|
Update: Iraq war 'was about
oil'
05/06/2003
14:12 - (SA)
Although The
Guardian earlier reported that US deputy defence
secretary, Paul Wolfowitz had said that the Iraq war was all
about oil, the newspaper has now removed the article from its
web site, and will print a full correction in Friday's
edition. According to the Guardian's ombudsman, the quote,
"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," was
taken out of context, and misconstrued.
Below is a copy of the original story as it appeared on
News24:
Cape Town - 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 Guardian reports that 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 on Wednesday 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.
The Guardian says that 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.
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, Wolfowitz pledged that the US would
pursue terrorists and "end" states' harbouring or sponsoring
of militants.
Discussion Forums - Have your say about this
article
| 
