Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Once, many years ago, during the apartheid time in South Africa, I went with some friends to visit a Pentecostal Church near the university where we wetre students. We went out of curiosity, and in an ecumencal spirit of trying to find out what made Christians of other traditions tick. That Sunday evening the preacher had chosen to speak on "Should the church oppose the 90-day detention clause?" We did not know that beforehand – it was purely by chance. The "90-day detention clause" was part of the General Laws Amendment Bill then being debated in parliament, which, if passed (it was) would allow any police officer of the rank of Lieutenant or above to detain or order the detention of and person incommunicado for up to 90 days, if he suspected that they might be subversive. The detention could be renewed indefinitely by releasing the detainee and then simply redetaining him. The clause in fact proposed indefinite detention without trial at the whim of a police officer. In effect it made South Africa a police state. The preacher made repeated references to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s", and said that no, the church should not oppose the 90-day detention clause, because the Church and politics were two separte things. At the end of the service we filed out of the church and he stood at the door shaking hands with the people leaving. When I and my friends reached him, he saw that we were visitors, and asked what we thought of the service. We said, quite politely, that we disagreed with the sermon. He asked why. I said that it was because the 90 day detention clause was Caesar usurping the rights of God. He asked how, and was begining to get aggressive. I pointed out that Jesus had asked those who asked about the lawfulnes of taxes to bring him a coin, and he asked whose image and superscription appeared on the coin, and they replied "Caesar’s". I then asked the preacher – consider a 90 day detainee – in whose image is he made? Whose image appears in him? He replied, "I’ve got lots of policemen in my congregation, and if you are not careful they will detain you for 90 days." We did not return for a second visit. But a few days later I saw the preacher in the street, and he said that he had to say that sort of thing for the congregation, even though he and I knew better. The "Render unto Ceaser the things that are Caesar’s" does not mean anything nearly so simplistic as the idea that the church should "keep out of politics", as you and that preacher seem to think. As far as Jimmy Carter being a failure is concerned, I reckon that’s a moot point. OK, he wasn’t reelected for a second term, but neither was George Bush Senior. A man of integrity can often look like a failure in a crooked world. And the Psalms have some pertinent things to say about that.
I’m glad I gave you the opportunity to deliver your sermon. Perhaps you can use it in church next Sunday?
Response:
The problem is it’s not about the "tyranny being inflicted on the Iraqi people" it’s all about Oil.
It happens that Western oil interests and the campaign for human rights for the Iraqis work in tandem in this case, reinforcing each other. One would have to be a fool to deny that oil is a factor. What’s wrong with that?
Response:
JMJ The problem is it’s not about the "tyranny being inflicted on the Iraqi people" it’s all about Oil. It happens that Western oil interests and the campaign for human rights for the Iraqis work in tandem in this case, reinforcing each other.
BS who appointed the United States the protector of Iraqi "human rights"? The lives of US servicemen are much more important. One would have to be a fool to deny that oil is a factor. What’s wrong with that?
Quite a bit I don’t like the useless shedding of US blood meddling in things that should not concern us, and for OIL when all we have to do is drop our support for Israel, and we could probably accomplish much the same thing from the standpoint of protecting our middle east oil supplies. BTW only 23% of our oil comes from the middle east and 14.7% of the that comes from Saudi Arabia which makes a good case for not meddling in the Israeli/Palestinian affair. Jim Carew sfo
Response:
BS who appointed the United States the protector of Iraqi "human rights"? The lives of US servicemen are much more important.
A central doctrine of the U.S. military has become the minimization of casualties. We have to weigh the potential casualties of intervening in Iraq with the potential casualties that might result if we do nothing. It’s a certainty that there’ll be a (small) number of casualties in invading Iraq. There’s also a good possibility of much larger numbers of U.S. casualties if Saddam is allowed to remain in power. Given enough time, he *will* develop deliverable weapons of mass destruction, and then either use them directly against us or use them to threaten us with blackmail. Or they’ll fall into the hands of even more irresponsible third parties. One would have to be a fool to deny that oil is a factor. What’s wrong with that? Quite a bit I don’t like the useless shedding of US blood meddling in things that should not concern us, and for OIL when all we have to do is drop our support for Israel, and we could probably accomplish much the same thing from the standpoint of protecting our middle east oil supplies. BTW only 23% of our oil comes from the middle east and 14.7% of the that comes from Saudi Arabia which makes a good case for not meddling in the Israeli/Palestinian affair.
It’s politically unrealistic for the U.S. to drop its support of Israel, given the number of Jewish voters and the general Jewish influence in this country. (And lest I be accused of antisemitsm, this Jewish influence has generally been benign.) You would have been more credible if you had said that we could lessen our dependence on Midlle Eastern oil by conserving energy, and bringing other sources of energy online. (Drill on the North Slope of Alaska, perhaps?) As a general principle, we should have learned from the experience of the Cold War and the fall of Communism that freedom is indivisible. Dictatorships, like rotten apples, tend to contaminate the areas around them. Conversely, democracy, when established, influences whole regions. America can’t wall itself off from the rest of the world — the entire world concerns us. If we don’t "meddle" with it, it will certainly "meddle" with us, and in ways not of our liking.
Response:
Area : peacemakers also attached: Catholic Bishops Question Bush’s Iraq Plans * * * Novosti / 12 Sept 2002 / 18:26 Patriarch Alexis Calls upon USA to Cancel Iraq War Plans Moscow From a RIA Novosti correspondent —
Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II has called upon the USA to cancel a military operation against Iraq. ‘We should look for a peaceful but not military settlement of the Iraqi issue. It will only incur more suffering on people,’ the head of the Russian Orthodox Church said at a Thursday meeting with Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Drnovsek. Alexy II stressed that it was necessary to take every opportunity to find a political solution of the Iraqi issue. The 21st century ‘must be a century of creation and not the one of destruction and bloodshed’, emphasized the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. * * * Associated Press / September 17, 2002 Catholic Bishops Question Bush’s Iraq Plans By Rachel Zoll America’s Roman Catholic bishops have told President Bush they have grave reservations about a unilateral U.S. strike against Iraq and urged him to use the United Nations to pressure Saddam Hussein for change. Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, acknowledged in a statement Tuesday that Iraq posed a threat, but said it would be difficult to justify a pre-emptive attack under Catholic teachings on warfare. Last November, the bishops overwhelmingly backed the United States’ right to use military force against terrorists in Afghanistan as part of a broader foreign policy protecting human rights and easing poverty. But in a letter Gregory said he delivered personally to National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, he wrote, "we believe Iraq is a different case," because of the potential to cause greater harm than good, possibly destabilizing the Mideast and killing civilians. "We find it difficult to justify extending the war on terrorism to Iraq, absent clear and adequate evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11 or of an imminent attack of a grave nature," he wrote. "We hope you will persist in the very frustrating and difficult challenges of building broad international support for a new, more constructive and effective approach." Bush has reached out to the United Nations. In a speech to the General Assembly last Thursday, he forcefully called for the Security Council to threaten action against Iraq if it did not allow weapons inspectors back in the country. In response, Iraq promised unfettered access for the inspectors, but Bush also continued to pursue military plans Tuesday. Several other religious leaders have voiced opposition to the war, including Bush’s own denomination – the United Methodist Church – and the National Council of Churches, which represents 36 Protestant and Orthodox denominations. On the Net: Gregory’s letter: http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/bush902.htm * * * — BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4 * Origin: FamilyNet Sponsored by http://www.christian-wellness.net (8:8/2)
Response:
So why don’t they rush to liberate Saudi Arabia, whose government is far more oppressive, and whose citizens planned and took part in the WTC attacks last year? Don’t worry — that’s going to happen eventually, and it may not even require a military campaign. The absolute essential, though, is to first install a friendly, at least quasi-democratic, regime in Iraq. The dominoes will them start to fall: Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia.The goal is a pro-Western, modernized Middle East, without the influence of either Baathism or extremist Islam.
I find such imperialism and jingoism quite repugnant. I hope that all Americans don’t think as you do. — The unworthy servant of God, Stephen Methodius Hayes Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
Response:
I find such imperialism and jingoism quite repugnant. I hope that all Americans don’t think as you do.
Bush’s support is more than 60% among the American population. The prospect of invading Iraq is so popular that the opposition Democrats are rushing to endorse the idea. When the Arabs attacked the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, all they managed to do was to awake the sleeping tiger. It doesn’t matter what you or the other lily-livered wimps think. America will do what it has to do.
Response:
Quite – and that is why Realpolitik is not compatible with Christianity.
Religion and international politics operate in different realms. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s." Statesmen who have confused their religion and their politics (Jimmy Carter comes to mind) have been notable failures. The "leader of the Free World" doesn’t have the luxury of allowing his every move to be informed by what some "religious authorities" might have to say. He’s responsible to his electorate, and to history. As to morality, God (and God alone) will be the final arbiter of that.
Response:
So why don’t they rush to liberate Saudi Arabia, whose government is far more oppressive, and whose citizens planned and took part in the WTC attacks last year? Don’t worry — that’s going to happen eventually, and it may not even require a military campaign. The absolute essential, though, is to first install a friendly, at least quasi-democratic, regime in Iraq. The dominoes will them start to fall: Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia.The goal is a pro-Western, modernized Middle East, without the influence of either Baathism or extremist Islam.
WHich will once again lead to terrorist attacks and America scratching its head and wondering why so many people hate it. You do not wish people screwing with your country, then may I suggest you stop screwing with others? This is what got you attacked in the first place. — Alan "the Full Monty" Ferrit ()’.’.’() ( (T) ) ( ) . ( ) (")_(") eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211 Denizen of Darkness #42 EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
Response:
Which will once again lead to terrorist attacks and America scratching its head and wondering why so many people hate it. You do not wish people screwing with your country, then may I suggest you stop screwing with others? This is what got you attacked in the first place.
Each terrorist attack will be responded to by an increasingly aroused America. The way Americans are now sensitized, all that’s needed is the merest excuse. Would-be terrorists would be wise to remember this. As Dirty Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood) would say, "Go ahead, punk, make my day."
Response:
Then they should bomb Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Pakistan first. The only oppression in Iraq comes from the US blockade. That’s laughable. Saddam is not an oppressor? Where have you been these last 20 years? Saudi Arabia, etc., will soon get their turn. They have to wait in line behind Iraq.
Do you actually believe that? As long as these guys are friendly to the US interests, the US will do nothing about their opression of their people. It has been demonstrated over and over again. Check the history of Central America/Cuba/Indochina for more details.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I find such imperialism and jingoism quite repugnant. I hope that all Americans don’t think as you do. Bush’s support is more than 60% among the American population. The prospect of invading Iraq is so popular that the opposition Democrats are rushing to endorse the idea. When the Arabs attacked the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, all they managed to do was to awake the sleeping tiger. It doesn’t matter what you or the other lily-livered wimps think. America will do what it has to do.
Sounds just like Germany in 1938. Steve Hayes http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
Response:
Quite – and that is why Realpolitik is not compatible with Christianity. Religion and international politics operate in different realms. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s." Statesmen who have confused their religion and their politics (Jimmy Carter comes to mind) have been notable failures.
Once, many years ago, during the apartheid time in South Africa, I went with some friends to visit a Pentecostal Church near the university where we wetre students. We went out of curiosity, and in an ecumencal spirit of trying to find out what made Christians of other traditions tick. That Sunday evening the preacher had chosen to speak on "Should the church oppose the 90-day detention clause?" We did not know that beforehand – it was purely by chance. The "90-day detention clause" was part of the General Laws Amendment Bill then being debated in parliament, which, if passed (it was) would allow any police officer of the rank of Lieutenant or above to detain or order the detention of and person incommunicado for up to 90 days, if he suspected that they might be subversive. The detention could be renewed indefinitely by releasing the detainee and then simply redetaining him. The clause in fact proposed indefinite detention without trial at the whim of a police officer. In effect it made South Africa a police state. The preacher made repeated references to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s", and said that no, the church should not oppose the 90-day detention clause, because the Church and politics were two separte things. At the end of the service we filed out of the church and he stood at the door shaking hands with the people leaving. When I and my friends reached him, he saw that we were visitors, and asked what we thought of the service. We said, quite politely, that we disagreed with the sermon. He asked why. I said that it was because the 90 day detention clause was Caesar usurping the rights of God. He asked how, and was begining to get aggressive. I pointed out that Jesus had asked those who asked about the lawfulnes of taxes to bring him a coin, and he asked whose image and superscription appeared on the coin, and they replied "Caesar’s". I then asked the preacher – consider a 90 day detainee – in whose image is he made? Whose image appears in him? He replied, "I’ve got lots of policemen in my congregation, and if you are not careful they will detain you for 90 days." We did not return for a second visit. But a few days later I saw the preacher in the street, and he said that he had to say that sort of thing for the congregation, even though he and I knew better. The "Render unto Ceaser the things that are Caesar’s" does not mean anything nearly so simplistic as the idea that the church should "keep out of politics", as you and that preacher seem to think. As far as Jimmy Carter being a failure is concerned, I reckon that’s a moot point. OK, he wasn’t reelected for a second term, but neither was George Bush Senior. A man of integrity can often look like a failure in a crooked world. And the Psalms have some pertinent things to say about that. — The unworthy servant of God, Stephen Methodius Hayes Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hmmm. He seems to only be against bloodshed when it’s not Russians inflicting it. He has called the Russian slaughter in Chechnya a "righteous war", which goes against the very principles of Orthodoxy. I wonder if he can say the word "hypocrite." There’s a quid pro quo deal in the making between the U.S. and Russia. Russia would get the green light to do whatever it wants to do in Chechnya and the surrounding territories (Georgia, etc.) in return for keeping quiet on Iraq (and especially not casting vetoes in the U.N.). The Patriarch of Moscow ought to be aware of this, and mind what he says, accordingly. (Likewise, China would get the green light to persecute the Uighurs and the Tibetans. People get thrown to the wolves in Realpolitik.)
Quite – and that is why Realpolitik is not compatible with Christianity. — The unworthy servant of God, Stephen Methodius Hayes Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
Response:
Then they should bomb Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Pakistan first. The only oppression in Iraq comes from the US blockade.
That’s laughable. Saddam is not an oppressor? Where have you been these last 20 years? Saudi Arabia, etc., will soon get their turn. They have to wait in line behind Iraq.
Response:
Where have I heard that song before? Thats what they said in the begining about Vietnam.
Wrong. You’re exhibiting historical myopia. The advent of the Vietnam War and the advent of this Iraq intervention brook no comparision. What you’re alleging to have been said in fact was *not* said at the beginning of Vietnam.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <highlights — rest snipped for brevity Patriarch Alexis Calls upon USA to Cancel Iraq War Plans Catholic Bishops Question Bush’s Iraq Plans Several other religious leaders have voiced opposition to the war, including Bush’s own denomination – the United Methodist Church – and the National Council of Churches, which represents 36 Protestant and Orthodox denominations. I hope to God that Bush doesn’t listen to this shortsighted bleating. What do these churchmen want to do — perpetuate the tyranny being inflicted on the Iraqi people? It’s not for nothing that the motto of the U.S. Special Forces is "De Oppresso Liber" — "To Liberate from Oppression."
Then they should bomb Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Pakistan first. The only oppression in Iraq comes from the US blockade.
Response:
JMJ BS who appointed the United States the protector of Iraqi "human rights"? The lives of US servicemen are much more important. A central doctrine of the U.S. military has become the minimization of casualties. We have to weigh the potential casualties of intervening in Iraq with the potential casualties that might result if we do nothing. It’s a certainty that there’ll be a (small) number of casualties in invading Iraq.
Where have I heard that song before? Thats what they said in the begining about Vietnam. LOL – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -One would have to be a fool to deny that oil is a factor. What’s wrong with that? Quite a bit I don’t like the useless shedding of US blood meddling in things that should not concern us, and for OIL when all we have to do is drop our support for Israel, and we could probably accomplish much the same thing from the standpoint of protecting our middle east oil supplies. BTW only 23% of our oil comes from the middle east and 14.7% of the that comes from Saudi Arabia which makes a good case for not meddling in the Israeli/Palestinian affair. It’s politically unrealistic for the U.S. to drop its support of Israel, given the number of Jewish voters and the general Jewish influence in this country. (And lest I be accused of antisemitsm, this Jewish influence has generally been benign.)
Only when it doesn’t pertain to Israel. Most of the arms used by the Israelis against the Palestinians are coming from the US i.e. Cobra helicopter gunships etc. paid for in the most part by US goy taxpayers courtesy of the "Jewish Lobby". Jim
Response:
Hmmm. He seems to only be against bloodshed when it’s not Russians inflicting it. He has called the Russian slaughter in Chechnya a "righteous war", which goes against the very principles of Orthodoxy. I wonder if he can say the word "hypocrite."
There’s a quid pro quo deal in the making between the U.S. and Russia. Russia would get the green light to do whatever it wants to do in Chechnya and the surrounding territories (Georgia, etc.) in return for keeping quiet on Iraq (and especially not casting vetoes in the U.N.). The Patriarch of Moscow ought to be aware of this, and mind what he says, accordingly. (Likewise, China would get the green light to persecute the Uighurs and the Tibetans. People get thrown to the wolves in Realpolitik.)
Response:
So why don’t they rush to liberate Saudi Arabia, whose government is far more oppressive, and whose citizens planned and took part in the WTC attacks last year?
Don’t worry — that’s going to happen eventually, and it may not even require a military campaign. The absolute essential, though, is to first install a friendly, at least quasi-democratic, regime in Iraq. The dominoes will them start to fall: Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia.The goal is a pro-Western, modernized Middle East, without the influence of either Baathism or extremist Islam.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <highlights — rest snipped for brevity Patriarch Alexis Calls upon USA to Cancel Iraq War Plans Catholic Bishops Question Bush’s Iraq Plans Several other religious leaders have voiced opposition to the war, including Bush’s own denomination – the United Methodist Church – and the National Council of Churches, which represents 36 Protestant and Orthodox denominations. I hope to God that Bush doesn’t listen to this shortsighted bleating. What do these churchmen want to do — perpetuate the tyranny being inflicted on the Iraqi people? It’s not for nothing that the motto of the U.S. Special Forces is "De Oppresso Liber" — "To Liberate from Oppression."
So why don’t they rush to liberate Saudi Arabia, whose government is far more oppressive, and whose citizens planned and took part in the WTC attacks last year? Steve Hayes http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Area : peacemakers also attached: Catholic Bishops Question Bush’s Iraq Plans * * * Novosti / 12 Sept 2002 / 18:26 Patriarch Alexis Calls upon USA to Cancel Iraq War Plans Moscow From a RIA Novosti correspondent — Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II has called upon the USA to cancel a military operation against Iraq. ‘We should look for a peaceful but not military settlement of the Iraqi issue. It will only incur more suffering on people,’ the head of the Russian Orthodox Church said at a Thursday meeting with Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Drnovsek. Alexy II stressed that it was necessary to take every opportunity to find a political solution of the Iraqi issue. The 21st century ‘must be a century of creation and not the one of destruction and bloodshed’, emphasized the head of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Hmmm. He seems to only be against bloodshed when it’s not Russians inflicting it. He has called the Russian slaughter in Chechnya a "righteous war", which goes against the very principles of Orthodoxy. I wonder if he can say the word "hypocrite."
Response:
<highlights — rest snipped for brevity Patriarch Alexis Calls upon USA to Cancel Iraq War Plans Catholic Bishops Question Bush’s Iraq Plans Several other religious leaders have voiced opposition to the war, including Bush’s own denomination – the United Methodist Church – and the National Council of Churches, which represents 36 Protestant and Orthodox denominations.
I hope to God that Bush doesn’t listen to this shortsighted bleating. What do these churchmen want to do — perpetuate the tyranny being inflicted on the Iraqi people? It’s not for nothing that the motto of the U.S. Special Forces is "De Oppresso Liber" — "To Liberate from Oppression."
Response:
JMJ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <highlights — rest snipped for brevity Patriarch Alexis Calls upon USA to Cancel Iraq War Plans Catholic Bishops Question Bush’s Iraq Plans Several other religious leaders have voiced opposition to the war, including Bush’s own denomination – the United Methodist Church – and the National Council of Churches, which represents 36 Protestant and Orthodox denominations. I hope to God that Bush doesn’t listen to this shortsighted bleating. What do these churchmen want to do — perpetuate the tyranny being inflicted on the Iraqi people? It’s not for nothing that the motto of the U.S. Special Forces is "De Oppresso Liber" — "To Liberate from Oppression."
The problem is its not about the "tyranny being inflicted on the Iraqi people" it all about Oil. See below War Could Unshackle Oil in Iraq U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, September 15, 2002; Page A01 A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, 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. Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country’s huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia. The importance of Iraq’s oil has made it potentially one of the administration’s biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies for President Bush’s call for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council –the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China — have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad. "It’s pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we’ll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them." But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them." Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath of Hussein’s fall. Representatives of many foreign oil concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound them out about their intentions. Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more than a dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. sanctions. But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals. "We will review all these agreements, definitely," said Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization of opposition groups that is backed by the United States. "Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq elected by the people." Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq’s oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a decade of sanctions. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," Chalabi said. The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position on the structure of Iraq’s oil industry in event of a change of leadership. While the Bush administration’s campaign against Hussein is presenting vast possibilities for multinational oil giants, it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil market, according to industry analysts. Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC cartel’s quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela and Angola. While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to unlock Siberia’s oil treasures far less appealing. Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil companies, the administration, preoccupied with military planning and making the case about Hussein’s potential threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way, according to U.S. officials. The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a department spokesman said last week. An official with the National Security Council declined to say whether oil had been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush has had over the past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Western leaders. On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three-day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy summit in Houston, at which more than 100 Russian and American energy companies are expected. Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of Russia’s economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get private assurances from Bush that Russia "will be made whole" financially. Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week that the INC’s Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein’s government. But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival ethnic groups in Iraq’s north are already squabbling over the the giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and minority Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein’s fall. Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi oil a day at the start of the year. Even so, American oil companies have been banished from direct involvement in Iraq since the late 1980s, when relations soured between Washington and Baghdad. Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to repair fields damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq’s earlier war against Iran, and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S. government studies say the results have been disappointing. While Russia’s Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997 to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N. sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless work began immediately. Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq. A proposed $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly includes opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in Iraq’s western desert. The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer give French firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its decision to abide by the sanctions. Officials of several major firms said they were taking care to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over how to proceed on Iraq. "There’s no real upside for American oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage. There’ll be plenty of time in the future," said James Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities. But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with Hussein’s ouster, companies such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron Texaco would almost assuredly play a role, industry officials said. "There’s not an oil company out there that wouldn’t be interested in Iraq," one analyst said. 2002 The Washington Post Company Unquote Jim Carew sfo
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.