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...e.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? [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[GWB]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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