The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
The Guardian, as far as I can tell, took this quote entirely out of
context. What Wolfowitz was really saying was that Iraq's oil meant that
economic pressure (i.e. sanctions) didn't work, but that he thought they
would against North Korea because it's already on the verge of economic
collapse.
This I find even more worrying than him claiming the war is about oil. I
wonder if Wolfowitz has even thought about what sanctions do to a
country?
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 Noasalira@aol.com wrote:
>
> [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html
>
> 4.30pm update
>
> Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil
>
> George Wright
> Wednesday June 4, 2003
> The Guardian
>
> Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a
> leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears
> of those opposed to the US-led war.
>
> The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already
> undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction
> (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has
> now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is
> "swimming" in oil.
>
> The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to
> delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the
> weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel
> and Die Welt.
>
> Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated
> differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass
> destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said:
> "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between
> North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice
> in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
>
> Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that
> the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions
> between North Korea and its neighbours - in contrast to the more
> belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its
> dealings with Iraq.
>
> His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an
> interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for
> reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy,
> we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons
> of mass destruction."
>
> Prior to that, his boss, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had
> already undermined the British government's position by saying
> Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the
> war.
>
> Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of oil could
> not come at a worse time for the US and UK governments, which are
> both facing fierce criticism at home and abroad over allegations
> that they exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order
> to justify the war.
>
> Amid growing calls from all parties for a public inquiry, the
> foreign affairs select committee announced last night it would
> investigate claims that the UK government misled the country over
> its evidence of Iraq's WMD.
>
> The move is a major setback for Tony Blair, who had hoped to
> contain any inquiry within the intelligence and security
> committee, which meets in secret and reports to the prime
> minister.
>
> In the US, the failure to find solid proof of chemical,
> biological and nuclear arms in Iraq has raised similar concerns
> over Mr Bush's justification for the war and prompted calls for
> congressional investigations.
>
> Mr Wolfowitz is viewed as one of the most hawkish members of the
> Bush administration. The 57-year old expert in international
> relations was a strong advocate of military action against
> Afghanistan and Iraq.
>
> Following the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade
> Centre and Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz pledged that the US would
> pursue terrorists and "end" states' harbouring or sponsoring of
> militants.
>
> Prior to his appointment to the Bush cabinet in February 2001, Mr
> Wolfowitz was dean and professor of international relations at
> the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS),
> of the Johns Hopkins University.
>
> Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
> To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
> To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
> All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk
>
------------
Daniel O'Huiginn
do227@cam.ac.uk
07789 260207 01223 564613
O9, Queens College
------------
"what you are giving the Iraqi interim authority in 2003 is far less than
you gave the Iraqi government when you occupied Iraq in 1920"
Ahmed Chalabi
_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk