>>Mike, it was French, Dutch and American oil companies that owned the Iraq Petroleum Company when Saddam nationalized it in 1972, so it (the oil) could be said to belong to those companies.<<
I would say that the reserves of oil under Iraqi territory (and very close to the surface, as you mentioned) belong not to the IPQ but to the state. Hey, I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that a company that extracts/exploits the mineral wealth does not necessarily own the untapped reserves. >>Just before Saddam nationalized it, the Western oil companies had discovered new fields which Saddam hasn't developed. The oil companies believe these fields could yield even more oil than Saudi Arabia, and it apparently has low lifting costs because it's near the surface. They believe Iraq could be producing 8 million barrels a day within 4 years, which will pay for the country to be rebuilt.<< I would say *could* pay for the country to be rebuilt, rather than *will*. >>So long as Iraq benefits, does it matter who owns the country's oil company?<< I would say, YES, it is important. The history of the 'pillage of a continent' (Galeano's words describing the west's exploitation of Latin America's wealth) shows that ownership, or rather lack of ownership, is a crucial element in the success or failure of a country's economy. Countries that own their own resources can reinvest them in education, health, transport, etc, while colonial (and neo-colonial) ownership was/is concerned only about taking the profits and using them in the homeland, not the imperial outposts. Look at Spain and Portugal's 'rape' of Peru, Argentina, Cuba, Bolivia Brazil etc. In all cases the enormous profits (truly enormous) were sent to Europe. In contrast, the USA's wealth was continually reinvested in the USA and the difference is obvious. A colonial mentality and a settler mentality are totally different. I think it is very important for the Iraqi people to control their oil, politically and economically. >>Perhaps you're arguing that privatization is always a bad thing, but I would say experience doesn't bear that out, and that privatized companies tend to perform better than nationalized ones.<< I didn't say anything about privatisation, although I agree with your statement. But private ownership need not mean Western companies dividing up the spoils. >>I don't agree that there's real poverty in the UK - there's social alienation in the sense that many people don't have access to things that other people take for granted, but it's relative, whereas the poverty in Iraq is absolute. << I assume that your reference to the UK means that you accept my other three examples? >>...where children die for the want of clean water while Saddam Hussein builds dozens of new palaces, one of them the size of central London.<< The size of central London? How many square miles are we talking here? Cheers, mike
