|
Geopolitics of War: Oil and Iraq
With Dr. Michael Klare
Author and Professor at Hampshire College
Thursday, Sept. 19, 2002; 3 p.m. ET
With concerns of a possible war with Iraq on the horizon, American oil companies long banished from Iraq, are scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.
An expert on the geopolitics of oil, Dr. Michael Klare was online Thursday, Sept. 19, at 3 p.m. ET to discuss how it relates to the war on terrorism as well as U.S. policy toward Iraq and the Middle East in general.
Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author of "Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict." He is also the author of "Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws" and a member of the advisory committee of Foreign Policy In Focus.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Dr. Michael Klare: The growing likelihood of a war with Iraq has raised the question of geopolitics: the economic and strategic interests that drive international competition and war. In this case, the issue is oil - to what extent is the drive for oil undergirding US strategy in the Persian Gulf? The President talks mainly about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but there is good reason to believe that the Administration also has its eyes on Iraq's volumious oil reserves. Just how much the oil figures in White House decisionmaking is something that all Amerticans should be concerned about.
Baltimore, Md.:
How would the friends of GB Benefit from U.S. capture of Iraqi oil? Would the U.S. play a role in the price of oil and would it choose to increase, decrease or stabilize the price of oil?
Dr. Michael Klare: Iraq is believed to possess the largest reserves of oil in the world after those of Saudi Arabia. Control over these reserves would be an enormous asset for US oil companies, especially becuase they represent new oil that is not now spoken for by the major oil companies. The matter is reserves, not prices -- control of Iraqi oil would give the US an enormous advantage for years to come and undercut the influence of Saudi Arabia.
Yelm, Wash.:
To what extent would a decreased reliance on imported oil reduce the U.S. involvement in the politics of the Mideast?
Dr. Michael Klare: it would be very difficult for the US to reduce its reliance on imported oil without redicing its reliance on oil, period. The Middle East houses about 2/3rds of the world's oil, and so long as we use petroleum, we will be dependent on Middle Eastern oil. So the only real way to reduce this reliance is to cut back on our consumption of oil.
Somewhere, USA:
Not sure that the case has been made: We hear from the President that a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq is necessary to prevent a WMD attack against the U.S. Has Iraq under Saddam Hussein ever attacked or threatened an attack against the U.S. (Kuwait, of course, is not part of the U.S.), or provided support to a nation or terrorist organization that attacked the U.S.? If Iraq has not attacked or threatened the U.S., why is the administration considering military action against it? Is it, as some have suggested, for the purpose of obtaining access to Iraq's oil? Is it to limit Russia's or China's access to the oil? Or is it to protect Saudi Arabia (which doesn't appear to want such help) or Iraq's Kurds? Any chance that we'll get some straight talk from the administration on this matter?
Dr. Michael Klare: I believe that several factors are driving the Administration's detrmination to overthrow Saddam Hussein -- certainly a desire to prevent a hostile state from obtaining weapons of mass destruction is one of these. But I think that the US-Iraqi conflict has its roots in the long-term US strategy of dominating the Persian Gulf region and preventing any state from threatening our access to oil. This is the Carter Doctrine of 1980, and it was the basis for the Gulf War of 1990. I think that most strategists in Washington understand this, but we are not hearing this rom the White House, as we should.
Bethesda, Md.:
Could you comment on the importance of Iraqi oil from the perspective of U.S. national security interests versus its importance to the commercial interests of U.S. oil companies?
Dr. Michael Klare: Historically, the interests of the big US oil companies and US national security have been viewed as being closely interlinked. This goes back to World War II, when the United States began to rely on Saudi Arabian oil and the Roosevelt Administration established an alliance with the Saudi Royal Family whereby the big oil companies (joined in ARAMCO) would have privileged access to Saudi oil in return for US protection for the Saudi monarchy - a policy that persists today. We see this also in the Caspian Sea area, where the US Govt. and big oil companies are working hand-in-hand to develop new pipelines bypassing Russia and Iran.
Washington, D.C.:
Is it true that the U.S. intends to finance its war with Iraq with Iraq's oil, since the U.S. economy is sputtering and most allies have refused to contribute towards this campaign?
Dr. Michael Klare: Yes and no. US taxpayers will foot the bill for the war itelf - estimated to cost something like $100-$200 billion. But once the war is over, the White House is counting on using Iraqi oil to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq and its occupation by US troops, which is expected to last for 10-20 years or even longer.
San Pedro, Calif.:
No doubt the United States is eager to control the flow of oil in and out of Iraq. But is it not equally true that control of this flow would change the geopolitical positions of both France and Russia which have been overly friendly to both the Iraqi position, and those of the Arab states in general, to protect their own self-interest?
Dr. Michael Klare: This is an interesting question, and the subject of much behind-the-scenes discussions between senior US officials and thoe of France and Russia. These two countrius have major oil interests in Iraq, and are eager to preserve their position there. Essentioally, the US is saying to them: either you support us at the UN in gaining approval for a war against Saddam, or we'll see to it that your contracts in Iraq will be cancelled by the new, US-backed regime.
Burtonsville, Md.:
I heard (but could not verify)on a popular synidicated talk show that we get only 8 percent of our oil from Iraq? If this is true?
Dr. Michael Klare: At present, we only get a small percent of our oil from Iraq, probably less than 5 percent. But as America's domestic oil production declines, due to the continuing depletion of our oilfields, we will become more dependent on foreign oil, espcially Middle Eastern oil. Because Iraq has the second largest oil reserves (after Saudi Arabia) in the world, we are likely to import increasing quantities of oil from Iraq in the future.
Washington, D.C.:
Isn't the Bush Administration's obsession with Iraq really one of gaining control and and stabilizing of oil reserves in the Middle East and not terrorism? There seems to be little or no link between Iraq and the 9/11 acts of terrorism.
Dr. Michael Klare: It is rather difficult for people outside of the Bush inner circle to really know what's on the president's mind. This is one of the problems we face today - we really haven't had an adequate national discussion about the reasons for going to war with Iraq. From what I can tell, Bush is driven by several factors - a desire to eliminate a long-term foe, concern over the spread of weapons of mass destruction to a hostile power, and control over the Persian Gulf area with its massive oil fields. But I don't think that terrorism is a factor - Iraq has not been connected to al Qaeda and or other terrorist groups. So we really need a full explanation of the Administration's motives.
Arlington, Va.:
Why do you think Congress and the American people have not been asking these questions about oil? Are we a country full of imbeciles? Or just easily conned by the president and his oil industry cohorts?
To what extent would a war in Iraq raise oil prices and line the pockets of Bush's friends?
Dr. Michael Klare: I DO thinks that ordinary Americans are asking about oil, because whenever the topic of oil comes up in conversations with friends and neighbors (I live in Western Mass.), people mention oil. But so far as I can tell, the mainstream press and Congress are not talking about oil very much as a factor in the Iraq dispute. I hope that people will ask their representatives in Congress to bring this up in the hearings on Iraq that are now going on!
Somwhere, USA:
Does the Bush Administration have any sort of plausible exit strategy following a successful war in Iraq? And how will the rest of the Arab world react to having a neocolonial power residing at the doorstep?
Dr. Michael Klare: From what I can tell, the Administration does NOT have an exit strategy in Iraq. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld admited as much in the hearings before the House Armed Services Committee. This has people in the US military very worried, because they fear that they'll be stuck there for 10 or 20 years. The cause of their worry is that a post-Saddam is Iraq is likely to be very unstable, with competing groups of Kurds, Sunis and Shiites fighting over control of the government and the oilfields. So the matter of a missing exit strategy should be a real concern for Congress as it ebates Iraq.
Alexandria, Va.:
A simple question: In your opinion, would war be imminent with Iraq if it had no oil reserves?
Dr. Michael Klare: let me put it this way: even if Iraq had no reserves, but remained in its geographic position on the edge of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and the other Gulf countries which together possess 2/3rds of the world's oil, we would still be poised for an invasion of Iraq. It is the fact that Iraq poses a potential threat to US domination of the entire Gulf area that is (in my view) the principal motive for the coming war against Iraq.
Raleigh, N.C.:
How much could we reduce our dependence on foreign oil by affecting a reduction in the national C.A.F.E. standards by 2-3 mpg? Wouldn't this be a logical strategy to pursue, at least in tandem with enhancing our access to Mid East reserves (thinly disguised by G.W. Bush as removing the WMD "threat" to the U.S.)?
Dr. Michael Klare: We can certaining REDUCE our dependence on imported petroleum by raising the CAFE standards and mandating an increase in the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles. But we cannot ELIMINATE our reliance on imported petroleum if we continue to use more petroleum every year (especilly since domestic US fields are facing long-term decline). The only way to substantially reduce our dependence on imported oil is to move much more quickly than we are to the use of hybrid (gas/electric) and fuel cell vehicles. This should be made a major national priority, to a much greater extent than it is at present.
Oakland, Calif.:
While the administration continues to cite the threat of Iraq obtaining or already controlling weapons of mass destruction, I am not aware of any detailed report that actually lists the types and quantities of such WMDs in Iraq's current or imminent possession. As a result, the administration appears to set up a smoke screen, which is to veil its actual intentions, namely to assert greater control of the oil reerves in the Persian gulf. Is there any assessment of Iraq's current WMD capacities?
Dr. Michael Klare: Nobody can provie a detailed inventory of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) because we don't know what he was abloe to hide from Un inspectors before they were pulled out in 1998, and we don't know what they've been able to make since then. Certainly the White House has not provided any such inventory. Most experts believe that Iraq possesses far fewer WMD capabilities now then it did in 1990, before the Gulf war. (For some information on this, you can go to the Arms Control Assn., www.armscontrol.org.) The only way to know for sure what they have is to get UN inspectors back in there, which is why people at the UN are pushing so hard for this.
San Francisco, Calif.:
What if Saudi Arabia becomes very unstable as a result of attacks on Iraq, is that something the Bush administration is hoping for or dreading?
Dr. Michael Klare: This is an important question. Many experts believe that Saudi Arabia is already unstable and that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein will increase instability and posibly lead to the downfall of the House of Saud. Some in Washington think this would be a good thing, because the royal family has given funds to Islamic fundamentalists and opposed the US on the Israel/Palestine question. It may be that some of Bush's advisers think this way. But it is also likely that an upheaval in Saudi Arabia would drastically reduce oil production, raising prices and causing a global recesion, and I don't really think that the White House wants this. But it's very hard to tell exactly WHAT the Presient thinks about this!
Buffalo, N.Y.:
Are there other examples in history, other than the United States, where a nation pursued the security of a natural resource outside their borders through preemptive war?
Dr. Michael Klare: As a matter of fact, much of human history involves efforts by nations to seize resources in other countries for their own benefit. You see this in the ancient Near East, and in the colonial expansion of the European empires. The French and Indian War, for example, can be viewed as a "resource war" between England and France over the control of North America's resources (land, timber, and furs). Also, many people believe that Pearl Harbor represented a preemptive strike by Japan to prevent the US from blocking Japan's seizure of the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies. (This theme is the topic of my new book, Resource Wars.)
Sterling, Va.:
Would our possession (or control) of Iraqi oil fields decrease Saudi Arabia's (and other Middle Eastern nations') profit from their oil fields?
Dr. Michael Klare: Iraq has a vast potential to increase its oil exports if the sanctions were lifted and Western firms took over its oilfields. If Irai production was increased threefold or more, as is thought posible, it would probably lead to a reduction in oil prices, and this would, in time, cause economic hardship to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the other major producers.
Somewhere, USA:
If US action in Iraq would result in a new (more democratic) regime for Iraq, and less US dependence on Saudi, why does it matter if oil happens to be the primary motivation of action?
Dr. Michael Klare: This is certainly a fair question. A democratic Iraq is certainly an outcome to be wished for. But I worry about tunnel vision: if we are only motivated by oil, can we make the right ecisions about the politics of the area - are we failing to see some of the very great dangers of becoming so deeply entreched in the area. I'm not sure that this has been fully thought through.
Dr. Michael Klare: Thank you for your many fine questions. I think this is a very important topic, and your questions demonstrate the degre of uncertainty we face regarding Iraq. Keep raising these questions!
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up the discussion. Thanks to everyone for joining us.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
