SUBSCRIBE TODAY TO CONNECT WITH AFFILIATES FROM AROUND THE WORLD :: SIGN UP HERE >>
Featured Links
Syndicated News from Kuwait44 companies, hoardes of workers, Kuwaiti man, wife in visa businessDate Added: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 06:12:08 GMT+00:00
Kuwait to build safest N-plantDate Added: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 06:01:56 GMT+00:00
Slowly but surely wins the raceDate Added: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:40:35 GMT+00:00
Making plans for EidDate Added: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:40:58 GMT+00:00
90 Kuwait Airways Corporation pilots seek 'transfer'Date Added: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 06:07:59 GMT+00:00
Fitting room storiesDate Added: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:41:30 GMT+00:00
Spice up your life during RamadanDate Added: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:41:08 GMT+00:00
Liquor factory, complete with staff operating in old KhaitanDate Added: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 06:16:08 GMT+00:00
KPTC refers chief, secretary of Workers Union for interrogationDate Added: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 06:08:01 GMT+00:00
Animal in man appears; Girl found with boyfriendDate Added: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 06:16:09 GMT+00:00
Results 1 - 10 of 7 Headlines for Kuwait
Kuwait HeadlinesResults Page: 1,POEM FROM SOLDIERDate Added: Monday, June 2nd, 2003Contributed by: RCN Administrator "Wish You Were Here" ~This poem was in a letter from a marine in Kuwait dated 9 March 2003. The marines were hearing about the anti-war protests and they were upset.?That's all the letter talked about. This Marine enclosed a poem he and his buddies wrote. He wants us to get it out, please read and pass it on... "Wish You Were Here" For all the free people that still protest. You're welcome. We protect you and you are protected by the best. Your voice is strong and loud, but who will fight for you? No one standing in your crowd. We are your fathers, brothers, and sons, wearing the boots and carrying guns. We are the ones that leave all we own, to make sure your future is carved in stone. We are the ones who fight and die, We might not be able to save the world, Well, at least we try. We walked the paths to where we are at and we want no choice other than that. So when you rally your group to complain, take a look in the back of your brain. In order for that flag you love to fly wars must be fought and young men must die. We came here to fight for the ones we hold dear. If that's not respected, we would rather stay here. So please stop yelling, put down your signs, and pray for those behind enemy lines. When the conflict is over and all is well, be thankful that we chose to go through hell. Corporal Joshua Miles and all the boys from 3rd Battalion 2nd Marines, KuwaitResults Page: THE NAYSAYERS’ NIGHTMAREDate Added: Sunday, May 4th, 2003Contributed by: RCN Administrator
Although I’ve never considered myself as one to gloat or say ‘I told you so’, it
is difficult not to feel a sense of tremendous vindication after seeing the
crowds of Iraqi Civilians cheering, hugging, kissing and rejoicing with American
troops, upon their very pronounced entry into virtually all parts of Baghdad
today. Not only that, but the overt hostility shown by Iraqis to News networks
like Al-Jazeera who focused only on deaths caused by U.S. forces, without ever
highlighting Saddam’s atrocities committed on his own people, tells a lot.
More than anything it exposes the fact that the Iraqi people are determined to
be regarded as human beings, and not merely as Saddam’s pawns and minions, whose
feelings and lives don’t matter, within the politically correct world of
International Politics. It is now hard not to see the vehement anti-war and
anti-U.S. crowds, demonstrators and general detractors, as interest groups who
at best were ignorant or naïve, and at worst, totally unconcerned about what the
Iraqi people themselves wanted all along: Liberation from the man who had taken
them through two decades of needless war, poverty, torture and murderous
brutality. Anybody who cared to listen to what average Iraqis were saying would
have realized long ago that they were desperate for liberation from Saddam.
However, in the typical parlance and mentality of contemporary times, the key
words were politically correct terms such as ‘War not Peace’, ‘World Bully,’
‘Unjustified’, ‘arrogant’, ‘selfish objectives’. The crow
ds of anti-war protesters and American detractors from European Legislatures to
European and Middle Eastern Streets, will now find it hard to deny that their
concern all along was for Saddam and his brutal regime, as opposed to concern
for the long-suffering people of Iraq. Coming to mind in particular, are the
words of the French and Germans, to the effect that War is never justified, no
matter what; my response is this: tell that to the Iraqi people. It is always
easy for European Elitists and Liberals anywhere in the world, to argue on
behalf of clichéd notions that sound lofty and rarified, but the problem is that
such loftiness and rarified notions do not address the basic problems down there
in the gutter: the problems that people suffering and dying from extreme
deprivation, starvation and a brutal dictatorship experience on a daily basis.
This is a day of unmitigated vindication for President Bush, Prime Minister
Blair and the few national leaders in countries like Australia, Poland, Spain,
Czech and Slovak Republics who were bold enough to stand together and do what
had to be done, despite the tide of mindless opposition. It is also a day of sad
reflection and partial ignominy for leaders of countries that chose to go the
popular, politically correct route, rather than the bold, necessary route. As a
Canadian, I feel a personal and abiding sense of deep embarrassment and
ignominy, at the way this whole Iraqi imbroglio was handled by the Canadian
government that continually, till this day continues to describe itself as the
closest friend of the U.S. It is sad because a friend is not a friend only in
good times. And to those here in Canada who continually point to Canadian
support of the U.S. after September 11, I must also state that a friend is not
only a friend in sad times, but is also a friend in tough time
s. Canada cannot be the friend of the U.S. only when there is sympathy and words
of support to be shared. A friend would stand by the other friend when there
were tough times and tough decisions to be made, regardless of what the
prevailing popular winds were. Prime Minister Blair knows all about this, and
today, polls in England show that his courageous and principled stance that
initially led him to the precipice of political doom, have fetched him a tide of
resurgent appreciation and political support. But back to the concept of
friendship: In Canada, the Prime Minister not only subtly blamed the U.S. and
the West, only a year after September 11, for somehow inviting September 11, but
he also refused to discipline a top political ally for calling the U.S.
President a moron. He then refused to discipline two top liberal party members
when one (Herb Dhaliwal) said the U.S. President was not a Statesman for going
to war, and the other (Carolyn Parrish) said that she hated ‘thos
e bastards’ while referring to the ‘Damn’ Americans. On the other hand, the
government soundly criticized the Alberta Premier Ralph Klein for his remarks of
support for the U.S. The Liberal Government has continued to distance itself
from everything the U.S. did with respect to Iraq, except when it had a point to
criticize the U.S. about. These are not the actions of a friend, and on this day
when it is abundantly clear that the Iraqis are joyous over being liberated from
Saddam, I am profoundly puzzled over what rationale Canada and other so-called
friends of the U.S. will use to support their continued negative attitude to the
U.S. action in Iraq or whether they will perhaps try and employ a little more
boldness and balance. Mr. Chretien recently asserted that his position on Iraq
was one of principle, to which I find myself wondering whether principle trumps
people and lives. What good is principle when all it serves to do is encourage
inertia and dangerous pacifism, and by
implication, to entrench malevolent dictatorships such as that in Iraq. I do not
by any means suggest that every country in the world needs liberation, but the
idea that because it is impossible to liberate every country in dire need, then
NO COUNTRY should ever be liberated, is patently cynical, if not casuistic. The
mere fact that the U.S., the only remaining superpower has taken action against
a brutal dictator will encourage other brutal dictatorships to consider
relinquishing or limiting power, in the same way as U.S. apathy would have the
effect of encouraging them to do the opposite. That was always the problem with
the anti-war marchers: they always shouted slogans ‘PEACE, NOT WAR’, but slogans
don’t solve problems. The marchers never proposed concrete solutions to problems
like Saddam, and seemed content to wallow in the status quo, perhaps because
they were not the ones suffering in Iraq under Saddam. In their view, the
solution was so horrible, that the problem shoul
d be permitted to linger on malignantly, interminably.
The argument about the U.S. wanting Iraqi oil frankly is not backed up by the
facts, or even relevant. It is hard to see how a country like the U.S. that is
so sensitive about American lives AND the American economy, would send Americans
to die, tempt the stock market/world economy, and spend billions of dollars to
unseat Saddam for oil that they are not going to have access to, forever. Even
if it was proven that the U.S. was interested in Iraqi oil, that would not
vitiate the legitimacy of the threat that Saddam posed to his people and the
world, and there would be nothing wrong with the pragmatic idea of doing away
with Saddam on the reasonable assumption that the good of his absence would
trump the negative idea of the U.S. getting hold of Iraqi oil. Say what you will
about the U.S., there are constitutional checks and balances, and a vibrant
press that would prevent excesses. There would be no chance in a million of the
U.S. plundering Iraqi oil in the same way as Saddam p
lundered Kuwait during his ill-fated foray into that country.
The tired argument about President Bush going after Iraq simply to boost his
political popularity is just that: a tired argument. Mr. Bush may be popular
now, but that is probably because of the sheer resolve and determination he
showed in facing up to Saddam, and the success of the U.S. Military in Iraq. As
far as I can recall, there was never any certainty that going after Saddam would
boost his popularity, and in fact, all indications were to the contrary. I can
recall a colleague of mine gloating in his assertion that going after Saddam was
probably the one thing that would bring Mr. Bush down. That has not happened.
Rather, President Bush has in large measure advanced closer to joining that
coveted club of men classified as great Presidents. And contrary to Canadian
Natural Resources Minister, Herb Dhaliwal’s assertion, that would certainly make
him a Statesman.
Results Page:
MY MARINESDate Added: Tuesday, April 15th, 2003Contributed by: RCN Administrator
By Barbara Ferguson - Arab News Correspondent -- AT AN AIR BASE IN KUWAIT - People are curious about being embedded in the Marines. This is my effort to set the record straight.
Some readers suspect I was subjected to propaganda while living with these men and women. There was no propaganda campaign. If there had been, there would have been no embeds. Journalists wrote their own stories, and made their own interview requests and interviews. The Marine's "PAOs" (public affairs officers) would set up the meetings, but not oversee them. What happened to the majority of journalists living the Marine life is that we experienced it from the inside. I can honestly say that seven weeks as an embed has changed me forever. And I have often found many similarities between Marines and Arabs. Why? Let me give you a few examples, all of which deal with generosity of spirit: Recently, while standing in line for breakfast while on board the hospital ship, the USNS Comfort, a wounded Marine Staff Sergeant approached me saying: "Ma'am! Ma'am! I can't believe you're alive! We thought you were dead!" "I'm sorry, I don't know who you are." I told him. "I met you at Camp Viking," he said. "I never went to Camp Viking," I said. "I was at Camp Bull Rush." "Bull Rush is Camp Viking," he said. "It was just before the war, I escorted you to a meeting with Colonel Waldhauser of the 15th MEW at Camp Viking," said Staff Sergeant Sidney Young. "It was just before we broke camp and moved into Iraq." Suddenly all became clear. This had been my first embed camp. I slept on the ground, ate MREs (Meals Ready to Eat) used port-o-johns, and female shower time was one hour a day. I was the only journalist, and female, embedded with five other photographers. We quickly formed a tight group, out of necessity, due to the hardships. The atmosphere was tense, as - I would only learn after the fact - this unit was heading to Umm Kasr. Before breaking camp, Col. Waldhauser had briefed us on the basics. Putting the pieces of the puzzle together, it became clear to me that we were heading into battle. I had not joined the embed program to watch Americans fight Iraqis. The thought terrified me. Violence horrifies me. And in this case, it would be like watching my brother fight my cousin. I could not do it. I explained this to Col. Waldhauser, who was now faced with two choices: either dump me from the embed program, or move me south. He patiently explained to me that he would let me go, but only very reluctantly. The next day, when saying goodbye, he again repeated his reluctance to let me go, and still hoped I would change my mind. He undoubtedly wanted me there to see, and testify, how his Marines would not slaughter civilians and loot and destroy towns and cities. But he chose to let me go, God love him, and sent me south to Camp Commando. I left behind the five photojournalists. All great guys. They were saddened I was leaving them despite my ethical position. At Camp Commando, a Marine command post, the Red Cross tent offered me the first coffee I'd had in days, which succeeded in ousting a horrible three-day sand-dust sinus headache. For me, life was looking up. It was the first time I understood the importance the Red Cross plays on the ground in foreign lands. From Camp Commando I traveled further south to this air base, where I was embedded for one month, enduring the Marine hardships while living in "tent city," or "the ghetto" as many here call it, until an arranged visit to a far more comfortable life aboard a Navy ship, the USS Boxer... which eventually brought me over to the hospital ship, the USNS Comfort. Which brings me full circle to Staff Sergeant Sidney Young. SSgt Young told me that from the day his unit broke camp and moved north, they encountered stiff Iraqi resistance. He said they battled several times a day all the way to Umm Kasr. Marines were lost and more were injured. SSgt Young said the journalists were "crazy," constantly putting themselves in danger and disobeying orders to come to seek shelter, in order to get "action" shots. Several days into their advance, he said, two of the five journalists were killed. What SSgt Young and his men did not know was that I had left the unit and moved south. "We found their bodies," he said, "and we looked for yours for three days." When they had regrouped, and seen three journalists, he and his men assumed I had been lost with the other two journalists. "I'm so happy to see you're alive!" he said again, with a huge smile on his face. I can't wait to see my men and tell them you're alive!" Pausing, he said: "So where were you hurt?" Good question. He had been wounded and sent to the Comfort, and assumed I was on board for the same reason. It was a stunning moment in my life for many reasons: First, that someone who didn't know me would be concerned about me, oblivious to his injuries and excited to find me alive. Secondly, that two of my colleagues had been killed. This was a terrible blow for me. I did not to ask who they were. I still see all five faces, hear their voices, and remember their stories. I don't want to know who it was that died. People here assure me this is not an uncommon reaction: Sometimes, the easiest way to handle pain and sorrow is to compartmentalize it and deal with it after the stress of war, they say. It later occurred to me that, percentage-wise, more journalists were killed in this war than soldiers and Marines. Later, when recounting the story, people would ask: "Was that sergeant a Marine?" When I answered in the affirmative, they would say: "That's the Marines for you. When you join them, you became one of them, part of their family. They always care for their people." Caring for their people is a big deal with Marines. Since I became embedded, I have been to six expeditionary camps, three air bases, and two ships. I have ridden in Humvees and on helicopters whose names I had never heard of before now. Currently, I am awaiting a final trip to Baghdad, on a C-130 transport plane, to interview Marines who made it to Baghdad. It will this embed's final Marine story. Most significantly, throughout all these embed travels; I have met extraordinary young men and women - whose selflessness and determination still makes me marvel. It is this that made me think of the similarities between Marines and Arabs. A few other examples: During our first incoming Iraqi bomb, when we were all supposed to be carrying our MOPP chemical protective suits, I - of course - was out walking, without my MOPP suit. None of us knew what that first bomb was carrying when we ran to the bomb shelters, but we all feared chemical weapons. A young Marine female officer sat across from me in the bunker while everyone struggled into their MOPP suits. "Where's your MOPP suit?" she asked me. "I left it back at my tent," I replied. She looked at me, then thrust her MOPP suit at me, and said: "Put this on." "You're not supposed to give up your MOPP suit, Ma'am," I said, not knowing what else to say. "Put it on," she said. Then: "PUT IT ON!" I had never seen this woman before. She didn't know who I was. We didn't know what was in that missile. But this woman risked her life for me. It was an incredible gesture of selflessness that still makes me wonder. There have been so many other examples: The Marine who expressed concern when he saw how the rubber MOPP boots had chewed into my shins because I had no boot socks. He left and returned with three pairs of his own socks. I never learned his name, and never saw him again. But I wear his size 12 socks daily. One of my 'hooch mates,' or tent mate, saw me shivering in my sleeping bag one cold desert night, got up and gave me her blanket to pin over my sleeping bag. I was never cold again, and she assured me she was warm. I wonder. Others made sure I had a cot and bed pad, while they slept on wooden floors. Marines are trained to respond instantly to emergencies. Incoming midnight missile attacks required an immediate donning of the MOPP suit. My Marines would dress themselves, then jump on me, the dazed journalist, to outfit me and yank me into a bunker. Others, knowing I'm a vegetarian, became concerned about my diet, and would give me their nuts and hard-boiled eggs. Marines constantly give me food sent to them from home - candy bars, sweets, gum, snacks, whatever. Everyone shares. The Marines have a term for it. It's called: "Share the wealth." Care packages from home are made available for the entire group, never just for the addressee. In regards to war, I have learned that Marines follow their orders. They are not responsible for war; those decisions are made in Washington. Many in my travels have expressed a genuine distaste for war. While colonels have told me, behind closed doors, of their concern for the US foreign policy in the Middle Est. Other Marines have expressed skepticism for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. This, I am told, are inside opinions that normally would not be heard off the base. Some tell me they hope these men will not be part of the second Bush Administration. Almost all, however, trust President Bush. And Secretary of State Colin Powell. Marines come from well-bred families; others join because they were living off the street. Some join to be educated, others to become part of a family. Some join because they simply "want to be part of the best." Many of these young Marines don't know the difference between an Arab and an Asian. But a Chaplin told me that some of his hardest young Marines' hearts turned soft "up north" as they witnessed the hard life and poverty Iraqi civilians and military live. I am greatly concerned that this war has polarized many Arabs and Americans. Knowing these Marines, however, has given me hope for the future of America and its relationship with the Arab world.
Results Page:
‘NOT A WAR AGAINST IRAQ’S PEOPLEDate Added: Thursday, March 20th, 2003Contributed by: RCN Administrator Barbara Ferguson, Arab News War Correspondent Yesterday, Col. Michael Anderson, the unit’s commander, took Arab News on a visit of operations at three other camps up north. The first stop was an air base, where the engineers built an extensive helicopter pad for dozens of helicopters in just over a month. The trick here was finding the right surface to hold up in the loose, fine sand. After several starts and misses, they finally settled on AM2 matting. Hueys and Cobra helicopters now sit quietly on the pad, their wings tied down against the wind, waiting. Here, “brown-out” is a significant problem with the helicopters, as their rotating blades can create a sand storm which blinds the pilots during take-off and landing. The problem was solved by bringing in heavy equipment, such as graders and scrapers, to level the ground and compact it before putting down the matting. “Gorilla snot,” or an environmentally-friendly glue that binds the sand together, was placed around the circumference of the pad to help keep the sand down when the helicopters take off. A runway sweeper keeps the “FOD,” or “foreign object debris,” off the runway. “Like the Army — We have done more by 5 a.m. than most people do all day,” said Sgt. Maj. Anthony Franklin, from Birmingham, Alabama, who was with the colonel. These engineers have also built airfields. F-18 Fighter/Attack Hornet aircraft land here with an arresting cable, using the same method as on aircraft naval carriers. The airplane drops a hook that the cable catches, and stops the plane on the landing pad. Settling for the AM2 matting was a tough decision, said Col. Anderson. “AM2 is heavy and takes up a lot of room on a ship, but you can build an air pad with it in a couple of days.” His engineer unit has 14 different functions of aviation ground support, “all doing different things, with us trying to get them to do it all for the same reason,” said Col. Anderson. Their duties include a mind-boggling array of services: internal airfield communications; weather services, expeditionary air field services (EAF); aircraft, rescue and firefighting (ARFF); aircraft and ground refueling; explosive ordnance disposal (EOD); essential engineer services; motor transport (MT); field messing facilities, routine and emergency sick call, and aviation medical functions; individual and unit training of organic personnel and selected personnel of support units; nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) defense; security and law enforcement services; and air based commandant functions. Thanks to them, the Marines here are quite comfortable. The engineering unit built hundreds of “hardback” wooden frames and wooden decks for the GP (general purpose) tents that many Marines work and sleep in. They have also packed down the ground around the tents, and in some cases, put gravel down to minimize the dust. In addition, they built the mess halls, purified water, and when possible, installed showers and laundry spouts. Next, the colonel and his team traveled to Camp Work Horse further north. The camp — again, embeds are restricted from giving specifics in numbers, size or location — is run by Lt. Col. Al Thoma, from North Carolina. Lt. Col. Thoma said he arrived here a month ago “with a few operators and some borrowed gear; we managed to get our hands on the rest. We built the tents, the “kabal,” a camp surrounded by a berm, and built the entire compound with full facilities that include showers, laundry, mess, full medical services, alternative hot breakfast and continental breakfast, MREs for lunch, and hot dinners. “We also have a construction shop, and built all the ‘strong backs’ and bunkers, and added all the lighting,” said Lt. Col. Thoma. Right here in the middle of nowhere, the “hooches” have electricity. “Down south, they’re given the softer life — including Haagen Dasz ice cream with their meals,” he said. “This hinders a certain mind set and focus that these young Marines need to have if and when they cross the ‘line of departure’ (go to war).” That said, Camp Work Horse offers many amenities that other Marines further out in the field long for. Looking at the vast tent city, it’s hard to imagine that most of this camp has been built by Marines in their late teens or early twenties. “These Marines perform well when given a challenge — and they’ve done that here. It doesn’t matter what generation they are. Marines are Marines. “Lots of people complain about the ‘younger generation,’ but these kids just need guidance and discipline and something constructive to do, and they’ll amaze you,” Thoma said. At Camp Coyote, also an air base, Lt. Col. Dan Zautcke, had much the same story to tell. “We started the ground preparation for Camp Coyote in December, and on the 5th of January we started constructing the ‘strong backs.’ It took us about one month to build them and we built quite a few of them.” He said their biggest challenge was dealing with the voltage (from 110 to 220), which “took some time to overcome.” The two lieutenant colonels joke about the culture shock the different US military services have experienced working together. Before the Marines arrived on base, the Air Force had an aerobics room, and a relaxation room with vibrating chairs, earphones, soft light, aromatherapy,” Zautcke said. “When we heard there was a relaxation room we thought it was for punching bags and sparring material,” Thoma said. Driving back to home base, Col. Anderson talked about the training the Marines had gone through in case they go to war with Iraq: “All the Marines went through mandatory training, which identified why we were here, what our goal is if we do go across. It’s not about hurting the Iraqi people, and it’s not about seizing oil wells.” The Marines, he said, have been told to defend themselves to the greatest extent possible, “but they also know they have to be very careful in regard to collateral damage. “We are all able to make distinctions between good people and bad people,” said Col. Anderson. “We’ve been telling our Marines that we are not at war with the Iraqi people... and this is not propaganda, this is what I honestly believe. “If we do go to war, we want to try to preserve their culture, their historic sites, their mosques, etc. So as long as no one is shooting at us from such a place, and it is not dangerous, we will not destroy it.” “Besides,” he said, “What we destroy, we will have to rebuild.”
Results Page:
ABDULLAH’S CANCELLATION SIGNALS POSSIBLE KUWAIT-JORDAN RIFTDate Added: Monday, September 23rd, 2002Contributed by: RCN Administrator
A Jordanian official has told the United Arab Emirates news agency that King Abdullah II will "postpone" a visit to Kuwait that was scheduled for Sept. 22. Undefined organizational, not political, reasons were given for the decision. Yet Abdullah is not canceling his trip to Bahrain scheduled for the same day, Arabicnews.com reported Sept. 20. Abdullah plans to meet with Persian Gulf leaders for talks on bilateral issues and the situation in the region, Agence France-Presse reported.
Abdullah’s decision hints at trouble between the two countries. For a head of state to cancel such a high-profile visit at the last minute suggests that neither side could agree on an agenda for the meeting. Although nothing has surfaced to point directly to what changed Abdullah’s mind, the most likely answer is Iraq. Though strained ties between the two likely would not complicate U.S. military options in the region -- Washington tends to deal with Iraq’s neighbors on a bilateral basis -- it could cause problems for Amman’s future stability and reduce its options for maintaining its oil supply. Although Jordan is a public U.S. ally, and may be hosting U.S. forces and possibly supporting a U.S. military campaign against Iraq, it also depends largely on Baghdad for its oil supplies. Jordan receives about 102,000 barrels per day from Iraq. About half its crude oil is free of charge and Jordan gets a discount of 40 percent of the price above $20 per barrel on the other half. It also buys 20,000 bpd of refined petroleum products from Iraq at a substantial discount, according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration. Amman may have hoped that the government in Kuwait would help to fend off the seemingly inevitable U.S. war against Baghdad. Now that seems to be decidedly not the case. Instead, senior U.S military commanders for regional operations began a two-day meeting in Kuwait Sept. 19, Reuters reported. Jordan also may be hoping to turn to Kuwait as an alternative energy supplier. But Amman would seek special discounts to help it overcome the financial burden caused by the loss of Iraqi oil, and Kuwait may not be so generous. Jordan would be loath to have to rely upon Saudi Arabia, with which it still has semi-strained relations due to the kingdom’s seizure of the formerly Hashemite-controlled Hijaz territory and Amman’s backing of Iraq when it invaded Kuwait in 1990. Receiving oil from Kuwait would relieve Amman from any pressure Riyadh might try to exert over Jordan were it to become the tiny kingdom’s chief oil supplier. Jordan and Kuwait’s ties already suffered earlier this year: The two erupted into a diplomatic dispute over transport fees and tariffs charged by both states for trucks and buses shipping goods and ferrying people between the countries. In August, Jordan and Kuwait resolved the transport dispute by abolishing transport fees and taxes, the Jordan Times reported Aug. 25. It is still unclear exactly what prompted Abdullah to skip Kuwait. But the possibility of strained ties between the two is becoming apparent.
Results Page:
KUWAIT SEES POSSIBLE SHIFT IN OIL MARKETSDate Added: Thursday, August 22nd, 2002Contributed by: RCN Administrator
Kuwaiti oil minister, Sheikh Ahmad Fahd al-Ahmad al-Sabah, said Aug. 19 OPEC should leave oil output unchanged unless prices rise to $30 per barrel, Bloomberg reported.
At first glance the statement seems to be a definite break with past Kuwaiti policy and an unjustified needling of the United States, the world’s largest oil importer and Kuwait’s guardian. But Sheikh Ahmad may be seeing a shift in forces that could send prices tumbling, and a production cut now would only exacerbate the pain later. Such an announcement on its surface is a sharp break from a series of longstanding Kuwaiti policies. First, Kuwait is not one of OPEC’s more disciplined members. While not the chronic quota buster that Nigeria is, Kuwait tends to argue against production cuts and is fierce in its attempts to raise Kuwaiti quota levels vis-à-vis other members. Indeed, it is even in negotiations with Russia’s LUKoil and Sibneft to increase its production capacity. In the past, this penchant to produce has gotten it into trouble. Part of Baghdad’s rationale for its 1990 invasion of Kuwait was the latter’s profligate production policies. Second, Sheikh Ahmad seems to be arguing for raising the ceiling of OPEC’s price corridor, currently $22 to $28 per barrel. The primary logic of such a raise would be to increase Kuwait’s overall income. But unlike many other oil producers, Kuwait does not live hand-to-mouth. Kuwait also understands that oil prices of $30 per barrel set non-OPEC producers off in a flurry of exploration activity as marginal fields become profitable at higher prices. Third, higher prices are sure to annoy the United States. Since freeing Kuwait from Iraq back in 1991, the United States has remained Kuwait’s security guarantor. Furthermore, if the United States moves against Iraq, Kuwait stands to benefit hugely. While getting a slice of southern Iraq as part of the deal for hosting U.S. forces is not a particularly likely outcome, Kuwait’s oil loading facilities are far superior to Iraq’s, and the small Persian Gulf state could stand to make a nice profit from transit and loading fees. All in all, considering Washington’s warpath diplomacy, arguing for higher prices right now does not seem a particularly intelligent strategy. This is doubly so once one considers that Sheikh Ahmad was referring to the OPEC basket price. Norway’s Brent crude, the industry standard, normally sells for $1 to $2 per barrel more while West Texas Intermediate, the American standard, regularly fetches $3 more. The OPEC basket is now at about $26.50 a barrel, with Brent at $27.50 and WTI at $29. The Kuwaiti government has been dancing to the tunes of the oil markets and American diplomacy for decades, and aside from one disastrous misstep in 1990, rarely has made a mistake. So the question is, what are they doing now? A quick look at the fundamentals sheds some light on the situation. Oil production has jumped across the board this year. OPEC quota cheating and fresh supplies from non-OPEC members were each sufficient -- by themselves -- to cancel out OPEC’s Jan. 1 production cut of 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd). However, global economic growth -- and with it oil consumption -- has not accelerated to a point that should generate a price spike. Only political events -- primarily Israeli-Palestinian tensions and U.S. war threats against Iraq -- have kept prices strong. Without these political aberrations, oil prices likely would drop by a sustained $3 to $5 per barrel. Some analysts estimate the current war premium could make the drop even as steep as $10 per barrel. Sheikh Ahmad certainly knows this. As a member of the Kuwaiti government, he also is aware of the reality of America’s war preparations, or more to the point, the reality of the lack of war preparations. Any U.S. conflict with Iraq would require a large-scale buildup of forces in Kuwait, even if a southern thrust were not planned, simply to deny Iraq the option of recapturing Kuwait’s oil fields. Although American military activity in the Gulf certainly has picked up in tempo, a buildup in Kuwait simply has not happened. Regardless of the desires of Bush administration hawks such as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, it is becoming apparent that a war with Iraq simply might not be in the cards in the next several months. Over the past week, a number of big-name military and foreign policy celebrities -- including U.S. Army Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft -- have advised the Bush administration against an Iraqi operation because of both the wider political ramifications for the war on terrorism and the success of the operation itself. Other voices that hold much weight in the White House -- most notably those of the U.K. and Canadian foreign ministries -- also have cast considerable doubt on any Iraqi operation. Should the war premium evaporate, particularly as the high-demand summer months give way to low-demand autumn, prices would tumble and take OPEC revenues with them. The last thing Kuwait wants is a repeat of OPEC’s disastrous 1997 production rise, which occurred immediately before the Asian financial crisis. Then, the combination of an Asian recession and high oil supplies sent prices falling as low as $8 per barrel. In this light the Kuwaiti minister’s statement is hardly the unwise declaration it seems at first glance. It is instead a recognition that the "market stability" that OPEC claims to cherish is in very real danger and directly affects Kuwait’s bottom line.
Results Page:
BUSH THROWS GAUNTLET AT SAUDIS WITH MIDDLE EAST PLANDate Added: Thursday, July 25th, 2002Contributed by: RCN Administrator
U.S. President George W. Bush threw down the gauntlet June 24 when he outlined the new U.S. plan for peace in the Middle East and set specific terms for dealing with the Palestinians.
The president called on Palestinians to reform and promised that when -- and by implication only when -- "the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders, and certain aspects of its sovereignty, will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East." By demanding that the Palestinians essentially replace Yasser Arafat, Washington has substantially improved Arafat’s position. Anyone within the Palestinian community who now demands Arafat’s resignation is open to the charge of collaborating with the Americans. The United States is aware of the consequences of its demand. By making reform and new leadership prerequisites for further American participation in a peace process, the United States has created the framework for its withdrawal from that process. Bush in effect is washing his hands of trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Washington’s challenge, however, is not aimed at the Palestinians but at the country that pushed for greater U.S. involvement in the peace process: Saudi Arabia. Riyadh tried to shift U.S. attention from its war against al Qaeda by making resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key prerequisite for Saudi cooperation on hunting Osama bin Laden’s associates and financiers. Bush’s speech warns the Saudis that Israel and the Palestinians will no longer serve as a distraction. This means that a Saudi-U.S. confrontation may be on the horizon. By no longer taking responsibility for the Palestinians, Washington is affirming its goal of destroying al Qaeda. To do this, it must strike at the network’s center of gravity: Saudi Arabia. In response, the oil-rich kingdom will now seek to create alliances to resist American pressure. Worried about U.S. military deployments in Yemen and the surrounding Gulf states and unable to trust U.S. ally Jordan, Riyadh likely will move to strengthen ties with the two countries bent on resisting U.S. dominance: Iran and Iraq. From the Palestinians to Riyadh Saudi Arabia inserted itself in the peace process when Crown Prince Abdullah used a column by New York Times writer Thomas Friedman earlier this year to publicize his own Middle East peace proposal. Abdullah offered Israel complete normalization of ties with all the Arab states in exchange for the Jewish state’s full withdrawal to its 1967 borders. Though this was a promise Riyadh actually could not deliver, the tactic worked to buy time and direct the U.S. focus away from Iraq and al Qaeda. On its surface, Bush’s new Middle East policy makes Washington appear eager to expand its involvement in the Middle East conflict. The president promised that the United States would -- along with the international community -- help organize and monitor fair, multi-party local elections by the end of the year and also help reform and develop the Palestinian economy. But these promises are superficial. The Bush administration will not be able to achieve any reforms unless the Palestinians are willing to work with Washington. At the same time, by stating that "peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership, so that a Palestinian state can be born," Bush ensured that no Palestinian politician or security chief would be able to cooperate with Washington without appearing to the Palestinian public to be a U.S. stooge. By making unrealistic demands and ensuring that no credible partners can be found, Bush has in effect ended Washington’s responsibility for solving the conflict. The United States isn’t able or even interested in completely disengaging from the Middle East conflict. It will no doubt continue to chair security meetings between Israel and the Palestinian security forces and maybe even send U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to promote cease-fire negotiations. But Bush has indicated that although Washington will continue to be engaged, its focus will change. Specifically, the Bush administration will try to segment its Middle East policy, placing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a box to free itself to pursue its primary Middle Eastern goals: destroying al Qaeda, trouncing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and containing Iran. Saudi Arabia - The Road from Ally to Adversary The single-most important piece of any U.S. strategy to annihilate bin Laden’s terrorist network is to do something about Saudi Arabia. Since Riyadh has until now been a key U.S. ally in the Gulf, where the other two regional powers Iran and Iraq are decidedly anti-American, Washington has resisted placing the blame for Sept. 11 squarely on the Saudis. Yet there can be little doubt that the key components of al Qaeda derive direct support -- financial, moral and perhaps even intelligence -- from the desert kingdom. The group’s leader is himself a Saudi from one of the country’s richest and most powerful families. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were allegedly Saudis, and though there is no direct evidence yet, logic suggests that much of al Qaeda’s financing comes from sympathizers there. By taking the Palestinian question off the table, Washington signals to Riyadh that it will now expect full cooperation. The difficulty lies in Saudi Arabia’s inability to do what the United States wants. From Riyadh’s standpoint, there is little to gain and a lot to lose by helping Washington. First, the Saudis do not want a U.S.-friendly regime in Iraq, which has the second-largest proven oil reserves in the world. American control over Baghdad would considerably lessen U.S. strategic reliance on the Saudis. More immediately, the ruling House of Saud cannot risk domestic backlash by moving against politically powerful patrons of al Qaeda. Before Abdullah’s conversation with Thomas Friedman, the United States and Saudi Arabia seemed on a collision course over al Qaeda, Iraq and what it means to be allies. The Saudi peace proposal provided a detour that gave both sides time to reflect on their positions and affirm the alliance -- as Abdullah’s visit to Crawford, Texas, in April demonstrated. But the fundamental divide driving the dispute remains in place. Al Qaeda, though so far silent, continues to exist, and too many arrows point toward Saudi Arabia. |
