More on why the U.S. REALLY, REALLY invaded Iraq

anyone left out there who has any more doubts about why we invaded iraq...?

Peter W. Galbraith, an influential former American ambassador, is a powerful voice on Iraq who helped shape the views of policy makers like Joseph R. Biden Jr. and John Kerry. In the summer of 2005, he was also an adviser to the Kurdish regional government as Iraq wrote its Constitution — tough and sensitive talks not least because of issues like how Iraq would divide its vast oil wealth.

Now Mr. Galbraith, 58, son of the renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith, stands to earn perhaps a hundred million or more dollars as a result of his closeness to the Kurds, his relations with a Norwegian oil company and constitutional provisions he helped the Kurds extract.

[...]

Interviews by The New York Times with more than a dozen current and former government and business officials in Norway, France, Iraq, the United States and elsewhere, along with legal records and other documents, reveal in considerable detail that he received rights to an enormous stake in at least one of Kurdistan’s oil fields in the spring of 2004.

As it turns out, Mr. Galbraith received the rights after he helped negotiate a potentially lucrative contract that allowed the Norwegian oil company DNO to drill for oil in the promising Dohuk region of Kurdistan, the interviews and documents show.

He says his actions were proper because he was at the time a private citizen deeply involved in Kurdish causes, both in business and policy.

When drillers struck oil in a rich new field called Tawke in December 2005, no one but a handful of government and business officials and members of Mr. Galbraith’s inner circle knew that the constitutional provisions he had pushed through only months earlier could enrich him so handsomely.

As the scope of Mr. Galbraith’s financial interests in Kurdistan become clear, they have the potential to inflame some of Iraqis’ deepest fears, including conspiracy theories that the true reason for the American invasion of their country was to take its oil. It may not help that outside Kurdistan, Mr. Galbraith’s influential view that Iraq should be broken up along ethnic lines is considered offensive to many Iraqis’ nationalism. Mr. Biden and Mr. Kerry, who have been influenced by Mr. Galbraith’s thinking but do not advocate such a partitioning of the country, were not aware of Mr. Galbraith’s oil dealings in Iraq, aides to both politicians say.

Some officials say that his financial ties could raise serious questions about the integrity of the constitutional negotiations themselves. “The idea that an oil company was participating in the drafting of the Iraqi Constitution leaves me speechless,” said Feisal Amin al-Istrabadi, a principal drafter of the law that governed Iraq after the United States ceded control to an Iraqi government on June 28, 2004.

In effect, he said, the company “has a representative in the room, drafting.”

there, there... that wasn't so bad, now was it...? it's so comforting to have one's suspicions validated that the reason so many of our country's poor, young bastards were sent to iraq to die and that so many poor, powerless iraqis were slaughtered was to help make huge bastards like mr. galbraith filthy rich...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The U.S. effort to control Iraqi oil continues a 100-year campaign of Western interference

juan cole...

Poor Iraq has been looted, occupied, and disrupted by the industrialized West for a century because of the curse of its oil wealth.

professor cole also offers this fascinating little tidbit...

Bush and Cheney clearly went into Iraq primarily in order to put US petroleum firms in precisely this favored position, although that is not the same thing as saying that the oil majors plumped for the war. It is more likely that smaller, hungrier concerns were eager for Iraq to be opened; Cheney was CEO of one of those firms 1995-2000, i.e. Halliburton, which might well have gone bankrupt without the no-bid contracts he was able to throw it once he arranged for the US invasion.

patrick cockburn in the independent...

Nearly four decades after the four biggest Western oil companies were expelled from Iraq by Saddam Hussein, they are negotiating their return. By the end of the month, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil and Total will sign agreements with the Baghdad government, Iraq's first with big Western oil firms since the US-led invasion in 2003.

[...]

The major oil companies have been eager to go back to Iraq, but are concerned about their own security and the long-term stability of the country. The two-year no-bid agreements are service agreements that should add another 500,000 barrels of crude a day of output to Iraq's present production of 2.5 million barrels a day (b/d).

The companies have the option of being paid in cash or crude oil for the deals, each of which will reportedly be worth $500m (£250m). For Iraq, the agreements are a way of accessing foreign expertise immediately, before the Iraqi parliament passes a controversial new hydrocarbons law.

[...]

For the four oil giants, the new agreements will bring them back to a country where they have a long history. BP, Exxon Mobil, Total and Shell were co-owners of a British, American and French consortium that kept Iraq's oil reserves in foreign control for more than 40 years.

The Iraq Petroleum Company (once the Turkish Petroleum Company) was formed in 1912 by oil companies eager to grab the resources in parts of the Ottoman Empire.

over five years after the u.s. began the illegal iraq war and well over a year after the attempt to pass the iraq oil law ground to a standstill (see my previous posts here), my country soldiers on in its quest to control iraqi oil...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Bird and Fortune: two Brits 'splain Iraqi oil

laugh through your tears...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The fraudulence of the "War on Terror"

nothing we don't know already...

The fraudulence of the "War on Terror," however, is clearly revealed in the pattern of subsequent facts:

• In Afghanistan the state was overthrown instead of apprehending the terrorist. Offers by the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden were ignored, and he remains at large to this day.

• In Iraq, when the United States invaded, there were no al Qaeda terrorists at all.

• Both states have been supplied with puppet governments, and both are dotted with permanent U.S. military bases in strategic proximity to their hydrocarbon assets.

• The U.S. embassy nearing completion in Baghdad is comprised of 21 multistory buildings on 104 acres of land. It will house 5,500 diplomats, staff and families. It is ten times larger than any other U.S. embassy in the world, but we have yet to be told why.

• A 2006 National Intelligence Estimate shows the war in Iraq has exacerbated, not diminished, the threat of terrorism since 9/11. If the "War on Terror" is not a deception, it is a disastrously counterproductive failure.

• Today two American and two British oil companies are poised to claim immense profits from 81 percent of Iraq's undeveloped crude oil reserves. They cannot proceed, however, until the Iraqi Parliament enacts a statute known as the "hydrocarbon framework law."

• The features of postwar oil policy so heavily favoring the oil companies were crafted by the Bush administration State Department in 2002, a year before the invasion.

• Drafting of the law itself was begun during Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority, with the invited participation of a number of major oil companies. The law was written in English and translated into Arabic only when it was due for Iraqi approval.

• President Bush made passage of the hydrocarbon law a mandatory "benchmark" when he announced the troop surge in January of 2007.

but it never hurts to keep things like this exposed to the full light of day...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

So much for "democracy" in Iraq - it's just another welfare scheme for the super-rich and the oil giants

forget workers' rights... we don't need 'em in the u.s., and we SURE as hell don't need 'em in iraq...

Iraq's oil minister said Iraq's oil unions are not legitimate and have no more standing in the debate over the oil law than an ordinary citizen.

"There are no legal unions in Iraq," Hussein al-Shahristani said Wednesday in response to a question about various factions' positions on the controversial oil law. "Those people who call themselves representatives of the oil workers have not been elected to the position."

[...]

Saddam Hussein outlawed worker organizing in the public sector; subsequent U.S. occupying powers and now the Iraqi government do not recognize the workers' rights to organize.

and, besides, why the hell would anybody want to listen to the positions of WORKERS when there's an oil bonanza to be PRIVATIZED...? hmmmmm...? i ask you...

Iraq's Parliament has approved a law privatizing the country's oil-refining sector in order to lure investment and stem a fuel shortage.

The law, approved Tuesday, is a step toward relinquishing government involvement in the refining sector and, when poverty is alleviated, moving Iraqi consumers from state-subsidized to market prices for fuel.

Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani told United Press International Wednesday from his mobile phone in Baghdad that the government will provide incentives to both domestic and foreign private oil companies whose refinery plans the ministry approves.

"This is a law that will privatize the refining sector in Iraq and allow the private sector, whether it's local or international investments, to be able to invest in refining activities in Iraq, including building refineries," Shahristani said.

this al-shahristani fella is quite the busy guy... i don't have the motivation to do any research on him, but i will bet tomorrow morning's cafe cortado that he's in somebody's pocket, or maybe they're in his, whatever...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

McClatchy tells less than HALF the Iraq oil law story

i've posted numerous times on the iraq oil law (over 10 times, at least, some of the major ones being here, here, here, and here, among others)... the key points that AREN'T getting reported in the so-called "news" outlets in the u.s. are these, compiled from both the uk independent and the inter press news service agency...

[The production sharing agreements - PSAs] envisioned by the Iraqi petrochemical law contained extremely favorable provisions for the oil companies, in which they would be entitled to 70 percent of profits until development expenses were amortized and 20 percent afterwards. This would have guaranteed them at least twice the typical profit margin over the long run and many times that figure during the initial years.

There are other elements in the law (and the possible PSA contracts) that have also roused resistance inside Iraq. Among the most controversial:

* Insofar as PSAs or their legal equivalent were enacted, Iraq would lose control over what levels of oil the country produced with the potential to substantially weaken the grip of OPEC on the oil market.

* The law would allow the oil companies to fully repatriate all profits from oil sales, almost insuring that the proceeds would not be reinvested in the Iraqi economy.

* The Iraqi government would not have control over oil company operations inside Iraq. Any disputes would be referred instead to pro-industry international arbitration panels.

* No contracts would be public documents.

* Contacting companies would not be obliged to hire Iraqi workers, and could pursue the current policy of employing American technicians and South Asian manual laborers.

Several African countries with vast mineral riches have been subjected to these sorts of conditions, with large multinational companies extracting both minerals and profits while returning only a tiny fraction of the proceeds to the local population. As the resources are taken out of the ground and the country, the local population actually becomes poorer, while the potential for future prosperity is drained.

i've developed some respect for mcclatchy over the past few months as being one of the few u.s. news outlets that's taking the risk to put out the truth... so, why the hell am i reading a story like this...?

Leading Sunnis in Iraq's parliament continued on Wednesday to snub a set of U.S.-supported oil laws many see as key to ending sectarian killing.

The laws would regulate Iraq's oil industry and govern how to distribute oil revenues. The Bush administration contends passage of an equitable oil-sharing law would draw Sunnis into the Shiite-led government and help heal the nation's deep religious rift.

U.S. lawmakers also see the oil provisions as a gauge that measures the effectiveness of President Bush's surge strategy. An influx of 28,500 troops has brought total force strength to 150,000.

[...]

Iraqis of all political and sectarian stripes have concerns about any provision that would call for sharing oil revenues with foreign oil companies.

Ministers from parliament's Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front have boycotted voting for the bills. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Tuesday predicted that parliament would begin debating the legislation. But on Wednesday an official for the group said no draft should be considered until the Sunnis return to session.

ok, mcclatchy, WHY ARE THEY SO DAMN CONCERNED...? HUH...? could it be about some of the things the independent and inter press service reported...? COULD IT...? yeah... i thought so... SO WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU MENTION THEM...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Wolfie doesn't know when to quit, does he?

this totally supports my theory that wolfie was placed by bush at the world bank in no small part because he would push the bank back in to iraq, where it would offer loans to the iraqi government to rebuild the oil industry infrastructure, thus allowing the global oil companies to avoid paying for it themselves, and to start logging profits as soon as they started up after the passage of the iraqi oil law... the bank's staff have been largely opposed and i thought perhaps that wolfie's announced resignation would bring it to a halt... guess again...

Departing Wolfowitz Names New Iraq Director

\The World Bank has just appointed a new country head for Iraq despite security and corruption concerns, according to a leaked document.

The news emerged just days after outgoing World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz promised not make any major new appointments at the institution.

The Government Accountability Project, a Washington-based watchdog group, released an email it says it obtained from sources inside the Bank showing Daniela Gressani, vice president for the Middle East and North Africa Region, making the announcement.

"I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. Simon Stolp as Country Manager, Iraq," said Gressani in her email, a copy of which was seen by IPS.

A World Bank official in the Middle East department who wished to remain unidentified confirmed the news to IPS.

Stolp, an Australian national, worked previously in Iraq as a consultant for the U.S. Department of Defence where he supported changes in the Iraqi electricity sector. In 2005, he was awarded the Joint Civilian Service Award by the Pentagon, which is granted to civilians who demonstrate high service "supporting the U.S. military".

wolfowitz is some piece of work, isn't he...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Listening to Bush's speech at the Coast Guard Academy

9/11, al qaeda, 9/11, al qaeda, 9/11, al qaeda, 9/11, al qaeda, 9/11, al qaeda, 9/11, al qaeda, taliban, 9/11, al qaeda, democracy, 9/11, al qaeda, guantánamo, taliban, 9/11, al qaeda, terrorists, 9/11, guantánamo, al qaeda, terrorists, 9/11, al qaeda, weapons of mass destruction in iraq, 9/11, al qaeda, democracy, 9/11, al qaeda, iran, iraq, iran, more troops, iraq, iraq oil law, peace, iraq, 9/11, al qaeda, democracy, 9/11, al qaeda, iraq, defeat al qaeda in iraq, war on terror in iraq, al qaeda, terrorists, bin laden, bin laden, al qaeda, iraq, guantánamo, al qaeda, bin laden, victory in iraq, iraq, follow us home, bin laden, follow us home, victory in iraq, zarqawi, bin laden, terrorists, al qaeda, terrorists, iraq, al qaeda, keep pressure on the enemy, al qaeda, dangerous, terrorists, iraq, al qaeda, high-profile attacks, increased risks to our troops, essential to our security, al qaeda, attack america, the enemy in vietnam couldn't follow us home, must fight them there or fight them here, al qaeda, will we do what it takes, we must win, al qaeda, public enemy number one, al qaeda, defeat al qaeda in iraq, 9/11 was downpayment on violence yet to come, al quada, danger hasn't passed, eye of storm, winds could reach our shores at any moment...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Consider Iraqis' plans for peace? But what about the OIL?

i mean, get real... oil is why we're in iraq, oil is why we're building up those giant permanent military bases, oil is why we're constructing an embassy complex the size of vatican city to the tune of a half billion dollars... and it's not just iraqi oil we're after... iraq will serve as the principal base for efforts to destabilize iran so we can access its oil resources too, and don't forget the caspian basin with all its oil and gas resources, just a short flight away... why would we want to give all that up just to bring peace to iraq...?

from alternet...

[T]he Al Fadhila party, a Shi'ite party considered moderate by the (often arbitrary) standards of the commercial media, held a press conference, in which they offered a 23-point plan for stabilizing Iraq.

The plan addressed not only the current situation in Iraq -- acknowledging the legitimacy of Iraqi resistance, setting a timetable for a complete withdrawal of occupation troops and rebuilding the Iraqi government and security forces in a non-sectarian fashion -- but also the challenging mission of post-occupation peace-building and national reconciliation. It included provisions for disbanding militias, protecting Iraq's unity, managing Iraq's natural resources, building relationships with other countries based on mutual interest and the principle of non-intervention in domestic issues, and healing the wounds of more than 30 years of dictatorship, war, sanctions, and foreign occupation.

An online search shows that the peace plan was largely ignored by the Western commercial media.

[...]

Al Fadhila's peace plan was not the first one offered by Iraqi actors, nor the first to be ignored by the Anglo-American Coalition. More significant even than proposals made by Iraqi political parties are those put forth by the country's armed resistance groups --- the very groups that have the ability to bring a halt to the cycle of violence. [...] The plans vary on a number of points, but all of them shared a few items in common: the occupation forces must recognize them as legitimate resistance groups and negotiate with them, and the U.S. must agree to set a timetable for a complete withdrawal from Iraq.

[...]

But these plans are unacceptable to the Coalition because they A) affirm the legitimacy of Iraq's armed resistance groups and acknowledge that the U.S.-led coalition is, in fact, an occupying army, and B) return Iraq to the Iraqis, which means no permanent bases, no oil law that gives foreign firms super-sweet deals and no radical restructuring of the Iraqi economy.

the fact is, the u.s. isn't even INTERESTED in achieving peace... our government is merely going through the motions, trying to play out its lie of bringing democracy to the region... the only reason the bush administration is making ANY efforts toward stabilization is to insure the money keeps flowing... other than that, they simply don't care...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Wolfie "said all the right things. None of which he lived up to."

what an epitaph...

...an arrogant intellectual who cared more about his ideas and image than about the institution or its customers.

and i REALLY wish someone with some investigative reporter talent would follow up on this...

Wolfowitz's emphasis on increasing the World Bank footprint in Iraq was a contentious subject with staff members who argued that Iraq was dangerous and, because of its oil reserves, too rich for lending.

WHY was he pushing this...? i can only conclude that, as at least one commenter has pointed out, world bank loans to iraq would be focused on rehabilitating its oil industry infrastructure, thus allowing the global oil giants to avoid paying for it themselves, and then, with loan terms written to require payback from oil revenues (part of the reason ecuador recently kicked out its world bank rep and negated its loan agreement), iraq would be totally in western hands, assuming of course the oil law eventually passed...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Bush on Wolfie: "I regret that it has come to this"

i'll take this as a farewell...

"I believe all parties in this matter have acted in good faith," Bush said in a markedly somber tone. "I regret that it has come to this. I admire Paul Wolfowitz. I admire his heart, and I particularly admire his focus in helping the poor. There is a board meeting going on as we speak. All I can tell you is that Paul Wolfowitz has an interest in what's best for the bank, just like he's had an interest in what's best in making sure the bank focuses on things that matter -- human suffering, the human condition. So I applaud his vision, I respect him a lot, and as I said, I regret that it has come to this."

paul wolfowitz hasn't had the best interest of a goddam thing in mind with the single exception of advancing an arrogant, megalomaniacal, neocon agenda focused entirely on power, money and absolute control, an agenda he has made his life's work... the world bank has never been an exemplar of pure-white altruism, working as it has to advance the interests of the g7, but at least it had SOME credibility... i think that it's now clear to everyone that wolfie's appointment as world bank president was just another item on the to-do list of the bush administration's push for absolute world power...

there were many who believed that wolfie's appointment to the world bank was an effort to get him out of the way, putting him on a siding where he couldn't do any more harm... i posted this back in january 2006...

there were those who speculated that bush was sending wolfie to the world bank to neutralize him and get him out of the line of fire in the defense department particularly since he was one of the principal architects of the iraq war... i didn't believe that for a minute...

that was in response to this from steve clemons, someone else who never bought the idea that installing wolfie in the world bank would "neutralize" him...

Wolfowitz may be showing his stripes now -- and may be finally tilting the Bank into a groove where it becomes a harsher instrument of U.S. foreign policy -- rewarding friends and punishing those who don't fall into lockstep behind George W. Bush's vision.

until it finally dawned on me a few weeks ago that one of the principal reasons wolfie was pushing for the world bank to increase its lending to iraq was to support the iraq oil law, i was somewhat vague on just exactly what "being a harsher instrument of u.s. foreign policy" might look like... well, i guess like so much else in bushco, it looks like power (controlling iraq) and money (oil)...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Looks to me like there's some LEAKIN' goin' on

we got leakin', oh yes, we got leakin', we got leakin', right here in river city...

Documents circulating at the World Bank suggest that Paul D. Wolfowitz, the bank president, understood that his role in ordering a pay increase and promotion for his companion in 2005 might be seen as a conflict of interest but insisted on proceeding anyway, bank officials who are critics of Mr. Wolfowitz said Sunday.

The officials, speaking on the eve of a fateful week for Mr. Wolfowitz’s efforts to remain head of the bank, said testimony and notes that Xavier Coll, vice president of human resources, provided to a bank committee investigating the matter supported the charge that Mr. Wolfowitz was aware of engaging in favoritism. One said the documents were “devastating” to Mr. Wolfowitz’s case.

unless there's some big, hairy bush administration initiative that hasn't been pushed through yet, it's a puzzlement to me why wolfie would even WANT to stay... i mean, if he does, his effectiveness will be roughly equivalent to that of tits on a boar... my hunch, as i posted the other day, is that the world bank's full impact on iraq is just in the initial stages, a move that wolfie has pushed hard for, and that, because of the resistance of world bank officials to doing it, will probably be stopped dead in its tracks if wolfie goes...

so, what's so important about the world bank being heavily involved in iraq...? well, let's try oil for starters... if the oil law passes with the provisions intact that are so astonishingly favorable to global oil companies and to the u.s., the world bank can back that up with loans for infrastructure development whose terms are also written for u.s. benefit, such as payback being required to come from oil revenues...

both the world bank and the imf have a long and rich history of benign extortion, loaning vast sums of money to underdeveloped and emerging economies with terms that guarantee access to and/or control over big chunks of a country's resources... in addition, if the world bank becomes heavily involved in iraq, it provides more of a legitimate cover so that it doesn't look quite so much like the u.s. and the oil companies are the ones really running the show...

just some thoughts...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

First on the U.S. list of "crucial priorities" for the Iraqi government

when they come back from their two-month recess...

Mr. Cheney acknowledged that the Iraqis had given him no specific time commitments for legislative action on issues the Americans have identified as crucial. They include an oil law that assures a fair distribution of revenue to the different population groups, constitutional reforms that reassure the Sunni minority and a revised de-Baathification law that opens the way to a return to government jobs by thousands of midlevel officials from Saddam Hussein’s era.

three things... first, there's the oil law... then, there's the oil law... and, finally, there's the oil law...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Wolfie is a spoiled, tantrum-throwing child who should just STFU and LEAVE, already

reading this makes it really hard to keep food down...

wolfie...

• disparaged a bank panel probing his handling of a pay raise for his girlfriend
• accus[ed] investigators of poisoning the atmosphere with leaks
• depriv[ed] him of sufficient time to respond to accusations

his attorney...

• the inability of the committee to control leaks about its draft conclusions is very harmful
• prejudging the outcome of the process
• disrespects both the board and the process
• the response time was too brief
• "This is terribly unfair"
• "We are extremely disheartened."

imho, wolfie takes criticism very poorly... it would be a lot more honest of him to simply lie on the floor, pounding his fists and crying for mommy...

meanwhile, the world community isn't being shy about expressing their thoughts...

• European finance ministers meeting in Brussels called for an end to the leadership crisis
• "We need a president with a good reputation and good integrity"
• "It is impossible to go around the world speaking about good governance without good governance at the World Bank"
• "If it persists, it makes the World Bank an embarrassment"
• The European parliament has called for Wolfowitz to resign

and the white house continues to huff and puff...

• "We believe Wolfowitz should remain at the World Bank"
• [I]f Wolfowitz is forced out at the bank, Europe could lose its rights to name the leader at the [IMF]

meanwhile, nobody gives any background about WHY wolfie was put there in the first place, like maybe to use world bank leverage to secure iraq's oil resources...? hmmmm...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Cheney in Iraq: What, no mention of the oil law?

you can't tell me the passage of the oil law wasn't high on the agenda, but it isn't mentioned here...

Vice President Dick Cheney and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki acknowledged problems in the pace of reducing violence in Iraq on Wednesday, but both pledged their governments would continue working together toward a solution.

but maybe we can hazard a reasonable guess about WHEN it was talked about...

Once safely ensconced in Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone, however, Cheney appeared to reserve his toughest language for his normal target – the press. Cheney held a lot of photo ops with key Iraqi leaders like Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, but was adamant about not taking questions. At one point, Cheney emphasized to the assembled journalists that “this is just a photo spray.” Later in the day, as reporters filed into an embassy conference room for another photo of Cheney they overheard him tell his staff “then we kick the press out.”

wait, wait, wait... HERE IT IS...! i just KNEW it had to be kicking around somewhere...

U.S. officials have been livid since discovering that Iraq’s fledgling parliament – hardly a hive of activity in the first place – was planning to take a two-month summer recess, postponing work on a bill spelling out how oil money would be shared among Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian groups or a law authorizing new regional elections.

goddam it, don't they have a clue about priorities...? whassamadda wit' dose folks, hah...?

"[F]or the Iraqi parliament to take a two-month vacation in the middle of summer is impossible to understand,” [said] The new American ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker.

poor clueless, ungrateful bastards...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The IMF, the World Bank and Iraqi oil (one reason why Wolfowitz is/was at the World Bank)

(this is a bit lengthy, but stick with me...)

is it any wonder the white house is still, as of this morning, fighting to keep wolfowitz in his job...? read on...

The White House said on Tuesday the World Bank could continue to be effective with embattled World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz in charge.

"We believe that the World Bank can continue to be an effective development institution with Paul Wolfowitz as president," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

i've posted several times on the pending iraq oil law (here, here, here, here, here, and here), as we guessed and now confirmed by its becoming the leading iraq "benchmark," one of the principal reasons for initiating the illegal war... i've also been posting on the ways the world bank and the international monetary fund programs conspire to keep the people in non-industrialized nations in poverty (here, here, here, here, here, and here)... michael schwartz, writing in tomdispatch via alternet, provides a comprehensive history of oil in iraq from saddam's days to the present, and lays bare the secretive behind-the-scenes maneuvering to bring iraqi oil under the control of the global oil giants, using the imf and the world bank as leverage...

schwartz outlines a "typical" imf agreement and how such an agreement, presented in the context of forgiving massive iraqi national debt, has been used to force iraqi compliance with the pressures from the u.s. and the global oil companies...

The resulting agreement immediately forgave $12 billion, but left $28 billion on the books. A second $12 billion would be abrogated when the Iraqi government signed onto "a standard International Monetary Fund program," and a further $8 billion three years later, after the IMF confirmed Iraqi compliance. Even if "successful," almost $8 billion would still be outstanding to the Paris Club -- together with $80 billion not covered by the agreement.

The "standard International Monetary Fund program," not surprisingly, included the now familiar American policies regarding Iraqi oil, as well as the use of Profit Sharing Agreements and a host of other provisions that would open the Iraqi economy as a whole, and the oil sector in particular, to investment by multinational corporations.

Among the most punitive of the provisions was a demand for an end to the economic breadbasket that guaranteed all Iraqi families low prices for fuel and food staples. In a country with, by 2005, somewhere between 30% and 70% unemployment, average wage levels under $100 per month, and escalating inflation, these Saddam-era subsidies meant the difference between basic subsistence and disaster for a large proportion of Iraqis.

both the uk independent and the inter press service news agency did thorough exposés back in february and highlighted production sharing agreements, perhaps the most significant feature of the proposed iraq oil law, which schwartz details here...

[The production sharing agreements - PSAs] envisioned by the Iraqi petrochemical law contained extremely favorable provisions for the oil companies, in which they would be entitled to 70 percent of profits until development expenses were amortized and 20 percent afterwards. This would have guaranteed them at least twice the typical profit margin over the long run and many times that figure during the initial years.

There are other elements in the law (and the possible PSA contracts) that have also roused resistance inside Iraq. Among the most controversial:

* Insofar as PSAs or their legal equivalent were enacted, Iraq would lose control over what levels of oil the country produced with the potential to substantially weaken the grip of OPEC on the oil market.

* The law would allow the oil companies to fully repatriate all profits from oil sales, almost insuring that the proceeds would not be reinvested in the Iraqi economy.

* The Iraqi government would not have control over oil company operations inside Iraq. Any disputes would be referred instead to pro-industry international arbitration panels.

* No contracts would be public documents.

* Contacting companies would not be obliged to hire Iraqi workers, and could pursue the current policy of employing American technicians and South Asian manual laborers.

Several African countries with vast mineral riches have been subjected to these sorts of conditions, with large multinational companies extracting both minerals and profits while returning only a tiny fraction of the proceeds to the local population. As the resources are taken out of the ground and the country, the local population actually becomes poorer, while the potential for future prosperity is drained.

however, is it any wonder the bush administration wanted wolfowitz at the world bank and is it any wonder he made iraq a bank priority...?

Both staff and management [of the World Bank] also have raised concerns over what several described as Wolfowitz's insistence that the bank accelerate its lending to Iraq and open an office there.

A principal architect of the Iraq war as deputy defense secretary during President Bush's first term, Wolfowitz has pressed the issue in the bank against strong concerns about security and poor governance in Iraq. "He was pretty aggressive about it, given that he's generally a mild-mannered person. He was really quite hard," said one source with first-hand knowledge of internal bank discussions on Iraq. "I don't know how much of it was flogging for the [Bush] administration rather than his own ghosts and convictions."

Although the bank eventually opened a $500 million loan program for Baghdad, the board took the unusual step of asking to be "regularly updated" on developments, according to internal documents obtained by the Government Accountability Project, a Washington-based whistle-blower group that tracks World Bank activities. Bank interests in Iraq have been managed from its regional headquarters in Jordan.

there may still be some reason to hope that the iraqis can come together to resist this shameful effort to exploit a people and their resources... again, michael schwartz...

The petrochemical law is hardly assured of successful passage, and -- even if passed -- is in no way assured of successful implementation. Resistance to it, spread as it is throughout Iraqi society, has already shown itself to be a formidable opponent to the dwindling power of the American occupation.

oh, the tangled webs those with power and money can weave...!

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The 'fair" Iraq oil law - why the hell can't we get the TRUTH out of our media?

check this from today's nyt...

Iraqi Blocs Opposed to Draft Oil Bill

Kurdish and Sunni Arab officials are concerned over a draft
of a bill establishing a framework for the fair
distribution of oil revenues.

[...]

The draft law, which establishes a framework for the distribution of oil revenues, was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in late February after months of negotiations. The White House was hoping for quick passage to lay the groundwork for a political settlement among the country’s ethnic and sectarian factions.

[...]

The draft oil law would allow regions to enter into production-sharing agreements with foreign companies, which some Iraqis and critics of the Bush administration say could lead to foreigners reaping too much of the country’s oil wealth.

Iraqi officials say all contracts will be subjected to a fair bidding process, but there are fears that American companies could be favored.

here's the REAL STORY about iraq's oil law, contained in a post i made back in january... read it carefully and then decide if "fair distribution of oil revenues" comes within a country mile of being the truth...

it's a heckuva deal when you have the entire might of the taxpayer-supported united states goverment ready and willing to sacrifice people's lives in order to increase your opportunities for expanding business and increasing profits... you don't have to beat down or buy out the competition, you don't have to go through the tediousness of exploration and test drilling, you don't have a huge investment in new infrastructure, the economy is already in ruins so labor costs are laughably low... what's NOT to like...?

"Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days," Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb report in the cover story [Britain's The Independent on Sunday].

According to the paper, the law "would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972."

"Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs," the article continues. "After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals."

reading things like this, i just get this incredible feeling of pride in my country... is the u.s. a great place, or what...?

then i posted this back in february...

more on iraq's oil law, the reason we went into iraq in the first place... of course, like everything else these days, it comes with the customary dose of cognitive dissonance...

inter press service news agency...

[The new oil law] specifies that up to two-thirds of Iraq's known reserves would be developed by multinationals, under contracts lasting for 15 to 20 years.

This policy would represent a u-turn for Iraq's oil industry, which has been in the public sector for more than three decades, and would break from normal practice in the Middle East.

According to local labour leaders, transferring ownership to the foreign companies would give a further pretext to continue the U.S. occupation on the grounds that those companies will need protection.

[...]

On Feb. 8, the labour unions sent a letter in Arabic to Iraqi President Jalal Talbani urging him to reconsider this kind of agreement.

"Production-sharing agreements are a relic of the 1960s," said the letter, seen by IPS. "They will re-imprison the Iraqi economy and impinge on Iraq's sovereignty since they only preserve the interests of foreign companies. We warn against falling into this trap."

[...]

The first draft was seen only by the committee of the Iraqi technocrat who penned it, nine international oil companies, the British and the U.S. governments and the International Monetary Fund. The Iraqi parliament will get its first glimpse next week.

[...]

There's no other country in the Middle East with the kind of oil reserves that Iraq has that would consider signing a production-sharing agreement," [Ewa Jasiewicz, a researcher at PLATFORM, a British human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry] said. "It's a form of privatisation and that's why those countries haven't signed these because it's not in their interests."

GOD-ROTTEN-DAMMIT... I'M SICK AND TIRED OF GETTING ONLY A TINY PART OF THE STORY... WHERE'S THE CONTEXT...? WHERE'S THE TRUTH...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Leon Panetta is full of shit

saying "no open-ended commitment" to the iraqis will accomplish absolutely nothing except giving bushco an open-ended invitation to extend the iraq war for the rest of his presidential term... i don't care if leon panetta is "former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and a member of the Iraq Study Group," he's still full of shit...

Instead of dividing over the strategy on the war, the president and the Congress should make very clear to the Iraqis that there is no open-ended commitment to our involvement. As the Iraq Study Group recommended, Iraqi leaders must pay a price if they continue to fail to make good on key reforms that they have promised the Iraqi people.

In calling for a specific withdrawal date, the House and Senate versions of the supplemental spending bill send a clear message to the Iraqis (even if they do face a certain veto). The worst mistake now would be to provide money for the war without sending the Iraqis any message at all about their responsibility for reforms. Both the president and the Congress at the very least must make the Iraqi government understand that future financial and military support is going to depend on Baghdad’s making substantial progress toward the milestones Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has publicly committed to.

and what's included on panetta's list of satisfactory benchmarks...? if you guessed the oil law, you can go to the head of the class...

The Iraqis promised to achieve, by the end of 2006 or early 2007, the approval ... of a law to regulate the oil industry and share revenues...

i find it so very interesting that something that totally favors big oil in ways unheard of in the industry gets buried in a list of so-called "benchmarks" and the benefit to big oil never gets mentioned... why is that, do you suppose...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Iraq's oil law "will re-imprison the Iraqi economy"

more on iraq's oil law, the reason we went into iraq in the first place... of course, like everything else these days, it comes with the customary dose of cognitive dissonance...

inter press service news agency...

[The new oil law] specifies that up to two-thirds of Iraq's known reserves would be developed by multinationals, under contracts lasting for 15 to 20 years.

This policy would represent a u-turn for Iraq's oil industry, which has been in the public sector for more than three decades, and would break from normal practice in the Middle East.

According to local labour leaders, transferring ownership to the foreign companies would give a further pretext to continue the U.S. occupation on the grounds that those companies will need protection.

[...]

On Feb. 8, the labour unions sent a letter in Arabic to Iraqi President Jalal Talbani urging him to reconsider this kind of agreement.

"Production-sharing agreements are a relic of the 1960s," said the letter, seen by IPS. "They will re-imprison the Iraqi economy and impinge on Iraq's sovereignty since they only preserve the interests of foreign companies. We warn against falling into this trap."

[...]

The first draft was seen only by the committee of the Iraqi technocrat who penned it, nine international oil companies, the British and the U.S. governments and the International Monetary Fund. The Iraqi parliament will get its first glimpse next week.

[...]

There's no other country in the Middle East with the kind of oil reserves that Iraq has that would consider signing a production-sharing agreement," [Ewa Jasiewicz, a researcher at PLATFORM, a British human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry] said. "It's a form of and that's why those countries haven't signed these because it's not in their interests."

and why would we expect anything less than THIS from the new york times...?

And oil, Iraq’s principal resource, must be equitably shared without regard to geography, religion or ethnic group. An oil law should be one of the benchmarks Washington insists on as a condition of continued support.

what...? you expected them to say they were AGAINST it...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Condi finally accomplishes what we went to Iraq for in the first place

as i pointed out last week, she clearly had her priorities straight when she hit ground in baghdad...

Rice, in Surprise Baghdad Visit, Presses Leaders for
Progress

The secretary of state said she told Iraq's leaders to
quickly finalize an oil law... .

according to a long article in today's nyt, she got what she went there for...

The Iraqi cabinet approved a draft of a law on Monday that would set guidelines for nationwide distribution of oil revenues and foreign investment in the immense oil industry.

but, as per usual, they neglected to connect the passage of the law with the pressure condi put on them last week, nor, in the u.s. media's preferred context-free reporting style, did they bother to mention the unbelievably favorable terms under which foreign investment would be made... for that, we have to turn to the foreign press, in this case, the uk independent...

It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.

Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.

Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.

about as close as the nyt came to any of the above context was this...

“I think the devil is going to be in the details,” said Fadel Gheit, an analyst with Oppenheimer & Company in New York. “Oil companies need governments that will honor the contracts they sign and they need a safe environment to operate,” he added.

While Mr. Gheit said he expected American and British oil companies to receive preferential treatment in the awarding of contracts, other analysts said Iraqis would be suspicious of awarding preferential deals to American companies.

“Iraqis are extremely protective of their resources,” said Rochdi A. Younsi, an analyst at Eurasia Group, a political risk consulting firm. “Given the level of anti-American sentiment, any major American oil company perceived to take advantage of their relations in government would be seen as being part of the so-called conspiracy to take over Iraq’s natural resources.”

however, if you go back and re-read the snippet from the independent, it looks very much like the "conspiracy to take over iraq's natural resources" is now an accomplished fact...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments