Praying for Obama…to lose
Trinidad Guardian
Thursday 6th September, 2007The instability in the Middle East caused by the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 has contributed to the doubling of oil prices in the last four years.
Let’s recall that world oil prices in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 peaked at $37.87 on March 12 (Nymex, spot).
The presence of US troops in Iraq has caused an uprising against the occupation forces leading to massive and continuous vandalism of oil infrastructure and the inability of the occupation forces to maintain a high standard of oil field management.
The US occupation of Iraq, then, has resulted in the country’s oil production being suppressed in effect.
An article in the May 2007 edition of the Christian Science Monitor indicated that in the first quarter of 2007 Iraqi crude oil production averaged 1.95 million barrels per day, which was a significant reduction from “its decades-old pumping record of 3.7 billion barrels a day – a level at which Iraq might become a vital source of oil for thirsty world markets.”
"I think they are years away from being a reliable 4-million-barrel-a-day producer," the magazine quoted Frank Verrastro, director and senior fellow in the energy program of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) as saying.
It’s felt that the only way that Iraq will return to or surpass its pre-war oil production would be for companies to spend billions of dollars on desperately needed upgrades and improvements on the oil field infrastructure.
Such investment is highly unlikely in the absence of democracy and the IMF-style rules of engagement for capital which worked in T&T in the late eighties.
What’s also clear is that peace, stability and democratic government in Iraq followed by IMF-type reforms to the economy (including privatisation, fiscal restraint and an open capital account) could lead to the capture of Iraq’s oil reserves by the large foreign multinational companies and a sharp increase in production there over time.
A report done for the Congressional Research Service stated that with 115 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves, Iraq has the world’s second-largest endowment of oil in the world, amounting to 11 per cent of the global total.
According to the report, “Only 17 of 80 oil fields have been developed; the most significant are Kirkuk in the north and Rumaila in the south. There has been virtually no exploration for many years, suggesting that Iraq may have much more oil than currently estimated.
“Iraq also has significant proven natural gas reserves; virtually all are undeveloped.
“As a point of reference, Saudi Arabia, at 260 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, has the largest reserve base and can produce as much as 10.5 million barrels per day (mbd).”
So the question for T&T today is this: Is it in our national interest that Iraq have a democratically-elected government, a western-style free market capitalist system and national consensus on how the oil revenues should be divided up among the Sunnis, Shias, Kurds and others?
Might I suggest that democracy, capitalism and a national consensus on sharing oil revenues in Iraq (or even the signal that these elements are possible) would probably send oil prices back down to US$9 a barrel and may lead to a whole new province in natural gas production.
Do we here in T&T want US$9 oil and US$100 a tonne ammonia or would we prefer our oil at US$74 a barrel and our ammonia at US$300?
Speaking for myself, I would admit to preferring my oil at US$74, my ammonia at US$300 and my natural gas at US$7.50 per unit, thank you very much.
While I mourn and deeply regret the fact that the invasion of Iraq by President Bush and his neo-cons has been responsible for thousands of deaths and made the lives of Iraqis a living hell, there is very little that I can do about it.
The bottomline is that Bush in Iraq is good for the price of oil which (along with Chinese demand for all non-renewable commodities) is pushing up the price of T&T’s main exports of natural gas, ammonia, methanol and iron and steel.
So, in a real sense, the bonanza of US dollars that has flowed into T&T in the last six years has been partly due to the fact that the US invasion of Iraq has gone so badly. There is a direct link, then, between what is happening in Iraq and China and “free” tertiary education, subsidised gasoline, houses and inter-island transport in T&T.
And while one mourns and regrets the tragedy of Iraq, it is not a tragedy of our making. It is, however, from which T&T profit.
Which brings us back to the provocative headline at the top of this piece.
In a sense, both President Bush’s totally unjustified and illegal invasion of Iraq and his failure to achieve his objectives in Iraq (cheap oil, a stable government and cheap oil) have been good good for the T&T economy.
Would T&T’s national interest be served by a future US President who withdraws American troops from Iraq and manages to install an administration that promotes democracy, peace, capitalism and an equitable distribution of that country’s oil and gas revenues?
Given the way that question is framed, the answer must be no.
In my view, Barack Obama is the US candidate running for the presidency who is most likely to achieve a diplomatic settlement of the Iraq war and the replacement of the US-backed regime there by one that would be more representative of the country and committed to peace, democracy and capitalism.
It is Obama who has said that “No military surge no matter how brilliantly performed can succeed without political reconciliation and a surge of diplomacy in Iraq and the region.”
It is Obama who has argued that “one reason to stop fighting the wrong war is so that we can fight the right war against terrorism and extremism.”
It is Obama who posited that having invaded Iraq, the US had a national security interest in making certain that Iraq was stable.
“If not,” he argues, “not only are we going to have a humanitarian crisis, we are also going to have a huge national security problem on our hands-because, ironically, it has become a hotbed of terrorists as a consequence, in part, of our incursion there.”
If you had the opportunity to vote for the US President, as thousands of people born here do, would you be able to look past Obama’s race and vote for a US President who would promote and support T&T’s national interest?
And if we are being invited to look past someone’s race or gender in T&T, why shouldn’t those of us who have the opportunity do the same in the US?
Show Posts
