Some Truth About Invasion Of Iraq

Editorial - Canberra Times

The Prime Minister has proffered many reasons to justify Australia's participation in the American-led invasion of Iraq. Yesterday he advanced a new one: the need to secure a major oil supply. In an address to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute yesterday, John Howard said the Middle East was crucial to Australia's strategic and economic future because "our major ally and our most important economic partners have crucial interests there".

It has long been suspected that oil, and the United States' almost pathological need to secure reliable supplies for its domestic needs, was one of the main factors behind President George W. Bush's decision to to invade Iraq but neither he nor Howard broached the subject when they began talking up overthrowing Saddam Hussein in 2002.

Instead, the US and its allies insisted their motives on Iraq's future were honourable. They wanted to rid the Middle East of a wicked despot, deny al-Qaeda a base from which to export terrorism to the world, and nurture a new democracy that would act as a reforming influence on the region's many autocratic regimes. And if the invasion succeeded in ensuring that Iraqi oil should flow more freely to the US and other customers, well that would be an unexpected though welcome development.

Perhaps because all the justifications for invasion have been largely discredited, the Prime Minister now argues that securing Iraqi oil (not for Australia but for the US and "our most important economic partners") is an important reason to stay the course in Iraq.

At least it has the ring of truth about it unlike the revolving and evolving list of reasons given for invading and occupying Iraq.

The 1973 OPEC oil embargo, which resulted in steep petrol price rises and fuel shortages across America, only strengthened the domestic view that the US economy needed to reduce its reliance on Middle Eastern oil by exploiting other sources, increasing energy efficiency and making greater use of coal and nuclear energy.

Though the US was successful in lessening its dependence on oil, it remains an energy-hungry country one fearful of being threatened with oil shortages, especially given its own reserves are running down. Indeed one of Bush's top priorities after coming to power in 2000 was to formulate a new national energy policy, with Vice-President Dick Cheney appointed to oversee the task. The final policy declared that, "The [Persian] Gulf will be a primary focus of US international energy policy." It also agreed with an earlier report by the James A. Baker Institute of Public Policy that "it may be necessary to overcome foreign resistance in order to gain access to new supplies".

It would seem inconceivable that the White House's Iraq invasion plans were not substantially influenced by the Cheney's energy plan, whatever Bush's public statements.

Ironically, the invasion has done everything but ensure security of supply, or indeed stability of price. International oil prices are at historic highs, in part because of increased demand from India and China, but also because of disruptions to Iraq's oil industry caused by the on-going civil conflict.

The country's aged oil system has been damaged repeatedly by insurgent sabotage. Corruption, theft, and widespread mismanagement have compounded the problems. Oil production for the first quarter of 2007 was 1.95 million barrels of oil a day, well down on pre-invasion figures of 3.5 million barrels a day. Improvements to the Al Basra oil terminal in the Persian Gulf have raised expectations that production might finally be on the rise, but such is the violence that wracks the country (and which US appears powerless to prevent) that such hopes appear far-fetched.

Howard's assertion that staying the course in Iraq will ensure energy security for the US is equally dubious as is the implication that supporting this US foreign policy aim will bring some long-term benefit to Australia. Few Australians question the value of our military alliance with the US, but it is a bridge too far for Howard to suddenly suggest that there are mutual economic obligations on us as well. As a country with substantial energy reserves, Australia does not need to go to war over oil, much less give aid and comfort to another country with a huge, some would say profligate, appetite for oil habit and one with the means to pay for it.

The Japanese and the Chinese have proved that it's possible to achieve energy security without resort to force. Indeed, gas and coal producers line up to win contracts to supply their industries. Energy producers and consumers have a symbiotic relationship: both have an incentive to do business, a fact sometimes lost on Americans. Such simplistic thinking on energy is perhaps understandable from Americans after all, they have had access to cheap and plentiful oil for 150 years and want it to continue. It's rather harder to understand coming from a politician like Howard.