What did Rumsfeld do in Iraq in 1983?

http://www.jungewelt.de/2003/04-16/006.php

16.04.2003
junge Welt
(translated)

Foreign country
Thomas Immanuel Steinberg

The Rumsfeld Saddam Deal

Secret documents after 20 years publishes: Pipeline business despite chemistry weapon war negotiates

Donald Rumsfeld, today US Secretaries of Defense, met on 20 December 1983 with Saddam Hussein and its deputy Tariq Aziz in Bagdad. They spoke, are certain now, not over the chemistry weapons, which the Iraq straight had inserted use the war against Iran. They did not speak also about the pursuit of the Kurds, the Shiites or other minorities. Their only topic was oil? more exactly: the financing and the building of a pipeline of the Iraq to the gulf of Akaba, to the Red Sea. Akaba lies in Jordan, a few kilometer only far away from Eilat, and belongs to Israel. Also Israel should be included into the project.

The reasons for the current US campaign may be still unclear some. The reasons for Rumsfelds journey to Bagdad before twenty years are openly evident, since US safety archives waived the secrecy of the appropriate documents. On 18 sides that occupies which hanging toners of "institutes for Policy Studies" together with the Sustainable Energy & Economy network on the basis the accessible papers: The same persons, who give to look until today in the Iraq for massenvernichtungswaffen, had at that time the massenvernichtung of Iranians and Kurds before eyes, but only one in the head: Oil.

In March 1982 the Syrian government had its large oil export line for the support of Iran the Iraqis to the Mediterranean closed. As main export route the route remained southern to the insufficient harbor facilities of Basra at Persian Gulf. Additionally the route has the disadvantage that it can be blocked by Iranian side, thus by the northeast bank of the gulf out, easily. That applies despite the numerous western bases at the south side of the road of Hormus, for example in the Exklave of Oman. A further possibility for the removal the northIraqi oil led predominantly and leads by Kurdish and Turkish area after Ceyhan at the Mediterranean. It was and is endangered, as long as the there conflicts are unresolved.

Reagans's minister of foreign affairs George Shultz, before, therefore the idea of a pipeline launched managers with the large building contractor and oil technology giant Bechtel to the Red Sea for its former employer, which seemed excluded from such considerations up to then? because of the proximity to Israel. Rumsfeld spoke the Investitonsvorhaben several times in Bagdad, so also in a variant on 26 March 1984. On the same day a UN committee condemned unanimously the employment of Iraqi chemistry weapons against Iranian soldiers. The Shultz only to ask the Iraqis it the USA may not bring the US minister of foreign affairs compelled into the "embarrassing situation" buy in the future chemicals which could be "raw material for something, which could contribute to the production of chemical weapons".

Meanwhile the US-delegated advanced the financial programmes for the pipeline project and insured in view of the chemistry weapons their Iraqi official contacts: "we would not like that this topic controls our mutual relations." The conscious linkage of the private-economical motive for profit with geostrategic criteria becomes clear with Bechtel manager H.B. Scott in view of an apparently which is approaching conclusion of the negotiations with the Iraq in the year 1984: "I cannot stress at all enough, how important the efforts of the Bechtel management on all levels of the US government and the industry are to support this project. The project has important geopolitical Untertoene. The time might be ripe with the project fast to advance with very important rewards for the fact that Bechtel made it possible."

The U.S. export import bank and the U.S. Overseas private Investment corporation, which helps to secure with government support of export trades, was pushed by lobbyists and Reagan officials to make available 500 million dollar credits and endorsements. But Saddam Hussein required for his part security. He was afraid, Israel could attack the pipeline. Thus the US government developed plans to pass yields on from the pipeline to the Israeli work party. Also it considered coupling military and civilian assistance for Israel to the warranty that the pipeline remains untouched. Judge William Clark flew therefore as fuerstlich paid employees of the technology company Bechtel to Bagdad? proven as representatives of president Reagan and its national security council. Also a close friend of the Israeli Prime Minister at that time Schimon Perez switched himself on into the negotiations. Swiss billionaire Bruce Rappaport turned to Bechtel with the offer of an Israeli security guarantee for the planned route. Rappaport required an anticipated payment on the conclusion of ten per cent, by which a part should be passed on to him, another at Israel.

On 25 February 1985 Schimon Perez insured that Israel would not accomplish "unprovoked attack" against the pipeline. But the project operators were afraid that this linguistic idiom would not be sufficient to calm the Iraqis down. Let Saddam Hussein the entire plan one year later fall. The authors of the study mean: Since then the irakisch?US American relations from year to year would have worsened.

Again once is it shown: Which is made ridiculous as Konspirationstheorie in the presence of war proponents, is possibly long in documents held as naked fact. The documents are provisionally inaccessible to us only. Today far more right-wing extremist Neokonservative participates than before twenty years in war plans and their execution. They act Israeli government in the consent with the right-wing extremist. A bribery of the work party might have been unnecessary in view of the weakness of the war opponents in Israel.

The authors of the study judge finally: "the bitter lesson from the Akaba project probably is that a?uebler dictator? as a good friend of the United States is considered, if it is ready a business to make? and as a deadly enemy, if it opposes."