No Law for Oil

http://www.handsoffiraqioil.org/





Wednesday, 22 August 2007
No Law for Oil
An indepth analysis of the context and consequences of the Iraqi oil law by Dr Kamil Mahdi

No law for oil
Kamil Mahdi
Red Pepper, August 2007

If passed, the new Iraq oil law would fragment the country’s national oil industry, opening it up to exploitation by multinationals and strengthening the hands of corrupt and sectarian politicians. Kamil Mahdi offers an in-depth analysis of the historical and political background to the proposed law.

At the beginning of July, 23 out of the 37 members of the Iraqi cabinet voted to approve a draft oil law, sending it to parliament for approval.The minister of planning announced that he would resign if the bill passes, while a member of the parliament’s energy sub-committee didn’t wait and resigned immediately. Many other MPs expressed misgivings but, dependent on massive US military support, a government that barely governs the few square miles of the Baghdad ‘green zone’ plans to tie up Iraq’s most valuable national resources in contracts that run for decades.

The government and parliamentary opposition to the oil law is symptomatic of disaffection and uncertainty within the new political establishment, and a reflection of much wider anger across the country over what is seen as an act of plunder.The Wall Street Journal reported that George Bush had phoned Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al-Maliki personally to thank him for the cabinet’s approval of the draft.The US, Britain and the IMF have been applying relentless pressure every step of the way in order to have a package of oil laws passed and to prepare the legal grounds for a corporate takeover of Iraq’s oil resources.

Weakening the Iraqi state

This diplomatic and economic pressure is backed by a series of US ‘benchmarks’ – requirements that, in effect, threaten to remove the Maliki government if it fails to oblige or, at best, leave it to its miserable fate in the face of growing militant opposition.These requirements, supported by Congress as much as by Bush, include passing the oil laws. By arming tribal militias – a policy that is not confined to Sunni areas – the US has further ratcheted up the pressure on the Maliki government and the rest of the political establishment.

US insistence on the oil law demonstrates that its priority remains one of securing oil and oil rights for international capital.The US is therefore following a two-pronged policy of attempting to establish a central government that is capable of securing these rights while, at the same time, ensuring that the newly reconfigured state has no independent ambitions to control the oil resources and use them to pursue its own path of development and reconstruction. The weak, sectarian and fractious Maliki government has proved to be just what the US needs at this time: one that is willing to acquiesce in US military offensives and to pursue the handover of oil to the multinationals, while at the same time applying the harsh economic policies dictated by the IMF, particularly over the domestic price of fuel.

For the Record, Congress Never Passed a Benchmark to Privatize Iraq's Oil

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/for-the-record-congress-_b_62669.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1704780&mesg_id=1712562

Here is the speech that Kucinich gave on the House floor on May 23, 2007 which may have helped change the language in the second supplemental bill. But if the "fair distribution" clause is really part of the draft hydrocarbon law and not a separate law then are we not, in essence, making the passage of the entire hydrocarbon law a benchmark?

It was always about Iraq's oil.

Was the Iraq War for Oil?

According to the Bush Administration, the notion that the occupation of Iraq was a means to gain control over that country’s vast oil reserves is “nonsense” and “a myth.” However, in February, 2007, the proposed draft of a new law to structure Iraq’s oil industry was leaked, and it is now being considered by the Iraqi parliament. Several key features of the law would:

* Allow two-thirds of Iraq’s oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations. In contrast, the oil industry has been nationalized in every other major Middle Eastern producer for over 30 years.
* Place governing decisions over oil in a new body known as the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which may include foreign oil companies;
* Open the door for foreign oil companies to lock up decades-long deals now, when the Iraqi government is at its weakest.

Overall, the law would secure the agenda of ExxonMobil, Chevon, and the other majors, robbing the Iraqi people of their most basic source of wealth. Much is at stake. With 115 billion barrels of proven reserves ($7 trillion worth at $64 per barrel) and another 215 billion possible or likely ($14 trillion), there’s nearly a million dollars of oil for every Iraqi citizen. It’s a vast and precious national resource—but only if Iraqis are allowed to control it themselves.

http://www.iraqoillaw.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm0woxrc_yQ

DELAHUNT CALLS DRAFT IRAQ OIL LAW FATALLY FLAWED

http://www.house.gov/delahunt/draftoillaw.pdf

"Critics at Oversight Hearing Say Proposal Favors Foreign Oil Companies
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Bill Delahunt today expressed deep concerns about
the proposed Iraqi oil law now before the Iraqi Parliament, saying that the process of
its development lacked transparency and the legislation appeared to give foreign oil
companies a significant interest in future Iraqi oil revenue.

“If the draft law is perceived to be favorable to international oil companies ... our
reputation and prestige could suffer," he said, adding Iraqi support for the US effort
in that nation would drop even further. Whether Iraq's government decides to keep
a strong nationalized model or seek privatization, "it's a decision for them to take,
not for us to influence," he said at a joint hearing this week with the Committee on
Foreign Affairs' Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and
Oversight, which he chairs, and the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee.

Witnesses at the hearing criticized the draft law, which would provide a framework
for reform of the oil industry. Oil exports provide about 95% of Iraq’s foreign
exchange earnings and thereby fund virtually all of Iraq’s imports of basic goods
such as food and medicine. As a result, the Administration has prioritized the much
needed reform of this industry. Unfortunately, according to the testimony provided
today, the current draft law may cause more problems than it solves.

According to Delahunt, “To state that this draft is controversial is an
understatement. In an open letter dated March 19, 2007 to the Iraqi Parliament, a
number of respected Iraqi oil experts have articulated their reservations. Numerous
other stakeholders have also weighed in to express their concern and opposition. The
Iraqi oil unions vigorously object to the current draft.”

Isaam Saliba, a foreign law expert at the Library of Congress, detailed the lack of
clarity of various terms in the draft law. He stated that, in its current form, the draft
law created a “high probability” that corruption, already endemic in the oil sector,
would become even more prevalent.

Tariq Shafiq, an Iraqi oil expert and one of the original drafters of the original
hydrocarbon law, condemned the current draft for permitting new exploration –
sought by foreign oil companies – at the expense of updating existing oil fields. He
cautioned, “A rush for exploration and development contracts at this particular
juncture of Iraq’s political and economic development would be viewed as
mortgaging the reserves of future generations. It would provide fuel to the view that
the war was for oil.”

Delahunt cautioned against actions by the Administration that would support that
view. He stated, “If the passage of this ‘framework’ draft is interpreted as an
exploitation of Iraq’s most coveted natural resource, then our reputation and prestige
could very well erode even further. And a claim that we fought to free Iraq will be
rejected not only by Iraqis but by others as well. And our national interests will
suffer.”

The hearing also spotlighted issues regarding the management of the Iraqi oil sector
as a whole.

Joseph Christoff of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) – the investigative
arm of Congress – testified that a recently issued GAO report detailed the severe
structural impediments to further production development, including the inability of
the Ministry of Oil to execute budgets and the lack of cohesive planning as well as
the endemic corruption. When asked if he had seen an effort so badly flawed, his
response was: “Not in the 25 years I have worked for GAO.”
A transcript of Delahunt’s Opening Statement is available from his office at 202-225-
3111 or may be accessed by visiting his website at http://www.house.gov/delahunt"

Each of the Democratic Candidates should be asked this specific question at a "debate".

"Do you support the forced privatization of the Iraqis' Oil Reserves?"

Only ONE could answer NO....Dennis Kucinich!(maybe Gravel, but who knows?)



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.