The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq
A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth
SUMMARY
Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is an oil currency war. The real reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This lengthy essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the `petro-dollar' and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects
what never was and never will be . . . The People cannot
be safe without information. When the press is free, and
every man is able to read, all is safe."
Those words by Thomas Jefferson embody the unfortunate state of affairs that have beset our nation. As our government prepares to go to war with Iraq, our country seems unable to answer even the most basic questions about this war. First, why is there virtually no international support to topple Saddam? If Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program truly possessed the threat level that President Bush has repeatedly purported, why is there no international coalition to militarily disarm Saddam? Secondly, despite over 300 unfettered U.N inspections to date, there has been no evidence reported of a reconstituted Iraqi WMD program. Third, and despite Bush's rhetoric, the CIA has not found any links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. To the contrary, some analysts believe it is far more likely Al Qaeda might acquire an unsecured former Soviet Union Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction, or potentially from sympathizers within a destabilized Pakistan.
Moreover, immediately following Congress's vote on the Iraq Resolution, we suddenly became aware of North Korea's nuclear program violations. Kim Jong Il is processing uranium in order to produce nuclear weapons this year. President Bush has not provided a rationale answer as to why Saddam's seemingly dormant WMD program possesses a more imminent threat that North Korea's active program. Strangely, Donald Rumsfeld suggested that if Saddam were `exiled' we could avoid an Iraq war. Confused yet? Well, I'm going to give their game away -- the core driver for toppling Saddam is actually the euro currency, the [euro dollar symbol].
Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking. The upcoming war in Iraq war is mostly about how the ruling class at Langley and the Bush oligarchy view hydrocarbons at the geo-strategic level, and the overarching macroeconomic threats to the U.S. dollar from the euro. The Real Reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves.
This lengthy essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the `petro-dollar' and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The following is how an astute and anonymous friend alluded to the unspoken truth about this upcoming war with Iraq:
"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC
will switch its international transactions from a dollar
standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this
switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 80
cents), and has actually made off like a bandit
considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the
euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in
2002.)
"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet
government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason
why the corporate-military-industrial network
conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so
that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay
that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC
momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the
2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a
switch to euros for its oil exports)."
Furthermore, despite Saudi Arabia being our `client state,' the Saudi regime appears increasingly weak/ threatened from massive civil unrest. Some analysts believe a `Saudi Revolution' might be plausible in the aftermath of an unpopular U.S. invasion of Iraq (ie. Iran circa 1979) [1]. Undoubtedly, the Bush administration is acutely aware of these risks. Hence, the neo-conservative framework entails a large and permanent military presence in the Persian Gulf region in a post Saddam era, just in case we need to surround and grab Saudi's oil fields in the event of a coup by an anti-western group. But first back to Iraq.
"Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the
euro in late 2000 (and later converted his $10 billion
reserve fund at the U.N. to euros) -- at that point,
another manufactured Gulf War become inevitable under
Bush II. Only the most extreme circumstances could
possibly stop that now and I strongly doubt anything can
-- short of Saddam getting replaced with a pliant
regime.
"Big Picture Perspective: Everything else aside from the
reserve currency and the Saudi/Iran oil issues (i.e.
domestic political issues and international criticism)
is peripheral and of marginal consequence to this
administration. Further, the dollar-euro threat is
powerful enough that they will rather risk much of the
economic backlash in the short-term to stave off the
long-term dollar crash of an OPEC transaction standard
change from dollars to euros. All of this fits into the
broader Great Game that encompasses Russia, India,
China."
This information about Iraq's oil currency is censored by the U.S. media and the Bush administration as the truth could potentially curtail both investor and consumer confidence, reduce consumer borrowing/spending, create political pressure to form a new energy policy that slowly weans us off middle-eastern oil, and of course stop our march towards war in Iraq. This quasi `state secret' can be found on a Radio Free Europe article discussing Saddam's switch for his oil sales from dollars to the euros on Nov. 6, 2000:
"Baghdad's switch from the dollar to the euro for oil
trading is intended to rebuke Washington's hard-line on
sanctions and encourage Europeans to challenge it. But
the political message will cost Iraq millions in lost
revenue. RFE/RL correspondent Charles Recknagel looks at
what Baghdad will gain and lose, and the impact of the
decision to go with the European currency." [2]
At the time of the switch many analysts were surprised that Saddam was willing to give up millions in oil revenue for what appeared to be a political statement. However, contrary to one of the main points of this November 2000 article, the steady depreciation of the dollar versus the euro since late 2001 means that Iraq has profited handsomely from the switch in their reserve and transaction currencies. The euro has gained roughly 17% against the dollar in that time, which also applies to the $10 billion in Iraq's U.N. `oil for food' reserve fund that was previously held in dollars has also gained that same percent value since the switch. What would happen if OPEC made a sudden switch to euros, as opposed to a gradual transition?
"Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro
would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush
dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and
replace these with euros. The dollar would crash
anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would
be those one could expect from any currency collapse and
massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for
example). You'd have foreign funds stream out of the
U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets,
there'd surely be a run on the banks much like the
1930s, the current account deficit would become
unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default,
and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis
scenario.
"The United States economy is intimately tied to the
dollar's role as reserve currency. This doesn't mean
that the U.S. couldn't function otherwise, but that the
transition would have to be gradual to avoid such
dislocations (and the ultimate result of this would
probably be the U.S. and the E.U. switching roles in the
global economy)."
In the aftermath of toppling Saddam it is clear the U.S. will keep a large and permanent military force in the Persian Gulf. Indeed, there is no `exit strategy' in Iraq, as the military will be needed to protect the newly installed Iraqi regime, and perhaps send a message to other OPEC producers that they might receive `regime change' if they convert their oil exports to the euro.
Another underreported story from this summer related to another OPEC `Axis of Evil' country, Iran, who is vacillating on the euro issue.
"Iran's proposal to receive payments for crude oil sales
to Europe in euros instead of U.S. dollars is based
primarily on economics, Iranian and industry sources
said.
"But politics are still likely to be a factor in any
decision, they said, as Iran uses the opportunity to hit
back at the U.S. government, which recently labeled it
part of an `axis of evil.`
"The proposal, which is now being reviewed by the
Central Bank of Iran, is likely to be approved if
presented to the country's parliament, a parliamentary
representative said.
"`There is a very good chance MPs will agree to this
idea . . . now that the euro is stronger, it is more
logical,' the parliamentary representative said." [3]
Moreover, and perhaps most telling, during 2002 the majority of reserve funds in Iran's central bank have been shifted to euros. It appears imminent that Iran intends to switch to euros for their oil currency.
"More than half of the country's assets in the Forex
Reserve Fund have been converted to euro, a member of
the Parliament Development Commission, Mohammad
Abasspour announced. He noted that higher parity rate of
euro against the US dollar will give the Asian
countries, particularly oil exporters, a chance to usher
in a new chapter in ties with European Union's member
countries.
"He said that the United States dominates other
countries through its currency, noting that given the
superiority of the dollar against other hard currencies,
the US monopolizes global trade. The lawmaker expressed
hope that the competition between euro and dollar would
eliminate the monopoly in global trade." [4]
After toppling Saddam, this administration may decide that Iran's disloyalty to the dollar qualifies them as the next target in the `war on terror.' Iran's interest in switching to the euro as their currency for oil exports is well documented. Perhaps this MSNBC article alludes to the objectives of neo-conservatives.
"While still wrangling over how to overthrow Iraq's
Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration is already
looking for other targets. President Bush has called for
the ouster of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. Now some
in the administration -- and allies at D.C. think tanks
-- are eyeing Iran and even Saudi Arabia. As one senior
British official put it: `Everyone wants to go to
Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.'" [5]
Aside from these political risks regarding Saudi Arabia and Iran, another risk factor is actually Japan. Perhaps the biggest gamble in a protracted Iraq war may be Japan's weak economy. [6] If the war creates prolonged oil high prices ($45 per barrel over several months), or a short but massive oil price spike ($80 to $100 per barrel), some analysts believe Japan's fragile economy would collapse. Japan is quite hypersensitive to oil prices, and if its banks default, the collapse of the second largest economy would set in motion a sequence of events that would prove devastating to the U.S. economy. Indeed, Japan's fall in an Iraq war could create the economic dislocations that begin in the Pacific Rim but quickly spread to Europe and Russia. The Russian government lacks the controls to thwart a disorderly run on the dollar, and such an event could ultimately force an OPEC switch to euros.
Additionally, other risks might arise if the Iraq war goes poorly or becomes prolonged. It is possible that civil unrest may unfold in Kuwait or other OPEC members including Venezuela, as the latter may switch to euros just as Saddam did in November 2000. This would foster the very situation this administration is trying to prevent: another OPEC member switching to euros as their oil transaction currency.
Incidentally, the final `Axis of Evil' country, North Korea, recently decided to officially drop the dollar and begin using euros for trade, effective Dec. 7, 2002. [7] Unlike the OPEC-producers, North Korea's switch will have negligible economic impact, but it illustrates the geopolitical fallout of Bush's harsh rhetoric. Much more troubling are North Korea's recent actions following the oil embargo of their country. They are in dire need of oil and food; and in an act of desperation they have re-activated their pre-1994 nuclear program. Processing uranium appears to be taking place at a rapid pace, and it appears their strategy is to prompt negotiations with the U.S. regarding food and oil. The CIA estimates that North Korea could produce 4-6 nuclear weapons by the second half of 2003. Ironically, this crisis over North Korea's nuclear program further confirms the fraudulent premise for which this war with Saddam was entirely contrived.
Unfortunately, neo-conservatives such as George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle fail to grasp that Newton's Law applies equally to both physics and the geo-political sphere as well: "For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction."
During the 1990s the world viewed the U.S. as a rather self-absorbed but essentially benevolent superpower. Military actions in Iraq (1990-91 & 1998), Serbia and Kosovo (1999) were undertaken with both U.N. and NATO cooperation and thus afforded international legitimacy. President Clinton also worked to reduce tensions in Northern Ireland and attempted to negotiate a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
However, in both the pre and post 9/11 intervals, the `America first' policies of the Bush administration, with its unwillingness to honor International Treaties, along with their aggressive militarisation of foreign policy, has significantly damaged our reputation abroad. Following 9/11, it appears that President Bush's `warmongering rhetoric' has created global tensions -- as we are now viewed as a belligerent superpower willing to apply unilateral military force without U.N. approval.
Lamentably, the tremendous amount of international sympathy that we witnessed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th tragedy has been replaced with fear and anger at our government. This administration's bellicosity has changed the worldview, and `anti-Americanism' is proliferating even among our closest allies. [8]
Even more alarming, and completely unreported in the U.S media, are some monetary shifts in the reserve funds of foreign governments away from the dollar with movements towards the euro. [9] It appears that the world community may lack faith in the Bush administration's economic policies, and along with OPEC, seems poised to respond with economic retribution if the U.S. government is regarded as an uncontrollable and dangerous superpower. The plausibility of abandoning the dollar standard for the euro is growing. An interesting U.K. article by Hazel Henderson outlines the dynamics and the potential outcomes:
The most likely end to US hegemony may come about
through a combination of high oil prices (brought about
by US foreign policies toward the Middle East) and
deeper devaluation of the US dollar (expected by many
economists). Some elements of this scenario:
- US global over-reach in the `war on terrorism' already leading to deficits as far as the eye can see -- combined with historically-high US trade deficits -- lead to a further run on the dollar. This and the stock market doldrums make the US less attractive to the world's capital.
- More developing countries follow the lead of Venezuela and China in diversifying their currency reserves away from dollars and balanced with euros. Such a shift in dollar-euro holdings in Latin America and Asia could keep the dollar and euro close to parity.
- OPEC could act on some of its internal discussions and decide (after concerted buying of euros in the open market) to announce at a future meeting in Vienna that OPEC's oil will be re-denominated in euros, or even a new oil-backed currency of their own. A US attack on Iraq sends oil to [euro dollar symbol] 40 (euros) per barrel.
- The Bush Administration's efforts to control the domestic political agenda backfires. Damage over the intelligence failures prior to 9/11 and warnings of imminent new terrorist attacks precipitate a further stock market slide.
- All efforts by Democrats and the 57% of the US public to shift energy policy toward renewables, efficiency, standards, higher gas taxes, etc. are blocked by the Bush Administration and its fossil fuel industry supporters. Thus, the USA remains vulnerable to energy supply and price shocks.
- The EU recognizes its own economic and political power as the euro rises further and becomes the world's other reserve currency. The G-8 pegs the euro and dollar into a trading band -- removing these two powerful currencies from speculators trading screens (a "win-win" for everyone!). Tony Blair persuades Brits of this larger reason for the UK to join the euro.
- Developing countries lacking dollars or "hard" currencies follow Venezuela's lead and begin bartering their undervalued commodities directly with each other in computerized swaps and counter trade deals. President Chavez has inked 13 such country barter deals on its oil, e.g., with Cuba in exchange for Cuban health paramedics who are setting up clinics in rural Venezuelan villages.
The result of this scenario? The USA could no longer run
its huge current account trade deficits or continue to
wage open-ended global war on terrorism or evil. The USA
ceases pursuing unilateralist policies. A new US
administration begins to return to its multilateralist
tradition, ceases its obstruction and rejoins the UN and
pursues more realistic international cooperation. [10]
As for the events currently taking place in Venezuela, items #2 and #7 on the above list may allude to why the Bush administration quickly endorsed the failed military-led coup of Hugo Chavez in April 2002. Although the coup collapsed after 2 days, various reports suggest the CIA and a rather embarrassed Bush administration approved and may have been actively involved with the civilian/military coup plotters.
"George W. Bush's administration was the failed coup's
primary loser, underscoring its bankrupt hemispheric
policy. Now it is slowly filtering out that in recent
months White House officials met with key coup figures,
including Carmona. Although the administration insists
that it explicitly objected to any extra-constitutional
action to remove Chavez, comments by senior U.S.
officials did little to convey this. . . .
"The CIA's role in a 1971 Chilean strike could have
served as the working model for generating economic and
social instability in order to topple Chavez. In the
truckers' strike of that year, the agency secretly
orchestrated and financed the artificial prolongation of
a contrived work stoppage in order to economically
asphyxiate the leftist Salvador Allende government.
"This scenario would have had CIA operatives acting in
liaison with the Venezuelan military, as well as with
opposition business and labor leaders, to convert a
relatively minor afternoon-long work stoppage by senior
management into a nearly successful coup de grâce." [11]
Interestingly, according to an article by Michael Ruppert, Venezuelan's ambassador Francisco Mieres-Lopez apparently floated the idea of switching to the euro as their oil currency standard approximately one year before the failed coup attempt. Furthermore, there is evidence that the CIA is still active in its attempts to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez administration. In fact, this past December a Uruguayan government official exposed the ongoing covert CIA operations in Venezuela:
"Uruguayan EP-FA congressman Jose Nayardi says he has
information that far-reaching plan have been put into
place by the CIA and other North American intelligence
agencies to overthrow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
Frias within the next 72 hours. . . .
Nayardi says he has received copies of top-secret
communications between the Bush administration in
Washington and the government of Uruguay requesting the
latter's cooperation to support white collar executives
and trade union activists to `break down levels of
intransigence within the Chavez Frias
administration.'" [12]
Venezuela is the fourth largest producer of oil, and the corporate elites whose political power runs unfettered in the Bush/Cheney oligarchy appear interested in privatizing Venezuela's oil industry. Furthermore, the establishment might be concerned that Chavez's `barter deals' with 12 Latin American countries and Cuba are effectively cutting the U.S. dollar out of the vital oil transaction currency cycle. Commodities are being traded among these countries in exchange for Venezuela's oil, thereby reducing reliance on fiat dollars. If these unique oil transactions proliferate, they could create more devaluation pressure on the dollar. Continuing attempts by the CIA to remove Hugo Chavez appear likely.
The U.S. economy has acquired significant structural imbalances, including our record-high trade account deficit (now almost 5% of GDP), a $6.3 trillion dollar deficit (60% of GDP), and the recent return to annual budget deficits in the hundreds of billions. These are factors that would devalue the currency of any nation under the `old rules.' Why is the dollar still predominant despite these structural flaws? The elites understand that the strength of the dollar does not merely rest on our economic output per se. The dollar posses two unique advantages relative to all other hard currencies.
The reality is that the strength of the dollar since 1945 rests on its being the international reserve currency. Thus it assumes the role of fiat currency for global oil transactions (ie. `petro-dollar'). The U.S. prints hundreds of billions of these fiat petro-dollars, which are then used by nation states to purchase oil/energy from OPEC producers (except Iraq, to some degree Venezuela, and perhaps Iran in the near future). These petro-dollars are then re-cycled from OPEC back into the U.S. via Treasury Bills or other dollar-denominated assets such as U.S. stocks, real estate, etc.
The `old rules' for valuation of our currency and economic power were based on our flexible market, free flow of trade goods, high per worker productivity, manufacturing output/trade surpluses, government oversight of accounting methodologies (ie. SEC), developed infrastructure, education system, and of course total cash flow and profitability. While many of these factors remain present, over the last two decades we have diluted some of these `safe harbor' fundamentals. Despite vast imbalances and structural problems that are escalating within the U.S. economy, the dollar as the fiat oil currency created `new rules'. The following excerpts from an Asia Times article discusses the virtues of our fiat oil currency and dollar hegemony (or vices from the perspective of developing nations, whose debt is denominated in dollars).
"Ever since 1971, when US president Richard Nixon took
the dollar off the gold standard (at $35 per ounce) that
had been agreed to at the Bretton Woods Conference at
the end of World War II, the dollar has been a global
monetary instrument that the United States, and only the
United States, can produce by fiat. The dollar, now a
fiat currency, is at a 16-year trade-weighted high
despite record US current-account deficits and the
status of the US as the leading debtor nation. The US
national debt as of April 4 was $6.021 trillion against
a gross domestic product (GDP) of $9 trillion.
"World trade is now a game in which the US produces
dollars and the rest of the world produces things that
dollars can buy. The world's interlinked economies no
longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they
compete in exports to capture needed dollars to service
dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate
dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their
domestic currencies. To prevent speculative and
manipulative attacks on their currencies, the world's
central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in
corresponding amounts to their currencies in
circulation. The higher the market pressure to devalue a
particular currency, the more dollar reserves its
central bank must hold. This creates a built-in support
for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's
central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves,
making it stronger. This phenomenon is known as dollar
hegemony, which is created by the geopolitically
constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most
notably oil, are denominated in dollars. Everyone
accepts dollars because dollars can buy oil. The
recycling of petro-dollars is the price the US has
extracted from oil-producing countries for US tolerance
of the oil-exporting cartel since 1973.
"By definition, dollar reserves must be invested in US
assets, creating a capital-accounts surplus for the US
economy. Even after a year of sharp correction, US stock
valuation is still at a 25-year high and trading at a 56
percent premium compared with emerging markets.
". . . The US capital-account surplus in turn finances
the US trade deficit. Moreover, any asset, regardless of
location, that is denominated in dollars is a US asset
in essence. When oil is denominated in dollars through
US state action and the dollar is a fiat currency, the
US essentially owns the world's oil for free. And the
more the US prints greenbacks, the higher the price of
US assets will rise. Thus a strong-dollar policy gives
the US a double win." [13]
This unique geo-political agreement with Saudi Arabia in 1973 has worked to our favor for the past 30 years, as this arrangement has raised the entire asset value of all dollar denominated assets/properties, and allowed the Federal Reserve to create a truly massive debt and credit expansion (or `credit bubble' in the view of some economists). These structural imbalances in the U.S. economy are sustainable as long as:
- nations continue to demand and purchase oil for their energy/survival needs, and
- the fiat reserve currency for global oil transactions remain the U.S. dollar (and dollar only).
These underlying factors, along with the `safe harbor' reputation of U.S. investments afforded by the dollar's reserve currency status propelled the U.S. to economic and military hegemony in the post-World War II period. However, the introduction of the euro is a significant new factor, and appears to be the primary threat to U.S. economic hegemony. Moreover, in December 2002 ten additional countries were approved for full membership into the E.U. In 2004 this will result in an aggregate GDP of $9.6 trillion and 450 million people, directly competing with the U.S. economy ($10.5 trillion GDP, 280 million people).
Especially interesting is a speech given by Mr Javad Yarjani, the Head of OPEC's Petroleum Market Analysis Department, in a visit to Spain in April 2002. His speech dealt entirely with the subject of OPEC oil transaction currency standard with respect to both the dollar and the euro. The following excerpts from this OPEC executive provide insights into the conditions that would create momentum for an OPEC currency switch to the euro. Indeed, his candid analysis warrants careful consideration given that two of the requisite variables he outlines for the switch have taken place since this speech in Spring 2002. These vital stories are discussed in the European media, but have been censored by our own mass media.
". . . The question that comes to mind is whether the
euro will establish itself in world financial markets,
thus challenging the supremacy of the US dollar, and
consequently trigger a change in the dollar's dominance
in oil markets. As we all know, the mighty dollar has
reigned supreme since 1945, and in the last few years
has even gained more ground with the economic dominance
of the United States, a situation that may not change in
the near future. By the late 90s, more than four-fifths
of all foreign exchange transactions, and half of all
world exports, were denominated in dollars. In addition,
the US currency accounts for about two thirds of all
official exchange reserves. The world's dependency on US
dollars to pay for trade has seen countries bound to
dollar reserves, which are disproportionably higher than
America's share in global output. The share of the
dollar in the denomination of world trade is also much
higher than the share of the US in world trade.
"Having said that, it is worthwhile to note that in the
long run the euro is not at such a disadvantage versus
the dollar when one compares the relative sizes of the
economies involved, especially given the EU enlargement
plans. Moreover, the Euro-zone has a bigger share of
global trade than the US and while the US has a huge
current account deficit, the euro area has a more, or
balanced, external accounts position. One of the more
compelling arguments for keeping oil pricing and
payments in dollars has been that the US remains a large
importer of oil, despite being a substantial crude
producer itself. However, looking at the statistics of
crude oil exports, one notes that the Euro-zone is an
even larger importer of oil and petroleum products than
the US. . . .
". . . From the EU's point of view, it is clear that
Europe would prefer to see payments for oil shift from
the dollar to the euro, which effectively removed the
currency risk. It would also increase demand for the
euro and thus help raise its value. Moreover, since oil
is such an important commodity in global trade, in term
of value, if pricing were to shift to the euro, it could
provide a boost to the global acceptability of the
single currency. There is also very strong trade links
between OPEC Member Countries (MCs) and the Euro-zone,
with more than 45 percent of total merchandise imports
of OPEC MCs coming from the countries of the Euro-zone,
while OPEC MCs are main suppliers of oil and crude oil
products to Europe. . . .
"Of major importance to the ultimate success of the
euro, in terms of the oil pricing, will be if Europe's
two major oil producers -- the United Kingdom and Norway
join the single currency. Naturally, the future
integration of these two countries into the Euro-zone
and Europe will be important considering they are the
region's two major oil producers in the North Sea, which
is home to the international crude oil benchmark, Brent.
This might create a momentum to shift the oil pricing
system to euros. . . .
"In the short-term, OPEC MCs, with possibly a few
exceptions, are expected to continue to accept payment
in dollars. Nevertheless, I believe that OPEC will not
discount entirely the possibility of adopting euro
pricing and payments in the future. The Organization,
like many other financial houses at present, is also
assessing how the euro will settle into its life as a
new currency. The critical question for market players
is the overall value and stability of the euro, and
whether other countries within the Union will adopt the
single currency.
". . . Should the euro challenge the dollar in strength,
which essentially could include it in the denomination
of the oil bill, it could be that a system may emerge
which benefits more countries in the long-term. Perhaps
with increased European integration and a strong
European economy, this may become a reality. Time may be
on your side. I wish the euro every success." [14]
Based on this important speech, momentum for OPEC to consider switching to the euro will grow once the E.U. expands in May 2004 to 450 million people with the inclusion of 10 additional member states. The aggregate GDP will increase from $7 trillion to $9.6 trillion. This enlarged European Union (EU) will be an oil consuming purchasing population 33% larger than the U.S., and over half of OPEC crude oil will be sold to the EU as of mid-2004. This does not include other potential E.U./euro entrants such as the U.K., Norway, Denmark and Sweden. It should be noted that since late 2002, the euro has been trading at parity or above the dollar, and analysts predict the dollar will continue its downward trending in 2003 relative to the euro.
It appears the final two pivotal items that would create the OPEC transition to euros will be based on (1) if and when Norway's Brent crude is re-dominated in euros and (2) when the U.K. adopts the euro. Regarding the later, Tony Blair is lobbying heavily for the U.K. to adopt the euro, and their adoption would seem imminent within this decade. If and when the U.K. adopts the euro currency I suspect a concerted effort will be quickly mounted to establish the euro as an international reserve currency. Again, I offer the following information from my astute acquaintance who analyzes these monetary matters very carefully:
"The pivotal vote will probably be Sweden, where
approval this next autumn of adopting the euro also
would give momentum to the Danish government's strong
desire to follow suit. Polls in Denmark now indicate
that the euro would pass with a comfortable margin and
Norwegian polls show a growing majority in favor of EU
membership. Indeed, with Norway having already
integrated most EU economic directives through the EEA
partnership and with their strongly appreciated
currency, their accession to the euro would not only be
effortless, but of great economic benefit.
"As go the Swedes, so probably will go the Danes &
Norwegians. It's the British who are the real obstacle
to building momentum for the euro as international
transaction & reserve currency. So long as the United
Kingdom remains apart from the euro, reducing exchange
rate costs between the euro and the British pound
remains their obvious priority. British adoption (a
near-given in the long run) would mount significant
pressure toward repegging the Brent crude benchmark --
which is traded on the International Petroleum Exchange
in London -- and the Norwegians would certainly have no
objection whatsoever that I can think of, whether or not
they join the European Union.
"Finally, the maneuvers toward reducing the global
dominance of the dollar are already well underway and
have only reason to accelerate so far as I can see. An
OPEC pricing shift would seem rather unlikely prior 2004
-- barring political motivations (ie. from anxious OPEC
members) or a disorderly collapse of the dollar (ie.
Japanese bank collapse due to high oil prices following
a prolonged Iraq conflict) but appears quite viable to
take place before the end of the decade."
In other words, around 2005, from a purely economic and monetary perspective, it will be logical for OPEC to switch to the euro for oil pricing. Of course that will devalue the dollar, and hurt the US economy unless it begins making some structural changes -- or use its massive military power to force events upon OPEC . . . Facing these potentialities, I hypothesize that President Bush intends to topple Saddam in 2003 in a pre-emptive attempt to initiate massive Iraqi oil production in far excess of OPEC quotas, to reduce global oil prices, and thereby dismantle OPEC's price controls. The end-goal of the neo-conservatives is incredibly bold yet simple in purpose, to use the `war on terror' as the premise to finally dissolve OPEC's decision-making process, thus ultimately preventing the cartel's inevitable switch to pricing oil in euros.
How would the Bush administration break-up the OPEC cartel's price controls in a post-Saddam Iraq? First, the newly installed regime (apparently a U.S. General) will convert Iraq back to the dollar standard. Next, with the U.S. military protecting the oil fields, the new ruling junta will undertake the necessary steps to rapidly increase production of Iraq oil -- well beyond OPEC's 2 million barrel per day quota.
Dr. Nayyer Ali offers a succinct analysis of how Iraq's underutilized oil reserves will not be a `profit-maker' for the U.S. government, but it will serve as the crucial economic instrument to leverage and dissolve OPEC's price controls, thus fulfilling the long sought-after goal of the neo-conservatives to disband OPEC:
". . . Despite this vast pool of oil, Iraq has never
produced at a level proportionate to the reserve base.
Since the Gulf War, Iraq¹s production has been limited
by sanctions and allowed sales under the oil for food
program (by which Iraq has sold 60 billion dollars worth
of oil over the last 5 years) and what else can be
smuggled out. This amounts to less than 1 billion
barrels per year. If Iraq were reintegrated into the
world economy, it could allow massive investment in its
oil sector and boost output to 2.5 billion barrels per
year, or about 7 million barrels a day.
"Total world oil production is about 75 million barrels,
and OPEC combined produces about 25 million barrels.
"What would be the consequences of this? There are two
obvious things.
"First would be the collapse of OPEC, whose strategy of
limiting production to maximize price will have finally
reached its limit. An Iraq that can produce that much
oil will want to do so, and will not allow OPEC to limit
it to 2 million barrels per day. If Iraq busts its
quota, then who in OPEC will give up 5 million barrels
of production? No one could afford to, and OPEC would
die. This would lead to the second major consequence,
which is a collapse in the price of oil to the 10-dollar
range per barrel. The world currently uses 25 billion
barrels per year, so a 15-dollar drop will save
oil-consuming nations 375 billion dollars in crude oil
costs every year.
". . . The Iraq war is not a moneymaker. But it could be
an OPEC breaker. That however is a long-term outcome
that will require Iraq to be successfully reconstituted
into a functioning state in which massive oil sector
investment can take place." [15]
The American people are largely oblivious to the economic risks regarding President Bush's upcoming war. Not only is Japan's weakened economy at grave risk from a spike in oil prices, but additional risks relate to Iran and Venezuela as well, either of whom could move to the euros, thus providing further momentum for OPEC to act on their `internal discussions' and switch to the euro as their new oil currency. The Bush administration believes that by toppling Saddam they will remove the juggernaut, thus allowing the US to control Iraqi's huge oil reserves, and finally break-up and dissolve the 10 remaining countries in OPEC.
This last issue is undoubtedly a significant gamble even in the best-case scenario of a quick and relatively painless war that topples Saddam and leaves Iraq's oil fields intact. Undoubtedly, the OPEC cartel could feel threatened by the goal of the neo-conservatives to break-up OPEC's price controls ($22-$28 per barrel). Perhaps the Bush administration's ambitious goal of flooding the oil market with Iraqi crude may work, but I have doubts. Will OPEC simply tolerate quota-busting Iraqi oil production, thus delivering to them a lesson in self-inflicted hara-kiri (suicide)? Contrarily, OPEC could meet in Vienna and in an act of self-preservation re-denominate the oil currency to the euro. Such a decision would mark the end of U.S. dollar hegemony, and thus the end of our precarious economic superpower status. Again, I offer the astute analysis of my expert friend regarding the colossal gamble this administration is about to undertake:
"One of the dirty little secrets of today's
international order is that the rest of the globe could
topple the United States from its hegemonic status
whenever they so choose with a concerted abandonment of
the dollar standard. This is America's preeminent,
inescapable Achilles Heel for now and the foreseeable
future.
"That such a course hasn't been pursued to date bears
more relation to the fact that other Westernized, highly
developed nations haven't any interest to undergo the
great disruptions which would follow -- but it could
assuredly take place in the event that the consensus
view coalesces of the United States as any sort of
`rogue' nation. In other words, if the dangers of
American global hegemony are ever perceived as a greater
liability than the dangers of toppling the international
order (or, alternately, if an `every man for himself'
crisis as discussed above spirals out of control and
forces their hand). The Bush administration and the
neo-conservative movement has set out on a
multiple-front course to ensure that this cannot take
place, in brief by a graduated assertion of military
hegemony atop the existent economic hegemony.
Regrettably, under this administration we have returned to massive deficit spending, and the lack of strong SEC enforcement has further eroded investor confidence. Indeed, the flawed economic and tax policies and of the Bush administration may be exacerbating the weakness of the dollar, if not outright accelerating some countries to diversify their central bank reserve funds with euros as an alternative to the dollar. From a foreign policy perspective, the terminations of numerous international treaties and disdain for international cooperation via the U.N. and NATO have angered even our closest allies.
