French and Russian loans to Iraq, the real reason

[bodypilot90 0]

Russia, France Offer Gauge for Iraq Policy
By David M. Shribman
Boston Globe
March 12, 2002
President Bush made it clear yesterday that the United States regards Iraq as a potential military threat - and as a potential military target.

But as the president examines his options in forcing a "regime change" - a new term of art here - in Baghdad, the leading indicators of American action might not be the movement of US special forces and support ships in the Persian Gulf but the movement of diplomats and financiers in Paris and Moscow.

Since the beginning of the decade-long struggle between the United States and Iraq, France and Russia have been the leading powers sympathetic to Saddam Hussein. Linked by oil contracts, military sales, and loans, they have been Iraq's partisans, protectors, and proxies. Now, with a growing sense that Bush sees Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs as regional or even global threats, the State Department is keeping an eye on France and Russia. If the two, members of the United Nations Security Council, deplore UN sanctions and help Baghdad buy more time in its efforts to restrict the movement of weapons inspectors or to keep them away entirely, the administration will know that diplomatic efforts will be unavailing. If, on the other hand, France and Russia begin to take a harder line against Iraq, they will be sending a potent message inside Iraq.

"If Iraq realizes that its principal supporters, France and Russia, have gone wobbly, then that will send an important signal to the people you most want to convince in Iraq that the regime will change - the upper-level technocrats," said Charles A. Duelfer, former deputy chairman of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq.

Indeed, the State Department is increasingly convinced that France and Russia could do more to avoid a military confrontation by standing up to Baghdad than by standing by Baghdad.

Here's why: France and Russia are far less concerned about the viability of Saddam Hussein than they are about the viability of their own oil and manufacturing contracts. By toughening their approach to Baghdad - and by prompting an internal rebellion against Saddam Hussein - they could help assure a new stability in Iraq that would actually help get their contracts renewed and their loans repaid.

Russian and French economic interests are not insignificant. Few reliable statistics are available, but trade between Russia and Iraq could run as high as $4 billion a year. The Russian firm Lukoil, which is trying to extract 667 million tons of crude from the West Qurna oil field, says its contracts could be worth another $20 billion. And Iraq still owes Russia $7 billion for weapons purchased during the Cold War.

France's economic stake is also substantial. The largest long-term contract in Iraq's oil-for-food program is with Paris. But Iraq has toyed with France, which has helped develop industrial support for Iraq's military and helped build the nation's electronics facilities. Shortly after France expressed support for a UN resolution on sanctions last year, Iraqi radio said, "France will not be given preference in trade transactions with Iraq in the future because of its support of the stupid anti-Iraq draft resolution on sanctions."

Yesterday, Bush went out of his way to speak of "our good ally France."

France and Russia have historically been more comfortable dealing with each other than with the United States and Britain. Though opposed in the Crimean War, Paris and Moscow were allied before and during World War I, when the center of Europe was dominated by Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, making the two other major continental powers, France and Russia, feel they were at the periphery.

The two nations, of course, have frequently been irritants, or worse, to the English-speaking nations. After World War II, the French alienated the United States by objecting to NATO initiatives and thwarted Britain's efforts to join the European Union.

Indeed, wherever Britain has pulled back, the French have moved forward, particularly in Africa and the Middle East. Britain once held the League of Nations mandate for the area that now includes Iraq, and when the British withdrew at midcentury, the French replaced them.

Right now the United States and the United Nations seldom deal directly with Iraq. They deal instead with France and Russia.

"The strategy-making between Russia and Iraq was very close," said Timothy V. McCarthy, a former weapons inspector in Iraq. "It's not that the Russians were Iraq's mouthpiece, but they were discussing the crisis together, figuring out how to respond together. It wasn't the Iraqis off by themselves. They were talking with the Russians." The State Department would love to know what the Iraqis are saying - but, even more important, what they are hearing.

[FallRate 0]

Don't fret about the lack of response. Remember, if you make them think they are thinking, they'll love you. If you make them really think, they'll hate you.

FallRate

[jerry81 10]

Here's another article that exposes what could definitely be one of the real reasons;

Quote

Cashing In - Fortune In Profits
Await Bush Circle After Iraq War
By Andrew Gumbel
The Independent - London
9-15-2

The last time the United States went to war against Iraq, Dick Cheney did very nicely from it.

Having served as Defence Secretary, and basked in the reflected glory of the US military's surprisingly rapid advance across the desert sands to end the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, he then managed to reap benefits of a very different kind once the war was over and he left government to become chief executive of Halliburton, the Texas-based oil services company.

When the United Nations relaxed its sanctions regime in 1998 and permitted Iraq to buy spare parts for its oil fields, it was Halliburton, under Mr Cheney's leadership, that cleaned up on the contract to repair war damage and get Saddam Hussein's oil pipes flowing at full capacity again. Two Halliburton subsidiaries did business worth almost $24m (£15m) with the man whom these days Mr Cheney calls a "murderous dictator" and "the world's worst leader".

Since taking over as George Bush's vice-president, Mr Cheney has severed all formal ties with his former employer, notably when he cashed in $36m in stock options and other benefits at the height of the market in August 2000. But Halliburton currently struggling with a corporate accounting scandal that may or may not implicate Mr Cheney could profit all over again if the much-threatened new war against Iraq comes to pass.

We can certainly expect more air strikes against the oil fields, possibly combined with a ground invasion. Then, when it is all over, someone is going to have to mop up the damage once again. Halliburton, with its previous experience and unparalleled political connections (not limited to Mr Cheney), would be in pole position for the job.

Nobody could justifiably accuse the Bush administration of wanting to wage war on Iraq solely as a favour to its friends in the oil business and the military-industrial complex. But many of the companies that stand to gain most from a war enjoy remarkably close ties to senior figures in the administration. And some of the President's closest confidants have shown extraordinary elasticity down the years in their attitudes to President Saddam, America's on-again, off-again public enemy number one.

Mr Cheney, who has gone from warmonger to dealmaker and back to warmonger, is just one example. Donald Rumsfeld, the current Defence Secretary, has repeatedly raised the spectre of Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. But in 1983, when Mr Rumsfeld was President Reagan's special envoy to Iraq, he turned a blind eye to Iraqi use of nerve and mustard gas in its war with Iran, concentrating instead on forging a personal relationship with the Iraqi leader, then considered a valuable US ally.

Mr Rumsfeld was actually in Baghdad on the day the United Nations first reported Iraqi use of chemical weapons, but chose to remain silent, as did the rest of the US establishment. Five years later, he cited his ability to make friends with Saddam Hussein as one of his qualifications for a possible run at the presidency.

This Bush administration has been much more upfront about the role of oil in its deliberations on Iraq than the last Bush administration. That is partly a matter of circumstance: since the 11 September attacks, the stability of Middle Eastern oil states has been a big policy consideration. But it also reflects the fact that much of the Bush inner circle, including the President himself, is made up of former oilmen. The oil and gas industry has pumped about $50m to political candidates since the 2000 election.

There are also uncomfortably cosy ties between the government and the defence industry. Mr Rumsfeld's oldest friend, Frank Carlucci, a former defence secretary himself, now heads the Carlyle Group, an investment consortium which has a big interest in the contracting firm United Defense.

Carlyle's board includes George Bush Sr and James Baker, the former secretary of state. One programme alone the Crusader artillery system has earned Carlyle more than $2bn in advance government contracts. Carlyle's European chairman is John Major, who may have played a role in the Ministry of Defence's controversial recent decision to declare Carlyle the "preferred bidder" for a stake in its scientific research division.

None of these links is illegal, but that does not mean there is no conflict of interest. Messrs Bush, Cheney and friends have either sold their stock holdings or put them in a blind trust, meaning personal gain is off the agenda. But gain for their friends and family may well be a by-product of the looming war against Iraq.

Compared to some other things found on the net (try Google: 'halliburton carlyle profits' or 'halliburton carlyle war') the tone of this writing is quite mellow- I hope it won't stir 'patriotic emotions' to the point where reason ceases to exist.

---

[kiltboy 0]

Quote

Don't fret about the lack of response. Remember, if you make them think they are thinking, they'll love you. If you make them really think, they'll hate you.

FallRate

I don't quite believe that as there are a lot of intelligent people here who more than happy to be invollved in an intelligent, respectful debate.
The initial post adds more to the discussion of why certain nations oppose the current conflict which is all well and good. However the debate on the failure of diplomacy finished when the war started. Given the thoughts expressed in the article it does show where diplomacy failed many years ago and as such would have been a really good point to make 3-4 weeks ago.

I for one am getting tired of nationalistic slapping when the interest of one nation's government (not people) goes against another government.

David

[Michele 1]

Quote

However the debate on the failure of diplomacy finished when the war started

Kallend said basically the same thing, in another thread. While I think diplomacy failed years ago as well, I do not see that this is a moot discussion. There will come a time in the future wherein diplomacy becomes again vital, and understanding why it failed may prevent it failing again. The debate is vital, thinks me, to success in the future.

This is an interesting article, and I appreciate Bodypilot putting it up. I personally have felt squelched in offering opinions and supporting documents here on these boards in recent weeks, and out of deference to HH, I haven't answered many many many posts that I wanted to. I have, on many occasions, stopped what I was typing and backed out - not because it was a personal attack, but because it was useless...a waste of time. Not because it was disrespectful, but because I would come under fire for saying it. Not because my opinion was wrong, but because of the arguing - not debating - which would follow.

I don't know for sure, but I do believe that others may feel the same kind of muffling, on both sides of the fence, and so haven't bothered to put up a response.

Just my take on things...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"While I think diplomacy failed years ago as well"

Diplomacy didn't fail, the diplomats did.
There is still time for diplomacy to end this sooner rather than later.

"I have, on many occasions, stopped what I was typing and backed out"
Sheesh sis,me too.
I have lost count of the times I've had a reposte composed and ready to send, only to think.."ach what difference will it make and why am I feeding this?"

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[kiltboy 0]

Morning Michelle,

I never said the article wasn't interesting and if that's the impression I gave then maybe I need to take another English class. I see the diplomatic failure as a deterioration over time and while the reasons behind the failure are interesting I was getting tired of the arguing that I believe you may be alluding to.
I would find the discussion would degrade to a shouting match of what everyone's grandfather did 50 years ago, when attitude's were different. The world was a lot more racist then than it is now.

I think supporting documents are a great way of sharing sources that others may not be aware of and giving a chance for an informed discussion. There have been a number of posts by different members of these boards that could be used as a model for a respectful exchange of different opinions. I'm thinking of one on Israel and N. Ireland just now.

I have also backed off and hit delete more than once for similar reasons that you mention. I felt I was talking to a wall. In the end I think part of it is frustration on my part as a Brit in the US I'm seeing a tone in the media that I'm uncomfortable with, almost a rhetoric that maybe I'm reacting to.

If you are in anyway uncomfortable with anything I post in the future but are reluctant to post a reply to the board then please PM me.

David

[kiltboy 0]

Yes it was the diplomats but then I'm not a fan of politicians.

David

[Michele 1]

Quote

If you are in anyway uncomfortable with anything I post in the future but are reluctant to post a reply to the board then please PM me.

Hi, David.

No, I felt no uncomfortablility with your response (nor original post herein); should it come to a personal issue between me and anyone else, I generally can discipline myself to move it to pm's...(mostly, at any rate...sometimes I screw up, though).

I appreciate your offer - I've had great exchanges between folks when I've gone to pm's, in certain cases. Your posting is not, for the most part, what I meant. Should it become necessary, rest assured I will pm you.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Here's another article that exposes what could definitely be one of the real reasons

1st it was blood for oil, then it was this and that. can you lefties get your act together.

[kallend 2,154]

Quote

Quote

Here's another article that exposes what could definitely be one of the real reasons

1st it was blood for oil, then it was this and that. can you lefties get your act together.

Given that over the last few weeks you have posted something like a dozen "quotes" or reports that turned out to be hoaxes or bogus in some way, one is tempted to think of your comment as the pot calling the kettle "black".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jerry81 10]

Quote

1st it was blood for oil, then it was this and that. can you lefties get your act together.

Well, I never claimed it was all about the oil.
I do, however, remember a lot of Americans believing this war was mainly about taking Saddam's WMDs from him before he uses/sells them- the same Americans who today believe it's about freeing the Iraqi people. Sound familiar?
By the way, please re-read the article I posted. Do a little exploring of your own, if you will. Then tell me if you still believe France and Russia oppose the war only because of their financial interests, while USA fights solely for the greater good of the Iraqis and all mankind..

---

[billvon 3,120]

>the same Americans who today believe it's about freeing the Iraqi
>people. Sound familiar?

Sounds a bit like the war in Afghanistan. It was originally to get Bin Laden and his lieutenants, and we went through the Taliban essentially because they wouldn't get out of the way. By the end of the war the purpose had changed to 'freeing the Afghani people.'

At least this time, it seems like we got the right guy. I hope reports that Saddam is out of the picture (one way or another) are correct.

[Trent 0]

You guys are right! I finally get it! The US LIKES to go to war and kill people and in turn lose a few of our own! The president has no conscience and was DROOLING to send our military to the middle of the desert for some good ol' ass whuppin! Yeah, those are reasonable.

Freeing the Iraqi people of a brutal dictator, ensuring that he didn't use any WMDs, getting rid of a pain in the ass that supported anything against the US, and making sure this same lunatic didn't have access to the oil money to do all this seems a pretty good reason to get rid of him. So tell me, if France and Russia's financial interests aren't their only reasons... what are their other "legitimate" reasons for not wanting to get rid of someone who is pretty universally accepted as "bad"?

Oh, hello again!

[PhillyKev 0]

OK...so France and Russia do not want to take action against solely for financial reasons, that's believable to you. But it's impossible for you to believe that the US wouldn't do that? Is there some kind of special magical forcefield around the US so that leaders who only care about financial concerns can only rule other countries?

I'm not saying the US is doing it for financial reasons, and I'm not saying France isn't for financial reasons. I'm just wondering why you immediately assume the worst of one nation's leaders and the best about another. What reason do you have for that besides nationalism?

[wmw999 2,592]

Quote

besides nationalism?

I went and looked up nationalism in Webster, because I've always thought it was really kinda like love of country. But I never associated the second definition with it.
nationalism : loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

There there's
jingoism: extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy

which some seem to confuse with nationalism, patriotism, or simple love of country.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jerry81 10]

Quote

There there's
jingoism: extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy

For a minute there, I thought you were making that one up. But it really is in the dictionary! And it definitely has a nice ring to it, especially when apllied to a 'patriotic' American .
And Trent...nevermind.

---

[wmw999 2,592]

I wouldn't qualify what Trent wrote as jingoism at all. Really. I've seen some here (if the word "French" appears, it might be jingoism). It's a continuum, and jingoism is the ass end as far as I'm concerned.

But the "we totally suck and are the worst country in the world" end isn't much better. Just less likely to go to war.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jerry81 10]

Quote

I wouldn't qualify what Trent wrote as jingoism at all.

Me neither, I was speaking more generally. I just didn't feel like replying to what he wrote, since I feel I've said quite enough on the subject for now.
But hey, what do you call a person on that end of the continuum; is it a jingoist or simply a jingo. Or is it just a jing.

---

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Given that over the last few weeks you have posted something like a dozen "quotes" or reports that turned out to be hoaxes or bogus in some way, one is tempted to think of your comment as the pot calling the kettle "black".

surly you can count better than that.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

I'm not saying the US is doing it for financial reasons, and I'm not saying France isn't for financial reasons. I'm just wondering why you immediately assume the worst of one nation's leaders and the best about another. What reason do you have for that besides nationalism?

because they were openly working against the diplomatic solution. Instead of stoping things like that did they could have compromised. But wait any chance of the SH being deposed and they lose money big time. Find me one, redeeming thing about SH and gang. Then maybe I can understand the french Gov't. Bill, Wendy, anyone?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Heh, heh... Admit it Kallend, the scenes of Iraqis running through the streets shouting "Bush, Bush, Bush....." really frosts your ass doesn't it?
Like fingernails on a chalk board.
Come on John admit it ha ha ha

[Trent 0]

Call it what you like... I for one cannot believe that our country is pure corporate evil, like some of you would have us believe. I do not think that an American president's desires to be remembered will motivate them to start a war. I do not believe that it is a decision made lightly. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, although we (Americans) make mistakes I believe our hearts are in the right place when it comes to situations like Iraq. Do you honestly still see no reason to depose Saddam now that you've seen how happy people are (even if you only watch Al-Jazeera you've seen it)? Do you not think we should help people who are oppressed? Do you not think that we should expect a tiny bit of gratitude? Do you think that anyone else has the balls to step up and do what others only talk about? Who?

I made no assumptions in my last post about France or Russia's motivations to block removal of Saddam. Do YOU only think that the US is so evil as to go to war for a buck? Or is your suspicion and conspiracy theories directed equally across the board?

Yes, I love and believe in my country. Call that what you will. But if we're the bad guys, who are the good guys?

NOTE: All references to "YOU" are plural.

Oh, hello again!

[wmw999 2,592]

Let me ask -- is it spelled 'nyah nyah nyah' or 'neener neener neener'?

Scenes of Iraqis running through the streets shouting "Bush, Bush, Bush" don't bother me at all. We took a huge gamble with mostly other people's lives, and our own reputation. I think we've set back any chance for a collaborative approach to world affairs among differing countries. I realize that if you ascribe to a "US rules, all who don't agree with us drool" point of view, that's kind of pointless.

I'm glad there are Iraqis who are more free now. Will we be going after other brutal, bad dictators next? And how will we justify it? The reasons shouldn't change with the perception of the outside world. If they're good reasons, then you should be able to stand on them. If they're not good enough to say consistently, then they're probably not worth killing over.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

"While I think diplomacy failed years ago as well"

Diplomacy didn't fail, the diplomats did.
There is still time for diplomacy to end this sooner rather than later.

I agree with you totally! And I have tried to avoid posting to war threads, too, in respect of the wishes of the Bossman. Some people just don't get it, thouhg...