Showing posts with label oil in Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil in Iraq. Show all posts
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Russian oil giant Lukoil wins oil exploration rights to a large block in Iraq
Lukoil partnered with Inpex of Japan for the winning bid on a 5,500 square kilometer block on the very last day of the Iraqi auction. The block is in the south of Iraq.
Iraq had expected more bidders for the auction but the terms were not all that attractive to most oil companies. During the two day auction only 3 out of a total of 12 blocks were awarded.
Many oil companies thought that the risk in unexplored areas was high. As well Iraq is politically unstable.
Lukoil in tandem with Norway's Statoil and the Iraqi national oil company won a contract in 2009 to increase production in West Qurna 2 which has estimated reserves of 12.9 billion barrels. Lukoil now holds a 75 per cent interest as the Norwegian company sold its share to its Russian partner.
The deals that Iraq is offering foreign companies are technical service agreements. The oil companies are paid a fee of so much a barrel. In the West Qurna 2 after all expenses are paid Lukoil will receive only $1.50 per barrel. Any oil produced in the new bloc will fetch $5.99 a barrel. Given the price of oil even this is not all that much. For more see this article. Pakistan Petroleum also won a block and the first block to be award went to Kuwait Energy.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Slick Connections: US influence on Iraqi Oil.
This is an excellent article. Especially helpful is the chronology of US intervention to influence developments in oil in Iraq.
Slick Connections: U.S. Influence on Iraqi Oil
Erik Leaver and Greg Muttitt | July 17, 2007
Editor: FPIF
Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org
"The oil belongs to the Iraqi people. It's their asset," declared President George W. Bush in a press conference on the White House lawn in June 2006. He had just returned from a surprise visit to Baghdad, in which oil had been one of the main subjects of discussion.
"We talked about how to advise the government to best use that money for the benefit of the people," he clarified.
But by January 2007, the euphemism of "advice" had been dropped, as passage of an oil law became a "benchmark," an instruction to the Iraqi government.
Violating the very notions of freedom and democracy Bush invokes in nearly every speech on Iraq, the U.S. government has actively intervened in the restructuring of Iraq's oil industry since at least 2002. At different times, the Iraqi government has been threatened that passing the oil law was a pre-condition for partial reduction of Saddam Hussein's debts, for the provision of reconstruction funds, and even for the continued survival (through U.S. military support) of the al-Maliki government itself.
The issues could hardly be more important for Iraq. Oil accounts for more than 90% of government revenue, and is the main driver of Iraq's economy. And decisions made in the coming months will not be reversible—once contracts are signed, they will have a major bearing on Iraq's economy and politics for decades to come.
No wonder polls have shown that roughly 75% of Iraqis think one of the main reasons why the United States invaded Iraq was "to control Iraqi oil."1
Attempting to reverse this perception and change U.S. policy, lawmakers passed legislation stating that the United States should not exert "control over any oil resource of Iraq." But contradicting this sentiment, the Congress also passed a law that required reporting on a set of U.S. imposed benchmarks, which included language for the Iraqi parliament to pass " legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources." The administration has used this benchmark to push a law that has almost nothing to do with revenue distribution among Iraq's sectarian groups, and everything to do with creating highly profitable opportunities for multinational oil corporations.2
Under pressure from the U.S. government, the Iraqi cabinet has endorsed the controversial oil law, which now awaits approval in the Parliament. Yet among Iraqis, the law faces extensive opposition, including from two of the law's three original authors—as well as more than 100 of Iraq's most senior oil experts, the powerful oil unions, and other religious and secular civil society organizations.
Ironically, the law deemed to be needed to bring the country together, instead has the potential to violently rip it apart.
Oil Pressure: A History of U.S. Involvement in Iraq's Oil Development
Feb.-March 2001: White House Energy Taskforce produces a list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts."3
December 2002-April 2003: U.S. State Department Oil and Energy Working Group brought together influential Iraqi exiles, U.S. government officials, and international consultants. The result of the project's work was a "draft framework for Iraq's oil policy" that would form the foundation for the energy policy now being considered by the Iraqi Parliament. The final report noted that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war.4 Later, several Iraqi members of the group became part of the Iraqi government. The Group included future Iraqi Oil Minister, Bahr al-Uloum.
January 2003: The Wall Street Journal reported that representatives from Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp., ConocoPhillips, and Halliburton, among others, were meeting with Vice President Cheney's staff to plan the post-war revival of Iraq's oil industry.5
January 2003: Phillip Carroll, a former chief executive with Royal Dutch-Shell, and a 15-member "board of advisers" were appointed to oversee Iraq's oil industry during the transition period. According to the Guardian, the group's chief executive would represent Iraq at meetings of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).6 Carroll had been working with the Pentagon for months before the invasion—even while the administration was still insisting that it sought a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis—"developing contingency plans for Iraq's oil sector in the event of war."
Carroll, in addition to running Shell Oil in the United States, was a former CEO of the Fluor Corporation, a well-connected oil services firm with extensive projects in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and at least $1.6 billion in contracts for Iraq's reconstruction.
One month after the invasion, Carroll took control of Iraq's oil production for the U.S. Government. He was joined by Gary Vogler, a former executive with ExxonMobil, in Iraq's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance.
Mr. Carroll made it clear to Paul Bremer, the U.S. occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that, "There was to be no privatization of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while he was involved."7 Carroll leaves his job seven months later.
March 2003: Iraqi Oil Ministry was one of the few structures the invading forces protected from looters in the first days of the war.
April 2003: During the initial assault on Baghdad, soldiers set up forward bases named Camp Shell and Camp Exxon.8
April 2003: President Bush called for UN sanctions against Iraq to be dropped. The request sounds innocuous enough, but it masks an urgent U.S. desire for a free hand to start pumping Iraqi crude once again to raise funds for rebuilding the country.9
April 2003: USAID Solicits Bid to Draft Economic Reorganization Plan for Iraq. The U.S. Agency for International Development asks BearingPoint, Inc to bid on a sole-sourced contract for "economic governance" work in Iraq. The contract document was written by Treasury Department officials and reviewed by financial consultants. The confidential 100-page request, titled "Moving The Iraqi Economy From Recovery to Sustainable Growth," states that the contractor will help support "private sector involvement in strategic sectors, including privatization, asset sales, concessions, leases, and management contracts, especially in the oil and supporting industries."10
May 22, 2003: UN Security Council passed a resolution ending sanctions on Iraq. Significantly, the resolution gave the United States decision making power over how the oil funds would be used with regard to relief, reconstruction, disarmament, and "other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq."11
May 22, 2003: President Bush signed Executive Order 13303 providing full legal immunity to all U.S. oil companies doing business in Iraq in order to facilitate the country's "orderly reconstruction."
June 22, 2003: Iraq ships crude oil for the first time since the start of the war. Head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer, broached the politically sensitive issue of how oil revenue should be spent, proposing that some of the money be shared with Iraqis through a system of dividend payments or a national trust fund to finance public pensions. "Iraq's resources cannot be restricted to a lucky or powerful few," Bremer said. "Iraq's natural resources should be shared by all Iraqis."12
July 2003: Bremer appoints the members of the Iraqi Government Council. Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, a member of the State Department's energy working group, is tapped as Iraq's oil minister. Al-Uloum soon proposed a privatization program, and endorsed production sharing agreements as the route to that goal.13
October 2003: Carroll was replaced by Robert McKee, a former ConocoPhillips executive. According to the Houston Chronicle, "His selection as the Bush administration's energy czar in Iraq" drew fire from Congressional Democrats "because of his ties to the prime contractor in the Iraqi oil fields, Houston-based Halliburton Co. He's the chairman of a venture partitioned by the ... firm."14
The administration selected ChevronTexaco Vice President Norm Szydlowski to serve as a liaison between the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Oil Ministry. Now the CEO of the appropriately named Colonial Pipeline Company, Szydlowski continued to work with the Iraq Energy Roundtable, a project of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, which sponsored meetings to "bring together oil and gas sector leaders in the United States with key decision makers from the Iraq Ministry of Oil."15 Terry Adams and Bob Morgan of BP, and Mike Stinson of ConocoPhillips would also serve as advisers during the transition.16
November 2003: McKee quietly ordered a new plan for Iraq's oil. The drafting would be overseen by a "senior adviser," Amy Jaffe, who had worked for Morse when he was the Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. Jaffe now works for James Baker, the former Secretary of State, whose law firm serves as counsel to both ExxonMobil and the defense minister of Saudi Arabia. The plan, written by State Department contractor BearingPoint, was guided, says Jaffe, by a handful of oil -industry consultants and executives.17
December 19, 2003: BearingPoint releases "Options for Developing a Long Term Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry," a report on the Iraqi oil industry favoring foreign participation as the most efficient way of developing the sector.18
March 2004: CPA names new Iraq Oil Advisers: Mike Stinson of ConocoPhillips and Bob Morgan of BP.19
March 2004: Iraq's interim constitution, the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) passed in March 2004 by Iraq's Governing Council, sets forth that CPA laws, regulations, and orders are to remain in force after the transfer of sovereignty unless a duly enacted piece of legislation rescinds or amends them.20
June 2004: U.S. handover to the Iraq Interim Government. Mike Stinson becomes an adviser to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.21 Thamir al-Ghadban is named as Iraqi Oil Minister.
November 2004: International oil companies launched voluntary efforts to train Iraq's oil workers and provide technical assistance, hoping to generate goodwill and eventually get access to the country's huge oil reserves. Companies from the United States, Britain, and Russia—including ChevronTexaco Corp., BP, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Lukoil—are paying to send Iraqi oil workers out of the country to teach them the latest techniques in developing and managing oil fields.22
December 22, 2004: Iraqi Finance Minister Mahdi, in a joint press conference with U.S. Undersecretary of State Alan Larson at the National Press Club, announced Iraq's plans for a new petroleum law to open the oil sector to foreign private investment. Mahdi explained, "So I think this is very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies."23
Early 2005: New Government, old oil minister, al-Uloum reappointed to position of Minister for Oil. Ahmed Chalabi, head of the U.S.-backed Iraqi National Congress, was appointed chair of the Energy Council. In 2002, Chalabi said, "U.S. companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil."24
May 2005: Approximately 30 international oil companies signed Memoranda of Understanding with Iraq, generally for the training of Iraqi staff, consulting work, and studies.25
August 30, 2005: Bush says U.S. troops would continue fighting in Iraq in order to protect the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.26
October 15 2005: The national referendum for the Iraqi constitution passes, containing an outline for oil revenue sharing and development.
December 2005: Iraq enters into agreement with the International Monetary Fund committing Iraq to draft a new petroleum law by the end of 2006 to allow foreign investment in the country's oil industry. The arrangement was signed before the new Iraqi government had been appointed and one week after the December 2005 elections thus denying Iraqi voters a chance to react through the ballot box.
February 2006-June 2006: USAID contracts with BearingPoint to draft Iraq's oil law to provide "legal and regulatory advice in drafting the framework of petroleum and other energy-related legislation, including foreign investment."27
March 15, 2006: Gen. John Abizaid, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq, said the United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil.28
May 2006: Iraq's new oil minister, Hussein al-Sharistani, began drafting legislation to govern Iraq's oil sector. Following his appointment, Shahristani announced that one of his top priorities would be to pass a law allowing privatization through parliament by the end of 2006.
July 2006: U.S. Government and oil companies get a copy of the draft oil law.29
September 2006: International Monetary Fund and World Bank receive a copy of draft oil law.30
October 17, 2006: President Bush signs the 2007 Defense Authorization Act (PL No: 109-364) which states in SEC. 1519,"No funds ... in this Act may be obligated or expended ... to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.
February 2007: U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, "has been in intense talks with Kurdish leaders in the north to overcome their objections to the draft. Iraqi officials say Mr. Khalilzad's negotiations were crucial to winning unanimous cabinet approval."31
February 18, 2007: "Draft Hydrocarbon Law" was submitted to the Iraqi Cabinet (Council of Ministers).32
February 26, 2007: "Draft Hydrocarbon Law" was passed by the Iraqi Cabinet and was submitted to the Iraqi Parliament (Council of Representatives).33
April 19, 2007: Defense Secretary Robert Gates travels to Baghdad to push political benchmarks and specifically the oil law.34
May 9 2007: U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney travels to Baghdad to push political benchmarks and specifically the oil law.35
June 12, 2007: U.S. Admiral Fallon, head of the Central Command, warned Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in a closed-door conversation to pass the oil law by July.36
July 3, 2007: Iraq cabinet approves amended oil law draft and resubmits to the Iraqi Parliament.37
July 12, 2007: The White House released its Initial Benchmark Assessment Report. Benchmark #3, "Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources" is found to be not met. The report notes, "The effect of limited progress toward this benchmark has been to reduce the perceived confidence in, and effectiveness of, the Iraqi Government. This does not, however, necessitate a revision to our current plan and strategy, under which we have assigned a high priority to this subject, and the process overall has continued to move forward."38
End Notes
University of Michigan, 14 June 2006, "Iraq attitudes: Survey Documents Big Changes," available at www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2006/Jun06/r061406a.
In the law pushed by the U.S. administration, just one out of 43 articles mentions revenues: and that simply establishes two bank accounts, and states that the distribution will be determined by a separate law. This separate law was put together as an afterthought in summer 2007—attracting almost no interest from the administration; whilst as the timeline shows, the law providing for long-term contracts with multinational companies was consistently pushed by U.S. officials.
Documents from the Cheney-led National Energy Policy Development Group, available at: www.judicialwatch.org; Larry Everest, "Cheney, Energy, and Iraq Invasion: Supreme Court to Rule on Secrecy," San Francisco Chronicle, March 21, 2004; Michael Schwartz, "The Struggle Over Iraqi Oil," TomDispatch May 8, 2007. Available at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2007/0508struggleiraqioil.htm.
Greg Muttitt, "Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth," Platform, November 2005. Available at: http://www.crudedesigns.org/.
Charley Cray, "About Halliburton," Halliburton Watch, n.d. Available online at: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/energytf.html.
David Teather, "American to Oversee Iraqi Oil Industry," The Guardian/UK, April 26, 2003.
Greg Palast, "U.S. Secret Plans For Iraq's Oil," BBC News World Edition, March 17, 2005.
Paul Farhi, "The Soothing Sound of Fighting Words," The Washington Post, March 26, 2003.
Mark Rice, "For Iraq's Oil Wealth, Tangled Pipes," The Christian Science Monitor, April 21, 2003.
Neil King Jr., "Bush Officials Draft Broad Plan for Free-Market Economy in Iraq," Wall Street Journal, May 1, 2003.
Colum Lynch, "United States to Propose Broader Control of Iraqi Oil, Funds," The Washington Post, May 9, 2003.
Rajiv Chandrasekaran, "Bremer Broaches Plans for Iraq's Oil Revenue," The Washington Post, June 23, 2003.
James Ridgeway, "The Black Gold Rush: Divvying Up Iraq's Oil," Mother Jones, January 29, 2007.
David Ivanovich, "Houston Exec Gets Top Iraq Energy Post," Houston Chronicle, September 23, 2003.
U.S. Trade and Development Agency, conference agenda, "Iraq Energy Roundtable: Emerging Opportunities in the Iraq Oil and Gas Sector," June, 7, 2006. Available at: http://www.export.gov/iraq/pdf/oilgas_roudtable_060706.pdf.
Joshua Holland, "The U.S. Takeover of Iraqi Oil" AlterNet, October 17, 2006.
Greg Palast, "OPEC on the March: Why Iraq Still Sells its Oil a la Cartel," Harper's Magazine, April 1, 2005.
Muttitt, Crude Designs. Op. cit.
Muttitt, Crude Designs. Op. cit.
CPA, "Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period, art. 26(c)," March 8, 2004. Available at: http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html (accessed June 22, 2004).
Muttitt, Crude Designs. Op. cit.
Justin Blum, "Big Oil Companies Train Iraqi Workers Free Global Companies Offer Services to Establish Goodwill, Win Business," The Washington Post, November 6, 2004.
Transcript, NPC Afternoon Newsmaker News Conference; see also, Antonia Juhasz, "Iraq's Oil Timeline," Left Turn Magazine , May 1, 2006.
Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway, "In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue," The Washington Post, September 15, 2002.
"National Development Strategy 2005-2007," Republic of Iraq, Iraqi Strategic Review Board, Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation, June 30, 2005.
Jennifer Loven, "Bush Gives New Reason for Iraq War," Associated Press, August 31, 2005.
Benoit Faucon, "USAID Provides Adviser to Iraq Govt on Oil Law—Spokesman," Dow Jones Newswires, April 28, 2006; Greg Muttitt, "George's Oil Dubya-Speak: As Decision-Time Approaches, the USA Pulls Levers on Iraqi Oil Policy," Carbon Web, August 21, 2006.
Vicki Allen, "Abizaid Says United States May Want to Keep Bases in Iraq," Reuters, March 15, 2006.
Raymond Whitaker, Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson, Geoffrey Lean, and Tim Webb, "Blood and Oil; Special Report: The Spoils of War," The Independent, January 7, 2007.
Raymond Whitaker, Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson, Geoffrey Lean, and Tim Webb, "Blood and Oil; Special Report: The Spoils of War," The Independent, January 7, 2007.
Edward Wong, "Iraqi Cabinet Approves Draft of Oil Law," The New York Times, February 26, 2007.
Raed Jarrar, "The New Iraqi Oil: Leaked," raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com, February 18, 2007.
Raed Jarrar, "Council of Ministers' Resolution," raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com, March 1, 2007.
David Cloud, Alissa J. Rubin, and Edward Wong, "Gates in Baghdad to Press Iraqis on Reconciliation," International Herald Tribune, April 19, 2007.
John F. Burns, "Cheney Visits Baghdad and Presses Leaders on Political Progress," The New York Times, May 10, 2007.
Michael R. Gordon, "United States Warns Iraq Progress Needs to be Made," The New York Times, June 12, 2007.
"Iraq Cabinet Approves Oil Law Draft," Associated Press, July 3, 2007.
"Initial Benchmark Assessment Report," The White House, July 12, 2007. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070712.html.
Erik Leaver is a Carol and Ed Newman Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, and Greg Muttitt is Co-Director at the UK based NGO, Platform.
Slick Connections: U.S. Influence on Iraqi Oil
Erik Leaver and Greg Muttitt | July 17, 2007
Editor: FPIF
Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org
"The oil belongs to the Iraqi people. It's their asset," declared President George W. Bush in a press conference on the White House lawn in June 2006. He had just returned from a surprise visit to Baghdad, in which oil had been one of the main subjects of discussion.
"We talked about how to advise the government to best use that money for the benefit of the people," he clarified.
But by January 2007, the euphemism of "advice" had been dropped, as passage of an oil law became a "benchmark," an instruction to the Iraqi government.
Violating the very notions of freedom and democracy Bush invokes in nearly every speech on Iraq, the U.S. government has actively intervened in the restructuring of Iraq's oil industry since at least 2002. At different times, the Iraqi government has been threatened that passing the oil law was a pre-condition for partial reduction of Saddam Hussein's debts, for the provision of reconstruction funds, and even for the continued survival (through U.S. military support) of the al-Maliki government itself.
The issues could hardly be more important for Iraq. Oil accounts for more than 90% of government revenue, and is the main driver of Iraq's economy. And decisions made in the coming months will not be reversible—once contracts are signed, they will have a major bearing on Iraq's economy and politics for decades to come.
No wonder polls have shown that roughly 75% of Iraqis think one of the main reasons why the United States invaded Iraq was "to control Iraqi oil."1
Attempting to reverse this perception and change U.S. policy, lawmakers passed legislation stating that the United States should not exert "control over any oil resource of Iraq." But contradicting this sentiment, the Congress also passed a law that required reporting on a set of U.S. imposed benchmarks, which included language for the Iraqi parliament to pass " legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources." The administration has used this benchmark to push a law that has almost nothing to do with revenue distribution among Iraq's sectarian groups, and everything to do with creating highly profitable opportunities for multinational oil corporations.2
Under pressure from the U.S. government, the Iraqi cabinet has endorsed the controversial oil law, which now awaits approval in the Parliament. Yet among Iraqis, the law faces extensive opposition, including from two of the law's three original authors—as well as more than 100 of Iraq's most senior oil experts, the powerful oil unions, and other religious and secular civil society organizations.
Ironically, the law deemed to be needed to bring the country together, instead has the potential to violently rip it apart.
Oil Pressure: A History of U.S. Involvement in Iraq's Oil Development
Feb.-March 2001: White House Energy Taskforce produces a list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts."3
December 2002-April 2003: U.S. State Department Oil and Energy Working Group brought together influential Iraqi exiles, U.S. government officials, and international consultants. The result of the project's work was a "draft framework for Iraq's oil policy" that would form the foundation for the energy policy now being considered by the Iraqi Parliament. The final report noted that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war.4 Later, several Iraqi members of the group became part of the Iraqi government. The Group included future Iraqi Oil Minister, Bahr al-Uloum.
January 2003: The Wall Street Journal reported that representatives from Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp., ConocoPhillips, and Halliburton, among others, were meeting with Vice President Cheney's staff to plan the post-war revival of Iraq's oil industry.5
January 2003: Phillip Carroll, a former chief executive with Royal Dutch-Shell, and a 15-member "board of advisers" were appointed to oversee Iraq's oil industry during the transition period. According to the Guardian, the group's chief executive would represent Iraq at meetings of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).6 Carroll had been working with the Pentagon for months before the invasion—even while the administration was still insisting that it sought a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis—"developing contingency plans for Iraq's oil sector in the event of war."
Carroll, in addition to running Shell Oil in the United States, was a former CEO of the Fluor Corporation, a well-connected oil services firm with extensive projects in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and at least $1.6 billion in contracts for Iraq's reconstruction.
One month after the invasion, Carroll took control of Iraq's oil production for the U.S. Government. He was joined by Gary Vogler, a former executive with ExxonMobil, in Iraq's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance.
Mr. Carroll made it clear to Paul Bremer, the U.S. occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that, "There was to be no privatization of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while he was involved."7 Carroll leaves his job seven months later.
March 2003: Iraqi Oil Ministry was one of the few structures the invading forces protected from looters in the first days of the war.
April 2003: During the initial assault on Baghdad, soldiers set up forward bases named Camp Shell and Camp Exxon.8
April 2003: President Bush called for UN sanctions against Iraq to be dropped. The request sounds innocuous enough, but it masks an urgent U.S. desire for a free hand to start pumping Iraqi crude once again to raise funds for rebuilding the country.9
April 2003: USAID Solicits Bid to Draft Economic Reorganization Plan for Iraq. The U.S. Agency for International Development asks BearingPoint, Inc to bid on a sole-sourced contract for "economic governance" work in Iraq. The contract document was written by Treasury Department officials and reviewed by financial consultants. The confidential 100-page request, titled "Moving The Iraqi Economy From Recovery to Sustainable Growth," states that the contractor will help support "private sector involvement in strategic sectors, including privatization, asset sales, concessions, leases, and management contracts, especially in the oil and supporting industries."10
May 22, 2003: UN Security Council passed a resolution ending sanctions on Iraq. Significantly, the resolution gave the United States decision making power over how the oil funds would be used with regard to relief, reconstruction, disarmament, and "other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq."11
May 22, 2003: President Bush signed Executive Order 13303 providing full legal immunity to all U.S. oil companies doing business in Iraq in order to facilitate the country's "orderly reconstruction."
June 22, 2003: Iraq ships crude oil for the first time since the start of the war. Head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer, broached the politically sensitive issue of how oil revenue should be spent, proposing that some of the money be shared with Iraqis through a system of dividend payments or a national trust fund to finance public pensions. "Iraq's resources cannot be restricted to a lucky or powerful few," Bremer said. "Iraq's natural resources should be shared by all Iraqis."12
July 2003: Bremer appoints the members of the Iraqi Government Council. Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, a member of the State Department's energy working group, is tapped as Iraq's oil minister. Al-Uloum soon proposed a privatization program, and endorsed production sharing agreements as the route to that goal.13
October 2003: Carroll was replaced by Robert McKee, a former ConocoPhillips executive. According to the Houston Chronicle, "His selection as the Bush administration's energy czar in Iraq" drew fire from Congressional Democrats "because of his ties to the prime contractor in the Iraqi oil fields, Houston-based Halliburton Co. He's the chairman of a venture partitioned by the ... firm."14
The administration selected ChevronTexaco Vice President Norm Szydlowski to serve as a liaison between the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Oil Ministry. Now the CEO of the appropriately named Colonial Pipeline Company, Szydlowski continued to work with the Iraq Energy Roundtable, a project of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, which sponsored meetings to "bring together oil and gas sector leaders in the United States with key decision makers from the Iraq Ministry of Oil."15 Terry Adams and Bob Morgan of BP, and Mike Stinson of ConocoPhillips would also serve as advisers during the transition.16
November 2003: McKee quietly ordered a new plan for Iraq's oil. The drafting would be overseen by a "senior adviser," Amy Jaffe, who had worked for Morse when he was the Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. Jaffe now works for James Baker, the former Secretary of State, whose law firm serves as counsel to both ExxonMobil and the defense minister of Saudi Arabia. The plan, written by State Department contractor BearingPoint, was guided, says Jaffe, by a handful of oil -industry consultants and executives.17
December 19, 2003: BearingPoint releases "Options for Developing a Long Term Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry," a report on the Iraqi oil industry favoring foreign participation as the most efficient way of developing the sector.18
March 2004: CPA names new Iraq Oil Advisers: Mike Stinson of ConocoPhillips and Bob Morgan of BP.19
March 2004: Iraq's interim constitution, the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) passed in March 2004 by Iraq's Governing Council, sets forth that CPA laws, regulations, and orders are to remain in force after the transfer of sovereignty unless a duly enacted piece of legislation rescinds or amends them.20
June 2004: U.S. handover to the Iraq Interim Government. Mike Stinson becomes an adviser to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.21 Thamir al-Ghadban is named as Iraqi Oil Minister.
November 2004: International oil companies launched voluntary efforts to train Iraq's oil workers and provide technical assistance, hoping to generate goodwill and eventually get access to the country's huge oil reserves. Companies from the United States, Britain, and Russia—including ChevronTexaco Corp., BP, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Lukoil—are paying to send Iraqi oil workers out of the country to teach them the latest techniques in developing and managing oil fields.22
December 22, 2004: Iraqi Finance Minister Mahdi, in a joint press conference with U.S. Undersecretary of State Alan Larson at the National Press Club, announced Iraq's plans for a new petroleum law to open the oil sector to foreign private investment. Mahdi explained, "So I think this is very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies."23
Early 2005: New Government, old oil minister, al-Uloum reappointed to position of Minister for Oil. Ahmed Chalabi, head of the U.S.-backed Iraqi National Congress, was appointed chair of the Energy Council. In 2002, Chalabi said, "U.S. companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil."24
May 2005: Approximately 30 international oil companies signed Memoranda of Understanding with Iraq, generally for the training of Iraqi staff, consulting work, and studies.25
August 30, 2005: Bush says U.S. troops would continue fighting in Iraq in order to protect the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.26
October 15 2005: The national referendum for the Iraqi constitution passes, containing an outline for oil revenue sharing and development.
December 2005: Iraq enters into agreement with the International Monetary Fund committing Iraq to draft a new petroleum law by the end of 2006 to allow foreign investment in the country's oil industry. The arrangement was signed before the new Iraqi government had been appointed and one week after the December 2005 elections thus denying Iraqi voters a chance to react through the ballot box.
February 2006-June 2006: USAID contracts with BearingPoint to draft Iraq's oil law to provide "legal and regulatory advice in drafting the framework of petroleum and other energy-related legislation, including foreign investment."27
March 15, 2006: Gen. John Abizaid, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq, said the United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil.28
May 2006: Iraq's new oil minister, Hussein al-Sharistani, began drafting legislation to govern Iraq's oil sector. Following his appointment, Shahristani announced that one of his top priorities would be to pass a law allowing privatization through parliament by the end of 2006.
July 2006: U.S. Government and oil companies get a copy of the draft oil law.29
September 2006: International Monetary Fund and World Bank receive a copy of draft oil law.30
October 17, 2006: President Bush signs the 2007 Defense Authorization Act (PL No: 109-364) which states in SEC. 1519,"No funds ... in this Act may be obligated or expended ... to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.
February 2007: U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, "has been in intense talks with Kurdish leaders in the north to overcome their objections to the draft. Iraqi officials say Mr. Khalilzad's negotiations were crucial to winning unanimous cabinet approval."31
February 18, 2007: "Draft Hydrocarbon Law" was submitted to the Iraqi Cabinet (Council of Ministers).32
February 26, 2007: "Draft Hydrocarbon Law" was passed by the Iraqi Cabinet and was submitted to the Iraqi Parliament (Council of Representatives).33
April 19, 2007: Defense Secretary Robert Gates travels to Baghdad to push political benchmarks and specifically the oil law.34
May 9 2007: U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney travels to Baghdad to push political benchmarks and specifically the oil law.35
June 12, 2007: U.S. Admiral Fallon, head of the Central Command, warned Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in a closed-door conversation to pass the oil law by July.36
July 3, 2007: Iraq cabinet approves amended oil law draft and resubmits to the Iraqi Parliament.37
July 12, 2007: The White House released its Initial Benchmark Assessment Report. Benchmark #3, "Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources" is found to be not met. The report notes, "The effect of limited progress toward this benchmark has been to reduce the perceived confidence in, and effectiveness of, the Iraqi Government. This does not, however, necessitate a revision to our current plan and strategy, under which we have assigned a high priority to this subject, and the process overall has continued to move forward."38
End Notes
University of Michigan, 14 June 2006, "Iraq attitudes: Survey Documents Big Changes," available at www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2006/Jun06/r061406a.
In the law pushed by the U.S. administration, just one out of 43 articles mentions revenues: and that simply establishes two bank accounts, and states that the distribution will be determined by a separate law. This separate law was put together as an afterthought in summer 2007—attracting almost no interest from the administration; whilst as the timeline shows, the law providing for long-term contracts with multinational companies was consistently pushed by U.S. officials.
Documents from the Cheney-led National Energy Policy Development Group, available at: www.judicialwatch.org; Larry Everest, "Cheney, Energy, and Iraq Invasion: Supreme Court to Rule on Secrecy," San Francisco Chronicle, March 21, 2004; Michael Schwartz, "The Struggle Over Iraqi Oil," TomDispatch May 8, 2007. Available at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2007/0508struggleiraqioil.htm.
Greg Muttitt, "Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth," Platform, November 2005. Available at: http://www.crudedesigns.org/.
Charley Cray, "About Halliburton," Halliburton Watch, n.d. Available online at: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/energytf.html.
David Teather, "American to Oversee Iraqi Oil Industry," The Guardian/UK, April 26, 2003.
Greg Palast, "U.S. Secret Plans For Iraq's Oil," BBC News World Edition, March 17, 2005.
Paul Farhi, "The Soothing Sound of Fighting Words," The Washington Post, March 26, 2003.
Mark Rice, "For Iraq's Oil Wealth, Tangled Pipes," The Christian Science Monitor, April 21, 2003.
Neil King Jr., "Bush Officials Draft Broad Plan for Free-Market Economy in Iraq," Wall Street Journal, May 1, 2003.
Colum Lynch, "United States to Propose Broader Control of Iraqi Oil, Funds," The Washington Post, May 9, 2003.
Rajiv Chandrasekaran, "Bremer Broaches Plans for Iraq's Oil Revenue," The Washington Post, June 23, 2003.
James Ridgeway, "The Black Gold Rush: Divvying Up Iraq's Oil," Mother Jones, January 29, 2007.
David Ivanovich, "Houston Exec Gets Top Iraq Energy Post," Houston Chronicle, September 23, 2003.
U.S. Trade and Development Agency, conference agenda, "Iraq Energy Roundtable: Emerging Opportunities in the Iraq Oil and Gas Sector," June, 7, 2006. Available at: http://www.export.gov/iraq/pdf/oilgas_roudtable_060706.pdf.
Joshua Holland, "The U.S. Takeover of Iraqi Oil" AlterNet, October 17, 2006.
Greg Palast, "OPEC on the March: Why Iraq Still Sells its Oil a la Cartel," Harper's Magazine, April 1, 2005.
Muttitt, Crude Designs. Op. cit.
Muttitt, Crude Designs. Op. cit.
CPA, "Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period, art. 26(c)," March 8, 2004. Available at: http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html (accessed June 22, 2004).
Muttitt, Crude Designs. Op. cit.
Justin Blum, "Big Oil Companies Train Iraqi Workers Free Global Companies Offer Services to Establish Goodwill, Win Business," The Washington Post, November 6, 2004.
Transcript, NPC Afternoon Newsmaker News Conference; see also, Antonia Juhasz, "Iraq's Oil Timeline," Left Turn Magazine , May 1, 2006.
Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway, "In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue," The Washington Post, September 15, 2002.
"National Development Strategy 2005-2007," Republic of Iraq, Iraqi Strategic Review Board, Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation, June 30, 2005.
Jennifer Loven, "Bush Gives New Reason for Iraq War," Associated Press, August 31, 2005.
Benoit Faucon, "USAID Provides Adviser to Iraq Govt on Oil Law—Spokesman," Dow Jones Newswires, April 28, 2006; Greg Muttitt, "George's Oil Dubya-Speak: As Decision-Time Approaches, the USA Pulls Levers on Iraqi Oil Policy," Carbon Web, August 21, 2006.
Vicki Allen, "Abizaid Says United States May Want to Keep Bases in Iraq," Reuters, March 15, 2006.
Raymond Whitaker, Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson, Geoffrey Lean, and Tim Webb, "Blood and Oil; Special Report: The Spoils of War," The Independent, January 7, 2007.
Raymond Whitaker, Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson, Geoffrey Lean, and Tim Webb, "Blood and Oil; Special Report: The Spoils of War," The Independent, January 7, 2007.
Edward Wong, "Iraqi Cabinet Approves Draft of Oil Law," The New York Times, February 26, 2007.
Raed Jarrar, "The New Iraqi Oil: Leaked," raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com, February 18, 2007.
Raed Jarrar, "Council of Ministers' Resolution," raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com, March 1, 2007.
David Cloud, Alissa J. Rubin, and Edward Wong, "Gates in Baghdad to Press Iraqis on Reconciliation," International Herald Tribune, April 19, 2007.
John F. Burns, "Cheney Visits Baghdad and Presses Leaders on Political Progress," The New York Times, May 10, 2007.
Michael R. Gordon, "United States Warns Iraq Progress Needs to be Made," The New York Times, June 12, 2007.
"Iraq Cabinet Approves Oil Law Draft," Associated Press, July 3, 2007.
"Initial Benchmark Assessment Report," The White House, July 12, 2007. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070712.html.
Erik Leaver is a Carol and Ed Newman Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, and Greg Muttitt is Co-Director at the UK based NGO, Platform.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Significance of Iraq's New Oil Law
If any further evidence were needed that the Iraq invasion is at least partly about oil this is it. Notice that the oil law is one of the benchmarks set by the Bush administration. Note too that the law is much more friendly to foreign corporations than any laws among Bush allies in the region.
March 13, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?
By ANTONIA JUHASZ
San Francisco
TODAY more than three-quarters of the world's oil is owned and
controlled by governments. It wasn't always this way.
Until about 35 years ago, the world's oil was largely in the hands of
seven corporations based in the United States and Europe. Those seven
have since merged into four: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP. They
are among the world's largest and most powerful financial empires. But
ever since they lost their exclusive control of the oil to the
governments, the companies have been trying to get it back.
Iraq's oil reserves — thought to be the second largest in the world
—
have always been high on the corporate wish list. In 1998, Kenneth
Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, told a San Francisco audience,
"Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas — reserves I'd love
Chevron to have access to."
A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would,
if passed, go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve
their goal. The Iraq hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraq's
oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to
international oil companies for a generation or more.
In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better
known as Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force), which
included executives of America's largest energy companies, recommended
that the United States government support initiatives by Middle
Eastern countries "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign
investment." One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by
the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq
oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but
to the great detriment of Iraq's economy, democracy and sovereignty.
Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been
aggressive in shepherding the oil law toward passage. It is one of the
president's benchmarks for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal
al-Maliki, a fact that Mr. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
Gen. William Casey, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and other
administration officials are publicly emphasizing with increasing
urgency.
The administration has highlighted the law's revenue sharing plan,
under which the central government would distribute oil revenues
throughout the nation on a per capita basis. But the benefits of this
excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law's many other
provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq's oil revenues to
flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil
companies.
The law would transform Iraq's oil industry from a nationalized model
closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly
lucrative) marketing contracts, into a commercial industry,
all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil
companies.
The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17
of Iraq's 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known — and all
of its as yet undiscovered — fields open to foreign control.
The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the
Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or
share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq's current
"instability" by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is
at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting
foot in the country. The vast majority of Iraq's oil would then be
left underground for at least two years rather than being used for the
country's economic development.
The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most
corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are called
production sharing agreements. These agreements are the oil industry's
preferred model, but are roundly rejected by all the top oil producing
countries in the Middle East because they grant long-term contracts
(20 to 35 years in the case of Iraq's draft law) and greater control,
ownership and profits to the companies than other models. In fact,
they are used for only approximately 12 percent of the world's oil.
Iraq's neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia maintain nationalized
oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development.
They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide
specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without
giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced.
Iraqis may very well choose to use the expertise and experience of
international oil companies. They are most likely to do so in a manner
that best serves their own needs if they are freed from the tremendous
external pressure being exercised by the Bush administration, the oil
corporations — and the presence of 140,000 members of the American
military.
Iraq's five trade union federations, representing hundreds of
thousands of workers, released a statement opposing the law and
rejecting "the handing of control over oil to foreign companies, which
would undermine the sovereignty of the state and the dignity of the
Iraqi people." They ask for more time, less pressure and a chance at
the democracy they have been promised.
Antonia Juhasz, an analyst with Oil Change International, a watchdog
group, is the author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One
Economy at a Time."
--
March 13, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?
By ANTONIA JUHASZ
San Francisco
TODAY more than three-quarters of the world's oil is owned and
controlled by governments. It wasn't always this way.
Until about 35 years ago, the world's oil was largely in the hands of
seven corporations based in the United States and Europe. Those seven
have since merged into four: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP. They
are among the world's largest and most powerful financial empires. But
ever since they lost their exclusive control of the oil to the
governments, the companies have been trying to get it back.
Iraq's oil reserves — thought to be the second largest in the world
—
have always been high on the corporate wish list. In 1998, Kenneth
Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, told a San Francisco audience,
"Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas — reserves I'd love
Chevron to have access to."
A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would,
if passed, go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve
their goal. The Iraq hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraq's
oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to
international oil companies for a generation or more.
In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better
known as Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force), which
included executives of America's largest energy companies, recommended
that the United States government support initiatives by Middle
Eastern countries "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign
investment." One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by
the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq
oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but
to the great detriment of Iraq's economy, democracy and sovereignty.
Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been
aggressive in shepherding the oil law toward passage. It is one of the
president's benchmarks for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal
al-Maliki, a fact that Mr. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
Gen. William Casey, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and other
administration officials are publicly emphasizing with increasing
urgency.
The administration has highlighted the law's revenue sharing plan,
under which the central government would distribute oil revenues
throughout the nation on a per capita basis. But the benefits of this
excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law's many other
provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq's oil revenues to
flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil
companies.
The law would transform Iraq's oil industry from a nationalized model
closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly
lucrative) marketing contracts, into a commercial industry,
all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil
companies.
The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17
of Iraq's 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known — and all
of its as yet undiscovered — fields open to foreign control.
The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the
Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or
share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq's current
"instability" by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is
at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting
foot in the country. The vast majority of Iraq's oil would then be
left underground for at least two years rather than being used for the
country's economic development.
The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most
corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are called
production sharing agreements. These agreements are the oil industry's
preferred model, but are roundly rejected by all the top oil producing
countries in the Middle East because they grant long-term contracts
(20 to 35 years in the case of Iraq's draft law) and greater control,
ownership and profits to the companies than other models. In fact,
they are used for only approximately 12 percent of the world's oil.
Iraq's neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia maintain nationalized
oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development.
They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide
specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without
giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced.
Iraqis may very well choose to use the expertise and experience of
international oil companies. They are most likely to do so in a manner
that best serves their own needs if they are freed from the tremendous
external pressure being exercised by the Bush administration, the oil
corporations — and the presence of 140,000 members of the American
military.
Iraq's five trade union federations, representing hundreds of
thousands of workers, released a statement opposing the law and
rejecting "the handing of control over oil to foreign companies, which
would undermine the sovereignty of the state and the dignity of the
Iraqi people." They ask for more time, less pressure and a chance at
the democracy they have been promised.
Antonia Juhasz, an analyst with Oil Change International, a watchdog
group, is the author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One
Economy at a Time."
--
Saturday, February 24, 2007
More on the New Iraq Oil Law
There still seems to be absolutely no discussion of this law in the mainstream press. It seems pending bills in the Iraqi parliament are not made public. The oil law draft was leaked.
Oil Grab in Iraq
Antonia Juhasz and Raed Jarrar | February 22, 2007
Editor: John Feffer, IRC and Erik Leaver, IPS
Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org
While debate rages in the United States about the military in Iraq, an equally important decision is being made inside of Iraq--the future of Iraq’s oil. A new Iraqi law proposes to open the country’s currently nationalized oil system to foreign corporate control. But emblematic of the flawed promotion of “democracy” by the Bush administration, this new law is news to most Iraqi politicians.
A leaked copy of the proposed hydrocarbon law appeared on the Internet last week at the same time that it was introduced to the Iraqi Council of Ministers. The law is expected to go to the Iraqi Council of Representatives within weeks. Yet the Internet version was the first look that most members of Iraq’s parliament had of the new law.
Many Iraqi oil experts, like Fouad Al-Ameer who was responsible for the leak, think that this law is not an urgent item on the country's agenda. Other observers and analysis share Al-Ameer's views and believe the Bush administration, foreign oil companies, and the International Monetary Fund are rushing the Iraqi government to pass the law.
Not every aspect of the law is harmful to Iraq. However, the current language favors the interests of foreign oil corporations over the economic security and development of Iraq. The law’s key negative components harm Iraq’s national sovereignty, financial security, territorial integrity, and democracy.
National Sovereignty and Financial Security
The new oil law gives foreign corporations access to almost every sector of Iraq’s oil and natural gas industry. This includes service contracts on existing fields that are already being developed and that are managed and operated by the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC). For fields that have already been discovered, but not yet developed, the proposed law stipulates that INOC will have to be a partner on these contracts. But for as-yet-undiscovered fields, neither INOC nor private Iraqi companies receive preference in new exploration and development. Foreign companies have full access to these contracts.
The exploration and production contracts give firms exclusive control of fields for up to 35 years including contracts that guarantee profits for 25-years. A foreign company, if hired, is not required to partner with an Iraqi company or reinvest any of its money in the Iraqi economy. It’s not obligated to hire Iraqi workers train Iraqi workers, or transfer technology.
The current law remains silent on the type of contracts that the Iraqi government can use. The law establishes a new Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council with ultimate decision-making authority over the types of contracts that will be employed. This Council will include, among others, “executive managers of from important related petroleum companies.” Thus, it is possible that foreign oil company executives could sit on the Council. It would be unprecedented for a sovereign country to have, for instance, an executive of ExxonMobil on the board of its key oil and gas decision-making body.
The law also does not appear to restrict foreign corporate executives from making decisions on their own contracts. Nor does there appear to be a “quorum” requirement. Thus, if only five members of the Federal Oil and Gas Council met--one from ExxonMobil, Shell, ChevronTexaco, and two Iraqis--the foreign company representatives would apparently be permitted to approve contacts for themselves.
Under the proposed law, the Council has the ultimate power and authority to approve and re-write any contract using whichever model it prefers if a "2/3 majority of the members in attendance" agree. Early drafts of the bill, and the proposed model by the U.S. advocate very unfair, and unconventional for Iraq, models such as Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) which would set long term contracts with unfair conditions that may lead to the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars of the Iraqi oil money as profits to foreign companies.
The Council will also decide the fate of the existing exploration and production contracts already signed with the French, Chinese, and Russians, among others.
The law does not clarify who ultimately controls production levels. The contractee--the INOC, foreign, or domestic firms--appears to have the right to determine levels of production. However, a clause reads, “In the event that, for national policy considerations, there is a need to introduce limitations on the national level of Petroleum Production, such limitations shall be applied in a fair and equitable manner and on a pro-rata basis for each Contract Area on the basis of approved Field Development Plans.” The clause does not indicate who makes this decision, what a “fair and equitable manner” means, or how it is enforced. If foreign companies, rather than the Iraqi government, ultimately have control over production levels, then Iraq’s relationship to OPEC and other similar organizations would be deeply threatened.
Democracy and Territorial Integrity
Many Iraqi oil experts are already referring to the draft law as the "Split Iraq Fund," arguing that it facilitates plans for splitting Iraq into three ethnic/religious regions. The experts believe the law undermines the central government and shifts important decision-making and responsibilities to the regional entities. This shift could serve as the foundation for establishing three new independent states, which is the goal of a number of separatist leaders.
The law opens the possibility of the regions taking control of Iraq’s oil, but it also maintains the possibility of the central government retaining control. In fact, the law was written in a vague manner to help ensure passage, a ploy reminiscent of the passage of the Iraqi constitution. There is a significant conflict between the Bush administration and others in Iraq who would like ultimate authority for Iraq’s oil to rest with the central government and those who would like to see the nation split in three. Both groups are powerful in Iraq. Both groups have been mollified, for now, to ensure the law's passage.
But two very different outcomes are possible. If the central government remains the ultimate decision-making authority in Iraq, then the Iraq Federal Oil and Gas Council will exercise power over the regions. And if the regions emerge as the strongest power in Iraq, then the Council could simply become a silent rubber stamp, enforcing the will of the regions. The same lack of clarity exists in Iraq's constitution.
The daily lives of most people in Iraq are overwhelmed with meeting basic needs. They are unaware of the details and full nature of the oil law shortly to be considered in parliament. Their parliamentarians, in turn, have not been included in the debate over the law and were unable to even read the draft until it was leaked on the Internet. Those Iraqis able to make their voices heard on the oil law want more time. They urge postponing a decision until Iraqis have their own sovereign state without a foreign occupation.
Passing this oil law while the political future of Iraq is unclear can only further the existing schisms in the Iraqi government. Forcing its passage will achieve nothing more than an increase in the levels of violence, anger, and instability in Iraq and a prolongation of the U.S. occupation.
Raed Jarrar Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange. He is an Iraqi blogger and architect. He runs a blog called "Raed in the Middle." Antonia Juhasz is the Ida Tarbell Fellow at Oil Change International, a Visiting Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, and author of The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time (HarperCollins, April 2006).
Oil Grab in Iraq
Antonia Juhasz and Raed Jarrar | February 22, 2007
Editor: John Feffer, IRC and Erik Leaver, IPS
Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org
While debate rages in the United States about the military in Iraq, an equally important decision is being made inside of Iraq--the future of Iraq’s oil. A new Iraqi law proposes to open the country’s currently nationalized oil system to foreign corporate control. But emblematic of the flawed promotion of “democracy” by the Bush administration, this new law is news to most Iraqi politicians.
A leaked copy of the proposed hydrocarbon law appeared on the Internet last week at the same time that it was introduced to the Iraqi Council of Ministers. The law is expected to go to the Iraqi Council of Representatives within weeks. Yet the Internet version was the first look that most members of Iraq’s parliament had of the new law.
Many Iraqi oil experts, like Fouad Al-Ameer who was responsible for the leak, think that this law is not an urgent item on the country's agenda. Other observers and analysis share Al-Ameer's views and believe the Bush administration, foreign oil companies, and the International Monetary Fund are rushing the Iraqi government to pass the law.
Not every aspect of the law is harmful to Iraq. However, the current language favors the interests of foreign oil corporations over the economic security and development of Iraq. The law’s key negative components harm Iraq’s national sovereignty, financial security, territorial integrity, and democracy.
National Sovereignty and Financial Security
The new oil law gives foreign corporations access to almost every sector of Iraq’s oil and natural gas industry. This includes service contracts on existing fields that are already being developed and that are managed and operated by the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC). For fields that have already been discovered, but not yet developed, the proposed law stipulates that INOC will have to be a partner on these contracts. But for as-yet-undiscovered fields, neither INOC nor private Iraqi companies receive preference in new exploration and development. Foreign companies have full access to these contracts.
The exploration and production contracts give firms exclusive control of fields for up to 35 years including contracts that guarantee profits for 25-years. A foreign company, if hired, is not required to partner with an Iraqi company or reinvest any of its money in the Iraqi economy. It’s not obligated to hire Iraqi workers train Iraqi workers, or transfer technology.
The current law remains silent on the type of contracts that the Iraqi government can use. The law establishes a new Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council with ultimate decision-making authority over the types of contracts that will be employed. This Council will include, among others, “executive managers of from important related petroleum companies.” Thus, it is possible that foreign oil company executives could sit on the Council. It would be unprecedented for a sovereign country to have, for instance, an executive of ExxonMobil on the board of its key oil and gas decision-making body.
The law also does not appear to restrict foreign corporate executives from making decisions on their own contracts. Nor does there appear to be a “quorum” requirement. Thus, if only five members of the Federal Oil and Gas Council met--one from ExxonMobil, Shell, ChevronTexaco, and two Iraqis--the foreign company representatives would apparently be permitted to approve contacts for themselves.
Under the proposed law, the Council has the ultimate power and authority to approve and re-write any contract using whichever model it prefers if a "2/3 majority of the members in attendance" agree. Early drafts of the bill, and the proposed model by the U.S. advocate very unfair, and unconventional for Iraq, models such as Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) which would set long term contracts with unfair conditions that may lead to the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars of the Iraqi oil money as profits to foreign companies.
The Council will also decide the fate of the existing exploration and production contracts already signed with the French, Chinese, and Russians, among others.
The law does not clarify who ultimately controls production levels. The contractee--the INOC, foreign, or domestic firms--appears to have the right to determine levels of production. However, a clause reads, “In the event that, for national policy considerations, there is a need to introduce limitations on the national level of Petroleum Production, such limitations shall be applied in a fair and equitable manner and on a pro-rata basis for each Contract Area on the basis of approved Field Development Plans.” The clause does not indicate who makes this decision, what a “fair and equitable manner” means, or how it is enforced. If foreign companies, rather than the Iraqi government, ultimately have control over production levels, then Iraq’s relationship to OPEC and other similar organizations would be deeply threatened.
Democracy and Territorial Integrity
Many Iraqi oil experts are already referring to the draft law as the "Split Iraq Fund," arguing that it facilitates plans for splitting Iraq into three ethnic/religious regions. The experts believe the law undermines the central government and shifts important decision-making and responsibilities to the regional entities. This shift could serve as the foundation for establishing three new independent states, which is the goal of a number of separatist leaders.
The law opens the possibility of the regions taking control of Iraq’s oil, but it also maintains the possibility of the central government retaining control. In fact, the law was written in a vague manner to help ensure passage, a ploy reminiscent of the passage of the Iraqi constitution. There is a significant conflict between the Bush administration and others in Iraq who would like ultimate authority for Iraq’s oil to rest with the central government and those who would like to see the nation split in three. Both groups are powerful in Iraq. Both groups have been mollified, for now, to ensure the law's passage.
But two very different outcomes are possible. If the central government remains the ultimate decision-making authority in Iraq, then the Iraq Federal Oil and Gas Council will exercise power over the regions. And if the regions emerge as the strongest power in Iraq, then the Council could simply become a silent rubber stamp, enforcing the will of the regions. The same lack of clarity exists in Iraq's constitution.
The daily lives of most people in Iraq are overwhelmed with meeting basic needs. They are unaware of the details and full nature of the oil law shortly to be considered in parliament. Their parliamentarians, in turn, have not been included in the debate over the law and were unable to even read the draft until it was leaked on the Internet. Those Iraqis able to make their voices heard on the oil law want more time. They urge postponing a decision until Iraqis have their own sovereign state without a foreign occupation.
Passing this oil law while the political future of Iraq is unclear can only further the existing schisms in the Iraqi government. Forcing its passage will achieve nothing more than an increase in the levels of violence, anger, and instability in Iraq and a prolongation of the U.S. occupation.
Raed Jarrar Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange. He is an Iraqi blogger and architect. He runs a blog called "Raed in the Middle." Antonia Juhasz is the Ida Tarbell Fellow at Oil Change International, a Visiting Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, and author of The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time (HarperCollins, April 2006).
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Another article on the New Oil Law in Iraq
I wonder how long it will take the main stream press to report on this or if it ever will. The source for information is the same person for both articles I have seen so far. Perhaps it is not accurate but if it is, it is certainly a bonanza for the oil companies and a recipe for conflict given the power it seems to give oil rich regions.
Western companies will officially control Iraq’s oil soon
Ahmed Abdullah
From Islam Online
Nearly four years have passed since the U.S. sent its troops to “liberate Iraq” through an illegal war, described by most analysts and experts as well as most of Iraqis, as a hidden attempt by the Bush administration, which claimed that reasons for the war was the former Iraqi leader’s alleged link to Al Qaeda network and possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction, to lay hands on the country’s oil riches.
Today, the Iraqi government, under the control of the U.S., is considering a new oil law that would establish a framework for managing Iraq’s oil wealth, the third-largest oil reserves in the world.
Here Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi blogger and architect, who said he has obtained a copy of the new oil law, discusses the new legislation with Antonia Juhasz, author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time,” where she uncovers the economic gains of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
When asked by Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman about how he got a copy of the document and what it says, Mr. Jarrar, the Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange said that the :document was leaked by Professor Fouad Al-Ameer and published on a website called al-ghad.org. And then it was leaked to other important websites like niqash.org and other places. There different copies of it. Some are scanned, and others of the original document, but it just hit the internet last week.
“It said so many things. I don’t think we can summarize it this short, because it’s a very long document, around thirty pages. But majorly, there are three major points that I think we should talk about. Financially, it legalizes very unfair types of contracts that will put Iraq in very long-term contracts that can go up to thirty-five years and cause the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars from Iraqis for no cause.
“The second point is concerning Iraq's sovereignty. Iraq will not be capable of controlling the levels -- the limits of production, which means that Iraq cannot be a part of OPEC anymore. And Iraq will have this very complicated institution called the Federal Oil and Gas Council, that will have representatives from the foreign oil companies on the board of it, so representatives from, let’s say, ExxonMobil and Shell and British Petroleum will be on the federal board of Iraq approving their own contracts.
“The Third point is the point about keeping Iraq’s unity. The law is seen by many Iraqi analysts as a separation for Iraq fund. The law will authorize all of the regional and small provinces’ authorities. It will give them the final say to deal with the oil, instead of giving this final say to central federal government, so it will open the doors for splitting Iraq into three regions or even maybe three states in the very near future.”
On the other hand, Antonia Juhasz, who was also asked by Amy Goodman about the significance of such law for Western oil companies, said that it “certainly opens the door to U.S. oil companies and the Bush administration winning a very large piece of their objective of going to war in Iraq, at least winning it on paper. The law does almost word for word what was laid out in the Baker-Hamilton recommendation, which I discussed previously on your show, which is, at the very basic level, to turn Iraq's nationalized oil system, the model that 90% of the world’s oil is governed by, take its nationalized oil system and turn it into a commercial system fully open to foreign corporate investment on terms as of yet to be decided. So it leaves vague this very important question of what type of contracts will the Iraqi government use. But what it leaves clear is that basically every level of the oil industry will be open to private foreign companies.
“It introduces this very unique model, which is that ultimate decision making on contracts rests with a new council to be set up in Iraq, and sitting on that council will be representatives -- executives, in fact -- of oil companies, both foreign and domestic. In addition, it does maintain the Iraq National Oil Company, but gives the Iraq National Oil Company almost no preference. It’s almost in all cases just another oil company among lots of other companies, including U.S. oil companies. And this council, the new oil and gas council, is going to be the decision making body to determine what kind of contract the Iraqis can sign, and all contract models are still on the table, yet to be determined. I think that’s left vague or open, so that the very necessary criticism to earlier drafts of the law, which included specifically production sharing agreements, might be quieted.
“But the law definitely sets up a very dangerous setup for Iraq's future economic stability, economic development, and certainly sets the stage for a tremendous amount of increased hostility and violence to U.S. soldiers positioned on the ground, as being seen as the implementers of this oil hijack."
Asked about the advocates’ argument for Western company involvement, that they need to come into Iraq to kick-start the oil development, Juhasz said that Iraq's oil development has actually been going quite well since the invasion under the guidance of the Iraqis themselves. Prior to the war, Iraq produced 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. Since the war, it’s been producing about 2.2 million barrels of oil a day. That’s definitely dropped most recently, because of the intense violence in Iraq of late. And there have definitely been targeted actions against the oil system as demonstrations of opposition to the occupation. So I believe there is a very concrete argument that can be made that the best thing that Iraq can do right now to see its oil infrastructure secure and pumping at a reasonable level is to see the U.S. occupation end.
“Given that Iraq's oil only costs less than a dollar per barrel to pump and oil is selling at over $50 per barrel, the Iraqis are already making a tremendous return on their oil. The danger is that under the different models of oil contract that are being put on the table, that the Iraqis would lose the vast majority of that profit to the foreign oil companies.
“Now, just really quickly, Iraqis have lost a fair amount of expertise, technical know-how, as technology has increased over the past eleven years and the Iraqis were shut out because of the sanctions. The answer to that is found in the models put forward by their neighbors, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are technical service contracts that countries sign with foreign companies to bring in that expertise, but under very limited time frames and very specific economic benefits to the companies and to the country, not these 35-year contracts, as Raed said, and the potential for vast profits leaving the country."
“No one in Iraq knows about the law,” said Raed Jarrar.
“The law has been kept in a very low profile, and there is a huge propaganda campaign by the government trying to portray the law as straight and good for Iraq, a law that will turn Iraq into heaven on earth, because it will bring all of the foreign investments. Even parliamentarians in the Iraqi government, the ones who will have the final say to pass this law, haven’t received a copy of this law yet. I sent them the copy three or four days ago, and I sent a copy to many of the other Iraqi bloggers and journalists, because I think it’s very important to raise awareness about this and make it an issue.
“The Iraqi government and the Bush administration are trying to keep a very low profile in Iraq on this law. I think they’re planning just to, you know, surprise the parliamentarians one morning and have them vote on it without any knowledge of what the law actually causes."
© 2007 Ahmed Abdullah
Western companies will officially control Iraq’s oil soon
Ahmed Abdullah
From Islam Online
Nearly four years have passed since the U.S. sent its troops to “liberate Iraq” through an illegal war, described by most analysts and experts as well as most of Iraqis, as a hidden attempt by the Bush administration, which claimed that reasons for the war was the former Iraqi leader’s alleged link to Al Qaeda network and possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction, to lay hands on the country’s oil riches.
Today, the Iraqi government, under the control of the U.S., is considering a new oil law that would establish a framework for managing Iraq’s oil wealth, the third-largest oil reserves in the world.
Here Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi blogger and architect, who said he has obtained a copy of the new oil law, discusses the new legislation with Antonia Juhasz, author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time,” where she uncovers the economic gains of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
When asked by Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman about how he got a copy of the document and what it says, Mr. Jarrar, the Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange said that the :document was leaked by Professor Fouad Al-Ameer and published on a website called al-ghad.org. And then it was leaked to other important websites like niqash.org and other places. There different copies of it. Some are scanned, and others of the original document, but it just hit the internet last week.
“It said so many things. I don’t think we can summarize it this short, because it’s a very long document, around thirty pages. But majorly, there are three major points that I think we should talk about. Financially, it legalizes very unfair types of contracts that will put Iraq in very long-term contracts that can go up to thirty-five years and cause the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars from Iraqis for no cause.
“The second point is concerning Iraq's sovereignty. Iraq will not be capable of controlling the levels -- the limits of production, which means that Iraq cannot be a part of OPEC anymore. And Iraq will have this very complicated institution called the Federal Oil and Gas Council, that will have representatives from the foreign oil companies on the board of it, so representatives from, let’s say, ExxonMobil and Shell and British Petroleum will be on the federal board of Iraq approving their own contracts.
“The Third point is the point about keeping Iraq’s unity. The law is seen by many Iraqi analysts as a separation for Iraq fund. The law will authorize all of the regional and small provinces’ authorities. It will give them the final say to deal with the oil, instead of giving this final say to central federal government, so it will open the doors for splitting Iraq into three regions or even maybe three states in the very near future.”
On the other hand, Antonia Juhasz, who was also asked by Amy Goodman about the significance of such law for Western oil companies, said that it “certainly opens the door to U.S. oil companies and the Bush administration winning a very large piece of their objective of going to war in Iraq, at least winning it on paper. The law does almost word for word what was laid out in the Baker-Hamilton recommendation, which I discussed previously on your show, which is, at the very basic level, to turn Iraq's nationalized oil system, the model that 90% of the world’s oil is governed by, take its nationalized oil system and turn it into a commercial system fully open to foreign corporate investment on terms as of yet to be decided. So it leaves vague this very important question of what type of contracts will the Iraqi government use. But what it leaves clear is that basically every level of the oil industry will be open to private foreign companies.
“It introduces this very unique model, which is that ultimate decision making on contracts rests with a new council to be set up in Iraq, and sitting on that council will be representatives -- executives, in fact -- of oil companies, both foreign and domestic. In addition, it does maintain the Iraq National Oil Company, but gives the Iraq National Oil Company almost no preference. It’s almost in all cases just another oil company among lots of other companies, including U.S. oil companies. And this council, the new oil and gas council, is going to be the decision making body to determine what kind of contract the Iraqis can sign, and all contract models are still on the table, yet to be determined. I think that’s left vague or open, so that the very necessary criticism to earlier drafts of the law, which included specifically production sharing agreements, might be quieted.
“But the law definitely sets up a very dangerous setup for Iraq's future economic stability, economic development, and certainly sets the stage for a tremendous amount of increased hostility and violence to U.S. soldiers positioned on the ground, as being seen as the implementers of this oil hijack."
Asked about the advocates’ argument for Western company involvement, that they need to come into Iraq to kick-start the oil development, Juhasz said that Iraq's oil development has actually been going quite well since the invasion under the guidance of the Iraqis themselves. Prior to the war, Iraq produced 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. Since the war, it’s been producing about 2.2 million barrels of oil a day. That’s definitely dropped most recently, because of the intense violence in Iraq of late. And there have definitely been targeted actions against the oil system as demonstrations of opposition to the occupation. So I believe there is a very concrete argument that can be made that the best thing that Iraq can do right now to see its oil infrastructure secure and pumping at a reasonable level is to see the U.S. occupation end.
“Given that Iraq's oil only costs less than a dollar per barrel to pump and oil is selling at over $50 per barrel, the Iraqis are already making a tremendous return on their oil. The danger is that under the different models of oil contract that are being put on the table, that the Iraqis would lose the vast majority of that profit to the foreign oil companies.
“Now, just really quickly, Iraqis have lost a fair amount of expertise, technical know-how, as technology has increased over the past eleven years and the Iraqis were shut out because of the sanctions. The answer to that is found in the models put forward by their neighbors, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are technical service contracts that countries sign with foreign companies to bring in that expertise, but under very limited time frames and very specific economic benefits to the companies and to the country, not these 35-year contracts, as Raed said, and the potential for vast profits leaving the country."
“No one in Iraq knows about the law,” said Raed Jarrar.
“The law has been kept in a very low profile, and there is a huge propaganda campaign by the government trying to portray the law as straight and good for Iraq, a law that will turn Iraq into heaven on earth, because it will bring all of the foreign investments. Even parliamentarians in the Iraqi government, the ones who will have the final say to pass this law, haven’t received a copy of this law yet. I sent them the copy three or four days ago, and I sent a copy to many of the other Iraqi bloggers and journalists, because I think it’s very important to raise awareness about this and make it an issue.
“The Iraqi government and the Bush administration are trying to keep a very low profile in Iraq on this law. I think they’re planning just to, you know, surprise the parliamentarians one morning and have them vote on it without any knowledge of what the law actually causes."
© 2007 Ahmed Abdullah
The New Oil Law
If this report is true it is truly astounding. International oil giants would have unprecedented power in what is supposed to be an inependent nation with a national oil company. This should be front page news. However some playboy bunny's death will get more coverage!
New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Oily truth emerges in Iraq
Wednesday, February 21st, 2007
Throughout nearly four years of the daily mayhem and carnage in Iraq,
President Bush and his aides in the White House have scoffed at even
the
slightest suggestion that the U.S. military occupation has anything to
do
with oil.
The President presumably would have us all believe that if Iraq had the
world's second-largest supply of bananas instead of petroleum, American
troops would still be there.
Now comes new evidence of the big prize in Iraq that rarely gets
mentioned
at White House briefings.
A proposed new Iraqi oil and gas law began circulating last week among
that
country's top government leaders and was quickly leaked to various
Internet
sites - before it has even been presented to the Iraqi parliament.
Under the proposed law, Iraq's immense oil reserves would not simply be
opened to foreign oil exploration, as many had expected. Amazingly,
executives from those companies would actually be given seats on a new
Federal Oil and Gas Council that would control all of Iraq's reserves.
In other words, Chevron, ExxonMobil, British Petroleum and the other
Western
oil giants could end up on the board of directors of the Iraqi Federal
Oil
and Gas Council, while Iraq's own national oil company would become
just
another competitor.
The new law would grant the council virtually all power to develop
policies
and plans for undeveloped oil fields and to review and change all
exploration and production contracts.
Since most of Iraq's 73 proven petroleum fields have yet to be
developed,
the new council would instantly become a world energy powerhouse.
"We're talking about trillions of dollars of oil that are at stake,"
said
Raed Jarrar, an independent Iraqi journalist and blogger who obtained
an
Arabic copy of the draft law and posted an English-language translation
on
his Web site over the weekend.
Take, for example, the massive Majnoon field in southern Iraq near the
Iranian border, which contains an estimated 20 billion barrels. Before
Saddam Hussein was toppled by the U.S. invasion in 2003, he had granted
a $4
billion contract to French oil giant TotalFinaElf to develop the field.
In the same way, the Iraqi dictator signed contracts with Chinese,
Russian,
Korean, Italian and Spanish companies to develop 10 other big oil
fields
once international sanctions against his regime were lifted.
The big British and American companies had been shut out of Iraq,
thanks to
more than a decade of U.S. sanctions against Saddam.
But if the new law passes, those companies will be the ones reviewing
those
very contracts and any others.
"Iraq's economic security and development will be thrown into question
with
this law," said Antonia Juhasz of Oil Change International, a petroleum
industry watchdog group. "It's a radical departure not only from Iraq's
existing structure but from how oil is managed in most of the world
today."
Throughout the developing world, national oil companies control the
bulk of
oil production, though they often develop joint agreements with foreign
commercial oil groups.
But under the proposed law, the government-owned Iraqi National Oil Co.
"will not get any preference over foreign companies," Juhasz said.
The law must still be presented to the Iraqi parliament. Given the many
political and religious divisions in the country, its passage is hardly
guaranteed.
The main religious and ethnic groups are all pushing to control
contracts
and oil revenues for their regions, while the Bush administration is
seeking
more centralized control.
While the politicians in Washington and Baghdad bicker to carve up the
real
prize, and just what share Big Oil will get, more Iraqi civilians and
American soldiers die each each day - for freedom, we're told.
jgonzalez@nydailynews.com
_____________________________
DeleteReplyForwardSpamMove...
Previous | Next | Back to Messages Save Message Text | Full Headers
New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Oily truth emerges in Iraq
Wednesday, February 21st, 2007
Throughout nearly four years of the daily mayhem and carnage in Iraq,
President Bush and his aides in the White House have scoffed at even
the
slightest suggestion that the U.S. military occupation has anything to
do
with oil.
The President presumably would have us all believe that if Iraq had the
world's second-largest supply of bananas instead of petroleum, American
troops would still be there.
Now comes new evidence of the big prize in Iraq that rarely gets
mentioned
at White House briefings.
A proposed new Iraqi oil and gas law began circulating last week among
that
country's top government leaders and was quickly leaked to various
Internet
sites - before it has even been presented to the Iraqi parliament.
Under the proposed law, Iraq's immense oil reserves would not simply be
opened to foreign oil exploration, as many had expected. Amazingly,
executives from those companies would actually be given seats on a new
Federal Oil and Gas Council that would control all of Iraq's reserves.
In other words, Chevron, ExxonMobil, British Petroleum and the other
Western
oil giants could end up on the board of directors of the Iraqi Federal
Oil
and Gas Council, while Iraq's own national oil company would become
just
another competitor.
The new law would grant the council virtually all power to develop
policies
and plans for undeveloped oil fields and to review and change all
exploration and production contracts.
Since most of Iraq's 73 proven petroleum fields have yet to be
developed,
the new council would instantly become a world energy powerhouse.
"We're talking about trillions of dollars of oil that are at stake,"
said
Raed Jarrar, an independent Iraqi journalist and blogger who obtained
an
Arabic copy of the draft law and posted an English-language translation
on
his Web site over the weekend.
Take, for example, the massive Majnoon field in southern Iraq near the
Iranian border, which contains an estimated 20 billion barrels. Before
Saddam Hussein was toppled by the U.S. invasion in 2003, he had granted
a $4
billion contract to French oil giant TotalFinaElf to develop the field.
In the same way, the Iraqi dictator signed contracts with Chinese,
Russian,
Korean, Italian and Spanish companies to develop 10 other big oil
fields
once international sanctions against his regime were lifted.
The big British and American companies had been shut out of Iraq,
thanks to
more than a decade of U.S. sanctions against Saddam.
But if the new law passes, those companies will be the ones reviewing
those
very contracts and any others.
"Iraq's economic security and development will be thrown into question
with
this law," said Antonia Juhasz of Oil Change International, a petroleum
industry watchdog group. "It's a radical departure not only from Iraq's
existing structure but from how oil is managed in most of the world
today."
Throughout the developing world, national oil companies control the
bulk of
oil production, though they often develop joint agreements with foreign
commercial oil groups.
But under the proposed law, the government-owned Iraqi National Oil Co.
"will not get any preference over foreign companies," Juhasz said.
The law must still be presented to the Iraqi parliament. Given the many
political and religious divisions in the country, its passage is hardly
guaranteed.
The main religious and ethnic groups are all pushing to control
contracts
and oil revenues for their regions, while the Bush administration is
seeking
more centralized control.
While the politicians in Washington and Baghdad bicker to carve up the
real
prize, and just what share Big Oil will get, more Iraqi civilians and
American soldiers die each each day - for freedom, we're told.
jgonzalez@nydailynews.com
_____________________________
DeleteReplyForwardSpamMove...
Previous | Next | Back to Messages Save Message Text | Full Headers
Monday, February 19, 2007
Iraq oil law goes to Cabinet
It seems that some sort of compromise has been worked out. If the Sunni's do not get much this will just encourage the insurgency. Hopefully, we will soon be able to see the details of the bill assuming the cabinet approves it.
Iraq oil law goes to cabinet for approval
Holly Manges Jones at 7:07 AM ET
[JURIST] Iraqi legislators delivered a draft law [JURIST report] to Iraq's cabinet over the weekend which outlines the development and distribution of oil in the country, according
o two members of a negotiating committee tasked with developing the resolution. Negotiations concerning the proposed law have been a source of tension [JURIST report] in Iraq for months as Kurds were adamant about retaining control of Iraq's oil resources [Global Policy backgrounder] in the northern regions. Other government leaders, however, focused on giving the central Iraqi government control over oil revenues and approval rights for any contracts with other countries or international companies to pump oil, since oil revenues are the main source of income to Iraq [JURIST news archive].
While the two committee members did not reveal details of the draft law, a senior Kurdish official suggested that a compromise had been made to appease the northern Kurds. If the cabinet members approve the proposed law, it will then go to the Iraqi Parliament [official website, English version] for ratification. Typically, if Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish political leaders have backed a measure, Parliament almost always gives its approval. Monday's New York Times has more.
Iraq oil law goes to cabinet for approval
Holly Manges Jones at 7:07 AM ET
[JURIST] Iraqi legislators delivered a draft law [JURIST report] to Iraq's cabinet over the weekend which outlines the development and distribution of oil in the country, according
o two members of a negotiating committee tasked with developing the resolution. Negotiations concerning the proposed law have been a source of tension [JURIST report] in Iraq for months as Kurds were adamant about retaining control of Iraq's oil resources [Global Policy backgrounder] in the northern regions. Other government leaders, however, focused on giving the central Iraqi government control over oil revenues and approval rights for any contracts with other countries or international companies to pump oil, since oil revenues are the main source of income to Iraq [JURIST news archive].
While the two committee members did not reveal details of the draft law, a senior Kurdish official suggested that a compromise had been made to appease the northern Kurds. If the cabinet members approve the proposed law, it will then go to the Iraqi Parliament [official website, English version] for ratification. Typically, if Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish political leaders have backed a measure, Parliament almost always gives its approval. Monday's New York Times has more.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Criminalization of US Foreign Policy: Michel Chossudovsky
Photos accompanying the article are deleted. If you want to view them go to the Global Research website
The Criminalization of US Foreign Policy
From the Truman Doctrine to the Neo-Conservatives
By Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, February 5, 2007
1. The contemporary context
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity.
At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large part of the Middle East.
There is mounting evidence that the Bush Administration, in liaison with Israel and NATO, is planning the launching of a nuclear war against Iran, ironically, in retaliation for Tehran's nonexistent nuclear weapons program. The US-Israeli military operation is said to be in "an advanced state of readiness".
If such a plan were to be launched, the war would escalate and eventually engulf the entire Middle-East Central Asian region.
The war could extend beyond the region, as some analysts have suggested, ultimately leading us into a World War III scenario.
The US-led naval deployment (involving a massive deployment of military hardware) is taking place in two distinct theaters: the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
The militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is broadly under the jurisdiction of NATO in liaison with Israel. Directed against Syria, it is conducted under the façade of a UN "peace-keeping" mission. In this context, the Israeli led war on Lebanon last Summer, which was conducive to countless atrocities and the destruction of an entire country, must be viewed as a stage of the broader US sponsored military road-map.
2. Naval Buildup in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean
The naval armada in the Persian Gulf is largely under US command, with the participation of Canada.
USS Enterprise Strike Group
USS Eisenhower
The naval buildup is coordinated with the air attacks. The planning of aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued.
While its contents remain classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the stockpiling and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.
In recent developments, there are reports that Washington is planning to launch air attacks from military bases in Romania and Bulgaria. "American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April [2007]," according to the Bulgarian news agency Novinite.
3. The Ultimate War Crime: Using Nuclear Weapons in a Conventional War theater
Despite Pentagon statements, which describe tactical nuclear weapons as "safe for the surrounding civilian population", the use of nukes in a conventional war theater directed against Iran would trigger the ultimate war crime: a nuclear holocaust. The resulting radioactive contamination, which threatens future generations, would by no means be limited to the Middle East.
4. The "War on Terrorism": Pretext to Wage War
In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". Mass casualty producing events, involving the death of civilians are being used to galvanize public opinion in support of a military agenda. The deaths of civilian are used to justify preemptive actions to defend the American homeland against an alleged outside enemy, who are identified as "Islamic terrorists".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass Casualty Producing Events
"A terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." General Tommy Franks,
"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." (David Rockefeller)
"As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (Zbigniew Brzezinski in the Grand Chessboard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The presumption was that if such a 9/11 type event involving the deaths of civilians (mass casualty producing event) were to take place, Iran would, according to Cheney, be behind it, thereby providing a pretext for punitive bombings, much in the same way as the US sponsored attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the alleged support of the Taliban government to the 9/11 terrorists
More recently, several analysts have focussed on the creation of a "Gulf of Tonkin incident", which would be used by the Bush administration as a pretext to wage war on Iran
5. The Real Objective Of This War Is Oil
The oil lies in Muslim lands. The objective is to take possession of the oil, transform countries into territories and redraw the map of the Middle East
War builds a fake "humanitarian agenda". Throughout history, vilification of the enemy has been applied time and again with a view to ultimately justifying war and war crimes.
Demonization of the enemy serves geopolitical and economic objectives. Likewise, the campaign against "Islamic terrorism" (which is supported covertly by US intelligence) supports the conquest of oil wealth. The term "Islamo-fascism," serves to degrade the policies, institutions, values and social fabric of Muslim countries, while also upholding the tenets of "Western democracy" and the "free market" as the only alternative for these countries.
The US led war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region consists in gaining control over more than sixty percent of the world's reserves of oil and natural gas. The Anglo-American oil giants also seek to gain control over oil and gas pipeline routes out of the region.
Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, possess between 66.2 and 75.9 percent of total oil reserves, depending on the source and methodology of the estimate.
In contrast, the United States of America has barely 2 percent of total oil reserves. Western countries including its major oil producers ( Canada, the US, Norway, the UK, Denmark and Australia) control approximately 4 percent of total oil reserves. (In the alternative estimate of the Oil and Gas Journal which includes Canada's oil sands, this percentage would be of the the order of 16.5%.
The largest share of the World's oil reserves lies in a region extending (North) from the tip of Yemen to the Caspian sea basin and (East) from the Eastern Mediterranean coastline to the Persian Gulf. This broader Middle East- Central Asian region, which is the theater of the US-led "war on terrorism" encompasses according to the estimates of World Oil, more than sixty percent of the World's oil reserves. (See table below).
Iraq has five times more oil than the United States.
Muslim countries possess at least 16 times more oil than the Western countries.
The major non-Muslim oil reserve countries are Venezuela, Russia, Mexico, China and Brazil. (See table)
The victims of war crimes are vilified Demonization is applied to an enemy, which possesses three quarters of the world's oil reserves. "Axis of evil", "rogue States", "failed nations", "Islamic terrorists": demonization and vilification are the ideological pillars of America's "war on terror". They serve as a casus belli for waging the battle for oil.
The Battle for Oil requires the demonization of those who possess the oil. The enemy is characterized as evil, with a view to justifying military action including the mass killing of civilians. The Middle East Central Asian region is heavily militarized. (See map). The oil fields are encircled: NATO war ships stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean (as part of a UN "peace keeping" operation), US Carrier Strike Groups and Destroyer Squadrons in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian deployed as part of the "war on terrorism".
6. Historical Background: From Hiroshima to the Preemptive Warfare Doctrine
What are the historical roots of this military agenda? What is the balance sheet of US sponsored war crimes extending from 1945 to the present?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHO ARE THE WAR CRIMINALS: BUSH IS NOT THE ONLY WAR CRIMINAL ON THE BLOCK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US war crimes and atrocities should be seen as the direct consequence of a foreign policy and military agenda, which supports US corporate interests, including the oil giants, the Wall Street financial establishment and the big six defense contractors.
The Middle East war is the culmination of a history of US sponsored military interventions.
The bombing of Hiroshima was the initial landmark leading to the formulation of a "preemptive" nuclear doctrine, where nukes are to be used in the conventional war theater.
There is a continuum: the bombing of Hiroshima was presented to public opinion as "safe for civilians" because Hiroshima was identified in President Truman’s August 9, 1945 radio address as "a military base".
"The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.."
(President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945, Listen to Excerpt of his speech, By going through Truman’s diary, one has the distinct impression that he firmly believed that Hiroshima was a military target. Was he briefed on the consequences of the atom bomb?(President Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945).
Similarly, the use of nukes against Iran is presented as an act of self-defense, which according to the Pentagon, will minimize the risk of "collateral damage" and protect the lives of civilians.Prior the invasion of Iraq, the use of tactical nuclear weapons had been contemplated as a means to assassinate Saddam Hussein:
"If Saddam was arguably the highest value target in Iraq, then a good case could be made for using a nuclear weapon like the B61-11 to assure killing him and decapitating the regime" (.Defense News, December 8, 2003).
More generally, mini-nukes are considered safe to be used in a conventional war theater:
"What's needed now is something that can threaten a bunker tunneled under 300 meters of granite without killing the surrounding civilian population." (Pentagon Official quoted in Michel Chossudovsky, 2006, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060217&articleId=1988
These statements, which reflect US nuclear doctrine promote according to Federation of American Scientists (FAS) "the illusion that nuclear weapons could be used in ways which minimize their ‘collateral damage’, making them acceptable tools to be used like conventional weapons." (See http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001 / click v54nl, italics added)
7. America’s Wars of the "Post War Era"
What is referred euphemistically as the "post war era" is in fact a period of continuous war and militarization. Since the end of the Second World War, this "long war" seeks to establish US hegemony worldwide.
This period is marked by a succession of US sponsored theater wars (Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia), various forms of military interventions including low intensity conflicts, "civil wars" (The Congo, Angola, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan) military coups, US sponsored death squadrons and massacres (Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Argentina, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines), covert wars led by US intelligence , etc.
This entire period (1945- present) has been marked by a succession of US sponsored wars and military-intelligence interventions in all major regions of the World (see map below).
Accounting for these various operations, the United States has attacked, directly or indirectly, some 44 countries in different regions of the developing world, since August 1945, a number of them many times (Eric Waddell, 2003):
"The avowed objective of these military interventions has been to effect ‘regime change’. The cloaks of "human rights" and of "democracy were invariably evoked to justify what were unilateral and illegal acts." (Eric Waddell, 2003)
The foreign policy underpinnings of what is now referred to by Bush officials as the "long war" are to be found in what is known as the "Truman Doctrine", first formulated by foreign policy adviser George F. Kennan in a 1948 in State Department brief.
What this 1948 document conveys is continuity in US foreign policy, from "Containment" to "Pre-emptive" War. It states in polite terms that the US should seek economic and strategic dominance through military means:
Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. (…)
In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to "be liked" or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better (George f. Kennan, 1948 State Department Brief)
8. Destroying Internationalism
The planned disintegration of the United Nations system as an independent and influential international body has been on the drawing board of US foreign policy since the inception of the United Nations in 1946. Its planned demise was an integral part of the Truman doctrine as defined in 1948. From the very inception of the UN, Washington has sought on the one hand to control it to its advantage, while also seeking to weakening and ultimately destroy the UN system. The outgoing Secretary General Kofi Annan became a tool of US foreign policy.
In the words of George Kennan:
"Occasionally, it [the United Nations] has served a useful purpose. But by and large it has created more problems than it has solved, and has led to a considerable dispersal of our diplomatic effort. And in our efforts to use the UN majority for major political purposes we are playing with a dangerous weapon which may some day turn against us. This is a situation which warrants most careful study and foresight on our part. (George Kennan, 1948)
In our efforts to use the UN majority for major political purposes we are playing with a dangerous weapon which may some day turn against us. This is a situation which warrants most careful study and foresight on our part. (George Kennan, 1948)
Although officially committed to the "international community", Washington has largely played lip service to the United Nations. In recent years it has sought to undermine it as an institution. Since Gulf War I, the UN has largely acted as a rubber stamp. It has closed its eyes to US war crimes, it has implemented so-called peacekeeping operations on behalf of the Anglo-American invaders, in violation of the UN Charter.
9. From the Truman Doctrine to the Neo-Conservatives
The Neo-conservative agenda under the Bush administration should be viewed as the culmination of a (bipartisan) "Post War" foreign policy framework, which provides the basis for the planning of the contemporary wars and atrocities including the setting up of torture chambers, concentration camps and the extensive use of prohibited weapons directed against civilians.
From Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, to the CIA sponsored military coups in Latin America and Southeast Asia, the objective has been to ensure US military hegemony and global economic domination, as initially formulated under the "Truman Doctrine". Despite significant policy differences, successive Democratic and Republican administrations, from Harry Truman to George W. Bush have carried out this global military agenda.
10. US War Crimes and Atrocities
This entire "post war period" is marked by extensive war crimes resulting in the death of more than ten million people. This figure does not include those who perished as a result of poverty, starvation and disease.
What we are dealing with is a criminal US foreign policy agenda. Criminalization does not pertain to one or more heads of State. It pertains to the entire State system, it’s various civilian and military institutions as well as the powerful corporate interests behind the formulation of US foreign policy, the Washington think tanks, the creditor institutions which finance the military machine.
War crimes are the result of the criminalization of the US State and foreign policy apparatus. We are dealing specifically with individual war criminals, but with a process involving decision makers acting at different level, with a mandate to carry out war crimes, following established guidelines and procedures.
What distinguishes the Bush administration in relation to historical record of US sponsored crimes and atrocities, is that the concentration camps, targeted assassinations and torture chambers are now openly considered as legitimate forms of intervention, which sustain "the global war on terrorism" and support the spread of Western democracy.
11. Mechanisms of US Intervention
US sponsored crimes are not limited to the casualties of war and the physical destruction of the nation’s infrastructure.
Countries are destroyed, often transformed into territories, sovereignty is foregone, national institutions collapse, the national economy is destroyed through the imposition of "free market" reforms, unemployment becomes rampant, social services are dismantled, wages collapse, and people are impoverished.
In turn, the nation’s assets and natural resources are transferred into the hands of foreign investors through a privatization programme imposed by the invading forces.
12. The Perdana Initiative: Reversing the Tide of War
The Perdana Initiative to Criminalize War seeks to break the consensus.
Once that consensus is broken, the shaky legitimacy of the "Global War on Terrorism" collapses like a deck of cards. The War criminals in high office do not have a leg to stand on.
To reverse the tide of war requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, mosques, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.
Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged.
There seems to be a reluctance by members of Congress to exercise their powers under the US Constitution, with a view to preventing the unthinkable: the onslaught of a US sponsored nuclear war. The consequences of this inaction could be devastating. Once the decision is taken at the political level, it will be very difficult to turn the clock backwards.
Moreover, the antiwar movement has not addressed the US sponsored nuclear threat on Iran in a consistent way, in part due to divisions within its ranks, in part due to lack of information. Moreover, a significant sector of the antiwar movement considers that the "threat of Islamic terrorism" is real. "We are against the war, but we support the war on terrorism." This ambivalent stance ultimately serves to reinforce the legitimacy of the US national security doctrine which is predicated on waging the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT).
At this juncture, with the popularity of the Bush-Cheney regime at an all time low, a real opportunity exists to initiate an impeachment process, which could contribute to temporarily stalling the military agenda.
The corporate media also bear a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. Until recently these war preparations involving the use of nuclear weapons have been scarcely covered by the corporate media. The latter must also be forcefully challenged for their biased coverage of the Middle East war.
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has already defined the contours of a police State.
In response to the Perdana initaitve to criminalize war, it is essential to bring the US-Israeli war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America, Western Europe and Israel. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNEX
A1 Categorization, Nature of US Intervention (44 countries)
CASUALTIES ARE NOT LIMITED TO KILLINGS IN THE WAR THEATER OR OTHER MILITARY-TYPE OPERATIONS,
WE MUST ALSO ASSESS THE BROAD ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND INSTITUIONAL MECHANISMS AS WELL AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR AND ECONOMIC COLLAPSE
With regard to military and covert intelligence or other command type operations, we may distinguish between:
TW Theater War
MC US Instigated Military Coup
CW US Sponsored Civil War
MP Military policing
CO, Covert Intelligence operation, proxy armies, death squadrons,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countries
Afghanistan TW CW MC CO, Angola CW CO, Argentina MC CO, Bangladesh MC, Bolivia MC, Bosnia TW CW, Brazil MC CO, Cambodia TW CW CO, Chile MC CO, Colombia CW CO, Congo TW CW, Dominican Republic MC MP CO, El Salvador CW, MC CO, Eritrea CW, Ethiopia CW , Guatemala MC CO, Grenada MP, Haiti MC MP CO, Honduras MC MP CO, Indonesia MC CO, Iran MC, Iraq MC TW CO, Japan TW , Laos TW CW, Lebanon TW CW CO MP, Liberia, CW, Macedonia MP, CW CO, Mozambique CW CO, Nicaragua CW CO, Nigeria CW CO,North Korea TW CW, Pakistan MC CO, Palestine CW CO, Panama MC MP, Philippines MC MP CO, Rwanda CW CO, Serbia CW CO, Somalia CW MP CO, Sierra Leone CW, South Korea CW TW CO, Sudan CW MP CO, Thailand MC CO, Uruguay MC CO, Venezuela MC, Vietnam TW MC CW, Zimbabwe CW
Historical examples of US sponsored war crimes
SELECTED COUNTRY CASES
Korea (1950-1953)
North Korea lost nearly a third its population of 8 - 9 million people during the 37-month long "hot" war, 1950 - 1953, an unprecedented percentage of suffered by any nation as a result of an armed conflict. General Lemay in charge of US operations in Korea candidly acknowledges that the US killed up to 20 percent of North Korea's population over that three period of intensive bombings’
Vietnam (1954-1975)
According to Vietnamese sources, civilian casualties resulting from the Vietnam War were of the order of 4 million. Out of a population of 38 million during the period 1954-1975, Vietnamese casualties represent a 12-13% of the entire population
Indonesia
While Indonesia was not invaded by US forces, it experienced according to a CIA report, "one of the worst mass murders of the twentieth century." Ironically it was the CIA which instigated this plan.
"The 300-page CIA text fails to acknowledge the direct role of the US in the massacres It essentially "blames the victims of the killings -- the supporters of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) -- for their own deaths… The hundreds of thousands of people shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, or starved to death were labeled perpetrators, or would-be perpetrators of atrocities, just as culpable for the murder of the army generals as the handful of people who were truly guilty."
The Congo (1998-2000)
The Congo (1998-2000) and The Sudan were US sponsored "civil wars". Two years of war in the Congo (1998-2000) caused the deaths of an estimated 3.8 million people, mostly from starvation and disease.
Sudan
Two million deaths resulted from Sudan's 18-year "civil war", which is tied into securing control over oil reserves.
Nigeria-Biafra
One million people also died during the US sponsored Nigeria-Biafra conflict of the late 1960s, which was also linked to oil interests.
Rwanda (1994-1995)
Between 500,000 and a million people died as a result of the Rwandan "civil war" and genocide. Recent reports confirm that the US and Britain played a key role in triggering the ethnic massacres.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=4659
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright 2005 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005
The Criminalization of US Foreign Policy
From the Truman Doctrine to the Neo-Conservatives
By Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, February 5, 2007
1. The contemporary context
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity.
At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large part of the Middle East.
There is mounting evidence that the Bush Administration, in liaison with Israel and NATO, is planning the launching of a nuclear war against Iran, ironically, in retaliation for Tehran's nonexistent nuclear weapons program. The US-Israeli military operation is said to be in "an advanced state of readiness".
If such a plan were to be launched, the war would escalate and eventually engulf the entire Middle-East Central Asian region.
The war could extend beyond the region, as some analysts have suggested, ultimately leading us into a World War III scenario.
The US-led naval deployment (involving a massive deployment of military hardware) is taking place in two distinct theaters: the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
The militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is broadly under the jurisdiction of NATO in liaison with Israel. Directed against Syria, it is conducted under the façade of a UN "peace-keeping" mission. In this context, the Israeli led war on Lebanon last Summer, which was conducive to countless atrocities and the destruction of an entire country, must be viewed as a stage of the broader US sponsored military road-map.
2. Naval Buildup in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean
The naval armada in the Persian Gulf is largely under US command, with the participation of Canada.
USS Enterprise Strike Group
USS Eisenhower
The naval buildup is coordinated with the air attacks. The planning of aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued.
While its contents remain classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the stockpiling and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.
In recent developments, there are reports that Washington is planning to launch air attacks from military bases in Romania and Bulgaria. "American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April [2007]," according to the Bulgarian news agency Novinite.
3. The Ultimate War Crime: Using Nuclear Weapons in a Conventional War theater
Despite Pentagon statements, which describe tactical nuclear weapons as "safe for the surrounding civilian population", the use of nukes in a conventional war theater directed against Iran would trigger the ultimate war crime: a nuclear holocaust. The resulting radioactive contamination, which threatens future generations, would by no means be limited to the Middle East.
4. The "War on Terrorism": Pretext to Wage War
In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". Mass casualty producing events, involving the death of civilians are being used to galvanize public opinion in support of a military agenda. The deaths of civilian are used to justify preemptive actions to defend the American homeland against an alleged outside enemy, who are identified as "Islamic terrorists".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass Casualty Producing Events
"A terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." General Tommy Franks,
"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." (David Rockefeller)
"As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (Zbigniew Brzezinski in the Grand Chessboard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The presumption was that if such a 9/11 type event involving the deaths of civilians (mass casualty producing event) were to take place, Iran would, according to Cheney, be behind it, thereby providing a pretext for punitive bombings, much in the same way as the US sponsored attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the alleged support of the Taliban government to the 9/11 terrorists
More recently, several analysts have focussed on the creation of a "Gulf of Tonkin incident", which would be used by the Bush administration as a pretext to wage war on Iran
5. The Real Objective Of This War Is Oil
The oil lies in Muslim lands. The objective is to take possession of the oil, transform countries into territories and redraw the map of the Middle East
War builds a fake "humanitarian agenda". Throughout history, vilification of the enemy has been applied time and again with a view to ultimately justifying war and war crimes.
Demonization of the enemy serves geopolitical and economic objectives. Likewise, the campaign against "Islamic terrorism" (which is supported covertly by US intelligence) supports the conquest of oil wealth. The term "Islamo-fascism," serves to degrade the policies, institutions, values and social fabric of Muslim countries, while also upholding the tenets of "Western democracy" and the "free market" as the only alternative for these countries.
The US led war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region consists in gaining control over more than sixty percent of the world's reserves of oil and natural gas. The Anglo-American oil giants also seek to gain control over oil and gas pipeline routes out of the region.
Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, possess between 66.2 and 75.9 percent of total oil reserves, depending on the source and methodology of the estimate.
In contrast, the United States of America has barely 2 percent of total oil reserves. Western countries including its major oil producers ( Canada, the US, Norway, the UK, Denmark and Australia) control approximately 4 percent of total oil reserves. (In the alternative estimate of the Oil and Gas Journal which includes Canada's oil sands, this percentage would be of the the order of 16.5%.
The largest share of the World's oil reserves lies in a region extending (North) from the tip of Yemen to the Caspian sea basin and (East) from the Eastern Mediterranean coastline to the Persian Gulf. This broader Middle East- Central Asian region, which is the theater of the US-led "war on terrorism" encompasses according to the estimates of World Oil, more than sixty percent of the World's oil reserves. (See table below).
Iraq has five times more oil than the United States.
Muslim countries possess at least 16 times more oil than the Western countries.
The major non-Muslim oil reserve countries are Venezuela, Russia, Mexico, China and Brazil. (See table)
The victims of war crimes are vilified Demonization is applied to an enemy, which possesses three quarters of the world's oil reserves. "Axis of evil", "rogue States", "failed nations", "Islamic terrorists": demonization and vilification are the ideological pillars of America's "war on terror". They serve as a casus belli for waging the battle for oil.
The Battle for Oil requires the demonization of those who possess the oil. The enemy is characterized as evil, with a view to justifying military action including the mass killing of civilians. The Middle East Central Asian region is heavily militarized. (See map). The oil fields are encircled: NATO war ships stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean (as part of a UN "peace keeping" operation), US Carrier Strike Groups and Destroyer Squadrons in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian deployed as part of the "war on terrorism".
6. Historical Background: From Hiroshima to the Preemptive Warfare Doctrine
What are the historical roots of this military agenda? What is the balance sheet of US sponsored war crimes extending from 1945 to the present?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHO ARE THE WAR CRIMINALS: BUSH IS NOT THE ONLY WAR CRIMINAL ON THE BLOCK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US war crimes and atrocities should be seen as the direct consequence of a foreign policy and military agenda, which supports US corporate interests, including the oil giants, the Wall Street financial establishment and the big six defense contractors.
The Middle East war is the culmination of a history of US sponsored military interventions.
The bombing of Hiroshima was the initial landmark leading to the formulation of a "preemptive" nuclear doctrine, where nukes are to be used in the conventional war theater.
There is a continuum: the bombing of Hiroshima was presented to public opinion as "safe for civilians" because Hiroshima was identified in President Truman’s August 9, 1945 radio address as "a military base".
"The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.."
(President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945, Listen to Excerpt of his speech, By going through Truman’s diary, one has the distinct impression that he firmly believed that Hiroshima was a military target. Was he briefed on the consequences of the atom bomb?(President Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945).
Similarly, the use of nukes against Iran is presented as an act of self-defense, which according to the Pentagon, will minimize the risk of "collateral damage" and protect the lives of civilians.Prior the invasion of Iraq, the use of tactical nuclear weapons had been contemplated as a means to assassinate Saddam Hussein:
"If Saddam was arguably the highest value target in Iraq, then a good case could be made for using a nuclear weapon like the B61-11 to assure killing him and decapitating the regime" (.Defense News, December 8, 2003).
More generally, mini-nukes are considered safe to be used in a conventional war theater:
"What's needed now is something that can threaten a bunker tunneled under 300 meters of granite without killing the surrounding civilian population." (Pentagon Official quoted in Michel Chossudovsky, 2006, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060217&articleId=1988
These statements, which reflect US nuclear doctrine promote according to Federation of American Scientists (FAS) "the illusion that nuclear weapons could be used in ways which minimize their ‘collateral damage’, making them acceptable tools to be used like conventional weapons." (See http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001 / click v54nl, italics added)
7. America’s Wars of the "Post War Era"
What is referred euphemistically as the "post war era" is in fact a period of continuous war and militarization. Since the end of the Second World War, this "long war" seeks to establish US hegemony worldwide.
This period is marked by a succession of US sponsored theater wars (Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia), various forms of military interventions including low intensity conflicts, "civil wars" (The Congo, Angola, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan) military coups, US sponsored death squadrons and massacres (Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Argentina, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines), covert wars led by US intelligence , etc.
This entire period (1945- present) has been marked by a succession of US sponsored wars and military-intelligence interventions in all major regions of the World (see map below).
Accounting for these various operations, the United States has attacked, directly or indirectly, some 44 countries in different regions of the developing world, since August 1945, a number of them many times (Eric Waddell, 2003):
"The avowed objective of these military interventions has been to effect ‘regime change’. The cloaks of "human rights" and of "democracy were invariably evoked to justify what were unilateral and illegal acts." (Eric Waddell, 2003)
The foreign policy underpinnings of what is now referred to by Bush officials as the "long war" are to be found in what is known as the "Truman Doctrine", first formulated by foreign policy adviser George F. Kennan in a 1948 in State Department brief.
What this 1948 document conveys is continuity in US foreign policy, from "Containment" to "Pre-emptive" War. It states in polite terms that the US should seek economic and strategic dominance through military means:
Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. (…)
In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to "be liked" or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better (George f. Kennan, 1948 State Department Brief)
8. Destroying Internationalism
The planned disintegration of the United Nations system as an independent and influential international body has been on the drawing board of US foreign policy since the inception of the United Nations in 1946. Its planned demise was an integral part of the Truman doctrine as defined in 1948. From the very inception of the UN, Washington has sought on the one hand to control it to its advantage, while also seeking to weakening and ultimately destroy the UN system. The outgoing Secretary General Kofi Annan became a tool of US foreign policy.
In the words of George Kennan:
"Occasionally, it [the United Nations] has served a useful purpose. But by and large it has created more problems than it has solved, and has led to a considerable dispersal of our diplomatic effort. And in our efforts to use the UN majority for major political purposes we are playing with a dangerous weapon which may some day turn against us. This is a situation which warrants most careful study and foresight on our part. (George Kennan, 1948)
In our efforts to use the UN majority for major political purposes we are playing with a dangerous weapon which may some day turn against us. This is a situation which warrants most careful study and foresight on our part. (George Kennan, 1948)
Although officially committed to the "international community", Washington has largely played lip service to the United Nations. In recent years it has sought to undermine it as an institution. Since Gulf War I, the UN has largely acted as a rubber stamp. It has closed its eyes to US war crimes, it has implemented so-called peacekeeping operations on behalf of the Anglo-American invaders, in violation of the UN Charter.
9. From the Truman Doctrine to the Neo-Conservatives
The Neo-conservative agenda under the Bush administration should be viewed as the culmination of a (bipartisan) "Post War" foreign policy framework, which provides the basis for the planning of the contemporary wars and atrocities including the setting up of torture chambers, concentration camps and the extensive use of prohibited weapons directed against civilians.
From Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, to the CIA sponsored military coups in Latin America and Southeast Asia, the objective has been to ensure US military hegemony and global economic domination, as initially formulated under the "Truman Doctrine". Despite significant policy differences, successive Democratic and Republican administrations, from Harry Truman to George W. Bush have carried out this global military agenda.
10. US War Crimes and Atrocities
This entire "post war period" is marked by extensive war crimes resulting in the death of more than ten million people. This figure does not include those who perished as a result of poverty, starvation and disease.
What we are dealing with is a criminal US foreign policy agenda. Criminalization does not pertain to one or more heads of State. It pertains to the entire State system, it’s various civilian and military institutions as well as the powerful corporate interests behind the formulation of US foreign policy, the Washington think tanks, the creditor institutions which finance the military machine.
War crimes are the result of the criminalization of the US State and foreign policy apparatus. We are dealing specifically with individual war criminals, but with a process involving decision makers acting at different level, with a mandate to carry out war crimes, following established guidelines and procedures.
What distinguishes the Bush administration in relation to historical record of US sponsored crimes and atrocities, is that the concentration camps, targeted assassinations and torture chambers are now openly considered as legitimate forms of intervention, which sustain "the global war on terrorism" and support the spread of Western democracy.
11. Mechanisms of US Intervention
US sponsored crimes are not limited to the casualties of war and the physical destruction of the nation’s infrastructure.
Countries are destroyed, often transformed into territories, sovereignty is foregone, national institutions collapse, the national economy is destroyed through the imposition of "free market" reforms, unemployment becomes rampant, social services are dismantled, wages collapse, and people are impoverished.
In turn, the nation’s assets and natural resources are transferred into the hands of foreign investors through a privatization programme imposed by the invading forces.
12. The Perdana Initiative: Reversing the Tide of War
The Perdana Initiative to Criminalize War seeks to break the consensus.
Once that consensus is broken, the shaky legitimacy of the "Global War on Terrorism" collapses like a deck of cards. The War criminals in high office do not have a leg to stand on.
To reverse the tide of war requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, mosques, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.
Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged.
There seems to be a reluctance by members of Congress to exercise their powers under the US Constitution, with a view to preventing the unthinkable: the onslaught of a US sponsored nuclear war. The consequences of this inaction could be devastating. Once the decision is taken at the political level, it will be very difficult to turn the clock backwards.
Moreover, the antiwar movement has not addressed the US sponsored nuclear threat on Iran in a consistent way, in part due to divisions within its ranks, in part due to lack of information. Moreover, a significant sector of the antiwar movement considers that the "threat of Islamic terrorism" is real. "We are against the war, but we support the war on terrorism." This ambivalent stance ultimately serves to reinforce the legitimacy of the US national security doctrine which is predicated on waging the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT).
At this juncture, with the popularity of the Bush-Cheney regime at an all time low, a real opportunity exists to initiate an impeachment process, which could contribute to temporarily stalling the military agenda.
The corporate media also bear a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. Until recently these war preparations involving the use of nuclear weapons have been scarcely covered by the corporate media. The latter must also be forcefully challenged for their biased coverage of the Middle East war.
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has already defined the contours of a police State.
In response to the Perdana initaitve to criminalize war, it is essential to bring the US-Israeli war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America, Western Europe and Israel. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNEX
A1 Categorization, Nature of US Intervention (44 countries)
CASUALTIES ARE NOT LIMITED TO KILLINGS IN THE WAR THEATER OR OTHER MILITARY-TYPE OPERATIONS,
WE MUST ALSO ASSESS THE BROAD ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND INSTITUIONAL MECHANISMS AS WELL AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR AND ECONOMIC COLLAPSE
With regard to military and covert intelligence or other command type operations, we may distinguish between:
TW Theater War
MC US Instigated Military Coup
CW US Sponsored Civil War
MP Military policing
CO, Covert Intelligence operation, proxy armies, death squadrons,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countries
Afghanistan TW CW MC CO, Angola CW CO, Argentina MC CO, Bangladesh MC, Bolivia MC, Bosnia TW CW, Brazil MC CO, Cambodia TW CW CO, Chile MC CO, Colombia CW CO, Congo TW CW, Dominican Republic MC MP CO, El Salvador CW, MC CO, Eritrea CW, Ethiopia CW , Guatemala MC CO, Grenada MP, Haiti MC MP CO, Honduras MC MP CO, Indonesia MC CO, Iran MC, Iraq MC TW CO, Japan TW , Laos TW CW, Lebanon TW CW CO MP, Liberia, CW, Macedonia MP, CW CO, Mozambique CW CO, Nicaragua CW CO, Nigeria CW CO,North Korea TW CW, Pakistan MC CO, Palestine CW CO, Panama MC MP, Philippines MC MP CO, Rwanda CW CO, Serbia CW CO, Somalia CW MP CO, Sierra Leone CW, South Korea CW TW CO, Sudan CW MP CO, Thailand MC CO, Uruguay MC CO, Venezuela MC, Vietnam TW MC CW, Zimbabwe CW
Historical examples of US sponsored war crimes
SELECTED COUNTRY CASES
Korea (1950-1953)
North Korea lost nearly a third its population of 8 - 9 million people during the 37-month long "hot" war, 1950 - 1953, an unprecedented percentage of suffered by any nation as a result of an armed conflict. General Lemay in charge of US operations in Korea candidly acknowledges that the US killed up to 20 percent of North Korea's population over that three period of intensive bombings’
Vietnam (1954-1975)
According to Vietnamese sources, civilian casualties resulting from the Vietnam War were of the order of 4 million. Out of a population of 38 million during the period 1954-1975, Vietnamese casualties represent a 12-13% of the entire population
Indonesia
While Indonesia was not invaded by US forces, it experienced according to a CIA report, "one of the worst mass murders of the twentieth century." Ironically it was the CIA which instigated this plan.
"The 300-page CIA text fails to acknowledge the direct role of the US in the massacres It essentially "blames the victims of the killings -- the supporters of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) -- for their own deaths… The hundreds of thousands of people shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, or starved to death were labeled perpetrators, or would-be perpetrators of atrocities, just as culpable for the murder of the army generals as the handful of people who were truly guilty."
The Congo (1998-2000)
The Congo (1998-2000) and The Sudan were US sponsored "civil wars". Two years of war in the Congo (1998-2000) caused the deaths of an estimated 3.8 million people, mostly from starvation and disease.
Sudan
Two million deaths resulted from Sudan's 18-year "civil war", which is tied into securing control over oil reserves.
Nigeria-Biafra
One million people also died during the US sponsored Nigeria-Biafra conflict of the late 1960s, which was also linked to oil interests.
Rwanda (1994-1995)
Between 500,000 and a million people died as a result of the Rwandan "civil war" and genocide. Recent reports confirm that the US and Britain played a key role in triggering the ethnic massacres.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=4659
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright 2005 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005
Sunday, January 28, 2007
The Iraq War: US attempts to control oil.
From Yemen Observer Newspaper (yobserver.com)
No doubt it is not just US oil companies that will profit under the oil law. All the internationals will profit with US and UK based firms having an inside track. It is interesting that Iraq is the only Mid-east country to use PSA's. Of course the justification will be that lack of security makes them necessary. However the the terms are for up to thirty years. The lack of security is a good excuse for PSA's but makes them no less a bad deal. Until security improves there is not likely to be much investment anyway but the PSA's will still be on the books when it improves.
Opinions
U.S.-tailored Iraqi oil alarm for producers, consumers
By Nicola Nasser*
Jan 27, 2007, 17:10
While the Iraqis were busy counting their death toll of more than 650,000 since March 2003. The United Nations is next with 34,000 dead in 2006 alone with 3,070 for the Pentagon. The U.S. treasury was counting the more than $600 billion of taxpayer money spent in Iraq so far, stealthily and suddenly. The U.S. occupation’s oil prize sounded louder than war drums to alert the regional oil producers as well as the major world consumers to guard against the looming threat coming out of Iraq. After listening to the monotonous and incredible U.S. lies for four years about how “we are not there for Iraq’s oil,” the oily truth is now unfolding.
Without a decisive military victory, the U.S. occupation of Iraq seems to be about to grab its oil prize by establishing a new sharing arrangement between a major national producer and the multi-national giants—an arrangement that Washington plans to set as the model to be followed both by the oil-rich region and the world at large. This prize has been the dream of successive U.S. administrations: on January 18th, they came one step closer to reality when Iraq’s Oil Committee approved the new draft hydrocarbon law, sent it to the cabinet within a week and, when approved, will go to the parliament immediately thereafter.
The early draft of the law was prepared by BearingPoint American consultants, hired by the Bush administration, and sent to the White House and major Western petroleum corporations in July, and then to the International Monetary Fund two months later, while most Iraqi legislators and the public remained in the dark.
The approved production-sharing agreements (PSAs) favor investing foreign oil companies with 70 percent of oil revenue to recoup their initial outlay, then companies can reap 20 percent of the profit without any tax or other restrictions on their transfers abroad.
Iraqi Oil File Opened
Several indicators have surfaced recently that point to bringing the oil factor in Iraq back from the back burner to the forefront of the public eye. The first was Ankara’s escalating drive to block the control of the northern Iraqi oil city of Kirkuk by the Iraqi Kurds, lest Kirkuk’s lucrative oil be used to fund a bid for secession from Iraq that could encourage separatist Kurdish guerrillas in Turkey herself.
The second indicator is Iraq’s push forward on oil developments with Iran and Kuwait to determine control in the future of the cross-border oil fields, according to the Kuwait Times. Cross-border oil fields were contested and have been a cause of friction poisoning Iraq’s relations with its eastern and southern neighbors. A third indicator that the Iraqi oil file is being opened wide is the Iraqi - Syrian negotiations on the sidelines of the latest visit to Damascus by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to reopen the oil pipeline between the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk and the Syrian coastal town of Banyas on the Mediterranean.
This pipeline was reopened in 1997 and drew U.S. disapproval; American air strikes damaged the Iraqi side of the pipeline at the start of the U.S.-led invasion. Since then, Washington was reported to favor reopening a Kirkuk-Haifa oil pipeline via Jordan, which was shut down after the creation of Israel in 1948. However the new Iraqi draft Hydrocarbon Law, if passed by the Iraqi parliament, would be a milestone not only to judge the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq as a success or a failure, but would more importantly determine the future network of relations between the oil-producing countries and the multi-national oil giants, to the detriment of the major consumers who will be held hostage to the whims of the American holder of the key to vital Middle Eastern oil resources.
President George W. Bush in his “New Strategy” speech on January 10th sounded ambiguous and elusive in his definition of the success he is hunting for in Iraq. “A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations,” he said, adding: “Victory ... in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world.” Bush stopped short of explicitly defining success and victory as economic in a framework that has an oil breakthrough at its core. In his speech Bush referred to oil twice, and only briefly.
A failure of the U.S. in Iraq would enable the “Radical Islamic extremists” to “use oil revenues ... to topple moderate governments” across the region, he warned, and announced that “Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis,” without even a hint to any U.S. interest, because he was very well aware of the hornet nest he would unleash had he prematurely even hinted at his oil prize.
Republican-Democratic Consensus
The Republican-Democratic electoral wrangling, no matter how ferocious it was or would become over internal issues, could not cross a “red line” consensus on never compromising the U.S. national oil strategic interests, which both parties are determined to defend regardless of how much American or non-American blood would spill in their defense.
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group Report articulated that consensus concisely in straightforward language. It is noteworthy that Bush, who ignored the essential recommendations of this report, had selectively adopted recommendations 62 and 63. Recommendation 63 stipulates the US should “assist” Iraqi leaders in privatizing the national oil industry into a “commercial enterprise” to encourage investment by the multi-national oil companies. Recommendation 62 urges the US government to help draft an Iraqi oil law that “creates a fiscal and legal framework for investment” and, in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund, to “press Iraq to continue reducing subsidies in the energy sector...until Iraqis pay market prices for oil products.”
The James Baker – Lee Hamilton Report proposes to make everyday life harder for average Iraqis so that the U.S. oil industry profits. The Bush administration, even before the 2003 invasion, planned to pass a new oil law for Iraq that would turn its nationalized oil system over to private foreign corporate control. Months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, it was revealed that control of Iraq’s oil fields was one of the chief issues discussed in Vice President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force meeting with oil executives in 2001. Bush made his first public demand of the Iraqi government to pass the oil law in December. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad and General George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, repeated the same demand.
In July last year, Energy Secretary Sam Bodman announced in Baghdad that senior U.S. oil company executives would not enter Iraq without passage of the new law. Petroleum Economist magazine later reported that U.S. oil companies put passage of the oil law before security concerns as the deciding factor over their entry into Iraq. Passing an oil law has also been a key demand of the United States in providing further military support to Baghdad’s “national unity government.”
Iraqis in the Dark
This law has been in the works even months before the invasion, when the Bush Administration brought in Phillip Carroll, former CEO of both Shell and Fluor, to devise “contingency plans” to pump the Iraqi oil after the invasion; Carroll was later made the head of the American “Advisory Committee” overseeing the oil industry of the conquered land.
The U.S., the IMF, and the major oil giants are using fear to pursue their agenda of privatizing and selling off Iraq’s oil resources. They are taking advantage of an occupied, war-ravaged and internally divided nation to get control over as much oil as possible, on the best possible terms, and to get what they were denied before the war or at anytime in modern Iraqi history: access to Iraq’s oil under the ground, Iraqi academic and senior lecturer in Middle East economics at the University of Exeter, Kamil Mahdi, wrote recently. Most Iraqis remain in the dark about the new oil law.
Iraq’s oil workers had to travel to Jordan to learn details of the law from the London-based research organization Platform. As a result, five Iraqi trade union federations released a public statement rejecting “the handing of control over oil to foreign companies, whose aim is to make big profits at the expense of the Iraqi people, and to rob the national wealth, according to unfair, long-term contracts that undermine the sovereignty of the state and the dignity of the Iraqi people.”
The statement added that this was a “red line” they would not allow to be crossed. Washington has been unsuccessfully trying to camouflage her oil prize in Iraq since its invasion in 2003 and similarly she can hardly now smokescreen the oil factor in her escalating crisis with Iran. “Weapons of mass destruction” or “links to al-Qaeda” were not the true reasons for the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq as much as the real reason for the present U.S.-Iran crisis is not about Iran’s “nukes.” In both cases regime change was the goal, which if achieved could give Washington an access to almost 20 percent of the world’s proven Iraqi and Iranian oil reserves, respectively the third and fourth largest in the world.
Iran the Next Target
Iraqi and Iranian oil reserves are targeted per se, but clinching these assets out of national decision-making would also give Washington control over about 60 percent of the world’s conventional oil reserves located in essentially five countries in the Arabian Gulf region (described officially by Iran as “Persian”). Iran’s close proximity to these major oil resources and her balancing power in controlling access to them have made her the second major obstacle after Iraq that could block any U.S. strategic drive to gain control over them. In 2003, about 90% of oil exported from the Gulf transited by tanker through the Strait of Hormuz, located between Oman and Iran.
The Iraqi bill would allow for the first foreign exploitation of Iraqi oil reserves since the industry was nationalized in 1972. The introduction of PSAs would also be a first in the Middle East. Washington wants the Iraqi law to be the rule that has to apply across the oil-rich region as well as worldwide. Most members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nationally control their oil industries through state-owned companies with no appreciable foreign collaboration.
Such an arrangement was impossible to pass through during the bi-polar world order, but has become possible following the collapse of the former USSR if the American uni-polar power could rein in the remnants of the ruling national liberation movements, or could topple them. Only within this context can the invasion and occupation of Iraq as well as the current U.S.-Iranian crisis be perceived. Since 1972 and 1979 respectively the U.S. was denied the banana-republic’s styled free hand over Iraqi and Iranian oil assets. Iraq was invaded and occupied while a regime change that would secure U.S. control is still in the works.
Meanwhile Iran is being pressured and threatened with more sanctions and a U.S. military strike to change the regime in Tehran. The more vulnerable regional oil producers, as well as their counterparts in Central Asia, would be wiser to do their best not to allow the draft Iraqi law to pass to be the future yardstick to determine their relations with the multi-national oil giants, and to pre-empt a political and military environment synonymous with the one prevailing now in Iraq to be copied in Iran, which would inevitably lead to a gradual erosion or abrupt end to their beneficial current arrangements.
Voluntarily or grudgingly getting along with Bush’s old or “new” strategies, would never spare them. They should reconsider because Iraq was the first target and they are now the next targets. Iran also should reconsider Iraq because she is the next target. Major oil consumers in China, Japan and Europe should also be alerted to avert a possible suffocating U.S. monopoly or hegemony on oil resources at a time that their (as well as the American) demand for oil is on the rise; their economic competition or cooperation with the U.S. will only be adversely compromised by Washington’s grip on the vital mineral resource that is driving their industrial economies.
*Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Ramallah, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.
No doubt it is not just US oil companies that will profit under the oil law. All the internationals will profit with US and UK based firms having an inside track. It is interesting that Iraq is the only Mid-east country to use PSA's. Of course the justification will be that lack of security makes them necessary. However the the terms are for up to thirty years. The lack of security is a good excuse for PSA's but makes them no less a bad deal. Until security improves there is not likely to be much investment anyway but the PSA's will still be on the books when it improves.
Opinions
U.S.-tailored Iraqi oil alarm for producers, consumers
By Nicola Nasser*
Jan 27, 2007, 17:10
While the Iraqis were busy counting their death toll of more than 650,000 since March 2003. The United Nations is next with 34,000 dead in 2006 alone with 3,070 for the Pentagon. The U.S. treasury was counting the more than $600 billion of taxpayer money spent in Iraq so far, stealthily and suddenly. The U.S. occupation’s oil prize sounded louder than war drums to alert the regional oil producers as well as the major world consumers to guard against the looming threat coming out of Iraq. After listening to the monotonous and incredible U.S. lies for four years about how “we are not there for Iraq’s oil,” the oily truth is now unfolding.
Without a decisive military victory, the U.S. occupation of Iraq seems to be about to grab its oil prize by establishing a new sharing arrangement between a major national producer and the multi-national giants—an arrangement that Washington plans to set as the model to be followed both by the oil-rich region and the world at large. This prize has been the dream of successive U.S. administrations: on January 18th, they came one step closer to reality when Iraq’s Oil Committee approved the new draft hydrocarbon law, sent it to the cabinet within a week and, when approved, will go to the parliament immediately thereafter.
The early draft of the law was prepared by BearingPoint American consultants, hired by the Bush administration, and sent to the White House and major Western petroleum corporations in July, and then to the International Monetary Fund two months later, while most Iraqi legislators and the public remained in the dark.
The approved production-sharing agreements (PSAs) favor investing foreign oil companies with 70 percent of oil revenue to recoup their initial outlay, then companies can reap 20 percent of the profit without any tax or other restrictions on their transfers abroad.
Iraqi Oil File Opened
Several indicators have surfaced recently that point to bringing the oil factor in Iraq back from the back burner to the forefront of the public eye. The first was Ankara’s escalating drive to block the control of the northern Iraqi oil city of Kirkuk by the Iraqi Kurds, lest Kirkuk’s lucrative oil be used to fund a bid for secession from Iraq that could encourage separatist Kurdish guerrillas in Turkey herself.
The second indicator is Iraq’s push forward on oil developments with Iran and Kuwait to determine control in the future of the cross-border oil fields, according to the Kuwait Times. Cross-border oil fields were contested and have been a cause of friction poisoning Iraq’s relations with its eastern and southern neighbors. A third indicator that the Iraqi oil file is being opened wide is the Iraqi - Syrian negotiations on the sidelines of the latest visit to Damascus by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to reopen the oil pipeline between the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk and the Syrian coastal town of Banyas on the Mediterranean.
This pipeline was reopened in 1997 and drew U.S. disapproval; American air strikes damaged the Iraqi side of the pipeline at the start of the U.S.-led invasion. Since then, Washington was reported to favor reopening a Kirkuk-Haifa oil pipeline via Jordan, which was shut down after the creation of Israel in 1948. However the new Iraqi draft Hydrocarbon Law, if passed by the Iraqi parliament, would be a milestone not only to judge the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq as a success or a failure, but would more importantly determine the future network of relations between the oil-producing countries and the multi-national oil giants, to the detriment of the major consumers who will be held hostage to the whims of the American holder of the key to vital Middle Eastern oil resources.
President George W. Bush in his “New Strategy” speech on January 10th sounded ambiguous and elusive in his definition of the success he is hunting for in Iraq. “A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations,” he said, adding: “Victory ... in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world.” Bush stopped short of explicitly defining success and victory as economic in a framework that has an oil breakthrough at its core. In his speech Bush referred to oil twice, and only briefly.
A failure of the U.S. in Iraq would enable the “Radical Islamic extremists” to “use oil revenues ... to topple moderate governments” across the region, he warned, and announced that “Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis,” without even a hint to any U.S. interest, because he was very well aware of the hornet nest he would unleash had he prematurely even hinted at his oil prize.
Republican-Democratic Consensus
The Republican-Democratic electoral wrangling, no matter how ferocious it was or would become over internal issues, could not cross a “red line” consensus on never compromising the U.S. national oil strategic interests, which both parties are determined to defend regardless of how much American or non-American blood would spill in their defense.
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group Report articulated that consensus concisely in straightforward language. It is noteworthy that Bush, who ignored the essential recommendations of this report, had selectively adopted recommendations 62 and 63. Recommendation 63 stipulates the US should “assist” Iraqi leaders in privatizing the national oil industry into a “commercial enterprise” to encourage investment by the multi-national oil companies. Recommendation 62 urges the US government to help draft an Iraqi oil law that “creates a fiscal and legal framework for investment” and, in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund, to “press Iraq to continue reducing subsidies in the energy sector...until Iraqis pay market prices for oil products.”
The James Baker – Lee Hamilton Report proposes to make everyday life harder for average Iraqis so that the U.S. oil industry profits. The Bush administration, even before the 2003 invasion, planned to pass a new oil law for Iraq that would turn its nationalized oil system over to private foreign corporate control. Months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, it was revealed that control of Iraq’s oil fields was one of the chief issues discussed in Vice President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force meeting with oil executives in 2001. Bush made his first public demand of the Iraqi government to pass the oil law in December. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad and General George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, repeated the same demand.
In July last year, Energy Secretary Sam Bodman announced in Baghdad that senior U.S. oil company executives would not enter Iraq without passage of the new law. Petroleum Economist magazine later reported that U.S. oil companies put passage of the oil law before security concerns as the deciding factor over their entry into Iraq. Passing an oil law has also been a key demand of the United States in providing further military support to Baghdad’s “national unity government.”
Iraqis in the Dark
This law has been in the works even months before the invasion, when the Bush Administration brought in Phillip Carroll, former CEO of both Shell and Fluor, to devise “contingency plans” to pump the Iraqi oil after the invasion; Carroll was later made the head of the American “Advisory Committee” overseeing the oil industry of the conquered land.
The U.S., the IMF, and the major oil giants are using fear to pursue their agenda of privatizing and selling off Iraq’s oil resources. They are taking advantage of an occupied, war-ravaged and internally divided nation to get control over as much oil as possible, on the best possible terms, and to get what they were denied before the war or at anytime in modern Iraqi history: access to Iraq’s oil under the ground, Iraqi academic and senior lecturer in Middle East economics at the University of Exeter, Kamil Mahdi, wrote recently. Most Iraqis remain in the dark about the new oil law.
Iraq’s oil workers had to travel to Jordan to learn details of the law from the London-based research organization Platform. As a result, five Iraqi trade union federations released a public statement rejecting “the handing of control over oil to foreign companies, whose aim is to make big profits at the expense of the Iraqi people, and to rob the national wealth, according to unfair, long-term contracts that undermine the sovereignty of the state and the dignity of the Iraqi people.”
The statement added that this was a “red line” they would not allow to be crossed. Washington has been unsuccessfully trying to camouflage her oil prize in Iraq since its invasion in 2003 and similarly she can hardly now smokescreen the oil factor in her escalating crisis with Iran. “Weapons of mass destruction” or “links to al-Qaeda” were not the true reasons for the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq as much as the real reason for the present U.S.-Iran crisis is not about Iran’s “nukes.” In both cases regime change was the goal, which if achieved could give Washington an access to almost 20 percent of the world’s proven Iraqi and Iranian oil reserves, respectively the third and fourth largest in the world.
Iran the Next Target
Iraqi and Iranian oil reserves are targeted per se, but clinching these assets out of national decision-making would also give Washington control over about 60 percent of the world’s conventional oil reserves located in essentially five countries in the Arabian Gulf region (described officially by Iran as “Persian”). Iran’s close proximity to these major oil resources and her balancing power in controlling access to them have made her the second major obstacle after Iraq that could block any U.S. strategic drive to gain control over them. In 2003, about 90% of oil exported from the Gulf transited by tanker through the Strait of Hormuz, located between Oman and Iran.
The Iraqi bill would allow for the first foreign exploitation of Iraqi oil reserves since the industry was nationalized in 1972. The introduction of PSAs would also be a first in the Middle East. Washington wants the Iraqi law to be the rule that has to apply across the oil-rich region as well as worldwide. Most members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nationally control their oil industries through state-owned companies with no appreciable foreign collaboration.
Such an arrangement was impossible to pass through during the bi-polar world order, but has become possible following the collapse of the former USSR if the American uni-polar power could rein in the remnants of the ruling national liberation movements, or could topple them. Only within this context can the invasion and occupation of Iraq as well as the current U.S.-Iranian crisis be perceived. Since 1972 and 1979 respectively the U.S. was denied the banana-republic’s styled free hand over Iraqi and Iranian oil assets. Iraq was invaded and occupied while a regime change that would secure U.S. control is still in the works.
Meanwhile Iran is being pressured and threatened with more sanctions and a U.S. military strike to change the regime in Tehran. The more vulnerable regional oil producers, as well as their counterparts in Central Asia, would be wiser to do their best not to allow the draft Iraqi law to pass to be the future yardstick to determine their relations with the multi-national oil giants, and to pre-empt a political and military environment synonymous with the one prevailing now in Iraq to be copied in Iran, which would inevitably lead to a gradual erosion or abrupt end to their beneficial current arrangements.
Voluntarily or grudgingly getting along with Bush’s old or “new” strategies, would never spare them. They should reconsider because Iraq was the first target and they are now the next targets. Iran also should reconsider Iraq because she is the next target. Major oil consumers in China, Japan and Europe should also be alerted to avert a possible suffocating U.S. monopoly or hegemony on oil resources at a time that their (as well as the American) demand for oil is on the rise; their economic competition or cooperation with the U.S. will only be adversely compromised by Washington’s grip on the vital mineral resource that is driving their industrial economies.
*Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Ramallah, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Bush' State of the Union Address: An Editorial from Pakistan
This is from the Daily Times in Pakistan. Interesting that the editorial ties in US policy with the attempt to secure oil. As with some US commentators it sees the policy as simply staying the course.
EDITORIAL: Why does President Bush still want to ‘stay the course’?
In his State of the Union speech Tuesday, President George W Bush said nothing new on Iraq except that he wanted to see the Baghdad regime remain in place and that American troops had to stay in Iraq to see that chaos didn’t take over the country. He described both Sunni and Shia versions of Islam clashing in Iraq as hostile to the United States and paid no heed to the fact that 70 percent of the American people supported the bipartisan recipe of withdrawal from Iraq.
Mr Bush spoke of ‘success’ but did not explain how this success would be achieved. He did not commit himself to any diplomatic initiative in the Middle East, including dialogue with Iran and Syria, so clearly endorsed by the polls. What he was most interested in projecting was the post-withdrawal plight of Iraq which would threaten the security of the United States: ‘If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides’.
The Democratic response immediately after the address was negative. The main objection was that if Iraq could not be set right in three years with 150,000 troops how could it be secured now with a ‘surge’ of 20,000? It referred to the views expressed by the country’s military high command — the chief has since been changed — and questioned the president’s sincerity in claming that the army in Iraq wanted more troops. Vice President Dick Cheney defended the president’s stand and the Maliki government in Iraq — ‘he is not a Persian!’ — the following day, saying unless it is secured Iraq would be the next base from where Al Qaeda could target the United States.
Most Americans are puzzled and angered by Mr Bush’s stubbornness. Some say he is concerned about his role in history and wants to be judged by the coming generations rather than the gallup polls of today. There is no doubt that Americans are also undecided about what to do with Iran and are mystified by Mr Bush’s moves in the Gulf even though they are against an invasion. The US Congress as a whole is still uncertain whether it should take him on by ‘de-funding’ the war in Iraq at the cost of offending the nation that cares for American troops there.
Could there be another ‘unexpressed’ reason? Britain’s The Independent newspaper (7 January 2007) points to the factor of Iraqi oil, about which the present Iraqi government has to make some very important decisions shortly. If the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki at times tends to make rebellious comments about Mr Bush — ‘go but leave us the weapons’ — he could be speaking from a position of some strength. His US-installed Shia-dominated government has to ‘approve a new hydrocarbon law that will hand unprecedented control of the country’s vast oil reserves to US and British energy conglomerates’.
In his address, Mr Bush has asked the US Congress to ordain the doubling of the US oil reserves. What he did not say is where the oil will come from. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves, which is 10 percent of the world’s total, and most of it is found around Basra in the Shia-dominated south. The Iraqi oil is close to the surface and cheap to take out compared to North Sea Oil and other locations. The Independent says production sharing agreements (PSAs) give up to 60 percent of the revenue to American and British oil companies, ExxonMobil, Chevron and BP, etc, till they have recouped their investments, after which they will take 20 percent of the profits. And any breaches of contract will have to be adjudicated in international courts!
Baghdad is dragging its feet, probably waiting for Mr Bush’s decision to start withdrawing, after which it might conceivably make a different decision about its oil after consulting Iran. That may be why Mr Bush is not ready as yet to give a schedule of withdrawal as that might provoke the Iraqi government dig in and not sign. We should recall that Saddam Hussein had given out oil contracts to more than 60 companies from 30 countries headed by France, Russia and China. It would be very important for the US to make sure that these contracts are now repudiated by Baghdad.
The American president will face a very tough year ahead of him as more American casualties are posted and the ‘surge’ he has ordered will not put down the bloody civil war going on in Iraq. Far too many entities in and around Iraq are interested in creating chaos there to make it easy for the Americans to leave. Perhaps they know the real reason why Washington is interested in creating order in the country. Finally it is going to be a battle of wills between Mr Bush and his gradually dwindling Republican supporters, on the one hand, and the Democratic opposition that dominates the US legislature, on the other. Can the US oil lobby win this battle for Mr Bush? *
EDITORIAL: Why does President Bush still want to ‘stay the course’?
In his State of the Union speech Tuesday, President George W Bush said nothing new on Iraq except that he wanted to see the Baghdad regime remain in place and that American troops had to stay in Iraq to see that chaos didn’t take over the country. He described both Sunni and Shia versions of Islam clashing in Iraq as hostile to the United States and paid no heed to the fact that 70 percent of the American people supported the bipartisan recipe of withdrawal from Iraq.
Mr Bush spoke of ‘success’ but did not explain how this success would be achieved. He did not commit himself to any diplomatic initiative in the Middle East, including dialogue with Iran and Syria, so clearly endorsed by the polls. What he was most interested in projecting was the post-withdrawal plight of Iraq which would threaten the security of the United States: ‘If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides’.
The Democratic response immediately after the address was negative. The main objection was that if Iraq could not be set right in three years with 150,000 troops how could it be secured now with a ‘surge’ of 20,000? It referred to the views expressed by the country’s military high command — the chief has since been changed — and questioned the president’s sincerity in claming that the army in Iraq wanted more troops. Vice President Dick Cheney defended the president’s stand and the Maliki government in Iraq — ‘he is not a Persian!’ — the following day, saying unless it is secured Iraq would be the next base from where Al Qaeda could target the United States.
Most Americans are puzzled and angered by Mr Bush’s stubbornness. Some say he is concerned about his role in history and wants to be judged by the coming generations rather than the gallup polls of today. There is no doubt that Americans are also undecided about what to do with Iran and are mystified by Mr Bush’s moves in the Gulf even though they are against an invasion. The US Congress as a whole is still uncertain whether it should take him on by ‘de-funding’ the war in Iraq at the cost of offending the nation that cares for American troops there.
Could there be another ‘unexpressed’ reason? Britain’s The Independent newspaper (7 January 2007) points to the factor of Iraqi oil, about which the present Iraqi government has to make some very important decisions shortly. If the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki at times tends to make rebellious comments about Mr Bush — ‘go but leave us the weapons’ — he could be speaking from a position of some strength. His US-installed Shia-dominated government has to ‘approve a new hydrocarbon law that will hand unprecedented control of the country’s vast oil reserves to US and British energy conglomerates’.
In his address, Mr Bush has asked the US Congress to ordain the doubling of the US oil reserves. What he did not say is where the oil will come from. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves, which is 10 percent of the world’s total, and most of it is found around Basra in the Shia-dominated south. The Iraqi oil is close to the surface and cheap to take out compared to North Sea Oil and other locations. The Independent says production sharing agreements (PSAs) give up to 60 percent of the revenue to American and British oil companies, ExxonMobil, Chevron and BP, etc, till they have recouped their investments, after which they will take 20 percent of the profits. And any breaches of contract will have to be adjudicated in international courts!
Baghdad is dragging its feet, probably waiting for Mr Bush’s decision to start withdrawing, after which it might conceivably make a different decision about its oil after consulting Iran. That may be why Mr Bush is not ready as yet to give a schedule of withdrawal as that might provoke the Iraqi government dig in and not sign. We should recall that Saddam Hussein had given out oil contracts to more than 60 companies from 30 countries headed by France, Russia and China. It would be very important for the US to make sure that these contracts are now repudiated by Baghdad.
The American president will face a very tough year ahead of him as more American casualties are posted and the ‘surge’ he has ordered will not put down the bloody civil war going on in Iraq. Far too many entities in and around Iraq are interested in creating chaos there to make it easy for the Americans to leave. Perhaps they know the real reason why Washington is interested in creating order in the country. Finally it is going to be a battle of wills between Mr Bush and his gradually dwindling Republican supporters, on the one hand, and the Democratic opposition that dominates the US legislature, on the other. Can the US oil lobby win this battle for Mr Bush? *
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
US will bank Tik Tok unless it sells off its US operations
US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during a CNBC interview that the Trump administration has decided that the Chinese internet app ...
-
Mike Dunleavy the governor of the US state of Alaska is intending to introduce legislation that will repeal the two state boards which regu...
-
US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during a CNBC interview that the Trump administration has decided that the Chinese internet app ...
-
(August 11 ) In recent weeks, a recurring problem has been that Russia has intercepted US surveillance planes over the Black Sea as they wer...
