Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOil is a key factor keeping Australian troops in the US-led war in Iraq, Defense Minister Brendan Nelson said Thursday, before his boss Prime Minister John Howard sharply contradicted him.
Nelson's startling comments caused an immediate stir in Australia, one of the United States' few major allies in the increasingly unpopular war, but Howard quickly backed away from the explosive contention. 
A new defense review had concluded that maintaining "resource security" in the Middle East was a priority, Nelson said in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
"Energy security is extremely important to all nations throughout the world, and of course, in protecting and securing Australia's interests," he said.
"Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq, but the entire region is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world.
"Australians and all of us need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq," Nelson said.
Australia joined the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was said to be aimed at eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, which were never found.
Howard remains a very staunch supporter of Washington's military campaign in Iraq. Australia's deployment currently numbers about 1,575 soldiers.
Nelson also said Australia's main reasons for remaining in Iraq were to prevent violence driven by Al-Qaeda between the Sunni and Shia populations and to help key ally the United States combat terrorism and stabilise the region.
But he contended that safeguarding oil supplies was an important part of bringing stability.
"For all of those reasons, one of which is energy security, it's extremely important that Australia take the view that it's in our interests, our security interests, to make sure that we leave the Middle East, and leave Iraq in particular, in a position of sustainable security," he said.
But Howard swung into damage limitation mode later in the day, strongly denying that either Nelson or he himself had said securing oil supply was a key factor behind his country's contentious involvement in the war in Iraq.
"We're not there because of oil and we didn't go there because of oil, we don't remain there because of oil," he told commercial radio. "Oil is not the reason."
Treasurer Peter Costello also joined in the denial that Australian troops were primarily in Iraq to secure oil supplies.
"We're fighting for something much more important here than oil, this is about democracy and freedom in the Middle East," he told reporters.
Howard had earlier told a conference in Canberra that energy demand was a key reason for helping to develop a stable Middle East.
But he later said it was "stretching it a bit" to conclude that Australia's involvement in Iraq was motivated by oil
He told the conference Australia's presence in the Middle East was central to his government's defense strategy, arguing the country could not afford to wait for threats to reach its shores before taking action.
"Many of the key strategic trends I have mentioned -- including terrorism and extremism, challenging demographics, WMD (weapons of mass destruction) aspirations, energy demand and great-power competition -- converge in the Middle East," he said.
"Our major ally and our most important economic partners have crucial interests there."
The center-left opposition Labor Party, which wants to withdraw Australia's troops from Iraq, accused the government of making contradictory statements on its reasons for being in Iraq.
"This government simply makes it up as it goes along on Iraq," Labor leader Kevin Rudd told reporters.
Howard also ended speculation sparked by a newspaper report that he could announce an Iraq troop withdrawal ahead of national elections due this year.
"Despite the dreadful continuing violence and our frustration at the rate of political progress, the government remains committed to staying in Iraq with our coalition partners until the Iraqi security forces no longer require our support," he said.
"The consequences of western failure and defeat in Iraq are too serious to allow our policy to be dictated by weariness, frustration or political convenience."
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse.
37 Comments so far
Show AllBrad, is it really your view that Western powers invaded Iraq to free the people? This surely wasn't the opinion of the Project for a New American Century: "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
Australian Defense Minister Brendan Nelson said it even better: "Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq ...is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world... Australians ... need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq."
At this point in history, Muslims are facing more persecution than any other religious group: Western powers are backing "democratic" puppet regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan; China is ruthlessly suppressing Uighur Muslims (and also, as you quite rightly say, hindering a resolution to the Darfur conflict); Russia has brought ruin to Chechen Muslims; the security services of Thailand have viciously repressed a Muslim separatist movement; and most obviously, Western powers try to thwart democracy by undermining election results in Algeria, Palestine, etc. and by aggressively propping up brutal dictators like Mubarak, Musharraf, and most recently Khaddafi. Even in their own countries, Muslims are held in bondage by foreign money and weapons.
Also, the Lancet survey of 2006, which estimated 665,000 excess deaths in the wake of the US invasion, noted that 30 per cent of those excess deaths were caused by Americans. Therefore it is inaccurate to say that all the killers in Iraq are "other Muslims."
aymon said:
I have said that many times here that it is the Anglo-American Darkness that is screwing up the world. I would qualify your statement by saying: "only the WHITE English speaking . . ." That is the central problem, namely the old British colonial attitude of carrying unto the "heathen" Orientals the white man's "manifest destiny" which some wag here has been constantly rephrasing as the "manifest insanity".
_____________________________________________________________
This is a very ironic statement. Ironic because the other day I heard a short segment on NPR about american soldiers in Baghdad getting together in a circle and holding hands to give thanks and celebrate the 4th of July. What was so ironic about this is we are consistently joined by Britain in exploiting other defenseless countries.......the same country who we fought against to gain our freedom now joins us in taking the freedom of others. I don't think this irony has even crossed our soldiers minds. This is where lack of wisdom combined with childlike immaturity rears its head. Some people are too lazy to do their own thinking and that being the case, there are many greedy racist frauds in this country who will gladly step in and do it for you. Go figure.
Cordially,
S. Ray DeRusse
www.bccmeteorites.com
Well yeah, as a matter of fact he did.
DOES HOWARD ALSO DENY THAT THE REASON FOR BREATHING IS TO STAY ALIVE?
The moral to this story is...never let a racist, murderous, bonehead speak freely in public, or at least until someone explains to him that genocide in the name of pilfering natural resources is not a nice thing.
Further news - Pope admits he's a Catholic…"
Bears shit in the forest....
Rocking horses have wooden dicks...
And honest John Howard is a lying politician....when his lips are moving....
A slip of the tongue for Defense Minister Brendan Nelson.
Just Google "Peak Oil."
allblue said:
"Further news - Pope admits he's a Catholic…"
right on! that is the "news" worthiness of this "revelation"
karloff1 said:
"It seems that only the English speaking countries are worried about "energy security" and willingly invade other countries to plunder such resources"
I have said that many times here that it is the Anglo-American Darkness that is screwing up the world. I would qualify your statement by saying: "only the WHITE English speaking . . ."
That is the central problem, namely the old British colonial attitude of carrying unto the "heathen" Orientals the white man's "manifest destiny" which some wag here has been constantly rephrasing as the "manifest insanity".
Nelson is a fool. Most of Australia's Oil imports come from SE Asia. This means, economically, Australia's interest isn't primarily in the Middle East. It goes to prove that Australian Government's support of the war is unconsciousness, blind faith to White House rhetoric. This IS important news: the more evidence we have that our leaders are mindless slaves to poor ideas the more it strengthens our resolve to take the responsibility of thinking up for ourselves. An empowered thinking society makes better decisions.
Australia now has a long term history of dubious support to US-led policy of violence. Just look at the violation of sovereignty with Pine Gap Military Base, not to mention it's part to play in weapons of mass killing. This has very little to do with economics, more to do with fear of the US.
This idiocy puts a blemish upon Australia. It's actually one of the most beautiful places in the world, and it's common people, when presented with a real choice, wouldn't support violence. It's a shame the ideology has taken hold politically.
Any opposition leader in Australian politics needs to clearly state a program of withdrawal from all violent involvements, and get on with the real issues. A full public commitment to non-violence would unleash a dormant cultural force, paving the way for more compassionate and relevant policy.
Keep the articles and criticism coming. We need it.
Well who is really surprised? Oil IS the real reason Bush-Cheney & Co. wanted us in Iraq. Secure our oil supply so we can maintain our dominance and standard of living. Let the rest of the world fend for itself, but we will have ours. All the other stuff put forward to justify getting us into this Iraq mess was pure smoke screen!
What does surprise me is how little this is talked about by anyone, even the Progressives. Maybe it touches a place of fear about our oil future in all of us and we really don't want to know about it. To be energy independent and not require mid-east oil is huge. That demands some real change in priorities, policies, and in lifestyle.
I agree with Justin, this doesn't shock any of us. The interesting part is Brendan Nelson blowing the secrecy publicly. I saw Nelson speaking and thought 'you little beautie!!' This is good.
I'd be prepared to bet he was severely slapped after Howard's and Costello's damage control spin.
Yes, Mendo, I also think it's starting to break down. Howard is running by the seat of his pants and making egregious errors of policy on the fly.
I am now 64 years old. Up until my generation, older voters had tended to vote Liberal. We, I think, are different and I don't know that Howard understands that. He's gone.
Mind you, Rudd looks a bit like a younger version of Howard even though he's Labor - I don't think anyone expects much difference in policies - it's hard to in a two party system. That's what is wrong with the Democrats in America and it's becoming pretty apparent.
I am an Australian,living in Sydney,and this "disclosure" of our reasons for being in Iraq/Afganistan shocks no one.John Howard denying this also shocks no one.A large majority of Australians think of Howard as a liar (not unusual in the world of politics),but the stench is becoming worse and with an election due in 3 months is expected to rise.
Hey Folks . . . The fact that a politician said this out loud and on TV means it is beginning to break down . . . I hope.
And China is not going to send any troops into New Jersey. Tony Soprano will stop them . . . .
Oil is the key factor and reason why Bush and Cheney started the war in Iraq, and if Cheney has his way and invades Iran, there is going to be less oil and a lot more atomic waste in the atmosphere.
So colonial, the US has a strategic national interest in some other country's oil! No kidding. No wonder "They hate our freedoms," as Bush is fond of spinning his war.
Imagine China sending a couple hundred thousand troops to invade New Jersey because China decides it has a strategic national interest in the Garden State. And why not?
Certainly its not the oil. Its the summer weather and the fact you have no electrical bills, or maybe the sand?, the social events?, learn a new language?, study law enforcement vs photography?, nude beaches?
What makes it even worse is that Australia's leaders have taken Australia into this immoral war to protect energy security but that is the energy security of the US and not Australia. The war is for US dominance of Iraq oil for itself and not fo anyone else.
Shedding innocent blood in the process of controlling markets and natural resources in other countries (with the rhetoric of promoting democracy and freedom) is, probably, part of their "higher ethical standards".
There is always an economic dimension (i.e. control of markets and natural resources) to the US and the West sponsored wars, civil wars and conflicts. "The ongoing illegal war in Iraq is a perfect example for the link between wars/conflicts, and control of markets and natural resources. The United States of America is pressurizing the Iraqi government to pass a new law on oil and gas. Under the proposed law, Iraq's immense oil reserves would not only be opened to foreign oil exploration, but the executives of the transnational oil companies such as Chevron, Exxon Mobil, British Petroleum and the other Western oil giants would actually be among the board of directors of the new Federal Oil and Gas Council that would control all of Iraq's reserves. The Iraq's own national oil company would become just another competitor. The new law would grant the council virtually all power to develop policies and plans for undeveloped oil fields and to review and change all exploration and production contracts."
It is also known that the recent occupation of Somalia by Ethiopia and the subsequent appointment of Somalia government have been orchestrated by the US. Now the US-backed Somali prime minister wants to pass a new oil law to encourage foreign oil companies to return to Somalia. Royal Dutch Shell, Conoco Phillips, Chevron Corporation once had exploration contracts in Somalia, but the companies left the country in 1991. Salim Lone, a columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya and a former spokesperson for the UN mission in Iraq says: "Somalia itself and the region, the Horn of Africa, is newly oil-rich. Kenya has some oil. Oil is the key to domination for the United States -- global domination, I mean. But it is going about, you know, the wrong way to get that oil. The US is also worried that its welcome in the Middle East is diminishing, and they need to make sure -- both they want to encircle the Middle East with the oil field, and they want to make sure they have Somalia and other countries handy for the oil." www.democracynow.org, 27.4.2007.
A collective "duh" everybody.
Hell, remember the plot to "Three Days of the Condor?" Circa 1975? To invade the Mid East and steal the oil. 1975. Shadow President Cheney meeting with oil men and a map of Iraq before the invasion? Our original "deal" with our Saudi masters?
Australia's just catching up, are they?
It's time to get a grip, folks. Clean, renewable energy is good for the planet and good for world peace. If it weren't for oil and the lack of alternatives, we would not be in Iraq. Where is the world movement for energy independence?
The majority of American energy imports do not even come from the Middle East. See the Department of Energy's website and oil imports by country and region: http://tinyurl.com/cnurj
Alot of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico.
Oil for whom?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0825-03.htm
That's the problem with trying to hide the obvious. It's obvious.
What if Iraq didn't have any oil?
It would have been cheaper for us taxpayers if the oil had just been purchased, but war criminal, war profiteering BushCo wouldn't have made billions of dollars off of peace. The party of war Republicans will always choose war whether it's necessary or not for the military-industrial complex. By the way, when was the last time the U.S. was attacked by a foreign government?
This news is stale. Most people already knew the purpose behind the military adventures of the coalition of the killing. With such a high cost of war in both money and human life, would it not have been cheaper to just buy the oil rather than stealing it?
Shame on all the world leaders who have not publicly condemned the US led invasion/occupation of Iraq! By supporting it, or remaining quiet, they support the worst terrorists on the globe.
Apparently Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, & Iran's President Ahmadinejad are some of a small handful of world leaders who have the insight and courage to speak out against American terrorist politicians, who cleverly cloak their wretched ways with fair words.
=================
"Man must change or die.
There is no other course."
The World Teacher
http://www.share-international.org
zoya--you are incorrect about passage of the "oil bill." Iraq is so clusterfucked its parliament was unable to produce a quorum to vote on or discuss such business as Juan Cole reports in his blog, http://www.juancole.com/
It seems that only the English speaking countries are worried about "energy security" and willingly invade other countries to plunder such resources. Of the many countries facing growing energy problems--mostly in Africa--none have invaded any other country.
Further news - Pope admits he's a Catholic...
Well, now that the BushCo-authored oil bill has been signed by the Malaki government, it only remains for the finishing touches to be put on those US bases and the troops will be outta there. The truth can't hurt now, can it?
D'oh! Somebody told the truth!
... 'no longer require our support.' That means forever.
I would not sacrifice my child for all the economies in the world, but somehow the mothers of Iraq and Afghanistan are expected to do it everyday. Not OK with me.
Scathing criticism gets you nowhere mate. You are either with the lying liars or you against them. Wouldnt be surprised if he has an "accident" soon..........
In the past I have read that according to the law being discussed by the Iraqis, the members of the unelected council that will control the exploration and extraction processes for oil in Iraq are mostly from the international oil companies. Does anyone know if that is part of what is now under discussion or has it been removed?