| Author | Message | | Guest | | Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:40 am Post subject: The economics of war |
| The economics of war
Alan Reynolds
I am often asked about the cost of starting a war with Iraq — not just the cost to taxpayers, but also the potential impact on the economy, oil prices, the stock market, etc. Before we can even begin to answer such questions, we must first evaluate the odds that U.N. inspections will or will not prevent a full-scale war. Then we must try to arrive at an informed opinion about whether any war is likely to be brief or protracted.
Those most eager for a U.S. invasion use arguments that do not fit together very well. They claim to have indisputable information about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction." Yet they are equally confident that inspections will fail because those same weapons will supposedly be impossible to find. If the weapons and factories are so impossible to find, how can we be so sure they exist?
Enthusiasts for war say we must be in a big hurry to invade before Iraq acquires weapons of mass destruction, thus changing the complaint from weapons Saddam has to weapons he wishes he had. But that is equivalent to admitting Iraq does not yet have the many dangerous weapons that were supposed to justify invasion in the first place — gas, germs, nukes and (more importantly) the means of delivering them to U.S. shores. Inspections do not "buy time" for Saddam. He could not start or expand a weapons program with ground inspectors and aerial photographers looking over his shoulder.
Those who claim to be certain Iraq has a formidable arsenal of fearsome weapons also express inexplicable confidence that those weapons pose no danger to U.S. troops. They declare that an invasion will be fast and easy. "I guarantee it will be over within 10 days," says Mort Zuckerman of U.S.News. Such assurances that Iraq is a feeble military power contradict the rationale for war — namely, the assertion that Iraq is in possession of terrifying weapons. Iraq may be a dangerous predator or an easy prey, but it cannot be both.
To maximize the alleged danger of Saddam's weapons while minimizing the risk to U.S. troops seems reckless. After reading "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction" from the International Institute for Strategic Studies and "When Every Moment Counts" by Sen. Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, my understanding is that homeland risks from chemical or biological terrorism are smaller than from, say, two snipers. Although it is unlikely Iraq has any method of delivering significant quantities of gas or germs as far as the United States, it is more plausible he might use whatever he has against invading U.S. troops.
My best guess is that war and its aftermath would be more costly and difficult than the optimists admit. The fact presidential adviser Larry Lindsey publicly estimates it would cost $100 billion to $200 billion implies the administration expects a second Iraq war to be 2 or 3 times more difficult than the first one.
Despite recent musings about deflation, wars are always inflationary. Money chases fewer goods, as labor and materials are diverted to military uses, boosting business costs and squeezing profits. Wholesale prices rose 122 percent from 1915 to 1920 and 52 percent from 1945 to 1948, but we are not talking about anything on such a horrific scale. News of an Iraq invasion would provoke a speculative and probably ephemeral rise in prices of metals and other military materials, as in 1990, but it would be a big mistake for the Fed to mistake that for sustained inflation.
Oil prices doubled in a couple of months after Iraq invaded Kuwait, approaching $40 a barrel, but the current situation is quite different. In 1990, there was a threat to Kuwait's oil, not just Iraq's, and there was some anxiety that a major power might end up taking Iraq's side in a conflict with the United States. Unlike 1990, oil is already fairly pricey today because (1) substantial risk of war has already been priced into the oil markets, and (2) the post-1991 "sanctions" have reduced world oil supplies while making the Iraqis more dependent on Saddam. In 1991, oil prices fell and stocks rallied when the United States attacked Iraq. But that was because pushing Iraq out of Kuwait reduced risks to world oil supplies. An attack on Iraq today would have the opposite effect.
The S&P stock index fell nearly 12 percent from 1941 to 1952, which spanned World War II and the Korean War. But risks of a relatively short war today probably explain only a fraction of the stock market's troubles, since even defense stocks have fared poorly. Risks of terrorism, on the other hand, have a paralyzing effect on business investments.
Perhaps the biggest risk of a war with Iraq is that it would divert the nation's security resources from fighting al Qaeda to fighting Saddam, and from homeland security to foreign affairs. Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III, chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, recently told Fox News, "I don't buy the idea that there is a tradeoff." But the tradeoff is a mathematical certainty, not a matter of opinion.
It impossible to devote 100 percent of resources to two or three tasks at the same time. Assigning a higher priority to one thing (Iraq) means a lower priority for something else (al Qaeda). The president cannot work more than about 60 hours a week, for example, so devoting 30 hours to a foreign war and 10 hours to the domestic economy would leave only 20 for homeland security and everything else. More troops "over there" means fewer over here. More intelligence agents monitoring Iraq means fewer watching out for a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan or for al Qaeda cells plotting trouble in U.S. cities.
In short, war is still hell, even if we call it liberation. And the unavoidable diversion of effort, attention and resources to any foreign war also implies greater risk of domestic troubles, including domestic terrorism. The prospect of war with Iraq is not as hellish as some other wars, but it is not necessarily unavoidable, either. Time has a way of solving many problems, and only time will tell.
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and a nationally syndicated columnist.
Collateral Damage:
the health and environmental costs of war on Iraq
Executive Summary
Up to four million people could die in a war on Iraq involving nuclear weapons. A more contained conflict could cause half a million deaths and have a devastating impact on the lives, health and environment of the combatants, Iraqi civilians, and people in neighbouring countries and beyond. It could also damage the global economy and thus indirectly harm the health and well-being of millions more people across the world.
Researched and written by health professionals, this evidence-based report examines the likely impact of a new war on Iraq from a public health perspective. Credible estimates of the total possible deaths on all sides during the conflict and the following three months range from 48,000 to over 260,000. Civil war within Iraq could add another 20,000 deaths. Additional later deaths from post-war adverse health effects could reach 200,000. If nuclear weapons were used the death toll could reach 3,900,000. In all scenarios the majority of casualties will be civilians.
The aftermath of a ‘conventional’ war could include civil war, famine and epidemics, millions of refugees and displaced people, catastrophic effects on children’s health and development, economic collapse including failure of agriculture and manufacturing, and a requirement for long-term peacekeeping. Destabilisation and possible regime change in countries neighbouring Iraq is also possible, as well as more terrorist attacks. Global economic crisis may be triggered through trade reduction and soaring oil prices, with particularly devastating consequences for developing countries.
The financial burden will be enormous on all sides, with arms spending, occupation costs, relief and reconstruction possibly exceeding $150-200bn. The US is likely to spend $50bn - $200bn on the war and $5bn - 20bn annually on the occupation. As the report points out, $100bn would fund about four years of expenditure to address the health needs of the world’s poorest people.
Conflict will be more destructive than 1990-1991 Gulf War
The avowed US aim of regime change means any new conflict will be much more intense and destructive than the 1990-91 Gulf War, and will involve more deadly weapons developed in the interim. Furthermore, the mental and physical health of ordinary Iraqis is far worse than it was in 1991, making them much more vulnerable this time round, and even less able to muster the resources needed for recovery and reconstruction.
Thanks to the oil revenues and social policies of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship, Iraq pre 1991 had become a reasonably prosperous, urbanised, middle-income country with a modern social infrastructure and good public services. The combined effects of war and sanctions, only partly offset by the humanitarian relief of the Oil-for-Food programme, relegated it to a pre-industrial age, and it now occupies a lowly 126th place out of 174 in the UN Human Development Index
The likely war scenario
The report bases its estimates on data from the earlier Gulf War, from comparable conflicts and crises elsewhere, and from the most reliable recent information on the health status of Iraq. It hypothesises a credible war scenario from current US military strategy, which envisages four different elements: sustained and devastating air attacks on government and military facilities and infrastructure in
Baghdad and other major urban centres; landing of ground forces to seize oil-producing regions in the south east; gaining control of north Iraq; and rapid deployment forces backed by air attacks to take Baghdad.
The US goal of leadership change is counterbalanced by Saddam Hussein’s goal of survival, so a short, clinical campaign is probably wishful thinking. The options open to Saddam Hussein include:
 firing oil wells and using radiological or chemical missiles to pollute the sites
 paramilitary attacks on Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields, pipelines and facilities
 paramilitary attacks on civilian centres in other Gulf states
 paramilitary attacks on targets in the US, UK and other Coalition countries
 selective use of chemical and biological weapons (CBW).
The report considers the circumstances in which more substantial use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons may occur. An Iraqi CBW attack on Israel or elsewhere could provoke immediate nuclear retaliation from Israel, the US and/or UK, while the UK and US have not ruled out the nuclear first-strike option.
Many questions remain unanswered about the aftermath and the likelihood of installing a stable new regime. The current problems of Afghanistan provide a reminder of the huge investment required to rebuild a shattered country, and the reluctance of the global community to support such long-term development.
Alternatives to war
As an objective report by health professionals, the report does not take a political stance on the alternatives to war on Iraq. Its main goal is to aid decision-making and encourage informed public debate by spelling out the true cost of a new war, against which any potential gains from going to war must be weighed. It lists non-violent strategies that have not yet been fully explored - some relating specifically to Iraq, and some to improving the international security context. It concludes that there is an urgent need for humane and wise global leadership which recognises that national security is impossible without international security.
Collateral Damage: the health and environmental costs of war on Iraq is being issued in London on 12 November 2002 by the global health organisation Medact, the UK affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War - winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. It is being released on the same day in the US by IPPNW and its US affiliate Physicians for Social Responsibility, and by other IPPNW affiliates in ten other countries.
The report can be found on Medact’s website www.medact.org and on IPPNW’s website at www.ippnw.org. A longer version with additional information, references and statistics can also be viewed on the Medact website. | |  | | Guest | | Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2002 11:18 pm Post subject: Forget Iraq: The Battle is in Turkey |
| Forget Iraq: The Battle is in Turkey
http://www.heatherwokusch.com/ | | | | Guest | | Posted: Sat Dec 28, 2002 7:00 am Post subject: Sharon's war? |
| http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20021226.shtml
Robert Novak
December 26, 2002
Sharon's war?
WASHINGTON -- Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, having just returned from a week-long fact-finding trip to the Middle East, addressed the Chicago Council of Foreign Relations Dec. 16 and said out loud what is whispered on Capitol Hill: "The road to Arab-Israeli peace will not likely go through Baghdad, as some may claim." The "some" are led by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. In private conversation with Hagel and many other members of Congress, the former general leaves no doubt that the greatest U.S. assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime. That view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a major reason why U.S. forces today are assembling for war. "Military force alone," Hagel told his Chicago audience, "will neither assure a democratic transition in Iraq, bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians, nor assure stability in the Middle East." Indeed, the senator returned from the Mideast more concerned than his prepared speech indicates. As the U.S. gets ready for war, its standing in Islam -- even among longtime allies -- stands low. Yet, the Bush administration has tied itself firmly to Gen. Sharon and his policies. Gen. Amran Mitzna, the new Labor Party leader challenging the heavily favored Sharon in the Jan. 28 election, is denied access to senior U.S. officials. In private conversation, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has insisted that Hezbollah -- not al Qaeda -- is the world's most dangerous terrorist organization. How could that be, considering al Qaeda's global record of mass carnage? In truth, Hezbollah is the world's most dangerous terrorist organization from Israel's standpoint. While viciously anti-American in rhetoric, the Lebanon-based Hezbollah is focused on the destruction of Israel. "Outside this fight (against Israel), we have done nothing," Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the organization's secretary general, said in a recent New York Times interview. Thus, Rice's comments suggest that the U.S. war against terrorism, accused of being Iraq-centric, actually is Israel-centric. That ties George W. Bush to Arik Sharon. The prime minister says astonishing things to U.S. visitors. He once rejected hope for negotiations, contending that Arabs and Jews will kill each other for a hundred years. More recently, he promised to put a Jewish settlement on top of any high ground. What is widely perceived as an indissoluble Bush-Sharon bond creates tension throughout Islam -- including Turkey, long a faithful U.S. ally and even longer a secularized state. A poll of Turks by Pew Global Attitudes released Dec. 4 shows 83 percent opposition to permission for U.S. use of bases in their country. Furthermore, a 53 percent Turkish majority asserted that the U.S. wants to oust Saddam Hussein as part of an anti-Muslim crusade rather than because he is a threat to peace. Turkish cooperation in the war must be approved by Turkey's newly elected parliament, consisting of about 90 percent new members with an Islamic party in a heavy majority. The parliament's mood did not improve when the European Union on Dec. 12 rebuffed both the Turkish and the U.S. governments by rejecting Turkey's application for membership. Abdullah Gul, the new prime minister, accused European leaders of "discrimination" and "prejudice" -- reflecting Islam's current view of the West. That is the background for an attack on Iraq by a coalition of English-speaking countries. "We should refrain from a rush to declare a 'material breach' because of the gaps in Iraq's 12,000-page document," Hagel advised in Chicago, calling on the U.S. to "marshal our own evidence." Nevertheless, Hagel's close associate, Secretary of State Colin Powell, declared a material breach three days after the senator's advice. Powell's uncharacteristic bellicosity may have been necessary for him to stay in the complicated game played within the Bush administration. Without Powell, President Bush may not have gone to Congress and the United Nations or delivered his masterful speech to the U.N. General Assembly. Day to day, only the secretary of state stands up to the forceful Vice President Dick Cheney. On balance, war with Iraq may not be inevitable but is highly probable. That it looks like Sharon's war disturbs Americans such as Chuck Hagel, who have no use for Saddam Hussein but worry about the background of an attack against him. | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | *Mutt American | | Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2002 7:28 pm Post subject: |
| | Good news for the people of Afghanistan! $300,000,000 for their economy plus 12,000 real jobs | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 9:11 am Post subject: how israel corrupts and controls the us congress and media |
| AIPAC (Jewish lobbying group composed of American Zionist Jews who for for pro-Israeli US policies) is the forth most influential lobby in the US, yet the ones above it are irrelevent as far as foreign policy goes:
http://www.fortune.com/lists/power25/index.html
Let us see AIPAC's work:
http://www.wrmea.com/html/aipac.htm
Let us look at the resultant support the US gives to Israel:
http://www.sustaincampaign.org/aidchart.html
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html
http://www.sustaincampaign.org/FASchart.html
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/010201/0101015.html
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/israel050602.html
Of course this is the premise accepted by many Muslims and open-minded people:
http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/question.htm
So after all this, see the results in an article by Richard Curtiss as to the cost of Israel to the American people:
http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/cost.htm
The real fifth column who brought this mess upon the US are all the organisations under AIPAC and it's supporters who follow it's ideology, you should be blaming them, not Arabs/Muslims who acted as a natural conduit for the naturally expected retaliation which followed, i.e. 9-11 (if Muslims did it).
When you look at those pictures of the collapsing towers, and the people jumping out before they collapsed, think first about the US' biased support for this most unjust of states which was created violating the rights of the natives and which stole the people's lands. Then think about exactly who drives the US to gives it's support for this, as shown above. You shall see that they are amongst you, not the much demonised Arabs or Muslims but the Zionists who work against your national interests.
http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/reap.htm
Question: Before the US support of the Jewish state which started in 1947 when the US arm-twisted nations like Greece to support the creation of Israel, was the USA hated by Arabs and Muslims?
This is why the USA did what it did when it supported Israel in 1947 when it's President was Truman:
"I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.” - President Harry Truman, quoted in “Anti-Zionism”
Think about those Jewish-Zionist organisations all around the USA conspiring to help support and maintain US foreign policy which invites terrorism on the US civilians.
how israel corrupts and controls the us congress and media:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/06/01/how-israel-corrupts-and-controls-the-us-congress-and-media.php
WAKE UP AMERICA: YOUR GOVERNMENT IS HIJACKED BY ZIONISM
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/09/29/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism.php
Zionists Influencing USA (Britain) to Invade Iraq for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/30/zionists-influencing-usa-britain-to-invade-iraq-for-israel.php | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 10:49 am Post subject: Oil and Israel |
| Oil and Israel
Two unspoken reasons why Bush wants to wage war against Iraq
An Iraqi oil worker works at Al-Doura oil refinery Oct. 14 in Baghdad. What role does oil play in any campaign to topple Saddam Hussein?
By Michael Kinsley
SLATE.COM
Oct. 24 — So, why exactly is Iraq different from North Korea? Both are founding members of President Bush’s “axis of evil,” and both deserve that honor. North Korea has now admitted to a nuclear weapons development program on about the same timeline as what we only suspect about Iraq. So, why are we barely complaining in one case and off to war in the other?
• eDiets Diet Center
• Shop at B&N.com
• Auctions at uBid
• Yellow Pages
• lavalife.com Where singles click
• MSN Broadband
BUSH ADDRESSED this conundrum the other day. “Saddam Hussein is unique,” he explained. “He has thumbed his nose at the world for 11 years … and for 11 years he has said, ‘No, I refuse to disarm.’ ” The North Koreans, by contrast, said, “Yes, we will disarm” — they promised to stop building nukes in exchange for help in developing peaceful nuclear power — and then they didn’t do it. I guess that’s a difference, but it sounds as if we’re punishing Saddam for his honesty.
ULTERIOR MOTIVES
Bush’s public case for going to war against Iraq is full of logical inconsistencies, exaggerations, and outright lies. It reeks of ex-post-facto: First came the desire, and then came the reasons. But this raises a troubling question, especially for opponents of Bush’s policy: If his ostensible reasons are unpersuasive even to him, what are his real reasons? There must be some: Nobody starts a war as a lark. It would be easier to dismiss the whole exercise if there were an obvious ulterior motive. Without one, you are left wondering, “Am I missing something?”
Tariq Aziz has a theory. Saddam Hussein’s deputy told The New York Times this week, “The reason for this warmongering policy toward Iraq is oil and Israel.” Although no one wishes to agree with Tariq Aziz, he has put succinctly what many people in Washington apparently believe. They do not think the concern over potential use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons is negligible or insincere, but they do think that “oil and Israel” is a pretty good summary of what, for President Bush, makes Iraq different from your run-of-the-mill evil dictatorship. Yet this presumption about Bush, and these issues themselves, barely appear in the flood of speculation and argument about Bush War II.
THE OIL FACTOR
“President Bush” is, of course, a metaphor. Much Washington political commentary and analysis is basically a discussion of what or whom the term “President Bush” is a metaphor for. Is it Karl Rove? Is it still Karen Hughes, although she has decamped? Even more than most presidents, Bush is regarded as the sum total of his advisers. Regarding Iraq, the advisers themselves are also used as metaphors, often in plural to signify a stereotype. “The Cheneys and the Rumsfelds” evokes a retro world of confident white CEOs in suits, oil barons, and the military industrial complex. “The Wolfowitzes and the Richard Perles” evokes — well, you know what it evokes.
MSNBC Weblogs
What are these people thinking about today?
• Eric Alterman: Altercation
• Alan Boyle: Cosmic Log
• Jan Herman: The Juice
• Chris Matthews: Hardball
• Michael Rogers: The Practical Futurist
• Robert Windrem: Spyscope
• Michael Moran: War of Words
• Weblog Central
The idea that oil is a factor in official thinking about Iraq shouldn’t even be controversial. Protecting oil supplies from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait was an explicit — though disingenuously underemphasized — reason for Bush War I. After all, we couldn’t claim to be fighting to restore democracy to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, let alone Iraq. This time around, the fact that Bush and Cheney are both oil men is suggestive, but the implication is not clear. A war to topple Saddam will raise oil prices in the short run but probably lower them in the longer run by stabilizing the supply. An oil man could have sincerely mixed feelings about these prospects. Surely, though, even a sensible opponent of the war ought to register a steady oil supply as one of the better reasons for it.
SUPPORTING ISRAEL
The lack of public discussion about the role of Israel in the thinking of “President Bush” is easier to understand, but weird nevertheless. It is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it. The reason is obvious and admirable: Neither supporters nor opponents of a war against Iraq wish to evoke the classic anti-Semitic image of the king’s Jewish advisers whispering poison into his ear and betraying the country to foreign interests. But the consequence of this massive “Shhhhhhhhh!” is to make a perfectly valid American concern for a democratic ally in a region of nutty theocracies, rotting monarchies, and worse seem furtive and suspicious.
• The obstacles to peace in the Middle East
Having brought this up, I hasten to add a few self-protective points. The president’s advisors, Jewish and non-Jewish, are patriotic Americans who sincerely believe that the interests of America and Israel coincide. What’s more, they are right about that, though they may be wrong about where that shared interest lies. Among Jewish Americans, including me, there are people who hold every conceivable opinion about war with Iraq with every variation of intensity, including passionate opposition and complete indifference. Jews are undoubtedly overrepresented in what little organized antiwar movement there may be (thus feeding another variant of the anti-Semitic stereotype).
Why and whether an American war against Iraq would be good for Israel is far from clear and is the subject of vigorous debate in Israel itself — but not in America.
A SILENT DEBATE
Advertisement
Theories range from the mundane to the exotic to the paranoid: Clearing out a neighborhood troublemaker before he gets the bomb is reason enough. Or, deposing Saddam will set off a complex regional chain reaction that will somehow turn the Arab nations into peaceful bourgeois societies. Or, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon actually wants a huge regional conflagration that he can use as an excuse and cover for expelling the Palestinians from the West Bank. In any event, the downside risk for Israel — of carnage, military and civilian — is like America’s, only far greater.
But we’d better not talk about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kinsley is Slate’s founding editor.
Printable version
Point and click on a menu choice or a highlighted country.
Iraq
OPEC quota: Iraqi oil production is constrained by
the United Nations' limits on its exports. The U.S.
Energy Information Administration estimates
production at 2,560,00 barrels/day
United Arab Emirates
OPEC quota: 2,289,400 barrels/day
Old quota: 2,219,000 barrels/day
Reserves: 97.8 billion barrels
Minister: Obeid bin Saif Al-Nasiri
Qatar
OPEC quota: 678,800 barrels/day
Old quota: 658,000 barrels/day
Reserves: 3.7 billion barrels
Minister: Abdullah bin Hamad Al-Attiya
Kuwait
OPEC quota: 2,101,000 barrels/day
Old quota: 2,037,000 barrels/day
Reserves: 96.5 billion barrels
Minister: Sheikh Saud Naser Al-Sabah
Saudi Arabia
OPEC quota: 8,512,200 barrels/day
Old quota: 8,253,000 barrels/day
Reserves: 263.5 billion barrels
Minister: Ali bin Ibrahim al-Naimi
Iran
OPEC quota: 3,843,800 barrels/day
Old quota: 3,727,000 barrels/day
Reserves: 89.7 billion barrels
Minister: Bijan Namdar Zaganeh
Indonesia
OPEC quota: 1,358,600 barrels/day
Old quota: 1,317,000 barrels/day
Reserves: 5.0 billion barrels
Minister: Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
Nigeria
OPEC quota: 2,156,600 barrels/day
Old quota: 2,091,000 barrels/day
Reserves: 22.5 billion barrels
Minister: Rilwanu Lukman
Libya
OPEC quota: 1,404,200 barrels/day
Old quota: 1,361,000 barrels/day
Reserves: 29.5 billion barrels
Minister: Abdullah Salim al-Badri
Algeria
OPEC quota: 836,600 barrels/day
Old quota: 811,000 barrels/day
Reserves: 9.2 billion barrels
Minister: Chakib Khelil
Venezuela
OPEC quota: 3,018,800 barrels/day
Old quota: 2,926,000 barrels/day
Reserves: 72.6 billion barrels
Minister: Ali Rodriguez
Russia
1999 Average Production: 6,074,000 barrels/day
Norway
1999 Average Production: 3,018,000 barrels/day
United Kingdom
1999 Average Production: 2,691,000 barrels/day
China
1999 Average Production: 3,206,000 barrels/day
Oman
1999 Average Production: 900,000 barrels/day
Egypt
1999 Average Production: 852,000 barrels/day
Brazil
1999 Average Production: 1,094,000 barrels/day
Mexico
1999 Average Production: 2,906,000 barrels/day
United States
1999 Average Production: 5,938,000 barrels/day
(preliminary estimate)
Canada
1999 Average Production: 1,905,000 barrels/day
Printable version
SOURCE: U.S. Energy Information Administration | | | | *Mutt American | | Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 2:10 pm Post subject: |
| | Good news for the people of Afghanistan! $300,000,000 for their economy plus 12,000 real jobs | | | | Guest | | Posted: Sat Jan 04, 2003 10:34 am Post subject: The Return of Radical Zionist Elliott Abrams |
| The Return Of Elliott Abrams
Israel's Likud Scores Big With White House Appointment
Jim Lobe writes for Inter Press Service, an international newswire, and for Foreign Policy in Focus, a joint project of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies and the New Mexico-based Interhemispheric Resource Center.
Neo-conservative hawks in the administration of President George W. Bush have won a major battle against the State Department in the fight for control of United States Mideast policy with the surprise appointment of Iran-Contra figure Elliott Abrams to the region's top policy spot in the National Security Council (NSC).
The appointment, leaked to reporters by the White House, would for the first time place someone in a top Mideast policy spot who has publicly assailed the "land-for-peace" formula that has guided U.S. policy in the Arab-Israeli conflict since the 1967 war.
Abrams, who first came to national prominence as a controversial political appointee in the Reagan administration who later pleaded guilty to lying to Congress regarding the Iran-Contra scandal, has also opposed the Oslo peace process and called for Washington to "stand by Israel," rather than act as a neutral mediator between Israel and the Palestinians.
"Yet another American Likudnik is moving to a position where they control Washington's agenda in the Mideast," said Rashid Khalidi, a Mideast historian at the University of Chicago. "This is a tragedy for the Israeli and American people." Likud is the rightwing Israeli party headed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Currently the NSC staff chief for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations, Abrams will become Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the NSC for Southwest Asia, Near East and North African Affairs.
As such, he will be in charge of presenting policy papers and options for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, whose own opinions have proven decisive in cases where the president receives conflicting views from hawks, represented by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, and the more-dovish Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who is often backed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the uniformed military. Rice, a Russia specialist, had no experience with Mideast issues until her current job. Abrams will replace Zalmay Khalilzad, a prominent foreign-policy strategist whose views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are considered much more neutral than Abrams'. Khalilzad succeeded Clinton holdover Bruce Reidel early last year but was quickly consumed with his native-borne Afghanistan after being named special envoy to the interim president, Hamid Karzai. Khalilzad will now become "ambassador-at-large for free Iraqis" and is expected to play a key role in sorting out internal conflicts among the Iraqi opposition.
Beloved by right-wingers who hail him as both a hero for his championship of the Nicaraguan contras during the 1980s, Abrams first gained prominence as a leading neo-conservative when he served as Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights in the early 1980s and then as Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs.
In both positions, he clashed frequently and angrily with mainstream church groups and human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, who often accused him of covering up horrendous abuses committed by U.S.-backed governments, such as El Salvador and Guatemala, and rebel forces, such as the Contras and Angola's Unita, while, at the same time, exaggerating abuses by U.S. foes.
He was indicted by the Iran-Contra special prosecutor for giving false testimony about his role in illicitly raising money for the Contras but pleaded guilty to two lesser offenses of withholding information to Congress in order to avoid a trial and a possible jail term. He was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush along with a number of other Iran-Contra defendants in 1992.
His credibility for truth-telling was so low that at one point he was required to take an oath before testifying before Congressional committees. Most analysts here believe that he was given an NSC post by the new Bush administration because any other position would have required Senate confirmation.
After Reagan left office in 1989, Abrams, like a number of other prominent neo-conservatives, was not invited to serve in the Bush Sr. administration. Instead, he worked for a number of think tanks and eventually became head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) where he wrote widely on foreign-policy issues, including the Middle East, and the threats posed by U.S. secular society to Jewish identity. He also remained an integral part of the tight-knit neo-conservative foreign-policy community in Washington that revolved around one of his early mentors, Richard Perle and former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Then-House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich furthered his public rehabilitation by appointing him to the new U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in 1999 for which he also served as chairman in 2000-01. Muslim groups here have complained about his refusal to criticise Israeli practices in the occupied territories and Jerusalem, such as sealing off Muslim holy sites, as violations of religious freedom.
He is not known as an Arab-Israeli specialist but has long favoured Likud positions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and even assailed former Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for caving into U.S. pressure to respect the Oslo peace process. Shortly after the outbreak of the al-Aqsa intifida at the end of September 2000, he criticised mainstream Jewish groups for calling for a resumption of peace talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, as well as a halt to the violence.
Like Perle, as well as Rumsfeld's civilian advisers like Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and Cheney's top deputy, I. Lewis Libby, he has favoured a Mideast strategy based on the overwhelming military power of both the United States and Israel and on a military alliance between Israel and Turkey against hostile Arab states, particularly Syria and Iraq, in order to create a "broader strategic context" that would ensure whatever state might emerge on Palestinian territory would be friendly to United States and Israeli interests and that could force Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. He has long favoured forceful action to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
He has accused Palestinian Authority leader Yassir Arafat of being an untrustworthy partner under the Oslo process and is believed to have used his previous NSC Democracy position to push for his ouster from power as part of a thorough reform process. That view, which was strongly backed by Rumsfeld and Cheney's offices, was eventually accepted by Bush last June, over strenuous objections by the State Department and senior aides for Bush's father, notably his former national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft.
In his new position, according to John Prados, a historian who has written about the National Security Council, Abrams should be in an excellent position to influence U.S. policy on the Mideast, particularly in "delaying and/or halting policy on the 'roadmap'" that is being developed by the "Quartet" -- the United States, European Union, Russia, and the United Nations -- on resuming political negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Indeed, it already appears that British hopes for a major meeting of the Quartet on the roadmap before the end of the year are fading quickly.
Abrams is expected to support Israel's recent requests both to put off discussion of the 'roadmap' until after Israel's elections at the end of next month and for some 14 billion dollars in military aid and loan guarantees to help the country cope with economic hard times.
Abrams' influence on policy is already clear. For the first time ever the Bush administration voted against a U.N. General Assembly resolution last week that called on Israel to repeal the Jerusalem law that declares that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel."
In the past, Washington has abstained on the issue, insisting that the the status of Jerusalem must be determined by negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Abrams has in the past assailed that vote, as well as Washington's refusal to recogize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, on the grounds that that such a position "tantalizes the Palestinians with the prospect of forcing the Jews to abandon Jerusalem."
As you might expect, Arab-Americans responded to the appointment with a mix of resignation and foreboding.
James Zogby, the director of the Arab-American Institute (AAI) here said Abrams' appointment sends "a very dangerous message to the Arab world" and adds to the "lock that the neo-con set now has on all the major instruments of decision-making except for the State Department."
Khalidi also pointed to Abrams' history as being less than forthcoming with information that may contradict his own views. "He will be yet another filter blocking reality from reaching the president," he said. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
