The intent of this Viewpoint is two-fold: 1) to offer an interpretation of the French and Russian opposition to war in Iraq, and 2) to debunk the seemingly widely held notion that if the UN fails to support the US/UK/Spanish sponsored resolution this week that the US will be acting "unilaterally" when it launches its war against Iraq.
Concerning France and Russia, it seems that many in the world media and many in the "anti-war" crowd have been showering adulation upon these two nations for their pacifism of late. I think it behooves us all, though, to stop and seriously question why France and Russia oppose the war -- it certainly has nothing to do with pacifism (Ivory Coast and Chechnya, anyone?). I contend that oil is the number one motivation for the opposition of both and that it has nothing to do with any high-minded pacifism.
As far as Russia is concerned, it has at least two lucrative reasons for opposing the war, one of which is directly linked to oil. First, over the past decade since the fall of the Soviet Empire, Russia's economy has been in shambles and it has cherished foreign investment whenever it can get it. At the same time, the US over the last decade has bought an ever-increasing share of its oil from Russia's vast oil fields (and it is Russia's hope that this share will rapidly expand over the next decade). Quite simply, Russia fears that if there is a US-led war in Iraq the United States will have a huge new source of oil that will lessen its need to buy from Russia. It has even been suggested that in private conversations between President Bush and Vladimir Putin over recent weeks that Putin has indicated that Russia could support the US position if it were to make hard guarantees that the US would continue to purchase X amount of oil from Russia over the next decade. The United States has refused to agree to such terms.
Additionally, Russia is owed large sums of money from Iraq (reports vary, but it seems to be anywhere from $10 to $40 billion) that date back to Soviet loans granted during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly assured Russia over the past decade that it will repay these billions once UN sanctions are lifted. Thus Russia has tens of billions of dollars tied up in preserving the current Iraqi leadership.
The French opposition is even more closely linked with the oil in Iraq. It has been widely reported (web addresses can be found at the end of this Viewpoint) that French oil companies, notably TotalFinaElf (the world's fifth largest), have negotiated exclusive drilling rights in some of Iraq's oil fields pending the cessation of UN sanctions. One might also recall France's harder line on Iraq in the early 1990s -- France, along with Britain and the US were the original three nations that set-up and enforced the No-Fly Zones in Northern and Southern Iraq. I do not think it is a coincidence that France's stance on Iraq has softened since the mid-90s when it began securing these lucrative oil deals.
France and Russia are operating here out of pure national interest -- interests that are inextricably linked with Iraqi oil -- and I respect their opposition. But I think that those who are quick to champion the Franco-Russian opposition and shower them with admiration should first recognize the motivations for their opposition. And to those whose favorite anti-war poster reads "No Blood For Oil" should perhaps protest outside the French and Russian embassies -- for it is France and Russia that are willing to sacrifice the blood of innocent Iraqi civilians to ensure they maintain their oil contracts.
That said, I think it would be inappropriate for either France or Russia to cast a veto to defeat the resolution before the United Nation's Security Council this week. If they wish to go on record as opposing the war, I think an abstention would suffice. However, I still have hope (I would put the odds as high as 60/40) that both France and Russia might support the resolution -- after all, both nations are operating out of concern for oil. For it is now quite clear that for France and/or Russia to cast a veto is not going to stop a US-led "coalition of the willing" from doing what needs to be done. Thus when it comes to that final vote (presumably this week), the only way that France and Russia can have any chance of having influence over the future of Iraq or its oil will be for them to cast a "yes" vote and support the US effort this week. Otherwise, they will both be shut out of the process of rebuilding Iraq and will have failed completely to protect their economic and oil interests in the process.
This brings me to the UN and the "coalition of the willing." I would absolutely prefer to get another UN stamp of approval before taking action. And I would seriously doubt and question the intentions of the United States if we failed to garner UN support and "went it alone." But we will not act unilaterally -- this is a fact. For some to levy such charges demeans those on the long -- and still growing -- list of nations that support the US. To suggest that we are going alone either reflects ignorance or a complete and willful disregard for the real diplomatic and military contributions of nations not named France, Russia, Germany, or China. I do not have the space here to discuss the exact contributions or level of support of every nation involved but I will list those nations that have indicated support for the US position on Iraq: Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, Denmark, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, the Netherlands, Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. So I caution those who are quick to brand the US as poised to act unilaterally to consider the very real support of these nations -- and there are undoubtedly others that I failed to mention here. A failure to get full UN backing does not automatically indicate "unilateralism" -- a good example of this is Kosovo in 1999, does the approval of NATO mean less than that of the UN? The United Nations has only supported two "wars" since its inception: the Korean War (1950-1953) and the Gulf War (1990-1991). I think that it is important to keep this in mind when discussing the role of the United Nations over the coming days and weeks.
I am hopeful that the so-called second resolution will pass the UN Security Council this week, but if not, lets slowdown and examine the facts. "A coalition of the willing" can be equally as legitimate as the UN itself -- after all, that is all the United Nations really is anyway.
For more information on French and Russian oil deals in Iraq, check out the following websites:
1.) http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/17/russia.iraq.oil/index.html
2.) http://www.cnn.com/2002/BUSINESS/11/27/russia.oil/index.html
3.) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/20/eveningnews/main541379.shtml
4.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2757797.stm
Adam C. Schultz is a junior double-majoring in Political Science and History.
More from The Tufts Daily
