Dan Baum’s lengthy, but inciteful piece in Salon this week explains in depth why he believes any possible war in Iraq is not about oil. Or at least not in the interests of the American oil giants.

Quoting various industry sources, he explains how a ‘regime change’ in Iraq could see the country’s oil output rise by between 3 and 5million barrels a day. To the American public, which burns a quarter of the world’s consumption of oil every year, the subsequent drop in prices would be a welcome result. Bush, too, would benefit - a drop in oil prices could do much to improve his chances of re-election.

But of course, the oil companies would not like it. Neither would they welcome the instability a war and ‘regime change’ could bring, and that will do little to encourage them to invest in the rebuilding of the country’s infrastructure and industry.

So what does Big Oil have to gain from a war in Iraq? There is a temptation to say that Bush and Cheney, being oil men, are waging war to feather the nest of their cronies in the oil patch. After all, the oil industry gave more than five times as much to Republicans in 2000 as to Democrats. But Big Oil craves one thing above all else: stability. The oil business is so capital intensive that the ability to plan investments — in exploring, drilling, transporting and refining — can be as important as the price of crude… “Will any company plunk a billion dollars and 300 employees into Iraq, knowing that they won’t be safe and that at end of the day the commitment they made might not be delivered on?” [oil journalist Youssef] Ibrahim asks. “I don’t think so.”

So who would gain? Well, in Baum’s analysis that rather depends on the outcome of negotiations in the UN Security Council over the next few weeks.

France and Russia, the two veto-wielding permanent members of the Council most opposed to a war have many interests in the country. France’s TotalFinaElf has the most contracts to export Iraqi oil, while Russia’s LUKoil comes in second. Baum wonders whether the price of cooperation might be American assurances that existing contracts will be honoured. Is this what they are holding out for? Is this why Blair is so sure the second resolution will eventually be passed?

In the long run, says Baum, we could see a situation where the United States gains no benefit from ‘regime change’ in Iraq. All available contracts may be promised to France and Russia in exchange for them resisting the urge to exercise their right of veto, while the US and Britain may be tied into a lengthy peace-keeping role.

Sadly the piece doesn’t explain Germany’s interest in fronting opposition to the war so clearly as it does Russia and France (and the Middle Eastern states that border Iraq and may see the ‘liberated’ country as a mere staging post for further America military advances in the region). Neither does he explain why Britain and America are interested in waging war against the country, leading to the assumption that in his eyes - or at least in his argument - it is as plain cut as they say it is: the elimination of weapons of mass destruction or the desire to use them.

But while it is a piece that clarifies the true facts behind - and largely discredits - the ‘war for oil’ rumours it does muddy the waters significantly. It seems that the war for oil is taking place already, on five fronts - Washington, London, Paris, Berlin and Moscow.

French newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique, meanwhile, reports that:

It is rumored that Saddam Hussein is also making oil deals in an attempt to remain in control. So he appears willing to do anything to hold on to power, even if this means sacrificing Iraq and the dignity of the people.

And while all this is going on, France is busily prowling the eastern Mediterranean. Its nuclear-powered aircraft carried the Charles de Gaulle, has been on ‘exercises’ within striking distance of Iraq and should now be back in port in Toulon (see Guardian story on this). Is this a Gallic warning shot, aimed less at Iraq than at the West? Could it be that France was proving to Britain and America that, should should war break out, it would be willing and able to defend its oil interests in Iraq.

Wednesday 16 January 1991
Britain is at war. It is not called war, though; it is a ‘crisis’. Most of the world is involved and the aim is to force Saddam Hussein and Iraq out of Kuwait, which they invaded five months and 12 days ago. We are expecting terrorist action, so everywhere is heavily guarded. Heathrow Airport is full of armed soldiers and tanks etc.

Thursday 17 January 1991
It is finally called a war! Allied forces have been bombing Baghdad continuously in three waves of action for 23 hours. Our prime minister went onto television this evening to tell us what is happening. The Allied forces have lost three planes and suffered one casualty. Half of Iraq’s airforce has been destroyed. Cruise missiles have been used for the first time ever in anger. The combined force of the bombing so far is equivalent to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The French have joined in.

My diary entries from the first two days of the Gulf war, 1991. At the time, of course, we all thought that was the beginning. But perhaps it was not. Many rumours, perhaps nothing more than urban legend, have emerged since then. They tell of casualties quietly brought back to the UK before the bombing even began. Clearly forces of which we knew nothing were already at work.

Has it happened again? Even before the United Nations gets to vote on (and probably reject) a second resolution, has the war begun?

The Guardian today reports on Radio Tikrit, a mysterious radio station broadcasting to a wide area, centred on Iraq but spreading out to encompass huge swathes of Europe on 1584AM.

Broadcasts started two weeks ago, and apart from the fact they omitted to play the Iraqi national anthem before and after every news bulletin nothing seemed particularly out of the ordinary. There was plenty of praise for Saddam, and plenty of bile directed at the West, but lately things have changed.

Slowly, but surely, its output has been changing focus, becoming far more soft towards the West and outspoken against Saddam and his regime. Suspicions are that it is what is known as ‘black propaganda’ - winning around the locals through popular culture.

Perhaps more important, though, are the cryptic horoscopes. Could they really be sending out coded messages to Western operatives already on the ground inside the country?

Quote from John Simpson’s book Strange Places, Questionable People, from his time in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War:

I went back to Baghdad after a week or so and stayed on for two months … I grew to love it, and to sympathise with it, too: Iraq seemed to me like a hijacked plane, being flown to an unknown destination. A man whom scarcely anyone wanted as their president was holding a gun to the pilot’s head, and the passengers and the rest of the crew were terrified to say a word or to stop him. The fact that British industry, with the enthusiastic encouragement of the British government, had supplied the hijacker with his gun and the bullets for it made it all the worse.

Europe could have a very bright future ahead. With America seemingly intent on smashing up the existing world order through the discrediting of both Nato and the UN, Europe might finally loose itself from the reigns of its transatlantic overbearer and become a superpower in its own right.

America, not surprisingly, is rattled. Following the end of the cold war, which American commentators can often be heard chalking up as an American ‘victory’, the US found itself as the world’s only superpower - at least on a temporary basis. Even the most amateur of part-time statewatchers could see that very soon China would be rising to take Russia’s place and as every day passes that eventuality gets closer and ever more certain.

And so America was prepared for that. What it was not prepared for, though, was a Europe that could and would think for itself. Rumsfeld’s comments on ‘Old Europe’ state quite clearly how the Administration felt about its continental allies, and hints at its chagrin at their seeming reluctance to chant the American mantra.

Now France and Germany have proposed a credible alternative to immediate all-out war against Iraq. The Guardian reports:

The Franco-German plan, revealed at the weekend, would triple the number of UN weapons inspectors and back them up with surveillance flights. One unconfirmed report said thousands of UN troops would be sent into Iraq to support the inspectors.

But in The Times:

An extraordinary schism opened up in the Western alliance yesterday as Washington flatly rejected a Franco-German plan to avert war by pouring UN weapons inspectors — and troops — into Iraq.

President Putin of Russia last night backed the plan to turn Iraq into a de facto UN protectorate, due to be published on Friday, but President Bush and his leading officials bluntly declared that the United States would go it alone if the United Nations Security Council refused to approve military action.

Had this been proposed six months ago - or perhaps even six weeks ago - it might have been seen to be the answer to America’s demands for exhaustive checks on Iraq’s alleged, and denied, weapons of mass destruction. But apparently that’s no longer the case. In the Guardian, the previously quite measured Colin Powell is quoted:

Tripling the number of inspectors doesn’t deal with the issue. This idea of more inspectors, or no-fly zones, or whatever else may be in this proposal that is being developed is a diversion, not a solution.

America sees this as an unnecessary interruption and hindrance of its goals. Bush has warned that the UN risks rendering itself irrelevant. From Forbes:

U.S. President George W. Bush kept up pressure both on Baghdad and the U.N. Security Council at the weekend, saying the U.N. must move quickly or be deemed irrelevant.

Of course, the UN is moving quickly. It is moving as quickly as it can to avert war. The trouble is, it’s not moving in the direction in which America hoped it would. Instead, it is moving in reverse, which to American minds must be worse than not moving at all.

But of course, much of Europe is closely tied to Nato - another means through which the more peaceful European powers can fight the creeping American desire for war.

Turkey, being in the front line and a key American ally naturally sees itself as being a target in any potential war against Iraq in which it offers America assistance - something America has requested on several occasions. And so Turkey quite naturally requested assurances from its Nato allies that they would come to its aid in the event that it found itself under attack and the US suggested that missiles be positioned in key Turkish locations to enable a fast response.

France, Germany and Belgium blocked the move, seeing objection in this area as yet another hurdle America would have to overcome on its march to war.

It was a clever and logical move, but one that angered the United States. In the words of the BBC:

US ambassador Nicholas Burns said the alliance faced a “crisis of credibility” after what he called a “most unfortunate decision” by Turkey’s three Nato allies.

Notice yet again that it is everyone other that America that is putting the world at risk. Three European countries are causing Nato’s “crisis of credibility”; not, apparently, the US which is putting so much pressure on the organisation that it seems it may crumble at any moment. Two European countries (France and Germany), along with Russia, are the root of the crisis of relevance facing the UN; not, apparently, the US which is objecting to any move that might advance the cause of peace.

But if the true motivation of America’s relentless drive towards peace is a desire to prove its place in a rapidly changing world - a world in which it sees its position of solo superpower being threatened not only by China but by the European Union - then it is going about it the wrong way.

The more America pushes Europe, the more confidence it instils within the emerging confederation this side of the Atlantic. The more harm it does to the ‘relevance’ of the United Nations, the more national groupings will be like the European Union will be encouraged to govern themselves on a continental, rather than global level, and the more harm it does to Nato, the more Europe will find itself relying on the European Rapid Response Force, an idea traditionally loathed by America.

The Christian Science Monitor reported in August 2001 on comments made by Dan Coats, US ambassador to Germany:

Coats … warned that if Germany doesn’t increase its military spending, there’s a “great danger” that the European “rapid-response force” will be a “hollow force.” It would lack the “necessary infrastructure with training and equipment to be an effective fighting force unless it is supported by a sufficient budget.”

If Nato dissolves in the coming months, it is surely inevitable that the necessary funding for a European Rapid Response Force will come through.

So, a pan-continental governmental overseer akin to the United Nations, a pan-continental army and, at last, the confidence to be counted as a unified body distinct and separate from America could mean great things for Europe.

Britain, though, must decide. Is it part of that growing European Union, or an increasingly threatened and paranoid United State of America? Choose wisely and it has a bright future ahead. Choose poorly and it will be an island in more ways than one.

The crises facing the world can be defused through two simple manoeuvres. First, the UN can do precisely what the US has asked of it - it can move quickly to save itself becoming irrelevant. That’s not to say it should move in the direction the US requests. It should, instead, follow the Franco-German peace plan and fill Iraq with UN troops, turning it into a UN protectorate the US would never dare to bomb, and in which the development of weapons of mass destruction would be a practical impossibility.

Second, the UN should be relocated. Its headquarters in New York do more harm to its image than good. Increasingly the UN is seen as an underdog of the United States. Perhaps if it were not based in that country the US would feel less confident in its bullying tactics. It would in turn make the organisation more open. It is a mere few months since George Bush addressed the organisation in person, but his opponent, Saddam Hussein, and future opponents such as Kim Il-Jung and the like will never likely be able to do that for fear of what might happen the moment they step onto American soil.

A relocated United Nations will not only be stronger and more representative, it might be the only form in which it can survive.

From The Guardian yesterday morning:

British security sources last night were quick to distance themselves from Colin Powell’s claim that the murder of the special branch officer Stephen Oake in Manchester was linked to a leading al-Qaida terrorist harboured by Iraq … Security sources last night said there was no solid evidence to support Mr Powell’s allegations. One referred to “jumping to conclusions”, and suggested that the US was making a leap too far.

And from the transcript of Tony Blair’s interview on Newsnight last night:

BLAIR: …what Colin Powell was talking about yesterday is correct. The poison factory in northern Iraq, not strictly under the control of Saddam, is run by operatives that have people in Baghdad and the stuff that they are producing there which includes ricin and other poisons we believe is being dispersed throughout the world.

Not quite an out-and-out backtrack, but certainly a confusing blur.

Meanwhile, The Guardian has produced an excellent Flash guide to possible terrorist targets in the UK. The final slide, which shows the likely effect of a very small dirty bomb in the centre of London, makes sobering reading.

82-year old Helen Thomas has been a journalist for 57 years and White House correspondent for much of that time. She has developed something of a reputation for asking the kind of questions much of the White House press corps would never dare.

At the beginning of January Ari Fleischer, Bush’s Press Secretary, gave a press briefing at which she was present. After asking him whether his boss’ stated hatred of the taking of innocent lives applied to all lives in all countries, Fleischer fudged his answer and talked of the danger posed to American citizens by Iraq. Far from satisfied, she continued the attack, demanding he explain how the Iraqi ‘people’ are a threat to ordinary Americans.

‘The Iraqi people are represented by their government,’ replied the man who speaks on behalf of the President.

Kind of puts a new slant on the ‘regime change’ argument.

Full story, very well told, online at Fair.

More on those extraordinary ads playing on American TV linking the use of larger vehicles (SUVs) to terrorist financing. The ads can now be viewed online at The Detroit Project (unfortunately in RealPlayer). They make shocking claims, but unless you’re prepared to go and read the associated site after viewing them then make no effort to provide any evidence to back them up.

Fair enough, they’re promoting cleaner, less poluting ‘hybrid’ cars, but is spreading hatred, fear and suspicion the best way to do it?

A couple of interesting facts from the site:

• The Energy Department reported last year [that] U.S. cars and light trucks consumed 10 percent of the annual global oil production. (Chicago Sun-Times 3-20-02)

• SUVs consume over 6 miles per gallon more than a family station wagon. No small difference when you consider that an improvement of just 3 mpg in autos nationwide would save 1 million barrels of oil per day. (AH column 11-14-01)
• Among other things, the auto industry has been able to avoid some of the rules simply by making the vehicles bigger. If you make an SUV big enough, it qualifies for lenient air pollution rules, and if you make it really large, like the larger Suburbans or the Hummers or the Ford Excursions, they’re exempt from fuel economy standards entirely. (Salon 10-24-02)

Three Canadians and fourteen American peace campaigners travelled to Iraq on boxing day, willing to risk their lives to act as a human shield in the hope of staving off an American / British attack. But a twist of fate saw one of them die in a car crash on the roads around Baghdad. As if that wasn’t unfortunate enough, his dead body is now being held up in the restrictions on importing and exporting goods to and from Iraq. Unless an exemption is made he’ll have to go through the same process as anything else being exported form the country. Full story in the National Post.

Yet more Americans jumping to wild conclusions. If you buy a big car then you’re funding terrorists every time you fill up, according to an ad campaign running on American TV at the moment. The full story can be found on this morning’s Media Guardian pages. The reasoning? Simply that much of the world’s oil comes from the Middle East (conveniently forgetting the wells in George W’s home state of Texas, of course).

There are so many things wrong with that campaign. Most obvious is that while its aim is to villify SUV drivers it does more to increase prejudice against the Middle East. And from reports it seems that it does little to answer the question about where the petrol for smaller cars comes from. Surely the same source?

While still wildly off the mark, would it not be at least slightly more accurate to generalise the campaign around the subject of petrol rather than cars of a particular size?

“He really doesn’t care about the opinion of mankind”

George W talking about Saddam Hussein, or Saddam Hussein talking about George W Bush?

The former, although it could so easily have been the latter. The full transcript, complete with audience participation lines, looks like a script for perfected propaganda.