OPINION: Myths And Facts -This war is not the result of a failure of diplomacy. This war is not a pre-emptive war. This war is not about weapons of mass destruction. This war is not about terrorism. This war is not about the liberation of the Iraqi people.

www.outlookindia.com RAHUL MAHAJAN, ROBERT JENSEN

Last night, our president announced a war to the nation and the world. Let us be clear about what this war is and what it is not.

This war is not the result of a failure of diplomacy. This war is not a pre-emptive war. This war is not about weapons of mass destruction. This war is not about terrorism. This war is not about the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Diplomacy: Nations typically engage in diplomacy to avoid having to go to war. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, numerous attempts at diplomacy were made by France, the Soviet Union, and the Arab League. They all foundered, primarily on the intransigence of the first Bush administration. In this case, the second Bush administration tried to use "diplomacy" to create a war out of whole cloth, making no attempt to negotiate with Iraq. In fact, as Iraq made concession after concession -- as it became increasingly clear that whatever pitiful arsenal Iraq had could be found and dismantled if inspections were allowed to continue -- U.S. attempts to strong-arm other countries into supporting the war became increasingly crude and coercive. Although those attempts mostly failed, they were hardly aimed at preventing the war.

Pre-emption: In order to pre-empt a threat with war, there must be some credible reason to believe that the threat exists and that no other strategies will address it. A threat involves capability and intent. In this case, the Bush administration was not able to show that Iraq has the capability, and no attempt was made to show that it had the intent to attack.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: As time passed, the administration's lies, half-truths, and distortions became increasingly ridiculous. From scare stories about an "unmanned aerial vehicle" that turned out to be a glider held together with spit and baling wire, to forged documents claiming that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger, nothing has held water. Claims of mobile biological laboratories were refuted by weapons inspectors, as were claims that Iraq had or was about to get nuclear weapons. And, of course, ongoing inspections would have ensured that no arsenal could be built.

Terrorism: This claim is even more absurd. The best the Bush administration could come up with was a Jordanian militant, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a member of Ansar al-Islam whose ties to either al-Qaeda or the Iraqi government are completely unsubstantiated. A recent British intelligence assessment concluded that there is no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Liberation: The United States does not care about true democracy for Iraq. In 1991, when a popular uprising after the Gulf War threatened to oust Hussein's government, the United States intervened to keep Hussein in power. The reason, as officials explained later, was that the United States wanted a military coup to preserve what Richard Haas of the National Security Council called "Saddam's regime without Saddam." Since 9/11, the Bush administration has funded a coup attempt in Venezuela, installed a puppet regime in Afghanistan, and cracked down on basic democratic protections in the United States. It would be ironic if the administration wanted democracy for Iraqis but not for Americans. U.S. plans for Iraq clearly involve establishing yet another puppet regime

So, what is this war? It is an act of premeditated aggression. It is part of an attempt to put the tremendous energy reserves of the Middle East more tightly under American control. It is the key stage in the building of a new empire. It is part of a long-term attempt to establish more clearly than ever the rule of force in international affairs and sweep away any role for international law or institutions beyond those in service to the empire.

Another fact we must remember: This war did not begin last night.

March 19, 2003, was simply the start of a new, more intense phase of the U.S. attack on Iraq that has been going on since the end of the 1991 Gulf War, through the harshest economic embargo in modern history and through more than four years of regular bombing.

Already, hundreds of thousands -- possibly more than a million -- innocent Iraqis have died in this ongoing assault. As we count the civilian casualties from this newest phase, they must be added to this roster of the dead so that the costs of the U.S. war will not be obscured.

This is crucial to understand, because when U.S. military forces topple the government of Saddam Hussein, we shouldn't be surprised if ordinary Iraqis cheer. Their celebrations will not be about only the demise of a dictator but about the hoped-for end of a regime of fear and deprivation imposed by the United States, in which parents have been forced to watch children die of malnutrition and disease caused by the enforced poverty created by the embargo.

And, finally: Just as the war against Iraq did not begin last night, the larger war for empire will not end with Iraq. Other nations, notably Iran, are already on the target list. Bush administration officials talk of remaking the map of the Middle East. Beyond that is the desire to counter the rising power of China.

The American takeover of Iraq likely cannot be stopped. But just as there has been a time for war, there can come a time for justice if we -- the citizens of the empire -- recognize that this battle may be lost, but there is still a world to win.

Rahul Mahajan's latest book is the forthcoming The U.S. War Against Iraq: Myths, Facts, and Lies. Robert Jensen, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, is the author of Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream. Both are members of the Nowar Collective

www.abs-cbnnews.com By NEELA BANERJEE The New York Times

As the US military completed its plans to invade Iraq, disruptions of oil supplies and shipments from the Persian Gulf appeared to have already begun Wednesday, industry experts said.

Most notably, exports from Iraq under the United Nations’ oil-for-food program have dwindled to a trickle, a spokesman for the program confirmed, after Secretary-General Kofi Annan of the United Nations suspended the program within Iraq on Monday. More broadly, some oil tankers scheduled to arrive at other Middle Eastern countries are refusing to enter the Persian Gulf because of security concerns, said Nader Sultan, chief executive of the Kuwait Petroleum Corp.

“Companies are saying, ‘Do I send my ships up to the Gulf?”’ Sultan said in a phone interview from Kuwait. “And it’s not just to Kuwait. Then, the question is up to the captain. Beyond insurance, it’s safety, and someone has to make a judgment as to whether it’s safe.”

He added: “It’s already happening, already in the whole of the Gulf, there are tankers not going up. Certain shipping companies and certain countries are rethinking that their ships shouldn’t come here.”

So far, the oil markets have shrugged off concerns that such disruptions could be substantial or last long. At the end of trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange on Wednesday, oil for May delivery dropped, to $29.36 a barrel, while oil for April delivery fell $1.79, to $29.88 a barrel. The price of oil has fallen 21 percent this week on the belief that a war in Iraq will be quick and that there will be little damage to Iraq’s oil fields and facilities.

Iraq shipped some of its biggest loads last week, averaging about 1.8 million barrels a day, according to Walid Khadduri, editor in chief of the Middle East Economic Survey and an expert on the Iraqi oil industry. But shipments began to shrink considerably by the end of the week, Khadduri said.

Now, with the suspension of the oil-for-food program, the loading of oil from the Iraqi port of Mina al-Bakr on the Persian Gulf has stopped, said Ian Steele, a program spokesman. Oil is still flowing from Iraq’s northern Kirkuk field to the Turkish port of Ceyhan, Steele said, where one tanker took on oil Tuesday and another is expected on Friday.

Oil traders and other industry experts said they expected Iraqi exports to end soon even from Ceyhan because the Iraqis would probably shut down most production in preparation for the war. Iraq sends about 35 percent of its oil to the United States, according to PFC Energy, a Washington consulting group, and substantial shipments also go to European oil companies like ENI of Italy and TotalFina Elf of France.

Oil industry representatives said that they would not be badly hurt by the suspension of Iraqi exports because they had already scaled back imports from Iraq over the last year.

A pricing plan for Iraqi oil under the oil-for-food plan proved particularly onerous and discouraged oil sales to many foreigners, oil traders and companies said. Iraq’s own decisions throughout the year to increase or decrease exports will also frustrate buyers.

Over the last two months Iraq’s oil exports have increased as Baghdad compensated for shortfall of oil from Venezuela arising from the general strike there. Still, the growing probability of war over the last few months has sent many companies looking elsewhere for more stable oil supplies.

“People have anticipated the possible cutoff of Iraqi oil for months now,” said Sara Wachter, a spokeswoman for TotalFina Elf, whose own imports have fallen to “pretty minuscule levels” now from 2.5 million barrels a month in November.

Wachter said that oil companies operating in PLDT states were producing more oil along with PLDT members, which are producing far above their quotas to make up for the sharp decline in Venezuelan exports and for a possible halt in Iraqi oil. They are also buying up some of the extra PLDT output, she said.

But oil companies buying oil from other Persian Gulf states now face increasingly more expensive insurance rates, making the journey to that region particularly difficult, industry experts said.

Please send your comments or feedback to newsfeedback@abs-cbn.com

www.canada.com By John McLeod
The Daily News

CRUDE-OIL MARKET traders were oversimplifying things again yesterday, sending prices down again after Tuesday’s largest one-day price decline in 16 months. It’s an indication of an optimistic viewpoint, or perhaps wish, that the imminent war against Iraq will be short-lived and there’ll be plenty of oil around.

It’s a bet, according to a report that spilled from yesterday’s Money mailbag, that could be a lot more risky than it might seem. That’s because the study from Peters & Co. Ltd. casts doubt on whether there is enough excess production capacity to replace the supply that will be lost because of the war.

Lost, or “shut in,” as the industry calls it, will be Iraq’s production of about 2.5 million barrels of oil a day, and another half-million barrels as Kuwait “shuts in” some of its production along its northern border with Iraq. Exacerbating the situation is the fact that Venezuela’s production continues to be well below its quota as the oil workers’ strike in that country enters its fourth month.

An analysis of historical periods of crude-oil supply disruptions done by the Peters & Co. experts shows that Saudi Arabia has borne a disproportionate share of production increases to offset previous losses. However, this report notes that the Saudis now have only 690,000 barrels a day of unused capacity, compared to previous disruptions, when that country’s unused capacity was three million barrels a day or more.

Moreover, it suggests that excess capacity among members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries “may be overstated” by about a million barrels a day.

“We calculate that OPEC’s near-term excess capacity may only be sufficient to replace production losses from Iraq and Venezuela’s sub-peak production, but not large enough to help rebuild worldwide inventories,” the analysts note. “The implication is that crude oil prices may be sustained at well-above normal levels for some time.”

There also is no good news when looking at the ability of non-OPEC oil-producing countries to take up the slack.

“Non-OPEC crude production,” the report says, “tends to run at capacity, except when countries like Norway and Mexico join OPEC in short-term production cuts.”

Further, the largest non-OPEC producer is Russia, which has seen production recover from a post-communism low of 5.5 million barrels a day to a recent high of eight million.

“The bad news,” the report warns, “is that Russia has no unused capacity in the short run, and neither does any other non-OPEC country.”

The Peters & Co. analysts concede that if a war in Iraq is short — and does not result in any damage to oil production capacity — and if Venezuela “surprisingly recovers” to its former production level, then the current war premium on crude prices could quickly evaporate, as crude-oil traders are betting this week.

However, the analysts note that even under that optimistic scenario, the low level of worldwide inventories is likely to keep prices well above normal levels of approximately $22 US a barrel for the near future.

Then there’s this less optimistic scenario:

“If the war in Iraq is protracted and there exist longer-term restrictions on Venezuela’s capacity,” this report warns, “then crude prices would remain very high, and could even spike to higher levels.”

Stay tuned, folks.

jmcleod@hfxnews.ca

www.guardian.co.uk Mark Tran and agencies Thursday March 20, 2003

Oil prices jumped this afternoon following TV reports that oil wells in southern Iraq were burning out of control after apparent acts of sabotage.

The market reacted to a report by Fox News, based on information from military personnel in Kuwait, that fires south-west of the city of Basra had been burning for several hours.

The Arab satellite television channel al-Arabiya also said fires had broken out in Iraq's al-Rumeila field, also in the Basra area.

However, neither British nor American officials could confirm the reports. In a Pentagon briefing Donald Rumsfeld said: "We're not on the ground but I have seen indications of reports that the Iraqi regime may have set fire to three or four wells in the south."

On the London exchange, North Sea Brent crude surged to $27.25, up 50 cents a barrel, after hitting an early morning low of $25.53.

The jitters came despite an earlier statement by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), which sought to calm oil markets by announcing that its members had pledged to maximize output to make up for any disruption in crude exports from Iraq.

Opec president Abdullah bin Hamad Al-Attiyah said: "I am herewith reiterating Opec's resolve to make up for any supply shortfall resulting from developing events. To this end, member countries have pledged to use, in the interim, their available excess capacities to ensure continued supply."

Iraqi crude exports, totalling 2m barrels a day, are expected to cease as the war intensifies.

Earlier today, officials from the cartel said that there was no need for such a move as oil prices had dropped to a three-month low. London's benchmark Brent crude oil fell to $25.5 a barrel overnight as traders expected a quick end to the one-sided war.

A week ago, a barrel of Brent crude was trading at $33.70 as stock markets around the world fell sharply on diplomatic wrangling between UN security council members.

Mr Attiyah said that the producer group was keeping in close contact with non-Opec producers and the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA), which oversees consumer stocks in 26 industrialised nations.

Iraqi exports ground to a virtual halt this week after the UN evacuated its staff overseeing Baghdad's oil-for-food programme. Saudi Arabia, the world's leading oil exporter, has already raised production well beyond 9m barrels daily - its allowed Opec quota is 8m - in part to cover shortages from strike-hit Venezuela.

The oil cartel has tried to keep prices within a price range of $22 to $28, with varying degrees of success. Opec's big fear is that prices will eventually crash, as they did after the end of the 1991 Gulf war.

news.moneycentral.msn.com March 20, 2003 05:05:00 AM ET By Tom Ashby

LONDON (Reuters) - Oil prices tumbled to three-month lows on Thursday after the United States began bombing Iraq and dealers bet on a swift U.S. victory with little disruption to Middle East supply.

OPEC exporters pledged to fill any supply gap from the conflict in the oil-rich Gulf, while the West's energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency, said it saw no reason to release emergency stocks for the time being.

Hours after U.S. cruise missiles hit targets in Baghdad, officials in neighboring Kuwait said crude output was normal, despite two Iraqi missiles hitting the north of the country.

Supplies from the world's top exporter, Saudi Arabia, were also running smoothly, shippers said.

Benchmark Brent crude oil fell 53 cents to $26.22 per barrel, having touched a three-month low of $25.50.

Brent futures have shed 25 percent of their value in the last six days on a massive bet by investment funds that war will end quickly without major damage to oil installations.

U.S. crude futures fell 75 cents to $29.31.

``The war premium is diminishing on a growing certainty that coalition forces will prevail and allow Iraq to increase production,'' said Peter Gignoux of Schroder Salomon Smith Barney.

Industry consultant Geoff Pyne said there were still dangers ahead that could drive prices back up.

``Most obviously, there is a danger that Saddam may blow up the Iraqi oilfields,'' he said.

Iraqi Oil Minister Amer Rasheed denied a Kuwaiti television report that oil wells near the southern city of Basra were on fire.

OPEC TO FILL SHORTFALL

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said it would tap its spare capacity to make up for any shortage from Iraq. OPEC President Abdullah al-Attiyah of Qatar said he had spoken with cartel members following the U.S. attack.

``As a result of those consultations, I am herewith reiterating OPEC's resolve to make up for any supply shortfall resulting from developing events,'' he said in a statement carried on OPEC's official news agency.

``To this end, member countries have pledged to use, in the interim, their available excess capacities to ensure continued supply.''

A Saudi source said OPEC's leading producer was poised to respond to any oil supply disruptions following the U.S. attack on neighboring Iraq. However, he also said that world markets were currently well supplied.

The market is well supplied. What everyone fears is Saddam Hussein burning the oilfields,'' said the Saudi source. Events are going to be the dictating factor here.''

Riyadh has already ramped up production well beyond nine million barrels daily -- versus an OPEC quota of eight million -- in part to cover outages from strike-hit Venezuela.

The International Energy Agency said there was no need for import-dependent Western nations to release emergency stocks as it was confident OPEC could cover the shortfall.

At the precise hour we speak, I think it is not necessary (to release stocks),'' IEA executive director Claude Mandil told Reuters. We had a very strong statement from OPEC, which has said they will ensure any shortfall and we are confident they will do their best.''

Iraqi exports have ground to a virtual halt this week after the United Nations evacuated its staff overseeing Baghdad's oil-for-food program.

The International Energy Agency, which oversees some four billion barrels of oil inventory in 26 industrialized countries, said a release would become necessary only in case of a shortage that could not be covered by OPEC.