This video from the USA says about itself:
19 March 2010
The Guardian of London is reporting former Prime Minister Tony Blair has received payments from a South Korean oil firm with extensive oil interests in the US and Iraq. The company, UI Energy Corporation, hired Blair around the same time its Iraqi consortium struck a controversial oil deal with the autonomous Kurdish government. Blair denies his dealings with the company were linked to Iraq. His dealings with UI Energy were kept under wraps for twenty months after Blair convinced a British government committee it should be kept secret due to market sensitivities.
From daily The Independent in Britain:
Intervention in civil wars ‘far more likely in oil-rich nations’
‘Once Isis got near oil fields, the US sent drones to strike targets’
Tom Bawden, environment editor
Wednesday 28 January 2015
Conspiracy theorists have long insisted that modern wars revolve around oil.
Conspiracy theorists? Come on, Tom! Conspiracy theorists believe that wars, and everything else, are caused by some mysterious Jewish world conspiracy. Or by some ‘Eurabia‘ conspiracy between Muslims and Europeans. Or by green lizards from outer space. Etc.
This 2007 video from the USA is called “The Iraq War is largely about OIL.” – Alan Greenspan [George W Bush’s economic ‘czar’].
This May 2008 video from the USA says about itself:
John ‘100 years’ McCain admits Iraq war really about OIL.
This July 2007 video from Australia is called [Australian pro-war] Government admits oil is the reason for war in Iraq.
Critical analysts of war propaganda have pointed out that oil very often is a major factor in today’s wars; often intertwined with mining interests, interests of the armaments industry, of mercenary corporations like Blackwater, of bureaucracies like the CIA and Pentagon, etc. In the case of Iraq, apart from Iraqi oil, there was the fear in the Bush administration that their Saudi royal allies might be in danger. If Iraq would be controlled by United States armed forces, then it would be easier to come to the aid of the Saudi monarchy in case of revolution.
Now research suggests hydrocarbons play an even bigger role in conflicts than they had suspected.
According to academics from the Universities of Portsmouth, Warwick and Essex, foreign intervention in a civil war is 100 times more likely when the afflicted country has high oil reserves than if it has none. The research is the first to confirm the role of oil as a dominant motivating factor in conflict, suggesting hydrocarbons were a major reason for the military intervention in Libya, by a coalition which included the UK, and the current US campaign against Isis in northern Iraq.
It suggests we are set for a period of low intervention because the falling oil price makes it a less valuable asset to protect. “We found clear evidence that countries with potential for oil production are more likely to be targeted by foreign intervention if civil wars erupt,” said one of the report authors, Dr Petros Sekeris, of the University of Portsmouth. “Military intervention is expensive and risky. No country joins another country’s civil war without balancing the cost against their own strategic interests.”
The report’s starkest finding is that a third party is 100 times more likely to intervene when the country at war is a big producer and exporter of oil than when it has no reserves. “After a rigorous and systematic analysis, we found that the role of economic incentives emerges as a key factor in intervention,” said co-author Dr Vincenzo Bove, of the University of Warwick. “Before the Isis forces approached the oil-rich Kurdish north of Iraq, Isis was barely mentioned in the news. But once Isis got near oil fields, the siege of Kobani in Syria became a headline and the US sent drones to strike Isis targets,” he added.
The study, published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, analysed 69 civil wars between 1945 and 1999, but did not examine foreign invasions. It noted that civil wars have made up more than 90 per cent of all armed conflicts since the Second World War and that two-thirds of these have seen a third-party intervention.
The researchers drew their conclusions after modelling the decision-making process of the third-parties’ interventions. This assessed a wide range of factors such as their military power and the strength of the rebel army, as well as their demand for oil and the level of supplies in the target country. It found that the decision to intervene was dominated by the third-party’s need for oil, far more than historical, geographic or ethnic ties.
The US maintains troops in Persian Gulf oil producers and has a history of supporting conservative autocratic states in spite of the emphasis on democratic reform elsewhere, the report says. However, the recent surge in US oil production suggests the country will be intervening less in the future – with China potentially taking up the role as lead intervener, the report suggests.
Well defended: Britain’s military interventions
When the UK intervened
Britain intervened in the Nigerian Civil War, also known as the Biafran War, between 1967 and 1970. During this period the UK was one of the biggest importers of oil in the world, with North Sea oil production only starting in 1975. BP’s presence in the oil-rich eastern region of the country meant stability in the area was of critical importance.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003, led by the US and the UK, wasn’t covered in the research because it wasn’t a civil war. However, the report notes previous claims that a thirst for oil was “the alleged ‘true’ motivation of the US invasion of Iraq”.
When the UK did not intervene
Britain watched on as Sierra Leone’s Revolutionary United Front, with support from Charles Taylor’s National Patriotic Front of Liberia, attempted to overthrow Joseph Momoh’s government. The resulting civil war lasted 11 years (1991 to 2002) and enveloped the country, leaving more than 50,000 dead.
The UK also opted not to intervene in the Rhodesian Bush War between 1964 and 1979 – a three-way battle between the Rhodesian government, the military wing of Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Union and the Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army.
See also here.
The dominant Western media, at the service of the diplomacy of their respective states, have, on the contrary, denounced, in complete bad faith, the ‘deficiencies’ of the United Nations when it could not cover Western intervention policies with its own authority: here.