Apparemment Sang Pour Le Pétrol N’est Pas Un Problème en France
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé said he thought it would only be reasonable if French companies benefited from preferential access to Libyan contracts given that Paris, together with the U.K., led the foreign military offensive in Libya.
“The NTC has said very publicly that, in the reconstruction effort, it would give preferential treatment to those who supported them,” Mr. Juppé told French radio RTL. “That seems quite logical and fair.”
Bien sur. Tres, tres logique.
This is very French, and very predictable. Just keep it in mind, though, when evaluating French pronouncements on the motives of other nations. Faites ce que je dis, pas ce que je fais.
The Russians have been even more shameless than usual. Medvedev reluctantly decided not to veto UN authorization of military force in Libya, which set off fierce criticism within his country. When it became evident that Gaddafi would lose, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth–about how disastrous this would be for Russian commercial interests. Now they are trying furiously to reverse field, and cozy up to the National Transition Council, which they just recognized as the legitimate government of the country. For one reason only: the oil. And whereas they were intent on securing privileged access to Libya when Gaddafi ruled the roost, and were highly critical of NATO’s efforts to remove him, now they want everybody to share:
Russia, which abstained when the United Nations Security Council passed its March resolution authorizing the use of force in Libya, has said the U.N., not a small group of countries, should take the lead in supporting Libya’s reconstruction.
Good luck with that. The mercenary (e.g., the French, the Italians) can see their like coming from a mile away.
The whole Libyan episode has been a tag team between cynicism and incompetence. What could have taken days if done with a will took months, at the cost of numerous additional civilian deaths–the prevention of which was the stated purpose of the intervention.
And if the past is any guide, it will only get worse from here.
Schumer, Kerry, and McKaskill are generally credited with inhibiting contracts between US producing companies and the post Sadam Iraqi government. This allowed the Chinese access to Iraqi reserves. I know that treason has become a trite overused term but the work of numerous Senators to block contracts with US producing companies is as clear treasonous behavior as any of which I am aware. This was against a back drop of Harry Reid happily proclaiming war lost and stop the no bid contracts.
The French efforts are completely understandable in comparison with the absolutely treasonous efforts of the Senators named above with respect to Iraq.
Comment by pahoben — September 1, 2011 @ 10:29 pm
The French–who were not shy about criticizing American motives in Iraq–have no compunction in profiting from their intervention in Libya.
Quite. The employees of certain large French companies have taken a sudden interest in what Libya would be like as a place of assignment. The shamelessness of the French in this episode has been noted, along with a big belly laugh.
What amuses me the most is Russia wanting to develop Libyan oil. Why? I might be able to understand if they were looking for a non-operating role in a JV, merely to diversify and perhaps pick up some expertise here and there. But Russia has more than enough oil of its own, and an awful lot of that it is struggling to extract competently. Which other major exporting country has state-owned operations abroad? The only two I can think of are Petrobras (and they are swiftly packing their bags and heading for home following the enormous pre-salt find) and Statoil (who bring a lot of technology to the party). What value would a Russian state-owned company add to Libya’s oil and gas industry? I can see why Lukoil might like to get involved (as the last private Russian oil company of any significance, getting outside operations is always a good idea), but the likes of Rosneft and Gazprom have nothing they can bring to the table save for some dodgy political support. It’s almost as if Russia thinks it can sit on foreign operations and manipulate the supply and wield subsequent political influence in the manner it does with its domestic exports. If they think they can do this, one day they’re going to get a nasty shock.
Comment by Tim Newman — September 2, 2011 @ 12:26 am
“Schumer, Kerry, and McKaskill are generally credited with inhibiting contracts between US producing companies and the post Sadam Iraqi government. This allowed the Chinese access to Iraqi reserves. I know that treason has become a trite overused term but the work of numerous Senators to block contracts with US producing companies is as clear treasonous behavior as any of which I am aware. This was against a back drop of Harry Reid happily proclaiming war lost and stop the no bid contracts.”
Nonsense. Look to Iraqi minister of oil Sharistani. He refuses to allow IOCs ownership of Iraqi fields, but permits IOCs to manage fields, for a flat fee per barrel. You see, Schumer, Kerry, and McKaskill don’t actually have any say over how Iraqi oil fields are run, but it is interesting how you blame America first.
Comment by Pauli — September 2, 2011 @ 4:53 am
Yes, the French power elites are hypocritical and imperialist.
That doesn’t excuse the hypocrisy and imperialism of other so-called “democratic” countries.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 2, 2011 @ 6:55 am
I do not understand your post Pauli. The US was in a position to dictate oil policy to the Iraqi government and didn’t. Blaming people in the US government for this action is not blaming the US.
Comment by pahoben — September 2, 2011 @ 7:26 am
I should say dictate oil policy in favor of US producing companies
Comment by pahoben — September 2, 2011 @ 7:30 am
President Bush got the Iraqi government to approve an oil law allowing juicy PSAs for US companies and submit it to the Iraqi legislature in February 2007, where it disappeared without a trace. Because of the war raging out of control at the time, the US wasnt in a position to dictate anything to the Iraqis. Then in late 2007, PM Maliki played his trump card: he asked the UN not to renew the UNSCR mandate for US forces to legally be in Iraq. That meant that the legal authority for US forces to operate in Iraq turned into a pumpkin at the stroke of midnight, 31 December 2008. As it was, President Bush barely got Iraqi agreement for a Status of Forces Agreement in time. Pushing harder for the 2007 oil law would have failed, because by then the GoI was in no mood to listen to a lame duck like President Bush.
Comment by Pauli — September 2, 2011 @ 10:17 am
The US was in a position to dictate oil policy to the Iraqi government and didn’t.
There is a good reason for this: it is of little interest to the US government – or the US people – whether the likes of ExxonMobil and Chevron get to produce from Iraqi oilfields. Taking a grand strategic view, the US government (along with the rest of the world) has an interest in the Iraqi oilfields producing (and to a lesser extent, being competently managed), but whether any of the oil or the money flows through an American oil company is of negligible interest. This is why claims that the whole shooting match was a war for oil are so ludicrous, the very fact that nobody gives a shit who participated in – never mind won – the development contracts are proof enough. For sure, it would be of some benefit to ExxonMobil if the Iraqis were forced to cede them development licenses, but the costs would far outweigh the benefits (not having a government on-side makes producing oil almost impossible, sooner or later) and it’s hardly the case that ExxonMobil is incapable of succeeding in a competitive marketplace. The French still have silly ideas about seeing “their” company getting involved in places (mainly because it underwrites so much of the French social welfare system), but the supermajors don’t need the rules bent in their favour: they are good enough already.
Now I don’t think the Iraqis are going the right way about it, in fact I think they’re being pretty stupid. But I’d rather work with a stupid oil policy than one which has been forced on a country from outside. And I’ve noticed that if the policy is stupid, the only ones who can realistically work with it are the supermajors (we’ll see how well the Chinese get on in Iraq over 20 years). So even if the government makes some pretty daft decisions, it is eventually the supermajors who benefit.
Comment by Tim Newman — September 2, 2011 @ 11:02 am
Tim you typically view things through a liberal euro veil. The total cost of the war to US tax payees is $1.2 trillion. I am suggesting that value at a minimum should be returned to US tax payers from US exploitation of Iraqi oil reserves.
The Chinese are always one of the flies in the ointment for the liberal european internationalist view of how the world works.
Comment by pahoben — September 2, 2011 @ 3:45 pm
The liberal European view is in it’s death thoes
Comment by pahoben — September 2, 2011 @ 3:49 pm
I guess I should clarify that the days of the US doing the wet work for the West are at an end unless we are able to recoup our expenses more fully.
Comment by pahoben — September 2, 2011 @ 4:32 pm
The total cost of the war to US tax payees is $1.2 trillion. I am suggesting that value at a minimum should be returned to US tax payers from US exploitation of Iraqi oil reserves.
I see your point…but directing Iraq’s oil through ExxonMobil or Chevron would do nothing to pay that back. For payback to occur, the US would have to be the recipient of the license fees and the royalties, thereafter it wouldn’t matter who extracted the stuff. Unless the US was prepared to be a true imperialst power (not the imagined meaning of the word that some commenters like to use) and take on the role of revenue collection in Iraq, the horse-trading of the oil post-Saddam was always going to be largely irrelevant.
I guess I should clarify that the days of the US doing the wet work for the West are at an end unless we are able to recoup our expenses more fully.
I agree with that.
Comment by Tim Newman — September 3, 2011 @ 2:37 am
“The total cost of the war to US tax payees is $1.2 trillion. I am suggesting that value at a minimum should be returned to US tax payers from US exploitation of Iraqi oil reserves.”
Really. And how would this oil, and the money, have been gotten out of Iraq, under the conditions of 2007?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0507/p01s02-wome.html
And why would Iraqis have tolerated such a naked robbery? You would have seen the Iraqi oil industry shut down entirely by outraged Iraqis, both by an even more massive insurgency directing its efforts at sabotaging the oil infrastructure, and by the GoI ending all cooperation with MNF-I.
Comment by Pauli — September 3, 2011 @ 3:20 am
I could care less about international agreements based on 90 years of unrealistic internationalist liberal thought (call it Woodrow Wilson +). Assuming 138,000,000 US taxpayers my immediate family has incurred close to $30,000 expense for the war in Iraq. Thank God we haven’t lost any family members in addition to the financial expense and I grieve for the 5000 or so
US casualties
Comment by pahoben — September 3, 2011 @ 8:41 pm
If the US fights a war it should fight to the end and if more insurgents or potential insurgents or corrupt politicians need to be killed then so be it. Reparations should be paid by the Iraqi’s. This idea that strategy should be guided by some international fairness standard not shared by a majority of the globe is ludicrous. The US is squandering it’s huge global military advantage guided by some liberal international standards that are laughable to most of the world.
I see Tim’s point that empowering transnationals like Exxon would not compensate the US for it’s losses.
Comment by pahoben — September 3, 2011 @ 9:11 pm
@pahoben
>my immediate family has incurred close to $30,000 expense for the war in Iraq.
But now you can sleep peacefully without the constant menace of Saddam’s WMD. Is not this priceless?
Comment by Ivan — September 4, 2011 @ 6:21 am
“If the US fights a war it should fight to the end and if more insurgents or potential insurgents or corrupt politicians need to be killed then so be it.”
Dude, we didn’t have a big enough army to do that. As it was, our forces were streached to the limit, with multiple deployments.
And if we had waged that war, you would have destroyed our Coalition.
“Reparations should be paid by the Iraqi’s.”
Why?
Comment by Pauli — September 4, 2011 @ 7:15 am
“I could care less about international agreements based on 90 years of unrealistic internationalist liberal thought.”
And I said nothing about any “90 years of liberal thought”. You’re having an argument with someone else on that one, entirely in your own head. Leave me out of it.
Comment by Pauli — September 4, 2011 @ 7:19 am
We were stretched to the limit because of rules of engagement and the constraints placed on the use of air power etc. There are places on the world that war cannot be successfully executed if the threat of killing most of the adult male population is known to be off the table. In those places insurgencies positively thrive because of “fairness” restraints and rules of engagement placed on the military.
A portion of the expense incurred in Iraq was not for military operations. The construction of water treatment plants etc pursuant to “nation building” was an absolute waste of money. A Marshall Plan for the Middle East-please surely you jest.
Comment by pahoben — September 4, 2011 @ 9:42 am
” There are places on the world that war cannot be successfully executed if the threat of killing most of the adult male population is known to be off the table.”
Love ur casual advocacy of genocide, pathogen.
And nice little amen chorus/cheerleading squad u got here, professor.
I’m outta here.
Comment by Pauli — September 4, 2011 @ 9:50 am
Considering the US investment I personally would rather see Exxon and Chevron with the contracts than CNOC, Lukoil, Total, KNOC, ENI, ONGC, etc
Comment by pahoben — September 4, 2011 @ 10:18 am
somehow forgot to include Shell on this list
Comment by pahoben — September 4, 2011 @ 10:29 am
Enjoy your illusions Pauli while you still can.
Comment by pahoben — September 4, 2011 @ 2:56 pm
The NeoCon philosophy is nothing but western liberalism applied militarily on a global basis. The idea that WE have inherently superior ideals and culture and so if the population of country X is liberated and allowed to think as we do then they naturally will. In fact in many cases they will fight for as long as the US is willing to fight to oppose adoption of western ideals. Does that mean they are in some way culturally inferior? In contrast to liberal philosophy it just means to me that they have a different culture and a different way of thinking. However in saying that I would hope the same would be true in the US. If we were invaded by a foreign power I hope that the US male population would fight to the last man. It would be at a minimum a sizable percentage that would do so.
My point is that if you do not have the stomach for addressing the true cultural attitudes that are encountered in many places towards war and resistance then you shouldn’t start the war in the first place.
Comment by pahoben — September 4, 2011 @ 3:42 pm
For that matter a sizable percentage of US males will be willing to risk all against existential threats to Israel.
Stoning women for various offenses tends to bring out the ugliness in US males. An imminent existential threat to Israel will definitely change the rules of engagement.
Comment by pahoben — September 4, 2011 @ 6:01 pm