that is what THEY want.


As far as I know the Coalition will not allow any other countries to bid for reconstruction contracts. Since the coalition will be incontrol at that point. I see nothing wrong with that. Afterwards, when Iraq is up an running on their own, yes they can have contracts with whomever they choose.

 

[justint]

The problem is no reputable oil company will buy Iraqi oil when the Coalition has no clear title to it. It gets very messy. The only organization that can authorize the sale of Iraqi oil is the UN at this point.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: justint
The problem is no reputable oil company will buy Iraqi oil when the Coalition has no clear title to it. It gets very messy. The only organization that can authorize the sale of Iraqi oil is the UN at this point.

This is where I think the UN can be used. I have no problem using international organization for the betterment of the people despite what I may privately think of individual members. What we do not want to do is inflame the region by "proving" that this is about oil. That is what I meant some time ago when I said the war may not be about oil, but it may become about it afterwards. It is peoples perceptions which one needs to be mindful, if one wishes to promote stability and decrease terrorism in the long run. Clear conditions would have to be put in place though as I am sure all governments will wish to benefit and get a slice of the pie. The US ought to have a large role in overseeing this with any transactions being painfully transparent. Companies like Halliburton ought to be excluded unless clearly requested by the eventual legitimate government, not because of actual wrongdoing, but because anything that has the remotest taint of being self serving ought to be eliminated from the start. Face it, if you take a poll in the region, we are not considered the good guys. This perception is important, because if good is to come out of this, then that will be by walking the walk. We cannot abandon Iraq, nor should we. Aside from moral obligations, there is the practical consideration that we want to lessen the threat of terrorism. It would be hard to imagine that increasing the hate and tension in the region which threatens us will have a positive influence on terrorism. Saddam is gone. Now what about other weapons in the rest of the world. Terrorist would not have gone to saddam for a nuke. He is too paranoid a personality to trust those who have a propensity to use them. He doesnt trust his own family. They will get it from pooling resources and obtaining one from the old USSR stockpiles. We are concerned about bio and chemical weapons in Iraq, but have paid relatively little attention to where real problems lie, namely in the huge quantities of missing nuclear materials and indeed unaccounted completed nuclear weapons from the old Red Menace. Now that is what really concerns me. Anyway, how this relates, is that by reducing tensions by proving our good will in an unselfish manner, we create fewer enemies, and indeed in the future, perhaps some good will. This cannot be about making bucks for american companies.

The only way to do this right IMO is to promote the Iraqis interests even over our own, if that is indeed necessary, so long as it is not a threat to our safety. If we learn who they want to do business with and work towards achieving their wishes, then that is in our best interests. This should not be about putting money in our pockets. Carpet bagging prohibited. Often the model of rebuilding Japan and Germany has been cited, but I think the model used by Lincoln during the reconstruction ought to be kept in mind. In this case, I think what is best for the Iraqis as defined by the Iraqis is best for us.

Lets have international oversight carefully monitored, even if it hurts our ego. Dealing with international agencies has legal precident, and the same mechanism for food for oil might be expanded in the short run to include other critical needs.

This brings up a related question though. Assuming we can now bring in the dollars, we must at once prohibit closed door deals. Contracts need to be very public, and open bidding is needed. Can we hold off the special interests residing in any country involved in this reconstruction? Seems to me we have to, but private money has a way of influencing public policy. Suggestions?

 

[Alistar7]

the problem with allowing the UN food for oil program to continue is this, Saddam did have control over ALOT of those funds, he chose a French bank to handle the account, should they be allowed to profit from HIS choice? The money he controlled went to France and Germany primarily from 1996-2000, about 2 billion each, then from 2000-2002 it went to Syria, Egypt, and Jordan.

Since Saddam can't make those decisions, who will? The UN? They don't currently have the authority under the current program.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Saudi Arabia is going to be democratic, the royal family has agreed to create a large representative body elected by the people that will eventualy rule the country.

We are also going to be puling ALL of our forces out of their territory.

Don't think this "change of heart" just appeared out of thin air either, you can bet they were pressured immensely by the US. We have tried before but after 9/11 and the obvious SA connection I think they were given the same choice as Saddam, although privately due to our good relationship.

This doesn't make any sense. US support of the Saudi royal family and our troops being in Saudi Arabia is exactly what OBL was pissed off about. So has OBL won?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Saudi Arabia is going to be democratic, the royal family has agreed to create a large representative body elected by the people that will eventualy rule the country.

We are also going to be puling ALL of our forces out of their territory.

Don't think this "change of heart" just appeared out of thin air either, you can bet they were pressured immensely by the US. We have tried before but after 9/11 and the obvious SA connection I think they were given the same choice as Saddam, although privately due to our good relationship.

This doesn't make any sense. US support of the Saudi royal family and our troops being in Saudi Arabia is exactly what OBL was pissed off about. So has OBL won?

no, the SA royal family faced with the same fate as Saddam (privately) finally agreed to these reforms. If you think OBL won by his country becoming democratic, you need to study his theology a little more. If the soldiers are gone, what will his beef be then? Not that it matters, he will be caught eventually or will spend the rest of his life running, not planning and carrying out terrorist acts. Notice there was only ONE.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

sorry Hay, as for the oil, I agree any new LONG term contracts should be made by Iraqi leaders elected by their people. If they want to do business with countries that made deals with Saddam to gurantee he stayed in power (and sell him illegal arms) while at the same time pretended to condem him, that's their problem. I think the Iraqi people are smart enough to make up their own minds.

This paragraph deserves roll eyes.... (joking)

Thumbs up! Hopefully this will happen....

Alex

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
the problem with allowing the UN food for oil program to continue is this, Saddam did have control over ALOT of those funds, he chose a French bank to handle the account, should they be allowed to profit from HIS choice? The money he controlled went to France and Germany primarily from 1996-2000, about 2 billion each, then from 2000-2002 it went to Syria, Egypt, and Jordan.

Since Saddam can't make those decisions, who will? The UN? They don't currently have the authority under the current program.

Briefly, I was not advocating preserving the program, but reforming it. Accounts could be set up in several countries to minimize conflicts of interests, and again terms would be very very public. My concern is not who profits so much as no one profits exclusively. The emphasis needs to be on propriety. I cannot stress this enough.

I doubt that anyone has done this, and therefore precident will be set. Someone was buying the oil before though. Recently (correct me if I am wrong) Annan was given the authority to make decisions that Saddam made. International companies might be willing to abide by this, and that is the goal. What our role ought to be is to make sure they are able to sell their oil and be able to make the best of it.

Again, if it is in the the best interest of the Iraqis, as best can be determined, then it is in ours too. I agree Alistar, that this is a sticky problem to solve, and I havent the answer to it. Any solution has pitfalls, the challenge is to use our best judgement for the greatest good.

 

[exp]

I've always said that despite currently sky-rocketing anti-American sentiment around the world this Iraq war has the potential to be a major plus for America's public image over the long run *iff the aftermath is handled correctly*. The U.S. only needs to buy time to rebuild Iraq, turn it over to the people and get the hell out of Dodge, but unfortunately I don't know how much leeway we will have with the local population after Saddam is gone. They may not understand why forces are still there, even after only a few months, or why U.S. companies are temporarily handling their resources.

In such a delicate situation even the slightest wrong decision could be disastrous, so hopefully the U.S. government will err on the side of caution and give too much control--rather than too little--to the UN and Iraqis in the short-term. Of course I seriously doubt the UN is best equipped to manage post-war Iraq, but as long as they don't botch the job *completely* I think the political benefits the U.S. receives from ceding control will be well worth the temporary inefficiency and infighting the UN brings to the table.

 

[Alistar7]

none of that will matter if they are being paid well, and can see the money being spent on new schools, hospitals, etc....

I honestly don't care what company makes money of Iraqi oil, it is a global product anyway, as long as the money is used for the people of Iraq.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
none of that will matter if they are being paid well, and can see the money being spent on new schools, hospitals, etc....

I honestly don't care what company makes money of Iraqi oil, it is a global product anyway, as long as the money is used for the people of Iraq.