I know that Bush always said that the oil should be for the Iraqi people, but should it be those Iraqi people who are connected enough and buddied up with the bush admin to win the control of the oil, or should it be controlled by the new govt.
I think the possibilities of this are pretty important. If the government uses this money and uses it to promote the welfare of the people on an equitable basis, then I think that peace in Iraq is a possibility. Imagine an Iraq that could eventually have a social welfare state on the level of Norway. If not, I don’t expect much chance. Basically, with the advent of Neoliberal policies in various developing economies, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Look at Latin America for examples. Now, Bush, isn’t exatly the kind of guy to advocate a populist government. He probably believes that capitalism can make the contry wealthy. I agree, that it would probably eventually raise the GDP, but how evenly will the wealth be distributed. Its the whole equity vs. efficiency problem. In my opinion, all of the Iraqis deserve an equal share considering their past hardships.
Bush has said that the oil money will be used for reconstruction. Who will control this money, and who will be in charge. Will the future Iraqi government do this? If this is true, then it is possible that something good could happen. I would love to see Iraq blossom to where the immense oil wealth could provide social welfare, but I don’t think it will happen. What does everyone else think about this?
I think its a sad situation for developing economies. Its a no-win situation for the masses. With any kind of movement towards a socially equitable future where the division between wealthy and poor is relieved, then international investment is pulled out, creating great crisis. The only way to growth is international investment (in Latin America), and for that, the labor market must be malleable. Thus, the people are put down.
Now, I think Iraq can escape this because of their enormous internal wealth. Would it not only take a government that promoted the welfare of its people, because there would be little need for international finance?
As far as what Iraq does in the future, with the money they get from oil, that is up to them.
In the interim, I would be for the oil for food program administered by the UN. Once an Iraqi government is in place, only Iraq should control their oil.
I don’t think Bush would try to control the oil because the outrage would be tremendous (including me). If he does, I will have to vote for a Democrat for the 1st time in my life.
Good one. “vote for a Democrat for the 1st time in my life.”
I agree. I’ll bet the eventual gov’t of Iraq will set up some kind of social welfare deal where the oil is managed as a national resource. We’ll have to see how long they can keep the next strongman from sniffing that honey and pushing Iraq back to 1980.
Except that Irak has an enormous foreign debt. I doubt the new Iraki government will be in any position to write off this debt (under the premise that this debt was contracted by Saddam’s regime, for instance). This debt will very strongly impede Irak’s economical development. Also, secondarily, there’s the cost of rebuilding.
Another information item. I believe the bulk of the Iraqi debt is owed to Russia, Germany, and France, and somehow I don’t think any of those countries is in a strong position politically to demand that they be reimbursed at the moment.
Sorry, I don’t know how to set up those neat web pointers, so I’ll have to insert this CNN item directly: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/04/12/sprj.irq.russia.putin/index.html .It’s an article discussing Putin’s claim that the war objectives have not been achieved, but it includes some Iraqi debt numbers at the tail end.
Last Tuesday, Terry Gross interviewed Bathsheba Crocker* on Fresh Air. Ms. Crocker pointed out that well over 90% of the current oil income is already committed between the Oil For Food program and the War Reparations. It is going to be pretty difficult to rebuild the country on less than 10% of the country’s income. (It would be nice if the Oil for Food program could be reduced as the economy improves and more people can earn their way, but Iraq does not currently have much besides oil to offer for an economy and simply selling more oil might actualy depress prices to the point where there was no gain in income.)
co-director of the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
Well, Russia has already mentioned the possibility of forgiving the 8 billion or so foreign debt.
Yes, the problem with depression of oil prices is a problem. For instance, Russia recieves a large majority of its foreign currency from Oil, and a depression of prices isn’t very good for them.
I can’t find the article, but there was a column a few days back at nationalreview.com that said the Iraqi oil fields had been illegally nationalized in the 1970s, and they should be returned to the private (foreign) companies that actually owned them. The implication was that the Bush administation talk about “the Iraqi people” owning the oil was basically socialist propoganda.
Note that the oil field nationalization that happened in the 70s occurred in all of the arab nations, not just Iraq.
I’m shocked - shocked! - that the National Review would suggest that foreign (read “American”) oil companies are the rightful owners of those oil fields. Then again, the National Review is one of a select few organizations that would think of President Bush as being a socialist.
After we’ve deducted the cost of the war from oil profits, the rest should go to the Iraqi people. All of Iraq’s foreign debts should just be declared void: the government that made those deals no longer exists. Russia, France and Germany look lame with their little “summit” meeting, as if they had any say at all in what happens to post-war Iraq. Their leaders are just scrambling to save face in light of all the money Iraq owes them for weapons sales.
So how many years do you figure they should wait before we start letting them see the profits from their own oil? (See Ms. Bathsheba’s comments, linked above)
It should be placed under the control of Dopers. Only we can be trusted to deal with the matter equitably–and I want to have an addition on my new house.
Hmm, you think so, huh? That is not the way the world works. First when a government collapses, all of the debt doesn’t just “disappear” like magic. It is true thought that this is a special case.
But, this business of deducting the cost of the war from the oil profits is ludicrous. It wasn’t the Iraqis who decided to go to war, it was us. Actually only a portion of Americans. I will use my vote in 2004 to get a new government that doesn’t start destabalizing, expensive foreign wars. I didn’t want the war, but I don’t think we should make the Iraqi people suffer more than they already have by delaying their development until we get our profit back. This is GWB’s war, and it is hurting the economy. He is going t o pay a price at home for this.
Russia, France, and Germany having a summit isn’t trivial. Have you ever thought that they may be deciding to work out a defensive bloc to counter American power? I don’ thtink it would be hard to get right now, since we’ve gone from Sept 12, 2001, Why do they hate us? to March 19, 2003, why does the world hate us?
This is also having an effect on China. For the last decade the Chinese military have been losing power as world tensions eased. The invasion has resulted in an inversion of this trend and China is making plans to rearm faster as they fear the US will continue to throw its weight around in Asia. China arming is not good news because its neigthbors are very suspicious of China and tensions are going to grow in Asia. The problem is that China may start to seriously build a capable army only with the intention of defending itself but, in fact, what usually happens is that when you have an army you find other uses for it.
I truly believe world dominance by a single country is a very bad thing and a balance of powers is the best thing to keep everyone in check.
futureman:[hijack]I am curious. How come you picked Norway, and not the US. I thought the Americans thought theirs was the best. Would you care to start a new thread as to why Iraq should pick Norway as a model. What other countries besides Norway could Iraq use as a model, and where does the US rank among those models. Thanx [/hijack]
I don’t know why I am being questioned about the problem of Norway, etc. I just picked it because its social welfare system is greatly financed with Oil. That’s all. Its the only state that uses Oil for the beneifits of its citizens. that’s all I meant to imply.
Why would you propose a full welfare state based on a non-renewable resource? The oil will eventually go away and unless the country is diversified in its methods of income generation you will have an awful lot of dashed expectations in 20-30 years.
