United States versus Saddam Hussein:
Oil or Iraqi Liberation?
Is the liberation of the Iraqi people the bona fide reason for the United States to declare war against Saddam Hussein and his regime?
Many Americans, as well as the international community, are asking why President G.W. Bush is so adamant about declaring war against Saddam Hussein and his alleged tyrannical government. During one of his most recent live-televised presidential address to the American people, the President mentioned that the United States didn’t need permission from anybody (i.e. the United Nations’ Security Council) to declare war against Iraq. The main reason given by him and other pro-war cheerleaders was that Saddam Hussein was an evil man who had to be removed entirely by any means necessary for the liberation of the Iraqi people. However, there are others, including anti-Bush Iraqi citizens, who believe that the President’s ulterior motive is to gain control of Iraq’s oil resources.
Iraq: background
Before one can begin to understand why the United States and Great Britain are threatening Saddam Hussein with war, one should become familiar with the country of Iraq:
Formerly part of the Ottoman Empire, Iraq became an independent kingdom in 1932. A “republic” was proclaimed in 1958, but in actuality a series of military strongmen have ruled the country since then, the latest being SADDAM Husyan [sic]. Territorial disputes with Iran led to an inconclusive and costly eight-year war (1980-88). In August 1990 Iraq seized Kuwait, but was expelled by US-led, UN coalition forces during January-February 1991. The victors did not occupy Iraq, however, thus allowing the regime to stay in control. Following Kuwait’s liberation, the UN Security Council (UNSC) required Iraq to scrap all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and allow UN verification inspections. UN trade sanctions remain in effect due to incomplete Iraqi compliance with relevant UNSC resolutions (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency 1).
Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction
Because Saddam Hussein and his government has consistently refused to fully comply with both the United States and Great Britain along with the United Nations Security Council inspections of Iraq’s weapons manufacturing facilities and hideaways, the U.S. is in serious consideration of launching an attack on Baghdad. Since the Gulf war, the U.N. has tried to ease the sanctions that were placed on Iraq in return for their cooperation with the U.N. weapons inspection and destruction of any that were found. Yet, Saddam Hussein is considered to be very uncompromising:
Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. Baghdad hides large portions of Iraq’s WMD efforts. Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material. Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. All key aspects-R&D, production, and weaponization [sic]-of Iraq’s offensive BW program are active and most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war. Iraq maintains a small missile force and several development programs, including for a UAV that most analysts believe probably is intended to deliver biological warfare agents (United Nations 1).
It’s been reported that the United States has been sending warnings to Iraqi soldiers and civilians via postcards that are literally dropped along Iraq’s countryside. The leaflets, located on the Pentagon’s Central Command web site www.centcom.mil/galleries/leaflets/showleaflets.asp are designed to discourage the use of weapons of mass destruction (i.e. biological and/or chemical weapons), opening fire on American aircrafts, repairing fiber-optic telecommunications lines that are believed to serve as tools Saddam Hussein is using to keep the Iraqi people under his command, and congregating near any of Iraq’s armed forces.
Iraqi Liberation
Since 1998 both the United States and Great Britain have been threatening Iraq with war because of its failure to comply with the United Nations Security Council’s requests for locating and destroying their weapons of mass destruction. However, it’s the United States and Great Britain who both have decided to take matters into their own hands without the consent of the UN Security Council:
The Iraqi violations of resolution 687 and others notwithstanding, both the US and British threats and their subsequent implementation represented clear breaches of international law, in casu nothing less than the UN Charter. This states unequivocally that not merely the actual use of force, but also the mere threat thereof is illegal, regardless of the underlying intentions. The only institution with the right to use, or mandate the use of force is the UN Security Council, as clearly stated in the Charter (Moller 197)
According to Article (2) of the Charter of the United Nations:
(2.3) All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
(2.4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
The U.N. Security Council consists of five permanent members and ten non-permanent member countries. The five permanent members include both the United States and Great Britain, along with China, France, and Russia. The non-permanent members are elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly.
Because of Iraq’s failure to comply with the resolutions, both the U.S. and British have decided to threaten war against Saddam Hussein and his regime. Yet, China, France, and Russia, as well others, are against such actions.
On October 5, 1998 the US Congress passed into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (later set into motion by the Clinton Administration in 1999) to assist with the democratization of the Iraqi government (i.e. post-Saddam Hussein). In Section 3 of the act it states, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime” (Moller). Although, the Iraqi Liberation Act is an example of the United States government’s disregard for the UN Security Council’s authority, the UN General Assembly’s Resolution 2131 (XX) Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty (1965), states that:
No state has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are condemned (United Nations).
Blood for Oil
Around the world countless demonstrations are being displayed denouncing the US-led war against Iraq. Many anti-war protesters are finding it hard to believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime and the democratization of the Iraqi government is the sole reason for an attack. Instead, it is believed that the Bush administration is driven by the thirst for control of Iraq’s oil reserves:
Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia). Iraq’s true resource potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is largely (90% or so) unexplored due to years of war and sanctions. Deep oil-bearing formations located mainly in the vast Western Desert region, for instance, could yield large additional oil resources (possibly another 100 billion barrels), but have not been explored. Iraq’s oil production costs are amongst the lowest in the world, making it a highly attractive oil prospect. However, only 15 to 73 discovered fields have been developed, while few deep wells have been drilled compared to Iraq’s neighbors. Overall, only about 2,000 wells reportedly have been drilled in Iraq, compared to around 1 million wells in Texas for instance (US Energy Information Administration 2).
The San Francisco Chronicle wrote that “ the world’s biggest oil bonanza in recent memory may be just around the corner, giving U.S. oil companies huge profits and American consumers cheap gasoline for decades to come. And it all may come courtesy of a war with Iraq. While debate intensifies about the Bush administration’s policy, oil analysts and Iraqi exile leaders believe a new, pro-Western government—assuming it were to replace Saddam Hussein’s regime—would prompt U.S. and multinational petroleum giants to rush into Iraq, dramatically increasing the output of a nation whose oil reserves are second only to that of Saudi Arabia (Collier).
American oil companies are prohibited by U.S. law from entering into contracts with Iraq and have had to suffer with envy while their international competition sign contracts with Saddam Hussein and his government once the sanctions are lifted. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “As of October 2002, Iraq reportedly had signed several multi-billion dollar deals with foreign oil companies mainly from China, France, and Russia.” (7). If (and when) Saddam Hussein is removed from power and the U.N. sanctions are rescinded, the U.S. companies will become very interested in establishing their own oil-business relationship with the (new) Iraq.
Although the United States is presently supplying a considerable share of its own energy requirement from domestic resources, current production is not capable of keeping pace with the increasing cost of consumption. As a result, the U.S. has to rely on foreign oil suppliers for the bulk of it. Michael Klare, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts and author of “Global Petro-Politics”, stated in the March 2002 issue of Current History magazine, “The Bush administration has explicitly characterized this dependency as a threat to national security” [A] (100).
According the United States Secretary of State Colin Powell in January 2003, he stated that, “. . . Iraq’s oil reserves would not be ‘exploited for the United States’ own purpose,’ but would ‘be held in trust for the Iraqi people, to benefit the Iraqi people’” (U.S. Energy Information Administration 10). Yet, the Secretary told the house committee on March 27, “We didn’t take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future. We would not support . . . essentially handing everything over to the U.N. for someone designated by the U.N. to suddenly become in charge of the whole operation” (Orin 12). It is believed that the United States wants to play a major part in establishing a new post-Saddam Hussein government (preferably a democracy) that will meet its standards. The ideal government would favor doing business with the Americans regarding the Iraqi oil resources-leading to control of the second largest oil reserves in the world. This would allow the U.S. to level its dependency on Saudi Arabia’s oil resources against others located in the Persian Gulf.
Even though President G.W. Bush and his administration continue to state that their main objective is to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein’s regime, the oil card is clearly a factor to consider in the equation of a war with Iraq:
Since the end of the cold war, policymakers in the United States (Democratic or Republican) have sought to preserve America’s sole superpower status and prevent the rise of a “peer competitor” that could challenge its paramount position. At the same time, American leaders have become increasingly concerned about the country’s growing dependence on imported oil-especially oil from the Persian Gulf. The United States now relies on foreign oil for 55 percent of its energy requirements, and this is expected to rise to 65 percent in 2020 and continue to grow thereafter. This dependency is the Achilles’ heel of American power: unless Persian Gulf oil is kept under American control, the ability of the United States to remain the dominant world power would be put into question (Klare [B] 133).
Conclusion:
During a recent address to the American people, President G.W. Bush was bombarded with questions concerning the United States’ real purpose for sending the Nation’s children to fight in a war that had an alleged ulterior motive-control of Iraq’s oil reserves. Demonstrations around the world are in defiance of blood shed for what is believed to be rightfully the property of Iraq. Oil is a factor in the current tug-of-war with Iraq, the Bush administration, and the key members of the U.N. Security Council.
It’s ironic that the United States (a country that was [discovered] by the use of blood shed, rape, religion, and theft from primarily British immigrants) and Great Britain are joining together to do what seems to be the same thing to Iraq.
Works Cited
United States. Central Intelligence Agency. The World Fact Book 2002
Collier, Robert. “Oil firms wait as Iraq crisis unfolds” San Francisco Chronicle 29 September 2002
United States. Energy Information Administration. Country Analysis Briefs February 2003
Klare, Michael. [A] “Global Petro-Politics” Current History March 2002
Klare, Michael. [B] “For Oil and Empire? Rethinking War with Iraq” Current History March 2003
Moller, Bjorn. Oil and Water New York: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 2001
Orin, Debra. “Powell to U.N.: Butt Out” New York Post 27 March 2003: 12.
United Nations. Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs October 2002