Oil is America's motive for war 

All around the world people ask: What is the real motive for the Bush 
administration's threatened war with Iraq? Is it to curb weapons of mass 
destruction? Is it more personal, an act of vengeance by a son against 
the man who attempted to assassinate his father? Is it to defend Israel? 
Is it to reinvent the Middle East as a more democratic region, as many 
of the Bush administration's leading voices insist? Or is it, as some 
suspect, so that America can get its hands on Iraqi oil?  

The Bush administration has offered a range of justifications for its 
plans, although with a fairly consistent emphasis on weapons of mass 
destruction. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz talks about 
making Iraq the "first Arab democracy." Many in the Bush administration 
argue that aggressive policies toward Iraq can ultimately bring down 
autocratic governments in the Middle East the same way that the Reagan 
administration supposedly brought down the "evil" Soviet empire.  

Outside of America, almost nobody buys these arguments. Most believe 
that oil ranks at the top of America's list of motives. Short of the 
U.S. national security archives suddenly falling open, we are unlikely 
to find a definitive account of the president's innermost thoughts. 
Moreover, different U.S. officials certainly have different priorities.
President Bush may focus on weapons of mass destruction; Mr. Wolfowitz 
may target democracy. Others may have their eyes firmly on the prize of 
Iraqi oil. 

A more fruitful question than an inquiry into America's motives is how 
the United States will act once war comes. Here we don't have to rely 
on second-guessing individuals. We can examine America's behavior in 
recent history.  

Looking at the historical record, it is difficult to believe that the 
United States will give the Middle East a democratic makeover. Today's 
Middle East is a construction of the United States and Europe. Its despots 
and monarchs owe their positions to the machinations and connivance of 
the West. Even if America goes off to war waving the banner of democracy, 
the results are likely to be less glorious. In the end, this will likely 
be a war for Iraqi oil.  

Throughout the 20th century, Arab self-determination, democracy and 
economic reform took a back seat to oil. When the British inveigled 
Arab chieftains to fight on behalf of the British empire in World War 
I, the Arabs were not rewarded with sovereignty at the Great War's end, 
but with ongoing British and French suzerainty.  

Whenever real democracy in the Middle East threatened American 
control over oil reserves, democracy was jettisoned. Consider 
the CIA-backed coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mussadegh. 
In 1951, Mussadegh nationalized Iran's oil industry, prompting 
a British boycott the next year and then U.S.-backed intervention 
(which toppled and jailed the popular prime minister) in 1953.  

A similarly instructive case is the West's support for a military 
crackdown in Algeria after democratic elections in early 1992 
threatened to bring the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) to power. 
When the FIS seemed headed to victory, Algeria's army stepped in 
to prevent continuation of the vote. Western governments, led by 
France but with U.S. backing, gave moral and financial support 
to Algeria's generals.  

American behavior in former Soviet Central Asia is equally vivid. 
Many in the Bush administration point to its work in this region 
as a showcase for how they will reshape the Middle East. Yet 
democracy has absolutely nothing to do with American policy in 
Central Asia, where U.S. oil companies and diplomats trip over 
each other promoting deals in despotic Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan 
and Uzbekistan.  

A good window on postwar U.S. policy in Iraq can be found in key 
documents written by and for the Bush administration before Sept. 
11, when the analysis of the Middle East was much less infected by 
today's fears. Probably the most interesting document is a study 
entitled "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges of the 21st Century," 
produced by the James Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice 
University in Texas and the Council on Foreign Relations.  

The study makes clear two points. First, Iraq is vital to oil flows 
from the Middle East, as it sits on the second-largest reserves in 
the world. The report agonizes over the fact that for economic security
reasons America needs Iraqi oil, but that for military security reasons 
the United States can't allow Saddam to develop the oil. The implication 
seems clear: The United States needs a new Iraqi regime for its energy 
security. Democracy is not mentioned anywhere in the study.  

This document also provides an interesting glimpse into the 
preoccupations of officials like Vice President Dick Cheney and 
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Both men entered national 
leadership under President Gerald Ford in 1974, during the Arab 
oil embargo, which unleashed huge economic shocks that doomed 
Ford's presidency. The "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges" study 
puts enormous weight on the threats of a similar disruption today. 
The 1970s embargo was evidently a defining moment in the strategic 
thinking of Cheney and Rumsfeld.  

The Bush administration may believe that it is going to war to fight 
for democracy in the Middle East, but U.S. support for real democracy 
stands to be an early victim. Sadly, a war fought for oil will be one 
that further destabilizes international politics and society, and 
undermines the true security of the United States and the world.  

Jeffrey D. Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth 
Institute at Columbia University. - Ed.  

By Jeffrey Sachs  

2003.01.31

                             -==-

Source: Korea Herald .....
http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2003/01/31/200301310023.asp


Cheers, Steve..

---