Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (documentary) - buy it here on DVD (special offer)

US and UK prove oil is their true motive in Iraq

The American and British governments are no longer able to conceal their true intentions in Iraq.

In their first diplomatic gesture since they invaded Iraq, the US and the UK asked the UN to approve their plan to take full control of Iraqi oil. The US and the UK promised the world that the Iraqi people would own the oil in post-war Iraq, but now that they occupy the country they have declared their plan to control Iraq's entire oil reserves, the second largest on Earth, deciding who can buy the oil, and at what price, and how the profits are spent. This is the allies' first major action in Iraq since the conquest was completed, and they have acted to seize the oil before even restoring law and order or addressing the humanitarian disaster.

All of the companies involved in the "reconstruction" of Iraq (building a new nation modelled on the USA) are large American corporations with connections to senior members of the US government. Through these huge corporations the profits from Iraq's oil will flow directly into the US, where it will emerge in the vast US economy apparently clean and legitimate, making this the biggest money-laundering operation in history.

The war on Iraq was surely the greatest armed robbery of all time.


The Independent (UK), "Iraq Inc: A joint venture built on broken promises", front page, 10 May 2003.

    America and Britain declared themselves yesterday to be the "occupying powers" in Iraq and produced a blueprint for the administration of the country that confined the United Nations to a co-ordinating role. ...

    Whatever the fate of the UN resolution, Washington has already started a secretive carve-up of the Iraq reconstruction pie in which all the slices thus far have gone to US companies many of them with close connections to the Bush administration. ...

    The immediate reaction to the plans in Baghdad was negative. "This is very, very bad. We are in the same situation as we were with Saddam," said Bassen al-Khoja, 31. "[They] stole the oil money from the people and we got nothing and now the Americans and British are doing exactly the same. We are not going to see any benefit from it."

    Similar disgust was expressed by Fareed Ismail al-Qaisi, 42, who is unemployed. "The United Nations should control the oil money, not the Americans," he said. ....

    In Brussels, Poul Nielson, the European Union commissioner for development, voiced dismay at the text. He said Washington was "on its way to becoming a member of Opec", adding: "They appropriate the oil. The unwillingness to give the UN a legal, well-defined role also speaks a language that is quite clear."

The Independent, "The allies' broken promises", front page, 10 May 2003.

    Oil. Tony Blair: 'We don't touch it, and the US doesn't touch it' MTV, 7 March. The reality: Yesterday's draft UN resolution gives total control of Iraq's oil revenues to the US and UK until an Iraqi government is established.

    The UN. George Bush: 'The UN will have a vital role to play' Belfast, 8 April. The reality: The UN is reduced to an advisory function on the ground in Iraq. All operational decisions will be taken by UK and US officials

    Weapons. Jack Straw: 'Should the UN have a vital role to play in respect of weapons inspections? The answer to that is yes.' Interview, 25 April. The reality: No role for the UN inspectors 'for the foreseeable future'.

    Aid. Tony Blair: 'The UN should have a key role in administering the delivery of humanitarian aid' House of Commons, 18 March. The reality: US and UK to oversee aid effort with UN reduced to co-ordinating role.

    Government. Tony Blair: 'Military action is to uphold the authority of the UN and to make sure Saddam is disarmed' MTV, 7 March. The reality: A US and UK 'occupying power' will rule Iraq.

The Independent, "Mr Blair has betrayed promises he made about post-war Iraq", 10 May 2003.

    It is an abuse of the English language to describe the role assigned to the United Nations in Iraq by the American-British draft resolution as "vital". Tony Blair and George Bush both promised, at their joint news conference in Belfast on 8 April, that the UN would have a vital role in post-war Iraq.

The Guardian (UK), "Blueprint gives coalition control of oil", p. 4, 10 May 2003.

    America and Britain yesterday laid out their blueprint for postwar Iraq in a draft resolution to the United Nations security council, naming themselves as "occupying powers" and giving them control of the country's oil revenues. ...

    In a further sign of the confusion over the US role in Iraq, the defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday that a one-year timeline attached to the presence of US and British forces in Iraq was probably "just a review period" in the overall postwar plan. "Anyone who thinks they know how long it's going to take is fooling themselves," Mr Rumsfeld said. "It's not knowable."

    Outside the UN, the proposals provoked a vociferous response from the European Union's commissioner for aid and development, Poul Nielsen, who accused America of seeking to seize control of Iraq's vast oil wealth.

The Guardian, "The new caliphs", 10 May 2003.

    Common sense demands that the UN's weapons inspectors return to Iraq without any further delay. As Tony Blair reaffirmed recently, the threat thought to be posed by Iraqi weapons was the principal reason for launching the war. Without independent, international verification of Iraq's capability, any future US and British evidence showing their action to be justified may not be believed, as Britain's former UN envoy, Sir Crispin Tickell, trenchantly noted yesterday.

    The US argument that security concerns prevent the UN's return will not wash; its own search teams have been at work for weeks, although they have found nothing of any great significance. Suspicions thus gain ground that Washington and London exaggerated the WMD threat for political purposes, that their intelligence was either faulty or used selectively, and that they now have something to hide. John Negroponte, the US ambassador to the UN, says blithely that Washington sees no role for UN inspectors in the foreseeable future. In this, Britain, swallowing private misgivings, appears ready to acquiesce. Despite the centrality of the WMD issue, no mention is made of resumed inspections in the sweeping new US-British security council resolution.

    The new joint draft resolution is in other respects a deeply unsatisfactory document. Common sense again suggests that the UN should be afforded a leading role, as in Afghanistan, in facilitating the creation of a post-Saddam system of governance. Impartial UN mediators would be far better positioned to instil confidence, among Iraqis and in the wider region, in a process that will at best be complex and arduous. The contrary US-British intention to direct political reform via a new legal entity, the "Authority", controlled by them, and with only an advisory, non-executive role for a UN "special coordinator" is ill-conceived and potentially divisive.

Daily Telegraph (UK), "US seeks absolute power to rule Iraq for year", 10 May 2003.

    Britain and America yesterday asked the international community to grant them a sweeping mandate to rule Iraq as "occupying powers" for at least a year, effectively relegating the United Nations to an advisory role.

Washington Post (US), "U.S. to Propose Broader Control Of Iraqi Oil, Funds", front-page, 9 May 2003.

    The Bush administration circulated a draft resolution among key Security Council members today calling for the elimination of more than a decade of international sanctions on Iraq and granting the United States broad control over the country's oil industry and revenue...

    The resolution, which is to be presented to the 15-nation body Friday, would shift control of Iraq's oil from the United Nations to the United States and its military allies, with an international advisory board having oversight responsibilities but little effective power. ...

    The proposal would give the United States far greater authority over Iraq's lucrative oil industry than administration officials have previously acknowledged. Buffeted by charges that the United States was launching a war to gain control over Iraq's oil fields, administration officials have for months sought to assure governments that Iraq's oil revenue would remain in the hands of the Iraqi people after the ouster of president Saddam Hussein.

    The proposal would give the United States far greater authority over Iraq's lucrative oil industry than administration officials have previously acknowledged. Buffeted by charges that the United States was launching a war to gain control over Iraq's oil fields, administration officials have for months sought to assure governments that Iraq's oil revenue would remain in the hands of the Iraqi people after the ouster of president Saddam Hussein.


BBC News, "UN debates Iraq sanctions", 9 May 2003.

    Under the US proposals, a new body comprising Britain
    and the United States - known as The Authority - would
    decide how income from the sale of Iraqi oil would be spent.

Iraq - The Debate

"The Insider" mailing list article, 10 May 2003.

From (your email):   
To: (their email): 

Tags: iraq, oil, profits, us, bush, american, companies, profit, iraqi, oil, money, revenue, war, america, usa, corruption, , conspiracy theories.

Copyright 2018 The Insider.

This service is provided on our standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy. To inquire about advertising and sponsorship or permission to reproduce material from The Insider, please contact us.