Iraqis resist U.S. pressure to enact oil law

[Barrett808]

Source: LA Times

Iraqis resist U.S. pressure to enact oil law
Foreign investment and Shiite control are the primary concerns. A White House deadline for passage is in doubt.
By Tina Susman, Times Staff Writer
May 13, 2007

BAGHDAD — It has not even reached parliament, but the oil law that U.S. officials call vital to ending Iraq's civil war is in serious trouble among Iraqi lawmakers, many of whom see it as a sloppy document rushed forward to satisfy Washington's clock.

Opposition ranges from vehement to measured, but two things are clear: The May deadline that the White House had been banking on is in doubt. And even if the law is passed, it fails to resolve key issues, including how to divide Iraq's oil revenue among its Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni regions, and how much foreign investment to allow. Those questions would be put off for future debates.

The problems of the oil bill bode poorly for the other so-called benchmarks that the Bush administration has been pressuring Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government to meet. Those include provincial elections, reversing a prohibition against former Baath Party members holding government and military positions and revision of Iraq's constitution.

Republican leaders in Washington have warned administration officials that if the Iraqi government fails to meet those benchmarks by the end of the summer, remaining congressional support for Bush's Iraq policies could crumble. Their impatience was underscored Wednesday by Vice President Dick Cheney during a visit here.

"I did make it clear that we believe it's very important to move on the issues before us in a timely fashion, and that any undue delay would be difficult to explain," Cheney told reporters.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-oil13may13,0,3946185.story?coll=la-home-center

[no_hypocrisy]

1. What will Bushco did if they refuse to enact his law? Withdraw the troops in retaliation?

I dare ya.

I double dog dare ya.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Dupe. Sorry.

[Tom Joad]

3. DU folks, the pressure is coming from both RepublicansDemocrats

excepting a very few. Kucinich is fighting to stop it, but he is waging a lonely fight. No help from the Dem leadership.

[mike_c]

4. congressional democrats want to steal control of Iraq's oil...

...just as much as republicans do.

[LibertyorDeath]

10. We have a Winner !!!

"congressional democrats want to steal control of Iraq's oil
just as much as republicans do."

Cheers to you mike_c for seeing thru their bullshit lies..

[IndianaGreen]

13. Kucinich Condemns 'Blood for Oil' Measure

Kucinich Condemns 'Blood for Oil' Measure

by Cong. Dennis Kucinich, http://www.kucinich.house.gov

Kucinich Statement on the Iraq Supplemental Conference Report HR 1591

Washington, Apr 25, 2007

This "Supplemental" is a plan to extort Iraq's oil wealth under the guise of a plan to end the war. Funds for the security of the Iraqi government are contingent upon Iraq giving up control of oil. This legislation is a repugnant, high pressure tactic to force Iraq to pass a "hydrocarbon act" which will effectively privatize the oil wealth of Iraq. The key deception is that the hydrocarbon act, which sounds like an environmental law, lets Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds "share" whatever is left after US oil companies take unconscionable profits. This bill is not a plan for peace. It is blood for oil. It is a guarantee of more war and the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq.

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=13443

[Zhade]

17. BETRAYAL.

There is no other word for this.

[LibertyorDeath]

19. Kucinich is not the norm

I wish he was but he's not

he's swimming against very powerful corporate interests....

[MasonJar]

5. We MUST NOT stand by and let this cabal steal the Iraqis' oil.

We must advertise the problem and be loud against it. We have ruined their country, sprayed it with depleted uranium that will be there for a millenium (if there is another millenium,) run citizens from their country because of our ruthless disregard for basic humanity, made women's lives miserable and changed a secular society into one run by Shite fundamentalists, etc. Exxon/etc. cannot be allowed to also stake out their oil revenue.

[Miss Chybil]

6. Now we see the real reason for Cheney's little visit. nt

[NanceGreggs]

8. That's always a given when Cheney does anything ...

That greasy oil slick he leaves in his path, like a common slug, is always a dead giveaway.

[Gregorian]

9. Tenacious Dick Slick.

I'm sorry I have gotten all giddy this evening. Must have been the frozen peach desert.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Cheney was called a “sponsor of terrorism” by the Shia of Baghdad

The oil law, which was drafted in Washington by the Colonial Office inside the White House, has more to do with securing oil profits for transanational corporations than it is about sharing oil revenues with all factions.

US Vice President attempts to strongarm Iraqi political leaders

By James Cogan

11 May 2007

The crisis confronting the White House was exemplified by Cheney’s visit. As with every high profile visit to Iraq, the trip was unannounced. He entered the country in secret wearing a bullet-proof vest and was rushed under heavy guard from the airport to the fortified Green Zone in central Baghdad.

Word of Cheney’s presence spread and provoked a hostile reaction. Angry demonstrations were held by the Sadrist movement in Baghdad, Najaf and Karbala, denouncing the US occupation and labelling the US vice president a “sponsor of terrorism”. In the late afternoon, a rocket fired from the predominantly Shiite suburbs to the east of the Green Zone shook the building where he was meeting with Iraqi politicians.

Despite hours of talks, Cheney effectively left empty-handed. Maliki could give no commitment to pass the legislation wanted by Washington or even to ensure that parliament would continue sitting past June 30. By contrast, the day before Cheney’s visit, Sadrist legislators secured a parliamentary majority for a non-binding resolution demanding the US set a timetable for the withdrawal of all its military forces.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/chen-m11.shtml

[ClayZ]

7. K and R

[IndianaGreen]

12. Report outlines plans for corporate plunder of Iraqi oil (plus other related articles)

Why is Dennis Kucinich opposed to Iraq's oil law? Perhaps it is because he understands, as the Iraqis do, that this piece of colonial legislation that was drafted in Washington DC is intended to guarantee the plunder of Iraqi oil by Western companies approved by the US.

Report outlines plans for corporate plunder of Iraqi oil

By James Cogan
8 December 2005

A report published in November by the London-based environmental and social justice network Platform makes clear that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was, and remains, a war for oil. The document, entitled “Crude Designs: the rip-off of Iraq’s oil wealth”, is a concise review of how Iraq’s vast energy resources, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, will be handed to transnational companies over the next several years.

“Crude Designs” found that if just 12 of Iraq’s undeveloped fields are contracted in a similar fashion to comparable oil fields in Libya, Oman and Russia, transnationals will reap profits of between $74 billion and $194 billion in 2006 dollars over a 30-year period. The estimate, which the report describes as “conservative”, is based on an oil price of $40 per barrel. The current price is closer to $60 per barrel.

The actual bonanza for the oil giants from the invasion of Iraq could run into the trillions. Out of the country’s 80 known fields, just 17 are currently in production. A further 63 undeveloped fields have an estimated 75 billion barrels of oil, while industry experts believe between 100 billion and 200 billion barrels lie in unexplored fields. The country also has enormous untapped reserves of natural gas.

The Platform report establishes that control over these resources was the primary motive for the war. The first chapter draws attention to the discussion in US and British ruling circles on the strategic importance of dominating the oil and gas of the Persian Gulf. It cites the May 2001 report of the Bush administration’s Energy Task Force, which was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. The findings declared: “The Gulf will be the primary focus of US international energy policy.”

The terror attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, just four months later, were used to set in motion long-held plans for the military conquest of the region.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/oil-d08.shtml

Bush grants permanent legal immunity to US corporations looting Iraqi oil

By Rick Kelly
19 August 2003

An extraordinary Presidential Executive Order, signed into law by President Bush on May 22 but kept out of the pages of the US media, further underscores the real motivations behind the illegal US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Ostensibly drawn up in order to protect Iraq’s oil wealth, Executive Order (EO) 13303, “Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest”, provides unlimited authority for US corporations to loot Iraqi oil and grants them permanent immunity from any legal actions over the consequences.

EO 13303 begins with a declaration that the possibility of future legal claims on Iraq’s oil wealth constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” It goes on to state that “any ... judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void” with regard to the Development Fund for Iraq, as well as for any commercial operation conducted by US corporations involved in the Iraqi oil industry.

Section 1(b) of the EO eliminates all judicial process for “all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.”

Condemning it as a “blank check for corporate anarchy”, Tom Devine, legal director for the non-profit legal firm, the Government Accountability Project (GAP), issued a damning assessment of Bush’s EO on July 18. “In terms of legal liability,” Divine’s report began, “the Executive Order cancels the concept of corporate accountability and abandons the rule of law.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/preo-a19.shtml

Report highlights unchecked looting of Iraq’s oil resources

By Rick Kelly
21 July 2004

The British based non-government organisation Christian Aid released a report on June 28, pointing to the unrestricted plundering of Iraq’s oil by the US and its allies. The paper, “Fuelling suspicion: the coalition and Iraq’s oil billions”, revealed that up to $US3 billion in oil export revenues has gone missing.

The determined refusal of the now dissolved Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to accurately account for its collection of these revenues has resulted in a situation where no-one knows just how much Iraqi oil the US authorities sold, and at what price.

The Christian Aid report detailed the CPA’s extraordinary powers over every aspect of the appropriation and expenditure of Iraq’s oil revenue. The oil was effectively the private property of the CPA and its US head, Paul Bremer.

Christian Aid noted that the oil revenue data released by the CPA did “not meet international accounting standards, even though the CPA possesses the information to do so”. The report highlighted a number of substantial discrepancies in the CPA’s published figures.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/iraq-j21.shtml

[DLnyc]

14. Hey, someone in the MSM actually said "foreign investment"

Actually, I suspect "foreign control", "foreign ownership" or "foreign theft" (of Iraqi oil reserves) might be more accurate.

Some interesting points:

http://priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/war-terror/iraqi-oil-law
------------
The process of drafting the oil law has been particularly troubling. The timeline of which entities have seen the draft when suggests that Iraqi interests are not being considered first and foremost:

Draft shown to US government and major oil companies – July 06
Draft shown to the International Monetary Fund September 06
Draft shown to Iraqi Parliament: February 07
-------------

From the OP, isn't it ironic:
-------------------------------------------
... Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq who left the post in March.

Passing the measure "requires a very hands-on effort by the international community, by the United States," Khalilzad said. "This is the paradox of this situation. We have a greater sense of urgency because of our situation than they do."
-------------------------------------------
??could that be connected to the bill being designed to RIP OFF Iraq??

Also from OP:
======
And even if the law is passed, it fails to resolve key issues, including how to divide Iraq's oil revenue among its Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni regions, and how much foreign investment to allow. Those questions would be put off for future debates.
======

??WTF. The bill being portrayed in the MSM, in general, as about "dividing the oil revenues" not only is more focused on moving Iraqi oil, which is nationalized, as is that of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iran, into the control of 'international investors" (i.e. Shell, Exxon, BP and a few others),
but then, on top of that, the damn bill doesn't even DO the "dividing".
(good piece on this by Antonia Juhasz: http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0313-26.htm )

Understandibly, while a strong majority of Americans now see *'s Iraq adventure as a 'mistake'( http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm ), I think many are honestly conflicted over how best to get out. How would these peole feel, knowing that BushCo is ACTIVELY HOLDING UP PROGRESS in order to get a windfall deal for his buddies in the oil business (worth I'd say, oh, about $20 extra profit on each of, oh, about 80 billion barrels, oh, about $1.6 trillion dollars, not a bad return on a few million in campaign contributions and a few well placed 'perks'')?

I think, though, that the real idea is not so much to 'steal' the oil as to control it. As in monopoly. As in "we can charge whatever we want, as long as we destroy anybody who undercuts our price". As in 'should have burned the corporate charter of Standard Oil when we had a chance, instead of letting it recombine into Exxon/Mobil/Deathcheneywarfascismtoastedplanettohellwithyourdamnlawsitsallours unlimited".

[IndianaGreen]

15. Iraq's Hydrocarbon Law -­ in whose interests?

Iraq's Hydrocarbon Law -­ in whose interests?

by Ewa Jasiewicz, Platform

A Hydrocarbon Law which advocates a radical restructuring of Iraq’s oil industry was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in February. If passed by parliament, the law will mark a milestone in Iraqi history ­ a shift of Iraq’s massive reserves from public to private hands. It could see private companies develop and profit from Iraq’s oil for 15-30 year periods with virtually no possibility for the Iraqi state to renegotiate contractual terms and conditions. The first draft of the oil law was produced to a timeline set by the International Monetary Fund. The IMF ordered, as a condition of debt relief, the issuance of an oil law by December 2006. This law had to open up Iraq oil (for the first time in over 30 years) to long-term investment by foreign oil companies. Finally produced in July 2006, the first to review it and comment on it were 9 multinational oil companies, the British government and US government. It would be eight months before the vast majority of the Iraqi parliament would even see it. In January of this year, the US President decreed the passing of an oil law allowing for foreign investment as his top benchmark. AP reported in early April that sources close to Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki had revealed he feared being ousted by the US administration if he did not secure the passing of an oil law by the end of June. The Oil Law - Legislation for Oil Privatisation?


The oil law and Production Sharing Agreements (re-named ‘Exploration and Risk Contracts and Development and Production Sharing Contracts in the Oil Law) do not amount to privatisation of Iraqi oil in a strict technical sense. With PSAs and the provisions of the oil law, the oil underground technically remains 'the property of the Iraqi people'. It is not set to pass into private ownership; existing assets will not pass into private ownership and corporate structures will also not be privately owned. However, the rights to control what happens to Iraq's oil - how it is developed, its' rate of extraction, the profits which the state is able to claim - the control of oil flow and development - this is all up for exclusive private control. Sami Husseini of the Institute for Public Accuracy uses Standard Oil’s John D Rockefeller’s maxim to illustrate this. ‘Own nothing, control everything’. Despite being sold as a de-facto peace plan for Iraq; The mechanism for uniting all Iraqi factions by offering a fair distribution of oil wealth, only one out of 43 articles actually deals with this. The details of revenue distribution, including the proportion shared between central government and the regions, and the means by which allocations and percentages will be decided is actually the subject of another separate law which has yet to be published. The Law could risks exacerbating sectarian tensions. Its provision for a creation of a Federal Oil and Gas Council - most likely composed by the Prime Minister, in consultation with the main parties, could see the current sectarianised decision-making reflected in economic oil policy ­ potentially pitting region against region in a race to secure competitive contracts.

Contentious articles of the law Article 41 of the law stipulates that any disputes between foreign companies and Iraqi authorities which cannot be resolved through negotiation, will be resolved ‘through arbitration or the competent authority’. In practice this means that, a successive Iraqi government wishing to reverse any terms would not be able to use its own judicial system to do so. It would be forced to take its case to a remote court where it would be treated as a corporate entity, on an equal footing with an international oil company rather than as a country representative of 35 million people and their welfare.

Article 11 does not allow for Parliamentary scrutiny of contracts or revenues accrued from new fields. Fields such as West Qurna and Majnoon each alone account for approx. 10% of all government revenue. As such, the terms of these developments should be subject to Parliamentary debate as they are in other countries such as Syria, Azerbaijan, Russia and Yemen. If long-term PSAs are signed, then the vote on the oil law will be the last say Parliament will have over what happens to Iraq’s oil for a generation. It is normal practice in major oil producing countries with a technically skilled workforce to guarantee a minimum percentage of state participation in contracts. No such minimum is set in the law. For a country as well endowed with resources and technical skills as Iraq, a high minimum threshold would have been expected (50% is a normal level).

More...

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=13489

[Zhade]

16. It will ALWAYS be resisted.

First by words, then by rocket-propelled grenade.

If anyone thinks Iraqis are going to not attack those stealing the oil, they are delusional.

[bonito]

18. I say let them have the dam oil

Its not worth more killing, I've read of a plane "B" if the surge doesn't work, oil is there God and nothing gets in there way to get it, even if they keep it nationalized the oil companies will find some way to slant drill it right out from under them.

[DLnyc]

20. Well, could we at least get ExxonMobil to pick up the tab?

I don't have a calculator or the exact figures, but just so they can get a rough idea of impact on quarterly profits, I figure about:
$400 billion cost of Iraq War Supplementals (so far, may be a tad more to get them to swallow oil-expropriation bill).
$40 billion cost of wiping out Iraqi debt (should be assumed by EM, since they are expropriating the assets).
$30 billion future costs of patching together about 25,000 wounded (many very severely) Iraq War Veterans.
?? (Not sure how to price 3386 dead American kids)
?? (Not sure how to price about 60,000 dead Iraqi bystanders)
$10 trillion miscellaneous costs incuding massive damage to the global climate system, rule of law, 'quaint' things like the Geneva Convention, and so forth.

I get, total, $10,470,000,000,000 plus ?? plus ??.
As a rough estimate.

[blondie58]

21. this makes me furious

Our nation has become nothing more than a bunch of thugs, stealing and plundering everything that gets in its way. And the Republicans still think that this doesn't create any more enemies?

[CGowen]

22. more enemies, more war, more money to be made n/t

[IndianaGreen]

24. Yes, but there is Democratic complicity with the plundering

which is the point Dennis Kucinich was making about the Democratic majority wanting to include the oil law as one of the benchmarks.

[Robbien]

23. No wonder they want to go on a two month vacation

Keeping up their resistance to signing away their oil all the while enduring having the US/BigOil hold knives to their throats 24/7 is hard work.

[ProudDad]

25. Good for them!!!

They'd be screwed if they pass this piece of shit giveaway to the corporate capitalist oil barons.

[Drum]

26. Hmmm...maybe we've hit upon BushCo's timelines and metrics....nt

[Judi Lynn]

27. Bully! Bully!

[burrowowl]

28. As well they should!

impeach BU$HCO!