Iraqi Oil

[Fragbait]

Hi pals!

Sorry for bumping this, but I just found some nice researched information on the topic in a scientific magazine called 'Geographic Review', the 11/2005 issue:

Political and Territorial Transformations in the Persian Gulf region. From the Ottoman Empire to the Greater Middle East?
by Hermann Kreutzmann

Concepts of spatial perception vary over time and schools of thought. The Persian Gulf region has come a long way since the "age of discovery". When colonial experiments culminated in the Anglo-French domination after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire the imminent race for oil resources coincided with imperial designs. Interests of oil exploring companies and nation states were in tune for gaining concessions and spatial control. Nowadays, the Persian Gulf region seems to be one of the last and most valuable objects of imperial desire. Until today the perception of the region is very much linked to the mineral wealth, the effects of monopolistic structures, multinational companies' interests and autocratic regimes. Therefore the geopolitical focus has not principally changed during the 20th century. Nevertheless, the military intervention into Iraq and the forced occupation poses the first external domination since colonial times. Geopolitical thoughts and strategies for the future of a "Greater Middle East" are clearly centred in Iraq, their implications for neighbouring states and the region at large could be tremendous.

To back some of it up, before fellow lurkers cry blasphemia, here are some literal quotes of American lead politicians:

An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

- the Carter-Doctrine of 1980, quoted after Jhaveri, N.J.: Petroimperalism: US Oil interests and the Iraq War. Antipode 36 (2004), p. 4

and

It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does aquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction [...] a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will be put at hazard. [...] The only acceptable strategy is [...] to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now has to become the aim of American Foreign Policy.

- excerpt of a letter by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle et al. to president Bill Clinton of March 8, 2001, quoted after Jhaveri, N.J.: Petroimperalism: US Oil interests and the Iraq War. Antipode 36 (2004), p. 2


Of course I know that this will not convince most of you, so here are some facts to back it up:


Among the 12 biggest industrial groups, there are 6 oil-multis: BP, Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, Chevron Texaco, Conoco Phillips. All others belong to the automobile industry with the exception of the mixed group General Electric. What's notable is, that the assets and turnovers of the oil-multis stand out clearly from the crowd of competitors. They yield significantly higher profits with on average a third of the employees of GM, Ford , DC, Toyota and VW. Among the 200 biggest groups of the world there are 9 in 7 states of the third world: With one exception they are state-run oil companies. In the VR China, the two most important groups are operating in the mineral oil branch, too. Among the 25 biggest industrial groups, the oil-automobile industry has further extended their lead position with three-fourths of the whole volume, in spite of increases in the communications- and data processing branch. States from the Persian Gulf region don't have any group centrals among the Global 500, the global interest in their resources and the protection of the absorption of the same keeps increasing.
- Source: before-mentioned issue of before-mentioned magazine

President Mossadegh put the rule to the test though 1951 in Iran, by nationalizing the oil companies operating in the country. [...] Initially the influential actors tried to push the withdrawal of this step by their boycott of Iranian oil: To no avail. What showed effect was a 1953 putsch for the downfall of the government, assisted by the CIA. The groups managed to realize an amicable solution with the successive government in the following year by generation of an international consortium, in which, for the first time ever, American oil groups were present, too.

- Geographic Review, issue 11/2005, p. 6

since the time of decolonization, now an arabian state has become conquered and occupied by an outer-regional power

- Perthes, V.: Greater Middle East. Geopolitical baselines in near and middle East. Sheets for German and international politics 6 (2004), p. 683

The uneven scale of evaluation remained contradictory in the statements of George W. Bush: Plaudit for autocrat gulf-monarchies like et al. Saudi Arabia as well as for Egypt and Morocco, while democracy was to be imposed on other states.

- Geographic Review, issue 11/2005, p. 11

Just thought this to be a marginally biased article and a nice read. Of course, as has become obvious already, the author Hermann Kreutzmann rather stands on a suspicious and mistrusting point of view towards the oil-exploitation-protecting measures of the U.S. (& the 'coalition of the willing'). The article is of course much longer (8 pages), and full of interesting and significant charts and pictures (i.e. a chart showing the portion that OPEC has of the world gas and oil resources), which are naturally very hard to depict in text form, I'm afraid. Also I should add that some quotes have been translated by myself to make them accesible to you lurkers. Not the letter of Rumsfeld, the initial statement and the Carter-Doctrine, though.

Greetings, Fragbait