Brekend Nieuws | Forum | Brits Nieuws | Het Nieuws van de V.S. | Het Nieuws van de wereld | Politiek Nieuws | Nieuws sc.i-technologie | Het Nieuws van de oorlog & van het Terrorisme | Het Nieuws van sporten | Multimedia | Vastgestelde Homepage

Donderdag, 10 Juli, 2008
Bespreek dit rapport in de forums RINF >

Door Noam Chomsky | De overeenkomst die enkel vorm vergt tussen het Ministerie van de Olie van Irak en vier Westelijke oliemaatschappijen stelt kritieke vragen over de aard van de invasie van de V.S. en het beroep van Irak - vragen die zeker zouden moeten door presidentiële kandidaten worden gericht en ernstig in de Verenigde Staten worden besproken, en natuurlijk in bezet Irak, waar het blijkt dat de bevolking weinig als om het even welke rol in het bepalen van de toekomst van hun land heeft.

De onderhandelingen zijn aan de gang voor Exxon Mobil, Shell, Totaal en BP - de originele partnersdecennia geleden in het Bedrijf van de Aardolie van Irak, dat van door nu Chevron en andere kleinere oliemaatschappijen lid is geworden - om de olieconcessie te vernieuwen die zij aan nationalisering tijdens de jaren hebben verloren toen de olieproducenten hun eigen middelen overnamen. De geen-bodcontracten, die blijkbaar door de oliebedrijven worden geschreven met behulp van de V.S. de ambtenaren, heersten over aanbiedingen van meer dan 40 andere bedrijven, met inbegrip van bedrijven in China, India en Rusland.

„Er was verdenking onder velen in de Arabische wereld en onder delen van het Amerikaanse publiek tot doel dat de Verenigde Staten naar oorlog in Irak precies de olierijkdom waren gaan beveiligen hebben deze contracten te halen,“ Andrew E. Kramer schreef in de New York Times.

De verwijzing van Kramer naar „verdenking“ is een understatement. Voorts is het hoogst waarschijnlijk dat het militaire beroep het initiatief bij het herstellen van het gehaate Bedrijf van de Aardolie van Irak heeft genomen, dat, zoals Seamus Milne in de Beschermer van Londen schrijft, onder Britse regel werd opgelegd „om van de rijkdom van Irak in een famously exploitative overeenkomst te dineren.“

De recentere rapporten spreken van uit:stellen het bieden. Veel gebeurt in geheimhouding, en het zou geen verrassing zijn als de nieuwe schandalen te voorschijn komen.

De vraag kon nauwelijks intenser zijn. Irak bevat misschien de tweede grootste oliereserves in de wereld, die, verder, zeer goedkoop zijn te halen: geen permafrost of teerzand of diepzeeboring. Voor de ontwerpers van de V.S., is het noodzakelijk dat Irak onder de V.S. blijft. controle, in de mate mogelijk, als een obedient satellietstaat die ook de belangrijke V.S. zal huisvesten. militaire basissen, recht centraal bij de belangrijkste de energiereserves van de wereld.

Dat deze waren waren de primaire doelstellingen van de invasie altijd duidelijk genoeg door de nevel van opeenvolgende voorwendsels: weapons of mass destruction, Saddam’s links with Al-Qaeda, democracy promotion and the war against terrorism, which, as predicted, sharply increased as a result of the invasion.

Last November, the guiding concerns were made explicit when President Bush and Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki signed a “Declaration of Principles,” ignoring the U.S. Congress and Iraqi parliament, and the populations of the two countries.

The Declaration left open the possibility of an indefinite long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq that would presumably include the huge air bases now being built around the country, and the “embassy” in Baghdad, a city within a city, unlike any embassy in the world. These are not being constructed to be abandoned.

The Declaration also had a remarkably brazen statement about exploiting the resources of Iraq. It said that the economy of Iraq, which means its oil resources, must be open to foreign investment, “especially American investments.” That comes close to a pronouncement that we invaded you so that we can control your country and have privileged access to your resources.

The seriousness of this commitment was underscored in January, when President Bush issued a “signing statement” declaring that he would reject any congressional legislation that restricted funding “to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq” or “to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.”

Extensive resort to “signing statements” to expand executive power is yet another Bush innovation, condemned by the American Bar Association as “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers.” To no avail.

Not surprisingly, the Declaration aroused immediate objections in Iraq, among others from Iraqi unions, which survive even under the harsh anti-labour laws that Saddam instituted and the occupation preserves.

In Washington propaganda, the spoiler to US domination in Iraq is Iran. U.S. problems in Iraq are blamed on Iran. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sees a simple solution: “foreign forces” and “foreign arms” should be withdrawn from Iraq — Iran’s, not ours.

The confrontation over Iran’s nuclear programme heightens the tensions. The Bush administration’s “regime change” policy toward Iran comes with ominous threats of force (there Bush is joined by both US presidential candidates). The policy also is reported to include terrorism within Iran — again legitimate, for the world rulers. A majority of the American people favours diplomacy and oppose the use of force. But public opinion is largely irrelevant to policy formation, not just in this case.

An irony is that Iraq is turning into a US-Iranian condominium. The Maliki government is the sector of Iraqi society most supported by Iran. The so-called Iraqi army — just another militia — is largely based on the Badr brigade, which was trained in Iran, and fought on the Iranian side during the Iran-Iraq war.

Nir Rosen, one of the most astute and knowledgeable correspondents in the region, observes that the main target of the US-Maliki military operations, Moktada Al Sadr, is disliked by Iran as well: He’s independent and has popular support, therefore dangerous.

Iran “clearly supported Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraqi government against what they described as ‘illegal armed groups’ (of Moktada’s Mahdi army) in the recent conflict in Basra,” Rosen writes, “which is not surprising given that their main proxy in Iraq, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council dominates the Iraqi state and is Maliki’s main backer.”

“There is no proxy war in Iraq,” Rosen concludes, “because the U.S. and Iran share the same proxy.”

Teheran is presumably pleased to see the United States institute and sustain a government in Iraq that’s receptive to their influence. For the Iraqi people, however, that government continues to be a disaster, very likely with worse to come.

In Foreign Affairs, Steven Simon points out that current US counterinsurgency strategy is “stoking the three forces that have traditionally threatened the stability of Middle Eastern states: tribalism, warlordism and sectarianism.” The outcome might be “a strong, centralised state ruled by a military junta that would resemble” Saddam’s regime.

If Washington achieves its goals, then its actions are justified. Reactions are quite different when Vladimir Putin succeeds in pacifying Chechnya, to an extent well beyond what Gen. David Petraeus has achieved in Iraq. But that is THEM, and this is US. Criteria are therefore entirely different.

In the US, the Democrats are silenced now because of the supposed success of the US military surge in Iraq. Their silence reflects the fact that there are no principled criticisms of the war. In this way of regarding the world, if you’re achieving your goals, the war and occupation are justified. The sweetheart oil deals come with the territory.

In fact, the whole invasion is a war crime — indeed the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes in that it encompasses all the evil that follows, in the terms of the Nuremberg judgment. This is among the topics that can’t be discussed, in the presidential campaign or elsewhere. Why are we in Iraq? What do we owe Iraqis for destroying their country? The majority of the American people favour US withdrawal from Iraq. Do their voices matter?

Noam Chomsky’s writings on linguistics and politics have just been collected in “The Essential Noam Chomsky,” edited by Anthony Arnove, from the New Press. Chomsky is emeritus professor of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.

See More:Oil 

Discuss this report in the RINF forums >

Have Your Say: It’s the Oil, stupid!

RSS TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 10th, 2008 at 9:26 am and is filed under War & Terrorism News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Loading ...

ADVERTISEMENTS

SITE MAPS

7/7 Afghanistan Alternative Energy Art BBC Big Brother Bilderberg Biometrics Bush CIA Climate Change Cover Up Cults Culture Database State David Hicks David Ray Griffin Democrats Demos Drugs Education EU False Flag FBI Fraud Free Speech Freemasons G8 Globalization Guantanamo Health News History ID Cards Internet Iran Iraq Israel Law Marches MI5 MI6 Microsoft Military MoD Money Music NASA Neocons NSA Oil Pakistan Podcast Police State Propaganda RFID RINF Rumsfeld Science Secrecy Security Slavery Space Sports Spying Stephen Lendman Technology Terrorism Tony Blair Torture TV UK News UN USA News Video Voting Warfare White House Wolfowitz World News Yahoo
2003 - 2005 Archives | 2005 - 2007 Archives | 2007 - 2008 Archives | Current Archives | Past Version