France Stood To Lose Multi-Billions In Oil Revenues If Saddam Deposed

[MMMMMM]

Well, Cyrus and I went round in circles about this since he couldn't bring himself believe the French might have opposed the Iraq war for anything but staunchly moral reasons--and certainly not for economic reasons, heh. Now here is a new article. Enjoy, Cyrus.



(excerpt)Timmerman: If you read the French press, or the glowing accounts of Chirac's opposition to the U.S. effort to build an international coalition to oust Saddam Hussein that appeared here in America, you might actually believe that the French were standing on principle.

I reveal that Chirac was defending something quite different when he sent his erstwhile foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, around the world to buy votes against America at the United nations. Chirac was determined to maintain Saddam Hussein in power so that two extraordinarily lucrative oil contracts, negotiated by the French, could go into effect. Very little has been written about this until now.

The deals were negotiated separately by CFP Total and by Elf Aquitaine during the mid to late 1990s. At the time, both companies were state-controlled. They have since been privatized and combined into the world’s second largest oil giant, TotalFinalElf.

Through my sources, I obtained a copy of one of these contracts. It spans 154 pages, and grants the French exclusive right to exploit one of Iraq’s largest oil fields at Nahr al-Umar for a period of twenty years. Under the deal, the French were given 75% of the revenue from every barril of oil they extracted – 75%! That is absolutely stunning. Not even during the pre-OPEC days were foreign oil operators granted such extravagant terms.

I discussed the contract with an independent oil analyst, Gerald Hillman, who estimated that during the first seven years alone, it would earn the French around $50 billion. Elf-Aquitaine negotiated a virtually identical deal with Saddam to expand the gigantic Majnoon oil field as well. Put together, those two deals were worth $100 billion to the French. That’s 100 billion good reasons for Mr. Chirac to keep Saddam in power.

FP: The contracts were dependent on Saddam?

Timmerman: That’s correct, although I am sure the French are trying to put pressure on the Iraqi Governing Council to honor these scandalously corrupt deals.

Because of the United Nations sanctions, the French were allowed to do some initial scoping out work on the oil fields, but they couldn’t begin actual production until the sanctions were lifted. So this was a clear quid pro quo. As Hillman told me, what the French were saying in this contract was very simple: “We will help you get the sanctions lifted, and when we do that, you give us this.” And that is precisely what the French were trying to do at the UN. I’ve called these $100 billion deals from Saddam to Chirac the largest bribe ever paid in history. It was Chirac’s War for Oil.

FP: Were there personal payoffs to President Chirac? Your book portrays him as shockingly corrupt, but what’s the proof?(end excerpt)


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13021

[andyfox]

"I went round in circles about this since he couldn't bring himself believe the French might have opposed the Iraq war for anything but staunchly moral reasons--and certainly not for economic reasons"

And the United States started the war for staunchly moral reasons--and certainly not for economic reasons?

All countries' motives are a mix of morality and self-interest. And every country thinks its moral compass is pointed in the correct direction.

[jokerswild]

but the steady stream of American and Iraqi dead tell a different story. Meanwhile, Halliburton and Carlyle make billions in blood money.

[MMMMMM]

My point to Cyrus was that France's motives for opposing the war were largely mercenary rather than moral. He denied their motives were economically motivated, and even claimed that France stood to do better economically by supporting the war, which was not so.

As for the US motives, I have always said they were mixed and largely in our own interest (although that doesn't lessen the objective moral argument). I'm not comparing the relative moralities of the US and France here; rather I'm making the point that the French government's vociferous opposition to the war was primarily motivated by economic interest.

[MMMMMM]

Almost over, Jokerswild. Your outrage should be directed at Saddam Hussein and his sons and thugs who made all this necessary in the first place. You want to talk jack-boots, well they were the real jack-boots. If Bush the First had finished the job all this wouldn't be happening now.

[Chris Alger]

In other words, France wanted to keep Saddam in power in order to implement old contracts (dating from the "mid-to late 1990's) that it could not implement presumably because (1) Saddam didn't want to implement them or (2) they were precluded by santions. France therefore wanted to keep Saddam in power in order to get something that it couldn't as long as Saddam was in power.

Another fine argument from the "freedom fries" loons.

[MMMMMM]

To discount this scenario out of hand indicates to me that you likely haven't thought it through very carefully. Did you somehow miss the part about France lobbying to have sanctions lifted while Saddam was still in power?

It also makes me wonder what you'll say if and when more dirt on the U.N. oil-for-food scandals, and the French bank(s) involved, come to light.

[Cyrus]

Perhaps you read the message wrong? I told you to take two aspirins and lie down! I didn't tell you to take two aspirins and just lie.

And do please get your "rebuttals" from more reliable sources. The text has even Napoleon spelled wrong! As to the writer, he offers a completely biased and misinformed story about French oil. I know more about French oil, Elf, Total, Fina, and TotalFinaElf than that guy.

"My point was that France's motives for opposing the war were largely mercenary rather than moral."

No, your point was, verbatim, that "The French were petrified of losing those fat Iraqi oil contracts". That was your point. You are now trying to dilute your statement and make it more encompassing just so that its basic fallacy can be hidden! But this won't wash.

Note, in passing, that your use of the word "mercenary" is wrong and confusing. You wanna say something, say it, don't hide it.

"[Cyrus] even claimed that France stood to do better economically by supporting the war, which was not so."

How was it not so?

Scenario 1, France supports the war. Then France gets to share the spoils of war. Scenario 2, France does not support the war. Then France is left out in the cold. This scenario actually happened, dufus. Why is France better off now, with scenario 2?

France believed there would be no war? France believed that the U.S. would not win the war? France did not realize that supporters of the U.S. would benefit from the war?

A novel approach (me being eternally optimistic about light reaching the depths of your mind's cave) : Do you think that Britain's motives were purely moral? Or purely economical? Or purely geopolitical? Or, if it has never occured to you, a mixture of all the above? Them's all the hints you're getting from me, till you reach second grade in politics.

"I'm making the point that the French government's vociferous opposition to the war was primarily motivated by economic interest."

Oh brother, the haul is looong.

Listen, most strategic advantages (in politics or poker), sooner or later, are supposed to be translated into money, into concrete economic measurement. So, everything a country does, at the end of the day, is supposed to net that country some financial benefit. That goes for everyone, from the U.S. to the Nepalese.

But France's opposition to the United States was NOT "primarily motivated by economic interest". No, it was motivated by France's long-term, geopolitical objectives, as were Germany's (MERRY QUERY TO MMMMM: WERE THE GERMANS AFRAID OF LOSING ANY "FAT IRAQI OIL CONTRACTS", BABY?). Yes, those objectives are supposed to be translated into money, at some in time, but the immediate, short-term, pending "fat Iraqi contracts" were most definitely not the issue.

Knock yourself out trying to prove otherwise.

[Cyrus]

"Did you somehow miss the part about France lobbying to have sanctions lifted while Saddam was still in power?"

Did you somehow miss the part about the sanctions having nothing to do with Saddam staying in power or not? Did you miss what the sanctions were actually about? And did you somehow miss the part that it was the United States that formulated the terms of those sanctions?

Ah well. You are confusing the U.N. sanctions with the U.N. Resolutions, such as 1441, perhaps. (Although, even the Resolutions did not require at all that "Saddam leaves power".)

So, once again, what exactly was France guilty of, in your mind? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ what exactly was France guilty of, in your mind? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

They are guilty of being wimps in the face of evil. (and greedy too)

http://www.i-hate-france.com/images/chiracsurrender.jpg

[GWB]

http://www.asmallvictory.net/archives/france.jpg

[MMMMMM]

M: "My point was that France's motives for opposing the war were largely mercenary rather than moral."

"No, your point was, verbatim, that "The French were petrified of losing those fat Iraqi oil contracts". That was your point. You are now trying to dilute your statement and make it more encompassing just so that its basic fallacy can be hidden! But this won't wash."

Cyrus, I wrote the French were petrified--not petrified--of losing those contracts--which tied into my title post, "Of Course It Was Cowardice." Now stop, and please try really, really hard, and see if you can't discern even the slightest humor in the use of petrified. What are you, the ultimate straight man who can't perceive a subtle play on words even when he is clobbered over the head with it? COWARDICE--PETRIFIED--get it? But my point was obviously, as the rest of that thread showed, that France was economically motivated in opposing the war. Come on, Cyrus--nobody can be this boneheaded, least of all you.

As I repeatedly explained to you, the French stood to lose more by having Saddam deposed than they stood to gain by supporting the US (in part because the US represented a formidable competitor with Halliburton backed by the US Army). Now here posted is reported evidence that the French stood to lose even more than I had previously surmised: these contracts were not merely fat, they were humongous, they were corrupt, and they were dependent upon Saddam. Thus the French lobbied to get sanctions lifted and against the war, for only that way could they reap the gargantuan windfall.

[MMMMMM]

"Did you somehow miss the part about the sanctions having nothing to do with Saddam staying in power or not?"

In order for the corrupt humongous contracts to be implemented, two conditions had to be fulfilled: sanctions had to be lifted, and Saddam had to remain in power. Clear now, I hope?

[Utah]

You make an interesting point about France actually making more money by supporting the war instead of opposing it.

I think we all can agree that France was motivated by its own self interests, just as we were and as every other country was. However, it is absurd for the liberals to point to this oppostion as anything other than a country looking out for its own as.

BUT....you called someone a Dufus. Man, I was shocked. You are more clever than that. I dont post for a month, I come back and see a post by you and think - "ah, this should be good for some clever laughs"....and all I get if Dufus! How dissappointing.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you somehow miss the part about France lobbying to have sanctions lifted while Saddam was still in power?

[/ QUOTE ]
Timmerman is referring to the French signing off on the lifting of sanctions since Saddam's overthrow, which the U.S. had been strenuously urging. Timmerman claims, apparently with no evidence, that the "quid pro quo" for French willingness to lift sanctions was the CPA's endorsement these alleged "contracts."

This makes Timmerman's claims even more preposterous. Here's the chain:

1. France had contracts with Iraq that could not be implemented if sanctions were in place.

2. France voted for the sanctions that prevented its contracts from being implemented.

3. France refused to support the war even though war meant the lifting of sanctions and the possibility of doing more business with Iraq. France couldn't even use its leverage to gain promises of post-war business with Iraq in exchange for its support of the war.

4. Yet France, having opposed the war, can still have its contracts implemented after Saddam's overthrow because of its leverage over the ost-war lifting of sanctions.

Therefore, even if we believe Timmerman (who appears to be making much of his story up), his claims merely prove that the war was irrelevant to any oil business France wanted to do with Iraq.

France didn't have to "lobby" to have sanctions lifted while Saddam was in power. France is a permanent member of the Security Council. If it didn't want sanctions imposed, all it had to do was veto (vote against) them. France was a strong backer of oil-for-food in order to keep the sanctions regime in place and never, during the course of it's efforts to oppose the war, argued that sanctions should be removed while Saddam was in power.

[MMMMMM]

All right, I wasn't aware that France recently (it was recently, I presume?) voted for sanctions to remain in place. That changes the picture somewhat. However France may have cut a deal behind the scenes with Saddam to soon try to get sanctions lifted (though I acknowledge this is perhaps stretching if you are indeed correct about France's position regarding sanctions). Anyway that element of doubt doesn't necessarily disprove that France had cooked up a super-lucrative gargantuan deal with Saddam, and apparently Timmerman has discovered a copy of it. Well if so perhaps we'll be hearing more. Also it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there were not only that corruption, but massive corruption regarding the French bank handling of the oil-for-food affair. Guess much remains yet to be seen.

[MMMMMM]

And I always thought dufus should be spelled doofus.

I don't mind, though, really--coming from Cyrus it's almost a backhanded compliment!/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
it is absurd for the liberals to point to this oppostion as anything other than a country looking out for its own as.

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt that any "liberals" contended that France was selflessly motivated. The claim is that France, unlike the U.S., was motivated by what M labels cowardice, greed and mercenary ethics because it's foreign policy toward Iraq was determined by its material interests. This is supposedly a counterpoint to the U.S. motivation of wanting to "liberate" and "democratize" Iraq.

But your observation is excellent and certainly true. States, by nature, are self-interested and pursue those interests fairly rationally within the limits imposed by their poltical, economic and military power and environments. State foreign policies represent the most decisive and extreme examples of state power. Disparate organized groups, ranging from left-wing activists to transnational corporations scrutinize those policies intesnely and compete, with varying degrees of success, to influence their form and implementation.

It seems reasonable to assume that policy is mostly determined by the self-defined interests of the groups most capable of determining it, or the interests of the dominant groups. These interests become state interests and state leaders tend to label them "national interests," regardless of how much of the national population benefits, understands or cares. This has been true throughout history.

Except, according to the current dominant American ideology, in the U.S. Throughout the 20th century and especially since WWII, popular movements have forced the U.S. to expand the possibilities, or at least the perception of possibilities, for public participation in state and economic affairs. At the same time, the concentration of private economic power and state political power increasingly have become concentrated into ever higher and narrower pinnacles and fewer individuals and groups. The actual structure of power has turned rightward but the means of justifying its use have turned leftward. Private economic and state military power is vastly greater now but requires a broader consensus regarding its use. Unlike TR, modern leaders cannot rely on the aquiescence of a few bankers and crude popular appeals to Christian supremacy or social Darwinism.

The means of resolving this contradiction are various, but they include massive doses of upbeat proropaganda about U.S. motives. After decades, the result is a cultural tabboo about challanging, discussing or even mentioning the self-interested aspects of U.S. motives in foreign policy. The result of this, in turn, has been a kind of mass hysteria among maybe 25-40% of the population that accepts or at least tolerates the most contradictory and implausible notions about official motives because the alternative means acknowledging the possibility of grubby material motivations. Some of this no doubt amounts to suppressed guilt over the belief, or at least the suspicion, that American affluence requires brutality and terror. In any event, to discuss things rationally amounts to breaking the tabboo and killing off part of their egos. If the facts make no sense, we have the moral obligation of assuming that the U.S., like the Lord, works in mysterious but ultimately beneficial ways.

For example, go back to the U.S. invasion of Canada in 1812, or the U.S. occupation of the Carribean and Central America in the 1920's and 1930's. Few people with any education or common sense believed that these endeavors were motivated by noble, selfless ideals. They might have heard high rhetoric to that effect but tended to shrug it off as speechifying. More likely, they counted as the better explanation that someone was likely to make a buck off the deal, perhaps even themselves.

Today, however, huge portions of the public bristle at the slightest mention of concrete, material U.S. interests in Iraq and ridicule any such discussion as "conspiracy" talk that fails to comprehend, probably because of some deep-seated hatred toward themselves or Americans, the self-evident magnaminity of the American purpose.

Sorry for getting carried away.

[Chris Alger]

Behind the scenes? The U.S. owns the scenery. We put Saddam's oil men back in charge and run their payroll. Don't you think that if there were any such secret agreement, that anyone with evidence would be amply rewarded for delivering this anti-France political coup to the Americans?

More importantly, note how you have to virtually imagine facts in order to make Timmerman's claims make any sense at. Yet for the right-wing press, Timmerman is taken at face value and pawned off as a coherent story teller.

Doesn't this tell you more about the attitudes of the right-wing media and its consumers than France or Iraq?

[MMMMMM]

Well at this point I'll go so far as to concede it's food for thought--and await further developments. BTW your argument is potentially far more convincing than Cyrus' (sorry Cyrus).

[Cyrus]

Suppose you are running a news organisation. Read back the words in your last post, as if you were reading a Report by your reporter employee whom you've sent to France and Iraq trying to find out more about what the French are upto.

You might (just might) realize the absurd and extremely biased imbalance inherent in your reporting, that's so obvious from your choice of words.

...As to your "humor", in your use of the word "petrified", yes, of course I "understood" the "humor"! Your use of the word "petrified" was indeed humorous (those italics will always get 'em -- har har) but your claim was utterly serious. And there's no getting around that. You claimed that the French did not want (were "petrifed" -- har har) to lose the important (or "fat" -- har har) Iraqi contracts. And you chose to cling on to that idiotic claim, even after it was shown to be illogical (you still have not understood that 'un) and after your guy Timmerman proves to be another hot air enthusiast from the Right.

Well, since you were proven so many times (but who's counting?) to be embarassingly and blatantly wrong, you might wanna pretend it's all a joke and join us in the laughter. Har har, etc.

[Cyrus]

I notice that you have conceded (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=637337&page=0&view=ex panded&sb=6&o=14&vc=1) that the Food for Oil program, as supported by France, is Food for Thought to you, as you put it.

This is a step towards the right direction. And I want to encourage your moving to the right direction. So I will leave unsaid the resulting third equation out of the above two.

[Cyrus]

I am sorry you were disappointed in my use of the word "dufus" when addressing a point to MMMMMM. Under the circumstances, "dufus" was actually a term of endearment.

As to its spelling, "dufus" is just the initials (in Aramaic) of What Were You Thinking?

[MMMMMM]

Only "proved" to be illogical in your mind, Cyrus.

Chris raised a factual point which if true casts more doubt on the assertion in the Timmerman interview than the sum total of your arguments.

[Utah]

Extremely well said. I cant really find much I diagree with.

I think it does raise some interesting points though. If nations operate purely out of self interest, and if all nations have operated in such a manor throughout moden time, are the notions of freedom, justice, morality, etc. really false notions in that they cannot even exist in just a global envirorment? I mean, why even discuss them?

Or....is it possible for those notions to exist as a matter of national interest? Example, could freedom really be a key driving force in Iraq because Dubya and Co. are for the freedom of people around the world and thus, by your analysis of the will of the ruling party, be deemed as a national interest?

For now, I will leave out the arguments concerning the lefts use of global opposition to the war to support their cause because it late and those agurments can often be explained away under your own logic.

Today, however, huge portions of the public bristle at the slightest mention of concrete, material U.S. interests in Iraq and ridicule any such discussion as "conspiracy" talk that fails to comprehend....the self-evident magnaminity of the American purpose

interesting....but I think that is a two way street. And it raises an interesting contradiction. Why is the left opposed to the war - because it is not in our national self interest? That is certainly different that saying the war was unjust. Well, from your argument, there can be no such thing as an unjust action correct (only competing state interests)? So, does that mean that the left would be for attacking a country if it was in the US self-interest?

[Cyrus]

Do keep getting carried away.

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]


And the United States started the war for staunchly moral reasons--and certainly not for economic reasons?

All countries' motives are a mix of morality and self-interest. And every country thinks its moral compass is pointed in the correct direction.



[/ QUOTE ]

Saddam had death camps and rape camps and would shoot someone in the head and have the guy's family pay for the bullet. All else aside, my moral compass says I don't mind that someone like that is no longer in control of a country. Maybe your moral compass says differently.

[andyfox]

My moral compass says Hussein should never have been befriended by the United States to begin with. When he was an asset to us, we didn't give a damn about his death camps. It was only when our self-interest dictated that he had outlived his usefulness that we went to war and got rid of him. What kind of moral compasss is that?

[Chris Alger]

[Chris Alger]

Death camps and rape camps? If you say so.

Were they around when Rummy was shaking hands with Saddam (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/) as special envoy and the U.S. was providing Saddam with military and economic assistance that helped keep him in power and, presumably, the death and rape camps humming along?

If so, doesn't that mean that "you don't mind" some 10,000 souls being sacrificed to replace Saddam with one of his accomplices, one with a unapologetic record of looking the other way regarding death camps (in Iraq and elsewhere) when its interersts dictate? Before I'd vote to kill anyone, especially this many (and at an ultimate cost of maybe $500 billion), I'd want some guarantee that such an accomplice can be prevented from doing it again. Otherwise, I'd be giving it a blank check to jump in bed with the next unscrupulous strongman willing to share his booty (like a convicted embezzler with a tendency to use Saddam's "interrogation" files to consolidate his power). But maybe my moral compass is out of kilter too.