France's "real" motives
Peter Brookes of the Conservative Heritage Foundation has written an opinion piece for the New York Post exposing what he says are France’s real motives for U.N. involvement in Iraq, but inadvertently he exposes why conservatives don’t want the U.N. involved – and it all has to do with oil.
He writes, “but what's gone unnoticed is why France, Germany, Russia and China are pressing for full Iraqi sovereignty as early as possible: They want to emasculate the Coalition that freed Iraq (the one they never joined) so they can be the first to get their hands on the potential bounty of the new Iraqi economy - especially its oil and gas reserves (the world's second and 10th largest).”
But if this is actually true, wouldn’t it also be true that the reason that the US wants to avoid “full sovereignty” is because they want to keep the oil for themselves and keep it out of the hands of France, Germany and those other countries who didn’t help us. If Iraq was really in control it would mean a level playing field for who could bid lucrative contracts, and the U.S. would no longer have a lock on Iraqi oil. Now we couldn’t have that could we?
Brooks basically exposes that the overtures to the U.N. should be just for public relations and we need to remain in control, he writes, “It's fine for America to play nice with the United Nations to the extent it supports our interests. The U.N. can be a value-added in conducting humanitarian operations, running elections, helping draft an Iraqi constitution and assembling a new government.”
“But we shouldn't allow ourselves to be shanghaied by amendments that undermine American interests. The United States and its Coalition partners did the heavy lifting in freeing Iraq from the grips of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, and our interests in Iraq's future must be preserved.”
Let’s be very clear here. When he refers to “our interests in Iraq’s future” he isn’t talking about “democracy” - he’s talking about oil.
He continues, “the U.N. resolution is a first step in launching Iraq in the right direction. But it's also an entirely optional step. The Coalition can transfer sovereignty to Iraq directly without U.N. involvement.”
So, if it looks like working with the U.N. could compromise our control of oil, we need to get rid of U.N. involvement.
It’s nice that he was so clear about that.
He writes, “but what's gone unnoticed is why France, Germany, Russia and China are pressing for full Iraqi sovereignty as early as possible: They want to emasculate the Coalition that freed Iraq (the one they never joined) so they can be the first to get their hands on the potential bounty of the new Iraqi economy - especially its oil and gas reserves (the world's second and 10th largest).”
But if this is actually true, wouldn’t it also be true that the reason that the US wants to avoid “full sovereignty” is because they want to keep the oil for themselves and keep it out of the hands of France, Germany and those other countries who didn’t help us. If Iraq was really in control it would mean a level playing field for who could bid lucrative contracts, and the U.S. would no longer have a lock on Iraqi oil. Now we couldn’t have that could we?
Brooks basically exposes that the overtures to the U.N. should be just for public relations and we need to remain in control, he writes, “It's fine for America to play nice with the United Nations to the extent it supports our interests. The U.N. can be a value-added in conducting humanitarian operations, running elections, helping draft an Iraqi constitution and assembling a new government.”
“But we shouldn't allow ourselves to be shanghaied by amendments that undermine American interests. The United States and its Coalition partners did the heavy lifting in freeing Iraq from the grips of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, and our interests in Iraq's future must be preserved.”
Let’s be very clear here. When he refers to “our interests in Iraq’s future” he isn’t talking about “democracy” - he’s talking about oil.
He continues, “the U.N. resolution is a first step in launching Iraq in the right direction. But it's also an entirely optional step. The Coalition can transfer sovereignty to Iraq directly without U.N. involvement.”
So, if it looks like working with the U.N. could compromise our control of oil, we need to get rid of U.N. involvement.
It’s nice that he was so clear about that.
posted by Zack at 2:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home