[R-G] Chomsky: It's the Oil, stupid!

[Anthony Fenton]

It's the Oil, stupid!
BY NOAM CHOMSKY
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?col=&section=opinion&xfile=data/opinion/2008/July/opinion_July32.xml
8 July 2008

The deal just taking shape between Iraq's Oil Ministry and four  
Western oil companies raises critical questions about the nature of  
the US invasion and occupation of Iraq — questions that should  
certainly be addressed by presidential candidates and seriously  
discussed in the United States, and of course in occupied Iraq, where  
it appears that the population has little if any role in determining  
the future of their country.

Negotiations are under way for Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the  
original partners decades ago in the Iraq Petroleum Company, now  
joined by Chevron and other smaller oil companies — to renew the oil  
concession they lost to nationalisation during the years when the oil  
producers took over their own resources. The no-bid contracts,  
apparently written by the oil corporations with the help of U.S.  
officials, prevailed over offers from more than 40 other companies,  
including companies in China, India and Russia.

"There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of  
the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq  
precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract,"  
Andrew E. Kramer wrote in The New York Times.

Kramer's reference to "suspicion" is an understatement. Furthermore,  
it is highly likely that the military occupation has taken the  
initiative in restoring the hated Iraq Petroleum Company, which, as  
Seamus Milne writes in the London Guardian, was imposed under British  
rule to "dine off Iraq's wealth in a famously exploitative deal."

Later reports speak of delays in the bidding. Much is happening in  
secrecy, and it would be no surprise if new scandals emerge.

The demand could hardly be more intense. Iraq contains perhaps the  
second largest oil reserves in the world, which are, furthermore, very  
cheap to extract: no permafrost or tar sands or deep sea drilling. For  
US planners, it is imperative that Iraq remain under U.S. control, to  
the extent possible, as an obedient client state that will also house  
major U.S. military bases, right at the heart of the world's major  
energy reserves.

That these were the primary goals of the invasion was always clear  
enough through the haze of successive pretexts: 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.