![]() |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacyManoeuvres shaped by horsetrading between America, Russia and France over control of untapped oilfields Ed Vulliamy in New York, Paul Webster in Paris, and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow Sunday October 6, 2002 The Observer Oil is emerging as the key factor in US attempts to secure the support of Russia and France for military action against Iraq, according to an Observer investigation. The Bush administration, intimately entwined with the global oil industry, is keen to pounce on Iraq's massive untapped reserves, the second biggest in the world after Saudi Arabia's. But France and Russia, who hold a power of veto on the UN Security Council, have billion-dollar contracts with Baghdad, which they fear will disappear in 'an oil grab by Washington', if America installs a successor to Saddam. A Russian official at the United Nations in New York told the Observer last week that the $7 billion in Soviet-era debt was not the main 'economic interest' in Iraq about which the Kremlin is voicing its concerns. The main fear was a post-Saddam government would not honour extraction contracts Moscow has signed with Iraq. Russian business has long-standing interests in Iraq. Lukoil, the biggest oil company in Russia, signed a $20bn contract in 1997 to drill the West Qurna oilfield. Such a deal could evaporate along with the Saddam regime, together with a more recent contract with Russian giant Zarubezhneft, which was granted a potential $90bn concession to develop the bin Umar oilfield. The total value of Saddam's foreign contract awards could reach $1.1 trillion, according to the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2001. The Russian official said his government believed the US had brokered a deal with the coalition of Iraqi opposition forces it backs whereby support against Saddam is conditional on their declaring - on taking power - all oil contracts conceded under his rule to be null and void. 'The concern of my government,' said the official, 'is that the concessions agreed between Baghdad and numerous enterprises will be reneged upon, and that US companies will enter to take the greatest share of those existing contracts... Yes, if you could say it that way - an oil grab by Washington'. A government insider in Paris told The Observer that France also feared suffering economically from US oil ambitions at the end of a war. But the dilemma for Paris is more complex. Despite President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany agreeing last week to oppose changing the rules governing weapons inspectors, France may back military action. Government sources say they fear - existing concessions aside - France could be cut out of the spoils if it did not support the war and show a significant military presence. If it comes to war, France is determined to be allotted a more prestigious role in the fighting than in the 1991 Gulf war, when its main role was to occupy lightly defended ground. Negotiations have been going on between the state-owned TotalFinaElf company and the US about redistribution of oil regions between the world's major companies. Washington's predatory interest in Iraqi oil is clear, whatever its political protestations about its motives for war. The US National Energy Policy Report of 2001 - known as the 'Cheney Report' after its author Vice President Dick Cheney, formerly one of America's richest and most powerful oil industry magnates - demanded a priority on easing US access to Persian Gulf supplies. Doubts about Saudi Arabia - even before 11 September, and even more so in its wake - led US strategists to seek a backup supply in the region. America needs 20 million barrels of crude a day, and analysts have singled out the country that could meet up to half that requirement: Iraq. The current high price of oil is dragging the US economy further into recession. US control of the Iraqi reserves, perhaps the biggest unmapped reservoir in the world, would break Saudi Arabia's hold on the oil-pricing cartel Opec, and dictate prices for the next century. This could spell disaster for Russian oil giants, keen to expand their sales to the West. Russia has sought to prolong negotiations, official statements going between opposition to any new UN resolution and possible support for military action against an Iraqi regime proven to be developing weapons of mass destruction. While France is thought likely to support US military action, and China will probably fall in line because of its admission to the World Trade Organisation, Putin is left holding the wild cards. Russia recognises potential benefits of reaching a deal with the US: Saddam's regime is difficult to work with. Lukoil's billion-dollar concessions are frozen and profitless to Moscow and Baghdad under UN sanctions, leading to fears that Saddam might have declared the agreement null and void out of spite. Iraqi diplomats say Zarubezhneft won its $90bn contract only after Baghdad took it away from TotalFinaElf because of French support for sanctions. Russia stands to profit if intervention in the Gulf triggers a hike in Middle East oil prices, as its firms are lobbying to sell millions of barrels a day to the US, at two-thirds of the current market price. Moscow's trust of Washington may be slipping after what a Russian UN official calls 'broken promises' that followed negotiations over Moscow's support for the Afghan campaign. Russia turned a blind eye to US troops in central Asia, on the tacit condition that US-Russian trade restrictions would be lifted. But they are still there, and other benefits expected after 11 September have also not materialised. 'They've been making this point very strongly,' a senior Bush administration official conceded to the Washington Post , 'that this can't be an all-give-and-no-get relationship... They do have a point that the growing relationship has got to be reciprocal.' The Iraq crisis Iraq: Observer special Terrorism crisis: special report Have your say Talk: Can war be avoided? Help: how to use the talkboards New poll No war without UN, warns poll Saddam's opponents Dilip Hiro: US struggles to rally a fractured opposition Peace march Euan Ferguson: Of Muslims and Morris men Clive Aslet on a week of marching Ken Loach: Marching off to peace Washington debate 'Bullied' opponents stand up to Bush's challenge Playing politics with war? What they said Dan Plesch: Weapons of mass distraction Worldview: More from Dan Plesch Blair interview Blair interview: 'Why do only one thing?' Andrew Rawnsley: Blair breaks first rule of war More from the Blair interview The dossier Fleet Street goes topsy-turvy after dossier skirmish Focus: Iraq's quest to build nuclear bomb Talk: Iraq's nuclear quest Peter Beaumont Peter Beaumont: US quietly turns up the heat on Iran Peter Beaumont: Now for the Bush Doctrine Public language moves into war mode Worldview: best of Peter Beaumont Comment Rosemary Hollis: Hawks won't stop with Baghdad Jessica Matthews: How to make inspections work Terry Jones: The audacious courage of Mr Blair Anthony Sampson: Why Blair must listen to chorus of dissent The road to war? What the experts say David Rose: Ritter, hero of doves was a hawk With the Kurds 15.09.2002: Jason Burke: Return to Kurdistan 'Saddam will not stop me being a Kurd' Jason Burke: Kurdistan's first suicide bomber Worldview: best of Jason Burke The Hunt for Al-Qaeda Brutal gun-battle that crushed 9/11 terrorists How police caught up with the 9/11 mastermind Where are the senior al-Qaeda figures? Yvonne Roberts: How 9/11 became real for everyone Terrorism crisis: Observer special Iraq Comment highlights Leader: The fight must go on Leader: War is not inevitable Christopher Hitchens: You can only go wrong with Henry K Mark Leonard: Could the left back war on Iraq Leader: The world needs a plan for Iraq Anthony Sampson: West's greed for oil fuels Saddam fever Nick Cohen: Who will save Iraq? Letters: Why war now? Richard Harries: This war would not be a just war Nick Cohen: US doesn't wants democracy in Iraq Leader: What would we be fighting for? John Pilger: The great charade Will Hutton: Support for America could be Blair's nemesis David Rose: Why the doves are wrong - again Andrew Rawnsley: How to deal with the American goliath David L Mack: Iraq after Saddam Terry Jones: OK, George, make with the friendly bombs Special reports Iraq: Observer special Observer Worldview Afghanistan Terrorism crisis Islam and the West More global commentary More from Peter Beaumont More from Jason Burke More from Ed Vulliamy More from Mark Leonard More from Dan Plesch More from Guardian Unlimited Special report: Iraq Observer investigation: what is the evidence? Should we go to war against Saddam? Timeline: From friend to foe Key sources: who to believe? The military build-up Britain and US ready to fight alone - Blair Peter Beaumont: Countdown to conflict US pours arms into Gulf region Focus: When US turned a blind eye to poison gas Focus: Will Bush go to war against Saddam? Bush ready to declare war Bush rallies US for strike on Iraq PM and Bush plan Iraq war summit Focus: Hawks lay their plans Army fear over Blair war plans Bush wants 25,000 UK Iraq force Blair to back US war on Iraq Blair and Bush to plot war on Iraq Secret US plan for Iraq war Debating America Worldview highlights: debating American power Henry Porter: Don't wag your finger at us, Mr Bush John Lloyd: how anti-Americanism betrays the left Mark Leonard: Why America isn't listening Nick Cohen: With a friend like this... The debate: Is America too powerful for its own good? Henry Porter: The triumph of reason Paul Rogers: American unilateralism is back Christopher Hitchens: What Bush got right Useful links UNSCOM UN resolutions on Iraq British Foreign Office: Relations with Iraq US State Department Iraq Update Arab.net - Iraq resources Campaign against Sanctions on Iraq Centre for non-proliferation studies | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|