Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Interview With Eleana Gordon, Brian Becker

Aired February 09, 2003 - 09:14   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Many years ago, the U.S. said Iraq's invasion of Kuwait triggered the Gulf War. But some argued at the time it was really all about oil. The same argument is being made as the U.S. faces the possibility of another war with Iraq. Iraq is sitting on top of the second largest oil reserves in the world, behind Saudi Arabia.
Now, in Washington, Eleana Gordon of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies does not think a war would really be about oil. In New York, a counterpoint to all of that, Brian Becker of the International ANSWER Coalition joining us this morning. Good to have you both with us.

Normally I go ladies first, but it was actually Mr. Gordon who said Mr. Becker should state his opinion first. Mr. Becker, why is it about oil?

BRIAN BECKER, INTERNATIONAL ANSWER COALITION: Well, this weekend, on February 15, there will be millions of people around the world demonstrating, including in New York City and San Francisco and Los Angeles, as a follow-up to massive demonstrations on January 18, and they are going to be chanting "no blood for oil." And it's widely perceived by people in the world that Iraq does not pose a grave and imminent danger to the United States, that the U.S. has other unstated but very real foreign policy objectives in the Gulf.

O'BRIEN: What are those objectives, do you think?

BECKER: The main objective is that the United States wants to secure control over, the domination over the two-thirds of the world's oil supply, which we know reside in the Persian and Arabian Gulf, and Iraq has 10 percent of that oil.

O'BRIEN: So absent oil, we wouldn't even be talking about Saddam Hussein in your opinion?

BECKER: Well, the United States has driven its foreign policy in the Middle East for more than 50 years based on oil considerations. Norman Schwarzkopf said just prior to the 1991 war, oil is the West's life blood. Meaning that really the life blood for Exxon, Texaco, Mobil, Chevron. In other words, most of overseas foreign policy investment profits, before the Arab revolution in the 1950s took place, came from oil, and the Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney group want to re-secure domination of that region and those profits.

O'BRIEN: All right, it's time to hear from Ms. Gordon. What's the matter with his argument?

ELEANA GORDON, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Well, first of all, there is an argument here that Saddam Hussein does not pose a threat. Mr. Becker has been arguing this for a long time, five, six, 10 years. And what this argument would have you ignore is everything that Colin Powell presented at the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday. It would have you ignore that what Saddam Hussein is doing with his oil is he is using it to spend on his military strength and his weapons of mass destruction.

Now, we might not care so much about that if, first of all, he wasn't using it against his own people, so we should remember the Iraqi people themselves do not benefit from Iraq's oil. But more importantly, if Saddam Hussein didn't harbor open goals of dominating his region -- he acted upon it twice by invading Iran and by invading Kuwait. Saudi Arabia was next. And it would have you ignore the ideology of his regime, which is a fascist ideology that believes that the supremacy of the Arab race will reveal itself through military power and violence. That's what he wants to do with his weapons.

O'BRIEN: But let me just ask you this, Ms. Gordon, by that criteria, weapons of mass destruction, tyranny, dictatorship are all the criteria, wouldn't North Korea be treated the same way?

GORDON: Well, we do have a problem with North Korea, and one of the problems right now is that North Korea is so much more powerful that we're finding it harder to work -- to think about military intervention. We're having to work with other ways. And I would argue that North Korea is what we want to avoid with Iraq. North Korea now has nuclear weapons. So what you see is how well North Korea can deter us, because when it comes down to it, we don't want to see Seoul blow up in a nuclear conflagration, so we're having to find other ways to work with North Korea.

O'BRIEN: Mr. Becker, let me ask you this, let me just ask you -- I'm sorry, I have to move along for time. I apologize to interrupt. Mr. Becker, let me ask you this, if it is, in fact, about oil, what's the matter with that? Oil is something that is very important to this country and to our security in general, isn't it?

BECKER: Well, it's not about access to oil. Iraq would like to sell its oil. As a matter of fact, the United States has been the main purchaser of Iraq's oil in the last few years. It's really about control and domination over the vital resources that belong to that region.

Iraq has used the oil wealth that they've gotten in the last 30 years. As a matter of fact, everyone should know that Iraq was placed on the terrorist nation list by the United States when it nationalized its own oil fields, and they've used that oil to develop Iraq.

What the United States wants to do is control and dominate the oil so that banks and corporations, especially oil companies in the United States, secure their enrichment from the profit. That's not right, and we can't go and kill tens of thousands of people so that oil and banking company executives can get ever richer. That's not right, and it's illegal.

O'BRIEN: Ms. Gordon, go ahead.

GORDON: Well, I'd like to speak right now for the Iraqi democracy activists and leaders that I've been working with. We've been working to post their statements. I'd urge people to go to our Web site, defenddemocracy.org, and hear what they have to say.

And I'd like to refer in particular to Bahim Salaa (ph), the Kurdish prime minister who wrote the op-ed in "The New York Times," in which he addressed the anti-war movement, and he said, first of all, the real war that's going on right now is the war that Saddam Hussein is waging against the Iraqi people. And oil, if anything, has been a reason that people have ignored our plight and not wanted to intervene. It's probably an explanation for why France, Russia, Syria, Turkey, which all have significant oil interests, do not want regime change, because they have a lot to lose from that.

And he said, you know what, if oil now becomes a vehicle for liberation, then finally oil would be a blessing for the Iraqi people instead of the curse that it has been.

And finally, I'd like to say that I think Richard (sic) Becker has his own oil agenda, which is another reason why he ignores the plight of the Iraqi people. And his oil agenda is God forbid any American company ever profit or even face the possibility of profiting, because the organization he represents is so anti-American that he would rather see the oil in the Middle East stay in the hands of...

(CROSSTALK)

O'BRIEN: Time has expired, but I have got to give Mr. Becker a brief response. Go.

BECKER: I mean, what every person in America wants to know, before they send our young men and women to shed their precious blood and to take the precious blood of Iraqis, is this war worth it? Does Iraq pose a grave and imminent danger? It does not. It is surrounded by tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of troops who have weapons of mass destruction. It poses a threat to no one right now. The race to war by the Bush administration is to stop the peace movement from growing into an insurmountable obstacle, and it is becoming an obstacle. We're going to see that on February 15, when hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions of Europeans come into the streets and say, no war for big oil. We want jobs and education and housing and health care. But not a war, not a war of aggression against Iraq.

O'BRIEN: Mr. Becker, Mr. Becker, OK, that was much more than a quick response. I'm sorry, time has elapsed and then some. We're in the overtime period, and I'm in the penalty box. Eleana Gordon, Brian Becker, thank you both for being with us. We appreciate it.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired February 9, 2003 - 09:14   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Many years ago, the U.S. said Iraq's invasion of Kuwait triggered the Gulf War. But some argued at the time it was really all about oil. The same argument is being made as the U.S. faces the possibility of another war with Iraq. Iraq is sitting on top of the second largest oil reserves in the world, behind Saudi Arabia.
Now, in Washington, Eleana Gordon of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies does not think a war would really be about oil. In New York, a counterpoint to all of that, Brian Becker of the International ANSWER Coalition joining us this morning. Good to have you both with us.

Normally I go ladies first, but it was actually Mr. Gordon who said Mr. Becker should state his opinion first. Mr. Becker, why is it about oil?

BRIAN BECKER, INTERNATIONAL ANSWER COALITION: Well, this weekend, on February 15, there will be millions of people around the world demonstrating, including in New York City and San Francisco and Los Angeles, as a follow-up to massive demonstrations on January 18, and they are going to be chanting "no blood for oil." And it's widely perceived by people in the world that Iraq does not pose a grave and imminent danger to the United States, that the U.S. has other unstated but very real foreign policy objectives in the Gulf.

O'BRIEN: What are those objectives, do you think?

BECKER: The main objective is that the United States wants to secure control over, the domination over the two-thirds of the world's oil supply, which we know reside in the Persian and Arabian Gulf, and Iraq has 10 percent of that oil.

O'BRIEN: So absent oil, we wouldn't even be talking about Saddam Hussein in your opinion?

BECKER: Well, the United States has driven its foreign policy in the Middle East for more than 50 years based on oil considerations. Norman Schwarzkopf said just prior to the 1991 war, oil is the West's life blood. Meaning that really the life blood for Exxon, Texaco, Mobil, Chevron. In other words, most of overseas foreign policy investment profits, before the Arab revolution in the 1950s took place, came from oil, and the Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney group want to re-secure domination of that region and those profits.

O'BRIEN: All right, it's time to hear from Ms. Gordon. What's the matter with his argument?

ELEANA GORDON, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Well, first of all, there is an argument here that Saddam Hussein does not pose a threat. Mr. Becker has been arguing this for a long time, five, six, 10 years. And what this argument would have you ignore is everything that Colin Powell presented at the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday. It would have you ignore that what Saddam Hussein is doing with his oil is he is using it to spend on his military strength and his weapons of mass destruction.

Now, we might not care so much about that if, first of all, he wasn't using it against his own people, so we should remember the Iraqi people themselves do not benefit from Iraq's oil. But more importantly, if Saddam Hussein didn't harbor open goals of dominating his region -- he acted upon it twice by invading Iran and by invading Kuwait. Saudi Arabia was next. And it would have you ignore the ideology of his regime, which is a fascist ideology that believes that the supremacy of the Arab race will reveal itself through military power and violence. That's what he wants to do with his weapons.

O'BRIEN: But let me just ask you this, Ms. Gordon, by that criteria, weapons of mass destruction, tyranny, dictatorship are all the criteria, wouldn't North Korea be treated the same way?

GORDON: Well, we do have a problem with North Korea, and one of the problems right now is that North Korea is so much more powerful that we're finding it harder to work -- to think about military intervention. We're having to work with other ways. And I would argue that North Korea is what we want to avoid with Iraq. North Korea now has nuclear weapons. So what you see is how well North Korea can deter us, because when it comes down to it, we don't want to see Seoul blow up in a nuclear conflagration, so we're having to find other ways to work with North Korea.

O'BRIEN: Mr. Becker, let me ask you this, let me just ask you -- I'm sorry, I have to move along for time. I apologize to interrupt. Mr. Becker, let me ask you this, if it is, in fact, about oil, what's the matter with that? Oil is something that is very important to this country and to our security in general, isn't it?

BECKER: Well, it's not about access to oil. Iraq would like to sell its oil. As a matter of fact, the United States has been the main purchaser of Iraq's oil in the last few years. It's really about control and domination over the vital resources that belong to that region.

Iraq has used the oil wealth that they've gotten in the last 30 years. As a matter of fact, everyone should know that Iraq was placed on the terrorist nation list by the United States when it nationalized its own oil fields, and they've used that oil to develop Iraq.

What the United States wants to do is control and dominate the oil so that banks and corporations, especially oil companies in the United States, secure their enrichment from the profit. That's not right, and we can't go and kill tens of thousands of people so that oil and banking company executives can get ever richer. That's not right, and it's illegal.

O'BRIEN: Ms. Gordon, go ahead.

GORDON: Well, I'd like to speak right now for the Iraqi democracy activists and leaders that I've been working with. We've been working to post their statements. I'd urge people to go to our Web site, defenddemocracy.org, and hear what they have to say.

And I'd like to refer in particular to Bahim Salaa (ph), the Kurdish prime minister who wrote the op-ed in "The New York Times," in which he addressed the anti-war movement, and he said, first of all, the real war that's going on right now is the war that Saddam Hussein is waging against the Iraqi people. And oil, if anything, has been a reason that people have ignored our plight and not wanted to intervene. It's probably an explanation for why France, Russia, Syria, Turkey, which all have significant oil interests, do not want regime change, because they have a lot to lose from that.

And he said, you know what, if oil now becomes a vehicle for liberation, then finally oil would be a blessing for the Iraqi people instead of the curse that it has been.

And finally, I'd like to say that I think Richard (sic) Becker has his own oil agenda, which is another reason why he ignores the plight of the Iraqi people. And his oil agenda is God forbid any American company ever profit or even face the possibility of profiting, because the organization he represents is so anti-American that he would rather see the oil in the Middle East stay in the hands of...

(CROSSTALK)

O'BRIEN: Time has expired, but I have got to give Mr. Becker a brief response. Go.

BECKER: I mean, what every person in America wants to know, before they send our young men and women to shed their precious blood and to take the precious blood of Iraqis, is this war worth it? Does Iraq pose a grave and imminent danger? It does not. It is surrounded by tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of troops who have weapons of mass destruction. It poses a threat to no one right now. The race to war by the Bush administration is to stop the peace movement from growing into an insurmountable obstacle, and it is becoming an obstacle. We're going to see that on February 15, when hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions of Europeans come into the streets and say, no war for big oil. We want jobs and education and housing and health care. But not a war, not a war of aggression against Iraq.

O'BRIEN: Mr. Becker, Mr. Becker, OK, that was much more than a quick response. I'm sorry, time has elapsed and then some. We're in the overtime period, and I'm in the penalty box. Eleana Gordon, Brian Becker, thank you both for being with us. We appreciate it.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com