France/ Russias economic ties to Iraq

[Tmy]

What are thsese financial ties we keep hearing about? I really dontthink that's the reason for their anti war stance. If that was the case wouldnt Bush just insure their intrests in return for their support in the invasion?

[crackmonkey]

A lot of things involving oil and military goods. I don't think it's the solitary reason behind their positions, but I'm certain the potential loss of $10 billion or so does influence their thinking.

[Alaric]

Im pretty sure its all financial or pride with France. The french seem to have a special loathing for anything that reminds them they arent the centre of the universe.
Before anyone says anything to me about being a right wing wingnut.....no. Im not. I dont want the war at all and I find Bush and cronies lines to be farscical or religious which scares the hell outta me.
The problem is, the french are still trying to shake a worlds opinion about WW2s great rush to fall at Germanys feet. Them standing up to the great world power is more about them trying to repair self image than politics-which is sad.

[iain]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
A lot of things involving oil and military goods. I don't think it's the solitary reason behind their positions, but I'm certain the potential loss of $10 billion or so does influence their thinking. That's the question though. Do they stand to lose $10 billion? Is this a real number, or just something that someone invented to discredit France? Can anyone back up these sorts of figures with any evidence?

[iain]

Originally posted by Alaric
Im pretty sure its all financial or pride with France. The french seem to have a special loathing for anything that reminds them they arent the centre of the universe. What no one has explained to me is why this should be so.

A majority of the Security Council and of veto holding members oppose war in Iraq at this time, preferring to try for a peaceful
solution for longer.

Some of those countries, particularly France, have been villified in the US for this and a lot of accusations have been thrown around. I have yet to see evidence to support any of these.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by iain
That's the question though. Do they stand to lose $10 billion? Is this a real number, or just something that someone invented to discredit France? Can anyone back up these sorts of figures with any evidence?

It's my understanding that the French Company TotalFinaElf has signed one of the most lucrative (http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=62244490&p=6zz45y96) oil contracts ever.

Richard Perle, a former US Assistant Defence Secretary, said the French anti-war stance was driven by economic interests. French oil giant TotalFinaElf has exclusive exploration contracts worth €60bn - €75bn to develop the massive Majnoon and Bin Umar oilfields in southern Iraq, he said.

“What’s distinctive about the Total contract is that it’s not favourable to Iraq, it’s favourable to Total,” Mr Perle, the chairman of the Pentagon’s Defence Policy Board, said during an address in New York.

(It should be noted that Perle has recently come under fire for his business dealings re: Iraq as well.)

From US DOE (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html)

As of October 2002, Iraq reportedly had signed several multi-billion dollar deals with foreign oil companies mainly from China, France, and Russia. Deutsche Bank estimates $38 billion total on new fields -- "greenfield" development -- with potential production capacity of 4.7 million bbl/d if all the deals come to fruition (which Deutsche Bank believes is highly unlikely). Iraq reportedly has become increasingly frustrated at the failure of these companies actually to begin work on the ground, and has threatened to no longer sign deals unless firms agreed to do so without delay. Iraqi upstream oil contracts generally require that companies start work immediately, but U.N. sanctions overwhelmingly have dissuaded companies from doing so. In 1992, Iraq announced plans to increase its oil production capacity to over 6.3 million bbl/d following the lifting of U.N. sanctions. This plan, which was to be accomplished in three phases over a five-year period, assumed billions of dollars worth of foreign investment. Much of the production was to come from giant fields in the south (Halfaya, Majnoon, Bin Umar, West Qurna), plus the Mishrif reservoir (Luhais, North and South Rumaila, Zubair, etc.), East Baghdad, and others.

MattJ

[bjornart]

The French government were understandably upset over Bush' complete lack of diplomacy in stating that "We're going to invade Iraq now, no matter what anyone says, so how's about it?" With an equally populist government and a population just as media-controlled as the US the choice of position was simple. "No support for war, under any circumstances" is in my opinion almost as irresponsible as "With us or against us". The only reason I say 'almost' is that Bush did it first and that I personally think that avoiding war is a good thing and a possible thing. Or was, until some of the worlds most powerful morons decided to wreck the only thing resembling international law and order in this time and age.
France would be against war even without economic ties to Iraq, because that is what the French people think, and French politicians are wholly populist. (And don't try to claim the French people think about economics, the only thing they care about less work and more pay.) Russia would be against war even without economic ties to Iraq because of the economic ties to the rest of the Arab world. Russia is struggling to improve its economy, and cannot afford to alienate anyone the way Bush seems intent on doing.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by bjornart
The French government were understandably upset over Bush' complete lack of diplomacy in stating that "We're going to invade Iraq now, no matter what anyone says, so how's about it.
Except the U.S. has said they would not attack Iraq if they followed resolution 1441. And they would not attack Iraq if Saddam went into exile. The U.S. gave options.

Originally posted by bjornart
With an equally populist government and a population just as media-controlled as the US the choice of position was simple. "No support for war, under any circumstances" is in my opinion almost as irresponsible as "With us or against us". The only reason I say 'almost' is that Bush did it first and that I personally think that avoiding war is a good thing and a possible thing. Or was, until some of the worlds most powerful morons decided to wreck the only thing resembling international law and order in this time and age.

First of all, the idea that the U.N. will not act to enforce resolutions it passed itself does more to wreck international law than anything the states does. Who respects a law that's never enforced?

And bush did 'act first', but he's also shown that he wants to compromise (for example, trying to get yet another resolution through, while the French said they would veto anything.)

I think avoiding war is a good thing. But if the cost of avoiding war is that many innocent people will die, the cost of war seems to be less an issue.

Originally posted by bjornart
France would be against war even without economic ties to Iraq, because that is what the French people think, and French politicians are wholly populist. (And don't try to claim the French people think about economics, the only thing they care about less work and more pay.) Russia would be against war even without economic ties to Iraq because of the economic ties to the rest of the Arab world. Russia is struggling to improve its economy, and cannot afford to alienate anyone the way Bush seems intent on doing.
You claim that the french/russia don't care about economics, and then you talk about the french wanting more pay/less work, and russia wanting to improve its economy. Both of those are 'economic' issues... Should France and Russia allow human rights abuses in the name of supporting their economies? (When the U.S. does that, they get criticized.)