Wednesday, November 30

Opposition to US Middle East policy, simply explained

Since publishing my 11/28 report about a possible gaffe by The Sunday Times and John Murtha I've received a letter asking whether I thought Murtha's resolution was a preemptive move; i.e., whether he was acting on inside information that the US military had broached a plan to draw down troops in Iraq in 2006.

I ask the writer to reread my report. Representative Murtha's resolution to immediately withdraw US troops from Iraq was floated on November 17, which is almost two months after a proposal for drawing down US troops was discussed in open Senate and House hearings.

Those hearings were on September 29. So if the writer is on the prowl for leaks, he might want to note that on September 28, House Representatives Walter Jones (R-NC) and Neil Abercrombie (D-HI.), called a news conference to announce their proposed legislation to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

They were joined by Lt. General William Odom (Ret.). Odom has called the invasion of Iraq "the greatest strategic disaster in United States history." His advice since at least as early as 2004 has been to yank US troops from Iraq and replace them with a coalition of European and Asian allies "to put things in order."

If Odom's name rings a bell for readers who have been with this blog since early days -- he is on the advisory board of the New Atlantic Initiative headquartered at the American Enterprise Institute, as are Rupert Murdoch and Mikhail Khordokovsky. (Because NAI and AEI members insist that Mr Khordokovsky is a martyr for democracy, I would not be surprised to learn he's still on the board.)

To put all the above another way, President Bush had his reasons for recently extending the highest US intelligence-sharing rank to Australia and not Israel, despite all the help that the US has received since 9/11 from Israel's intelligence gathering agencies.

Some say that NAI is another front for AIPAC; while I think that's going a bit far, NAI members have perennially displayed quite a knack for being terribly well informed about planned US military and diplomatic moves.

The leaks flow in all directions, but a big pipeline has been from MI6 to Mossad and vice versa and from there to various sinks in Washington. Until Australia was elevated in rank in September, only Britain was privy to the highest US intelligence-sharing ranking.

In other words, by September Bush knew that the cat was already out of the bag. So he brought generals George Casey and John Abizaid to Washington to openly discuss their plan to draw down US troops in Iraq.

I've also been asked how the US military can run a war under such leaky conditions. Pundita is tired of explaining the same five points over and over, so in answer I will publish the entire text of an article by UPI Senior Analyst Peter Lavelle about the Kremlin's challenge to OPEC, which I linked to in a January 2005 post.

Lavelle's report explains so many things that you could have gotten away without reading a newspaper or watching the news during this past year, and still been well informed about the twists and turns of opposition -- here and abroad -- to the White House policy in the Middle East including Iraq.

To boil it down, you can graph the opposition according to President Bush's line on Russia. When he moves closer to Putin and his language toward Russia becomes more conciliatory, opposition to the US policy in Iraq explodes in Washington. When he distances himself from Putin and takes a harder stance toward Russia, the opposition settles down to a dull roar.

Recently Secretary Condoleezza Rice and some element among the State Department mandarins signaled that they were considering the wisdom of Bush's attempts to strike a balanced approach toward Russia. Like clockwork, that set off another explosion of opposition to the White House policy on Iraq. So here we are today, up to our eyeballs in leaks and anti-Bush, anti-US in Iraq moves wafting from quarters in the Republican camp.

I hope that Vice President Cheney reads this particular Pundita post because I think it's the starkest warning that one can't drive in two directions at the same time.

Dear Mr Cheney, if we want to keep US policy on track in the Middle East, it means cutting bait with Republicans whose stance on US foreign policy is directed by Europeans and Israelis who take orders from Russian billionaires, who are in up to their necks with the Russian mobs.

If cutting bait means the GOP taking a big hit in the fundraising department -- what is the alternative, Mr Cheney? To keep fighting with knives sticking out of your back and Bush's back? To expect the US military to keep doing the same? Why not do what Dean did, and take fundraising directly to the American people?

As for the Democrat party leaders, I have concluded during the past year that Democrats are terminally naive. So I venture only an Act of God can show Democrats that they're being used as pawns by foreigners whose main concern in life is to eject Vladimir Putin from power. However, it's a Republican controlled Congress so when Democrats see factions of Republicans working to destroy President Bush's policy in the Middle East, who can blame them for jumping on the bandwagon?

Now; will the world come to an end if the Kremlin's plan shoves OPEC closer to extinction? Even the Lords of the Craps Table and their mathematical models and banks of supercomputers cannot project how all the chips will fall. So if the people who oversee the international monetary system can't predict how it will turn out, Pundita can't predict.

Yet I think it's safe to say that the downsides to the petrodollar have come to outweigh the upsides. The most we can say at this point is that it will be a different world, and one with rocky patches for Americans because the Kremlin now officially accepts oil payment in a mix of currency. Yet the petrodollar made America weak; it made us too dependent on the schemes of central banks outside the US. Not to mention too dependent on OPEC.

The Kremlin's plan was inevitable; it was on its way from the day that the Soviet Union dissolved. Instead of confronting that a new era was upon us, the US joined with attempts to gain control of Russia's energy resources. The attempt wasted megabillions if not trillions in US resources, blinded American foreign policy to vast changes in other regions of the world, and hurt America's chance to form a good relationship with post-Soviet Russia. All of that has returned to bite us hard.

Ladies and gentlemen. The Cold War is over. Do not allow a few billionaires to restart it. Look over your shoulder at China and India and realize it is a new day. Adapt, rather than trying to freeze time.

OPEC Dethroned, Putin's "KremPEC" Arrives
Peter Lavelle
August 2004
Published by
In the National Interest

"For the past year, oil analysts, politicians and investors have been bewildered by the Kremlin's legal assault in Russia's largest privately own company – oil giant Yukos. For most observers, attacking and driving Yukos into bankruptcy, particularly as petroleum markets are experiencing volatility, is irrational for both Russia's domestic and international interests. However, there is a method to Putin's "madness." He intends to completely re-order the nature of oil politics, with Russia playing the leading role.

The "Yukos Affair"
The "Yukos affair" is often described as a politically motivated Kremlin attack against the country's super-wealthy known as the "oligarchs," particularly Yukos' core shareholders – Mikhail Khodorkovsky, on trial for tax evasion and other serious charges, is the most notable. Khodorkovsky, Russia's richest man, is believed to have meddled too much in politics and even might have had political ambitions of his own. Thus, using this logic, Khodorkovsky, a person of considerable means, was a political threat to Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin.

There is nothing particularly wrong this with interpretation, but it does overlook what motivates Putin's Kremlin. If the Kremlin had aimed to cut Khodorkovsky down to size, it easily could have done so without assaulting Yukos, Russia's crown jewel oil producer controlling two percent of the world's known oil reserves. The Kremlin's interest in Yukos goes far beyond the personal conduct and ambitions of Khodorkovsky. It is determined to re-order Russia's oil patch to serve national and international interests.

The Kremlin's assault on Yukos is not an impulsive act of political and economic terrorism against property rights and enterprise. Compared, Russia is the only major oil exporter (and the only major oil producing country with the two exceptions of the US and UK) where the state is not the major operator in the upstream sector. Thus, the Kremlin is re-ordering Russia's oil sector to roughly match international norms.

The way the Kremlin is re-ordering the oil sector rightfully raises concerns that all the chaotic privatization of the 1990s will eventually be targeted the way Yukos has been. However, these concerns are exaggerated. Other oligarch empires, such as in non-ferrous metals, probably will be challenged by the Kremlin as this sector, like oil, is considered of strategic importance.

One thing appears to be clear: the Kremlin and the next targeted oligarch will not play out the "Yukos scenario" again – the Kremlin has shown its determination to get what it wants and the rest of Russia's oligarchs will certainly avoid a head-on collision with the state.

Yukos as a company will soon vanish from Russia's corporate environment. Unable to pay up to $10 billion in back taxes, the company will most likely declare bankruptcy and eventually have its assets parceled out to other Russian oil companies. However parceled out, there is no doubt these valuable assets will be in the hands of Kremlin-friendly entities.

"KremPEC" (Kremlin Petroleum Export Corporation)
Putin is looking to the future. Since 1999, Russia's petroleum production has increased 48 percent, primarily on the back of flows from new wells. Producing 9 million barrels of oil a day, Russia is the world's largest producer. With that in mind, Putin has called upon his oil ministers to finalize plans increasing the number of export pipelines to increase output to 11 million barrels a day by 2009. Russia's expected export increase, in conjunction with other world suppliers, is hoped to lower the cost of crude as early as 2006.

Due to almost unprecedented global demand, the Kremlin's coffers receive an additional $1.5 billion per month, and a number of petroleum market experts claim high prices last year comprised about 3 percent of Russia's 7.3 percent gross domestic product growth. Experts also estimate that each dollar above the yearly average of $22 per barrel adds 0.25 percent to GDP.

Putin has stated that, "The government must base its decisions on the interests of the state as a whole and not on those of individual companies."

These are not just words – Russia's oil giants LUKoil and Sibneft are acutely aware that Putin means business.

LUKoil, Russia's second largest petroleum firm, has already understood Putin's message, and is more than willing to pay more taxes and work as a loyal energy foreign policy conduit for the Kremlin.

Sibneft, third-ranked oil producer owned by oligarch-English football enthusiast Roman Abramovich, has also caught the Kremlin's attention. With investigations of Sibneft and Abramovich mushrooming, it appears only a matter of time before Sibneft will come under the Kremlin's heel as well.

What will happen to Yukos' assets after it is forced into bankruptcy is open to speculation. The smallish government-owned Rosneft Oil Company is rumored be the Kremlin's favorite – some of Putin's key aids are on Rosneft's board of directors. The natural gas monopoly Gazprom, government-owned as well, is also thought to be in the running. In the end it does not really matter. Yukos' transformation will essentially create what has been the Kremlin's goal from the advent of this affair: the creation of "KremPEC" (Kremlin Petroleum Export Corporation).

Russia – The International Petroleum Kingpin
"KremPEC" has ambitious international goals. Terrorism threatens oil export giant Saudi Arabia, a barrel of oil hovers around $45 a gallon of gasoline costs up to $2.50 in the United States and far more in Europe, and "weapons of minor destruction" limit the prospect of Iraqi oil significantly impacting international oil markets any time soon.

Add to this situation the fact that energy-hungry China and India are also actively interested in sourcing new and secure energy export markets to support their rapid economic growth.

The Kremlin has also carefully thought out what the future might hold if Saudi Arabia becomes a target of larger and increased terrorist attacks. Without Saudi exports of crude, OPEC would lose its influential powerbroker. Russia, as the largest producer in the world, might rethink its position concerning membership in the international petroleum cartel if Saudi exports were to face long-term risk.

Russia, with OPEC observer status, has flirted with the idea of joining OPEC in the past. However, regaining the former market share of international exports held by the Soviet Union has been the primary goal. With the domestic oil sector soon to be completely under the Kremlin's thumb, that goal is close to becoming a reality.

Additionally, Russia has had little incentive to work closely with OPEC when oil prices are high. However, with future supplies in doubt and prices uncertain, the Kremlin has reason to reconsider its position. Being the world's new energy kingpin most certainly appeals to Putin – intent on returning Russia to its former great power status.

Putin is on top of the world. He is in the process of creating his own oil cartel at home, "KremPEC," and just might land himself the prize of sitting at the very center of international oil politics. Putin also looks forward to a steady cash flow to pay for domestic reforms and fight the poverty so pervasive in Russia.

Russia and The World: A "Win-Win" Scenario
The "Yukos affair" will quickly become part of history and it is doubtful another Kremlin-business confrontation of its nature will occur again. In the wake of this affair, Russia's oil patch will become more secure, attracting international petroleum investment, as well as providing Russia needed cash flow to continue the reform of its economy. Instead of partnering with an oil oligarch, negotiations will take place behind Kremlin walls.

For an energy-hungry world, doing business with "KremPEC" will become almost risk-free and will eventually make OPEC's current hold over world petroleum markets irrelative. OPEC is about to be dethroned with Putin's "KremPEC" as its successor."

No comments: