Re: The Euro vs Dollar Conspiracy Theory: part II - "T
Very interesting subject this thing about the Euro and oil as opposed to the US Dollar and oil. There seems to be a war of sorts going on as to which will win out, the “Petro-Dollar” or the “Petro-Euro”.
I am no expert on economics, and especially not very well versed in all the aspects of the oil-Dollar-Euro-economics. However, having followed closely the lead-up to the Iraq war, and the war itself, as well as the reconstruction work and establishment of a democratic government since the war, I see a factor that seems to be overlooked.
Of course involved in all of this has been the US – which as everyone knows uses the US Dollar, and just as involved, but not as directly or visible, or as readily held up to media scrutiny, has been the major European countries that now use the Euro, along with others that could benefit by the Euro being used in place of the Dollar for oil purchases.
I see an important factor regarding the Dollar as payment for Middle East oil as opposed to the Euro for payment of ME oil. Many have said in recent years, and especially again now in respect to Iran’s stated intention to perhaps change over to only selling oil in exchange for the Euro, that a major switch-over to using the Euro in place of the Dollar, would be devastating for the US economy.
Much has also been said about the fact Saddam tried to switch over to the same kind of scenario, and that this was a major reason for the US going to war – to prevent the downturn in the US dollar against the Euro by securing virtual control over the oil in Iraq.
This may be true, or may be false, depending on the perspective one takes, and or which mantra from both sides one listens to and believes. In general, the extreme left-wing anti-war crowd will believe the notion that the US was out to secure Iraqi oil for themselves, while the extreme right-wing crowd will readily push the notion of the US having other reasons, like the security of the region and the ultimate economic security of the world in general due to not allowing major oil reserves and supplies to be taken over by rogue nations. And some of us in between the extremes somewhere, don't know what to believe half the time.
In looking at both sides, although admittedly leaning toward the right-wing side as far as the war and reasons for removing Saddam Hussein, I see something that seems to be over-looked – at least I have not read, and cannot find, anything along this line. What I am talking about is that if we look at those that have pushed vigorously for the Euro, and then pushed Iraq earlier, and Iran lately, to adopt a “Petro-Euro” system for Middle East oil purchases, instead of the “Petro-Dollar” as has been the norm, then we can see another side of the Iraq invasion coin.
Now, even though such a switch to the Euro would affect the US and possibly trigger some kind of economic downturn as the Dollar loses ground to the Euro, there is the seemingly overlooked other side of the coin – that of the European push to switch to the Euro by making deals with Saddam while sanctions were in place, and therefore pushing for a lifting of the Sanctions and removal of UN inspectors.
If one honestly looks at the situation leading up to the war, one can see the jockeying of positions regarding Europe, led mainly by France and Russia on the one side, and the US on the other, as to whether Saddam was or was not a threat to the region worthy of removal. In this respect, all during the period of UN sanctions, the one thing both factions (European or US/UK) did totally agree on, was the passing of many UN resolutions regarding Iraq’s requirements to comply with resolutions to destroy all programs and facilities and stockpiles of WMD.
I won’t go into that any more than that because the point of this is that if some say the US was bound to secure Iraqi oil in order to bolster the Dollar by preventing or reversing the trend toward the Petro-Euro in place of the Petro-Dollar, then why can we not see and make the same claim that the European effort was to push for the Petro-Euro, by trying to see to it that Iraq gave the appearance of having complied with the UN resolutions and therefore put up a case for removal of sanctions and inspections.
If things had gone their way, Saddam would still be in power, and Iraq would now be clear of sanctions, clear of inspections, selling oil in exchange for the Euro – guaranteeing a more secure economic well-being for France, Russia, and other European countries, as well as China, and India, etc..
Some might counter, what is wrong with those countries looking out for their own interests, and of course that begs the counterbalancing question as to what is wrong with the US looking out for it’s interests – and of course the more important question of who, if either side, was looking out for the world community interests in general.
Here is where the deciding factor that should have prevailed if the World Community had looked at the whole picture and saw that the major difference between the motives of the two sides was this: By agreement by both sides all through the 1990s and into the early 2000s, Saddam was a threat and had to be curtailed in his desire and intentions to develop WMD and Nuclear weapons, so at the time of the impending invasion of Iraq, was he still a threat?
What changed so suddenly and miraculously mere months prior to the onset of the invasion of Iraq? Had Saddam really complied? Was he really no longer a threat? Or had those on the side of the Petro-Euro, manoeuvred, or helped Saddam manoeuvre things to give the appearance of having complied, even though everyone – that is everyone on both sides of the Dollar/Euro issue had right up to that time, agreed that he had never and would never abandon his plans and programs for developing WMD and Nuclear weapons as soon as was possible.
So before we blame the US completely and solely for having removed Saddam because of their own interest respecting oil and the Dollar, we have to also look at the other side of the coin, and picture what the situation would have been if France et al had gotten their way and lifted sanctions and inspections, and supported Saddam in the Petro-Dollar scheme, while at the same time disregarding the fact they knew his main interest was in pursuing weapons with which he could overrun neighbouring oil-rich countries – which would have a most devastating world economic impact.
So who is blameless in all of this? None! IMO… but.. morally, and in regard to what would be the best for the world at large, economically in regard to making sure there would be a secure oil supply from the Middle East, I am thankful the side of the Petro-Dollar won out.. for now at least.
And as Iran enters the picture in much the same scenario, both in regards to the Petro-Euro vs the Petro-Dollar, as well as regarding their stated intention of developing Nuclear weapons with which there is every reason to believe would upset once again the security and stability respecting world oil supply from the Middle East, we can watch and see the two sides once again do their jockeying for position I expect.
Let’s keep our eyes on what stand those same European and other countries will take this time – we know already what stand the US and presumably the UK will take.
