This Iraqi oil law

I do not think it means what you say it means:

Iraq's cabinet has approved a draft oil law which aims to equitably share revenues from its oil revenues among the country's ethnic groups.

The bill - allocating oil revenues between Iraq's 18 provinces based on their population levels - must now be submitted to parliament for a vote.

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki called the deal a "gift to all the Iraqi people".

But careful reading of the 'bill' indicates this:

Many Iraqi oil experts, such as Fouad al-Ameer, who was responsible for the leak, think this law is not an urgent item on the country's agenda. Other observers and analysis share 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 Co (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.

How many of the Iraqi politicians who vote this in will have to go into hiding with their stash of US money for giving away Iraqi resources?

And then you realize that Iraq as a failed state was the focus all along:

The law represents no less than institutionalized raping and pillaging of Iraq's oil wealth. It represents the death knell of nationalized (from 1972 to 1975) Iraqi resources, now replaced by production sharing agreements (PSAs) - which translate into savage privatization and monster profit rates of up to 75% for (basically US) Big Oil. Sixty-five of Iraq's roughly 80 oilfields already known will be offered for Big Oil to exploit. As if this were not enough, the law reduces in practice the role of Baghdad to a minimum. Oil wealth, in theory, will be distributed directly to Kurds in the north, Shi'ites in the south and Sunnis in the center. For all practical purposes, Iraq will be partitioned into three statelets. Most of the country's reserves are in the Shi'ite-dominated south, while the Kurdish north holds the best prospects for future drilling.

The approval of the draft law by the fractious 275-member Iraqi Parliament, in March, will be a mere formality. Hussain al-Shahristani, Iraq's oil minister, is beaming. So is dodgy Barnham Salih: a Kurd, committed cheerleader of the US invasion and occupation, then deputy prime minister, big PSA fan, and head of a committee that was debating the law.

But there was not much to be debated. The law was in essence drafted, behind locked doors, by a US consulting firm hired by the Bush administration and then carefully retouched by Big Oil, the International Monetary Fund, former US deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz' World Bank, and the United States Agency for International Development. It's virtually a US law (its original language is English, not Arabic).

Scandalously, Iraqi public opinion had absolute no knowledge of it - not to mention the overwhelming majority of Parliament members. Were this to be a truly representative Iraqi government, any change to the legislation concerning the highly sensitive question of oil wealth would have to be approved by a popular referendum.

In real life, Iraq's vital national interests are in the hands of a small bunch of highly impressionable (or downright corrupt) technocrats. Ministries are no more than political party feuds; the national interest is never considered, only private, ethnic and sectarian interests. Corruption and theft are endemic. Big Oil will profit handsomely - and long-term, 30 years minimum, with fabulous rates of return - from a former developing-world stalwart methodically devastated into failed-state status.

Blackwater and the other defense contractors won't like this

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Security contractors working in Iraq will no longer receive immunity from prosecution in that nation under a deal being brokered by Iraqi and U.S. officials, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said.

Zebari said he briefed Iraqi parliament members about the immunity agreement Tuesday during a closed-door meeting. Officials at the U.S. State Department, which is leading the U.S. side of the negotiations, could not be immediately reached for comment.

The immunity issue was one of the sticking points in talks over a long-term security pact that deals with, among other things, the future of the U.S. military presence in Iraq. Negotiations on the pact continue.

The reported immunity agreement comes more than nine months after an incident in which Iraqi officials allege guards with the Blackwater security firm shot and killed 17 people, including women and children, and wounded 27 at Baghdad's Nusoor Square.

Ah, I was right:

Contractors working for the U.S. military in Iraq say a move to end their immunity from Iraqi law would make many leave their jobs instead of face a justice system they do not trust.

Earlier this week, the Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said the immunity issue was one of the American concessions made in ongoing negotiations over a long-term security agreement. Since the announcement, contractors — both current and former workers in Iraq — have been buzzing about its implications. There are an estimated 180,000 foreign contractors working in Iraq, more than there are U.S. troops in the country. More than 1,000 have been killed.

"Having worked for two years and two months in Iraq, I can tell you without a doubt, I would in no way work if I fell under Iraqi Law," a deputy sheriff who trains Iraqi police said in an e-mail to Stars and Stripes. "Are you kidding? You wouldn’t be able to get but the most desperate people to work if they fell under their ridiculous laws."

Like almost all contractors working in Iraq, he is not allowed to do media interviews without approval from his company, so he asked that his name not be used.

Other contractors expressed similar concerns about the Iraqi legal system.

"I would immediately have to consider my options concerning leaving this country," another Department of Defense contractor said. "They, the Iraqis, cannot rule themselves and now they want to try and rule contractors."

Some said that unless laws are broken in the first place there’s nothing to worry about.

"I am confident if all [security] contract members stick to their drills and follow the rules of engagement as laid down by the U.S. military or respective companies, there shouldn’t be a problem in the near future," a member of a private security team said.

Under a provision instituted shortly after the invasion, security contractors have been immune from Iraqi law. Under a change to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they can now be charged and tried in military courts.

The first such case — against an interpreter accused of stabbing another interpreter — was completed earlier this month. The contractor pleaded guilty and was sentenced to time in a military detention facility.

Debate over the status of contractors peaked last year when guards with the Blackwater security company allegedly shot and killed 17 people in a Baghdad incident. Iraqi officials say the guards shot indiscriminately; Blackwater officials have said their guards came under attack.

Blackwater officials declined comment this week on the reported immunity negotiations, saying it would wait until an agreement is announced.

A new agreement between Iraq and the U.S. must be reached before December, when the U.N. mandate under which U.S. forces currently work expires.

Jaco Botes is a security contractor who has worked in Iraq for four years. Last year, he founded the International Contractors Association, which provides members legal and moral support and — more generally — seeks to dispel the notion that the profession is "a bed of dollar bills."

Botes said this week that a vast majority of the group’s 2,500 members would think seriously about leaving Iraq if the immunity deal is cemented.

In his own posting to the group’s online discussion board, Botes voiced many of the same concerns.

Botes brought up issues such as who would represent contractors in legal disputes and how the Iraqi public’s perception — marked by incidents such as the Blackwater shooting — affect the process.

"We do not ask for much. We don’t expect Welcome Home banners or medals or even a pat on the back (we get paid right?)" he wrote, noting it was his personal opinion. "What I expect is to be acknowledged as an important part of the whole effort to bring peace and stability to this region. In my mind this is a package deal. By taking away contractor immunity, contractors are being marked as expendable assets — assets that will be placed in the hands of a very shaky and corrupt law system."

A very shaky and corrupt law system? Like under the Bush administration where torture isn't torture unless you (oops!) die and telecoms can break the law because the president said so? Where mercenary armies can be funded by US taxpayers but need not account for their expenditures or actions? When justices go after Democrats because the attorney general wants it to happen before the election and they get fired if they don't? Where you can literally be disappeared off the streets because Habeas Corpus is dead?

Ohhh... you're talking about the destroyed legal system of the 'Iraqi government'. I wonder why it's destroyed.... hmmmm.

Update 7/14: Juan Cole of Informed Consent has more:

In September 2007, 17 Iraqis died as a result of unjustified and unprovoked shooting at the Nisour Square. Personnel of Blackwater Worldwide, a private agency contracted by the U.S. to operate in Iraq, were involved in the shooting. A week later the Iraqi Government revoked the license of Blackwater to operate in the country. In the last week of September, Blackwater received a contract worth up to $92 million from the U.S. State Department. In April 2008 the assignment to provide personal protection for diplomats in Iraq by Blackwater has been renewed for the third year. The FBI is still investigating the killings at Nisour Square; more than 30 witnesses have been questioned and three Iraqis have testified before the Federal Grand Jury in May 2008. Neither the lives of the ordinary Iraqis nor the decisions of the Iraqi Government were taken into consideration while renewing the contracts for Blackwater.

“This is bad news,” Sami al-Askari, advisory to Prime Minister Maliki said, “I personally am not happy with this, especially because they have committed acts of aggression, killed Iraqis, and this has not been resolved yet positively for families of victims.” The neglect of such crucial Iraqi concerns by the U.S. has in fact prompted the demand for withdrawing foreign troops from Iraqi soil.

The Nisour Square killing is not an isolated incident. In February 2007 a Blackwater sniper shot three Iraqi guards, without provocation, ironically from the terrace of the Iraqi Justice Ministry. In October 2007 a Blackwater personnel was so heavily drunk that he killed the bodyguard of the Iraqi Vice-President. In the same month an Iraqi civilian was shot for simply driving too close to the State Department convoy.

The Iraqi Government has come to realize that the U.S. is attempting to run the Iraqi state through private contractors who cannot be held accountable for their misdeeds. The Report from the American Congressional Research Service in July 2007 clearly indicated that the Iraqi government has no authority over private security firms contracted by the U.S. Government. A shocking incident in the Green Zone in 2006 has demonstrated that the Blackwater personnel have gained greater impunity than the regular U.S. armed forces. A SUV driven by Blackwater operatives had crashed into a U.S. Army Humvee. The Blackwater guards disarmed the army soldiers and forced them to lie on the ground at gunpoint until the vehicle was recovered.

Cheney can't understand why they can't get that oil law signed

That's really why he's pushing and demanding they not take a vacation. The oil companies are getting anxious:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Vice President Dick Cheney met Wednesday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to push al-Maliki's government into adopting U.S.-favored changes before American military commander Gen. David Petraeus must report to Congress on whether the "surge" of American troops has been succeeding.

Cheney pressed Maliki to stop the Iraqi parliament from taking its scheduled two-month summer recess. President Bush made a similar appeal in a videoconference with al-Maliki on Monday.

"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 after his day of back-to-back meetings. "I think they're somewhat sympathetic to our concerns."

[snip]

In his speech Jan. 10 in which he announced the dispatch of tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to Iraq, Bush said the increase would help provide security so that Iraq's government could resolve critical issues involving oil revenues, deBaathification, and the constitution.

But the parliament has made virtually no progress in those areas. A draft oil law is in committee, and there's been no discussion on easing rules that bar Baathists from serving in government. A report from a committee on proposed changes to Iraq's constitution is due to parliament on Tuesday.

Few here expect the parliament to reach agreement on the issues, even if it stays in session an extra month.

I think the Iraqi Parliament realizes once they sign away their nation's resources to foreign companies, their lives are forfeit. It looks like they are trying to wait Bush and Cheney out.

Giiiiivvvveee iiiiittttt tooooooo meeeeeee:

Update: I posted on this before, why privatization, why the bill is stuck, who benefits.

Update: Michael Schwartz of the Asia Times:

Since the invasion of Iraq, US officials have melded economic and military policy into a single fatal brew, driven by dreams of controlling the country's fabulous potential oil wealth. The key "benchmark", therefore, that the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki must pass is passage of a new oil law forced on it by the Bush administration. Widespread opposition to the law, though, could result in escalating conflict that leaves the oil out of the United States' reach.

We are in Iraq to give the Iraqi government time to take charge

Um... WHAT Iraqi government?

AJ in DC at AmericaBlog:

This idea that we need to train forces to support the central government is based on a complete fallacy. There is no functioning central government; the "national unity government" hailed by war supporters in early 2006, which never really existed in the first place, is a demonstrated failure. The only think keeping Maliki in power is the complete lack of alternative candidates who could unite enough parliament members to form a ruling coalition, and in the meantime, no progress occurs.

How that parliament working out? (my bold):

WASHINGTON, July 5 Iraq's oil minister says a Saddam-era oil deal with China has not been finalized and no oil deals will be until an oil law is passed by Parliament.

[snip]

That deal, along with those signed with Vietnamese, Indian and Indonesian firms, and those the Kurdistan Regional Government has signed since 2003, must be brought in line with the pending federal oil law before they are legit, said Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani, who was in the China delegation.

"No oil deal, regardless, specifically those that are signed in the Kurdish region, will be valid until they are approved by the federal council (on oil and gas) after the oil and gas law is passed and the federal council is formed," Shahristani told UPI from Baghdad during a telephone interview.

"There is an article in the law that specifically states that all contracts that were made under the previous regime and by the KRG have to be reviewed in the light of the new oil and gas law by the federal council," he said.

Progress was made on the federal law lately, though its success in the Parliament is unsure. The council of ministers approved it suddenly Tuesday, but numerous parties have boycotted the council and the Parliament -- threatening quorum -- and are against the law. The Kurds, the law's biggest proponents, said they may be against changes that were made to it in the council.

The Iraqi parliament has one job... to deliver their country's oil wealth into the clutching hands of Dick Cheney and George Bush. Oddly, the Iraqis are balking at such a thing. I'm sure the idea their lives would be immediately forfeit doesn't occur to the PNAC crowd.

A reminder:
Michael Schwartz of the Asia Times:

Since the invasion of Iraq, US officials have melded economic and military policy into a single fatal brew, driven by dreams of controlling the country's fabulous potential oil wealth. The key "benchmark", therefore, that the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki must pass is passage of a new oil law forced on it by the Bush administration. Widespread opposition to the law, though, could result in escalating conflict that leaves the oil out of the United States' reach.

This excellent adventure of Bush and Cheney's could all be for naught....

How strange... even the Iraqis want accountability

And recognize the illegality of this occupation:

WASHINGTON - The end of 2007 produced a telltale indication of what the New Year seems likely to bring to Iraq. "We the Iraqi members of Parliament signing below demand a timetable for withdrawal of the occupation forces [MNF] from our beloved Iraq," 144 members of the 275-member Parliament, a clear majority, wrote in a declaration April 2007.

Despite this, the George W Bush administration and the Iraqi government led by US-installed Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki pushed a resolution through the UN Security Council to extend by another year the legal cover for foreign troops to operate in Iraq.

The move on December 18 violated both the Iraqi constitution and the resolution passed earlier this year by the Iraqi Parliament.

Many Iraqi lawmakers say that any renewal of the UN mandate not ratified by Parliament is illegal. The move almost guarantees an increase in violence and a deepening of sectarian tensions.

Hmmm. The Iraqis don't seem to realize they are operating under the BUSH democracy plan where he tells them how to vote, they vote, and everybody gets the purple finger....

And all their oil are belong to us.

Reasons 1 through 4 on why we need to leave Iraq

And it isn't so we can attack Iran.

Lawrence J. Korb of the Boston Globe:

First, Maliki knows that if the United States does not set a withdrawal date, the status of forces agreement, or even a memorandum of understanding, will not be approved by the Iraqi Parliament. A majority of the Iraqi Parliament has signed a letter to that effect. Iraq's elected legislators know that the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people want the American forces out and believe that these foreign forces are actually causing much of the violence. The American people agree that the United States should have never invaded and want US forces to leave as quickly as possible. But, since Bush will not submit the agreement to Congress, he can ignore the wishes of the American people.

Second, there were not that many foreign terrorists to begin with. Despite the administration's claim that we are fighting them (Al Qaeda) over there (in Iraq) so we do not have to fight them over here (the United States), the number of Al Qaeda loyalists who came into the country after the US invasion never numbered more than 2,000. Moreover, Al Qaeda in Iraq is an overwhelmingly Iraqi organization with domestic aims. When members began killing Iraqis and tried to force a rigid version of Islam on their Iraqi collaborators, the Iraqis turned on them.

Once the United States sets a date for a complete withdrawal, Al Qaeda in Iraq will lose what little support it has from the Iraqi people.

Third, with the rising price of oil, Iraq is awash in money and no longer needs US assistance to rebuild its war-torn infrastructure. When the United States invaded, oil was $25 a barrel. Now it is about $130. The Iraqi government now produces 2.5 million barrels a day, and with the contracts it has recently signed with Western companies, it soon will begin producing even more. This means that the Iraqis will be bringing in $100 billion to $200 billion a year.

Fourth, the Shi'ite dominated Iraqi government is not as concerned about the threat from Iran as the Bush administration. Many of Iraq's Shi'ite leaders lived in Iran during the regime of Saddam Hussein and see the Iranians as Shi'ite allies with whom they can and should have a close relationship - unlike Bush who sees the Iranians as the second coming of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

Time to leave. Even al-Maliki agrees (and Der Speigel stands by its quote):

In the interview, Maliki expressed support of Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. "That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of changes."

Maliki was quick to back away from an outright endorsement of Obama, saying "who they choose as their president is the Americans' business." But he then went on to say: "But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited."

A Baghdad government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a statement that SPIEGEL had "misunderstood and mistranslated" the Iraqi prime minister, but didn't point to where the misunderstanding or mistranslation might have occurred. Al-Dabbagh said Maliki's comments "should not be understood as support to any US presidential candidates." The statement was sent out by the press desk of the US-led Multinational Force in Iraq.

A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki's office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh's statement "did not address a specific error." CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, "how likely is it that SPIEGEL mistranslated three separate comments? Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by "how little effort was made" to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement.

SPIEGEL sticks to its version of the conversation.

Good.

Al-Maliki on the edge

Will he be able to keep his job? Or is he already finished? Al-Maliki makes connections with Iran and Turkey:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki met with officials in Iran on Wednesday to seek help in reining in violence in his country, reaching out to a nation the U.S. accuses of fueling Iraq's turmoil by backing Shiite militants.

It was al-Maliki's second visit to Tehran in less than a year, coming days after U.S. and Iranian experts held talks in Baghdad on improving Iraq's security.

Al-Maliki and the Shiite and Kurdish parties that dominate his government are closely linked to predominantly Shiite Iran, and he has struggled to balance those ties with the United States, Tehran's top rival in the region.

The U.S. has recently stepped up its allegations that Iran is arming Shiite militiamen, but the Iraqi government has taken a low-key stance without outright backing the American claims, which Tehran denies. One al-Maliki adviser, Sami al-Askari, said last month that the government "doesn't rule out" Iranian arming of militants.

[snip]
Before arriving in Iran, al-Maliki traveled to Turkey and agreed to root out a Kurdish rebel group operating from northern Iraq. But he said the Iraqi parliament would have the final say on efforts to halt the guerrillas' cross-border attacks into Turkey. Iran also faces problems with its Kurdish minority near the Iraqi border.

Turkey has threatened to stage an incursion into northern Iraq unless Iraq or the United States cracks down on rebels from the separatist Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, that have set up bases there. The envisaged counterterrorism agreement is aimed at forcing Iraq to officially commit itself to fighting the rebels.

Iraq, which like Iran is majority Shiite, has managed a difficult balancing act between Tehran and Washington since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, trying to maintain good relations with its powerful neighbor while not angering the Americans.

The U.S. has accused Iran of providing money and weapons to Shiite militias in Iraq. Iran denies the charges and argues that the presence of U.S. troops is destabilizing the region.

Washington and Tehran have held three rounds of talks on Iraqi security since May, and al-Maliki told AP he would push for these talks to continue at an ambassador level.

Looks like he's making every attempt to keep Iraq together but then:

... Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki - whose days in office are surely numbered - might want to to be remembered as the man who brought democracy and justice to Iraqis; the man who rooted out terrorism and killed al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Instead, Iraqis will remember Maliki as a selfish, sectarian politician who divided the country as never before, between Shi'ites and Sunnis. They will remember the death squads that flourished under his regime, the targeted assassinations of Sunni notables, and they will see him as a stooge of the Americans who was unable to fulfill any of the promises he made when coming to power in May 2006.
Maliki's problem is that his government is not constitutional, as his cabinet no longer represents all parties that are seated in Parliament. Thirteen out of 37 ministers have walked out, and more are likely to follow soon.

The first to abandon him were six Shi'ite ministers from the Sadrist bloc in April. They objected to his relationship with the United States, and his failure to secure a timetable for US troop withdrawal from Iraq. They were followed by Sunni Justice Minister Hashem al-Shibli from the Iraqi List that is headed by former prime minister Iyad Allawi.

This week, five Sunni ministers from the Iraqi Accordance Front stepped down, along with Sunni Salam al-Zoubai, who was deputy prime minister. They claimed this was because Maliki had not responded to any of the 11 demands they had made, which included greater decision-making for Sunnis, and a political amnesty for Sunni prisoners.

Then came the resignation of nine senior officers from the Iraqi Army, including Baker Zebari, the commander-in-chief. All of them were objecting to how the prime minister is running affairs.

After discussing the politicians who are jockeying for position to take al-Maliki's seat, the writer of this article, Sami Moubayed (a Syrian political analyst) goes on to say:

The pro-US Arab states have been very blunt in opposing Maliki, because of his relations with Iran and his well-known animosity toward Sunnis. Recently, they turned down an offer by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to support the Maliki cabinet.

[snip]

One cannot help but recall Maliki's first speech to the Iraqi people, broadcast in April 2006 when he was still prime minister-designate. He said, "Our Sunni brothers, by their participation in a broad alliance, have begun to carry responsibilities in the political process ... which will dry up the sources of terrorism. Fighting the insurgency will be my government's priority." He said he hoped to do so by creating "a white front" of Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds and that he would create a non-sectarian government to ward off accusations made by observers claiming that he was "too Shi'ite".

Maliki then addressed the Sunnis directly by playing down fears that Iran was interfering in Iraqi affairs. He thanked neighboring countries such as Iran for sheltering the Iraqi opposition during Saddam's era, saying, "But this does not mean any country can meddle in our affairs." Gratitude did not mean security interference, he added. Earlier, Maliki had said, "The weapons must be in the hands of the state. Their presence in the hands of others [militias] will be the start of problems that will trigger a civil war."

Rather than collect arms and root out militias, Maliki did the exact opposite. He will leave office amid a civil war - a very ugly one - that is largely due to his own doing.

The more Bush demands the 'Iraqi government' do something, the more it unravels. Heckovajob, Georgie!

But it's our oil!

I mean... Cheney says so!

WASHINGTON, March 14 (UPI) -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, wants passage of an oil law stripped from a list of Iraq war funding legislation benchmarks due on the House floor next week.

Kucinich announced Wednesday an amendment to Iraq war supplemental funding legislation that would, in part, set six "performance measures" for the Baghdad government in order to receive more funding from Congress later this year.

"We must remove this benchmark from the supplemental and work to ensure any hydrocarbon law put in place is truly the best interests of all Iraqi people," Kucinich said in a statement.

Measure No. 2 requires the Iraqi government adopt and implement "a law to allow oil revenue to be shared with all citizens of Iraq."

While Iraqi parties previously at odds have recently signed a tentative agreement on governing Iraq's vast hydrocarbons reserves, the deal was reached after heavy pressure by the United States.

Two main political parties, the Iraqi Accordance Front and the Iraqi National Slate, have said they oppose the draft law, which needs to passed by Parliament to take effect. (Other accompanying measures must also be agreed upon, which is not assured, before Parliament votes.)

The Iraq oil unions, which represent tens of thousands of workers, have also opposed the law.

At issue is whether the oil sector, which has been nationalized for decades, should allow foreign companies the same access as Iraqi national oil companies, which the United States has called for.

"The United States should not be requiring Iraq to open their oil fields to private foreign companies as a condition of ending our occupation. The administration's strong push to enact a hydrocarbon law has little to do with the needs of the Iraqi people," Kucinich said.

"Instead it is a concerted effort to ensure that American oil companies are granted access to Iraqi oil fields. By adopting this benchmark in the supplemental, and requiring the enactment of this law by the Iraqi government, Democrats will be instrumental in privatizing Iraqi oil."

When the bill is signed into law, will we celebrate

The stealing of another nation's resources? Bush and Cheney really really really need this bill to be signed:

BAGHDAD, April 19 Reports that Iraq's Parliament will take up the draft oil law next week may be wishful thinking, since negotiations continue and the Kurds oppose it.

After nearly a year of tense negotiations, Iraq's Cabinet in February endorsed the hydrocarbons law framework, which would set out exactly how the country's vast oil and natural-gas reserves would be governed.

But ongoing disagreement between the central government and the Kurdistan Regional Government is a roadblock to reaching terms on important annexes to the law.

[snip]

Iraqi oil and government officials and foreign technocrats are meeting in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, in an attempt to iron out differences. Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said at the meeting that he will turn it over to Parliament next week.

Shahristani is being pressed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is getting heat from Washington to pass the law -- a benchmark President Bush has set for success in Iraq. Maliki is threatening to reshuffle his Cabinet posts, including the Oil Ministry spot.

The Washington Post:

The OPEC member has the world's third-largest proven oil reserves and needs billions of dollars to revive its oil sector, which is crucial for rebuilding its shattered economy.

Shahristani said earlier this month that it was "achievable to pass the law within two months since all political parties are in favor."

The long-planned law will also restructure the Iraq National Oil Company as an independent holding firm and establish a Federal Council as a forum for national oil policy.

The world's top oil companies have been manoeuvring for years to win a stake in Iraq's prized oilfields such as Bin Umar, Majnoon, Nassiriyah, West Qurna and Ratawi, all located in the south of the country.

Is this a beginning to the Russian United States Oil wars?

The “scandal” may not be American market ideology in Iraq. The real scandal may be the US move to nationalize some key elements of the Iraqi oil industry in an effort to thwart Russian (and French) ambitions.
[snip]
If the US invasion of Iraq was part of a Great Power battle with Russia, then the key decision on the Iraqi hydrocarbons law may have been to renationalize those Iraqi oil fields that were set to fall into the hands of Russia and France.

Privatization?:

A secret NSC memorandum in 2001 spoke candidly of “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields” in Iraq. In 2002 Paul Wolfowitz suggested simply seizing the oil fields. These words and suggestions were draconian, overt, and reprehensible-morally, historically, politically and diplomatically. The seizure of the oil would have to be oblique and far more sophisticated.

A year before the war the State Department undertook the “Future of Iraq” project, expressly to design the institutional contours of the postwar country. The ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­”Oil and Energy Working Group” looked with dismay at the National Iraqi Oil Company, the government agency that owned and operated the Iraqi oil fields and marketed the products. 100% of the revenues went directly to the central government, and constituted about 90% of its income. Saddam Hussein benefited, certainly-his lavish palaces-but the Iraqi people did so to a far greater extent, in terms of the nation’s public services and physical infrastructure. For this reason nationalized oil industries are the norm throughout the world.

The Oil and Energy Working Group designed a scheme that was oblique and sophisticated, indeed. The oil seizure would be less than total. It would be obscured in complexity. The apparent responsibility for it would be shifted, and it would be disguised as benefiting, even necessary to Iraq’s well being. Their work was supremely ingenious, undeniably brilliant.

The plan would keep the National Iraqi Oil Company in place, to continue overseeing the currently producing fields. But those fields represent only 19% of Iraq’s petroleum reserves. The other 81% would be flung open to “investment” by foreign oil interests, and the companies in favored positions today-because of the war and their political connections-are Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell.

The nationalized industry would be 80% privatized.

[snip]

The Iraqi people do, however, benefit to some degree. The seizure is not total. The hydrocarbon law specifies the oil revenues-the residue accruing to Iraq-will be shared equally among the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish regions, on a basis of population. This is the feature President Bush relies upon exclusively to justify, to insist on the passage of the hydrocarbon law. His real reasons are Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell.

No one can say at the moment how much the hydrocarbon law will cost the Iraqi people, but it will be in the hundreds of billions. The circumstances of its passage are mired in the country’s chaos, and its final details are not yet settled. If and when it passes, however, Iraq will orchestrate the foreign capture of its own oil. The ingenious, brilliant seizure of Iraqi oil will be assured.

That outcome has been on the Bush Administration’s agenda since early in 2001, long before terrorism struck in New York and Washington. The Iraqi war has never been about terrorism.

Lord Voldemort will not be pleased

After all, this is why we've wasted all our military and treasury in Iraq in the first place:

... last month, more than 100 Iraqi oil experts, economists and legal scholars criticized the proposed legislation and urged the Iraqi parliament to put it on hold.

The most vocal opposition to the oil framework has come from Iraq's influential oil workers' unions. Hassan Jumaa Awaad, president of the Iraqi Oil Workers union, called the proposed hydrocarbon laws "more political than economic" and "unbalanced and incoherent," and said they threatened "to set governorate against governorate and region against region." Iraq's oil unions have threatened to "mutiny" if the law is passed as drafted.

In favor of the laws are the multinational energy companies who stand to gain tens of billions more profits in Iraq than they could expect from any other major oil producer's reserves. They're supported by Iraqi separatists -- especially Shias in the South and Northern Kurds -- who want control over the country's oil to rest in the hands of the regional authorities they dominate. They include Iraq's prime minister, Nouri Al-Maliki, and its president, Jalal Talabani.

Faced with such broad and intense opposition to a set of laws that were effectively crafted in Washington, London and Houston, the Iraqi government and the U.S. authorities in Baghdad have kept Iraqis in the dark over the details of the proposed legislation, brought all manner of pressure on lawmakers and, when that failed, used heavy-handed coercion to move the legislation forward.

According to the poll released this week, more than three out of four Iraqis -- including nine of 10 Sunni Arabs -- say "the level of information provided by the Iraqi government on this law" was not adequate for them to "feel informed" about the issue. Only 4 percent of Iraqis feel they've been given "totally adequate" information about the oil law.

Israeli sells arms to Iraqi fighters

Kinda like us selling military equipment to Iran? Or something weirder? (my bold)

Ma'ariv Daily has reported that an Israeli retired officer sells weapons to terrorist groups in Iraq.

Shmoel Avivi, an Israeli retired officer, had established a firm in Iraq 2 years ago, which secretly sold arms to terrorist groups in Iraq, Ma'ariv reported.

Amnesty International reported that Avivi was one of the biggest weapon dealers in the Middle East.

Iraqi sources earlier announced that terrorist attacks in Iraq were backed by the intelligent agencies of CIA and Mossad and the secret agents of Iraqi former regime.

Earlier, Iraqi parliament security commission chairman Hadi Ameri had accused the occupying soldiers of secretly directing the terrorist attacks and forming terror squads in Iraq.

Oh, look, a new front opens up in the glorious Iraqi Freedom War

Just what we need:

Ankara, Turkey (AHN) - Turkey's parliament overwhelmingly approved cross-border military operations against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq Wednesday, with a 507-19 vote. The authorization is good for a year, however, and so far, Turkish leaders seem poised to allow more time for a diplomatic resolution before sending more troops across the Iraqi border.

Turkey holds the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) responsible for the deaths of 15 soldiers and 12 civilians earlier this month, which was apparently part of an ongoing campaign for self-rule. The PKK considers parts of southeastern Turkey, northeastern Iraq, northeastern Syria and northwestern Iran to be Kurdistan, and since 1984, they have launched an ongoing campaign to establish a Kurdish state. The militant struggle has met with over two dozen attacks by the Turkish military in the past twenty years and has claimed over 30,000 lives.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan claims the recent attack was launched from PKK training camps in northern Iraq.

Iraqi leaders are working hard to convince Turkey to exercise restraint while they attempt to quell tensions and persuade the PKK to break up the camps and lay down its arms. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki telephoned his Turkish counterpart early Wednesday, hours prior to the vote, to reiterate his intention to put a halt to the PKK's "terrorist activities," appealing for continued dialogue between the two countries. Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, meanwhile, has traveled to Ankara to issue the same appeal for diplomacy.

Paying off the Sunni to undermine the Shiite government

Run by the U.S. chosen Shiite leader al-Maliki whose Parliament has just had the Sunnis walk out on it...

Do I have it right? We are paying bribe money to insurgents who are killing our soldiers who are trying to prop up a non-existent government to give it time to stand up so we can leave.

This must have been thought up by Georgie.



Update: We also can't find a um.. few .. you know... guns...

The US government cannot account for 190,000 weapons issued to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to an investigation carried out by the Government Accountability Office.

According to the July 31 report, the military "cannot fully account for about 110,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armour and 115,000 helmets reported as issued to Iraqi forces."

The weapons disappeared from records between June 2004 and September 2005, as the military struggled to rebuild the disbanded Iraqi forces from scratch amid increasing attacks from Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

...Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, spokesman for the US-led military in Iraq, said the Americans were working hard with their Iraqi partners to improve accountability and increase the security of weapons.

You say goodbye

When I say hello...

Just what did al-Maliki mean?

"We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want," al-Maliki said.

OKAY!! But now... (my bold)

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Iraq's prime minister was misunderstood when he said the Americans could leave "any time they want" an aide said Sunday, as politicians moved to end a pair of boycotts that are holding up work on crucial political reforms sought by Washington.

Ahhhh... they haven't signed the Oil Law which signs over Iraq's oil to Bush and Cheney yet. Then can we go?

Just a thought... do you think they will sign the law before the August vacation the Iraqi Parliament is taking?

I say Sunni and you say Shiite

Let's call the whole thing off:

BAGHDAD - Two Sunni leaders who took public stances against al-Qaida in Iraq were attacked Saturday, in a sign the terror network may ramp up retaliation against local chiefs who oppose it.

Meanwhile, a powerful roadside bomb killed the governor and police chief of a southern province that has been torn by fierce fighting between Shiite factions. The country's prime minister urged residents to show restraint and not launch reprisals.

The flurry of attacks hinted at the complex challenges facing Iraq, from both Shiite militias and Sunni extremists, who often target not just Americans but also their own sects in vicious internal battles.

The United States has pointed to an anti-al-Qaida alliance of local Sunni leaders as a sign of turnaround, but the attacks showed the high risks local leaders face by joining.

So the very shaky U.S. backed al-Maliki's Shiite government which had Sunnis resigning out of the so-called Iraqi Parliament because the Shiite government is being shored up by Sunni-killing Shiite death squads and al-Sadr which our military promptly attacked while al-Maliki was out of Iraq visiting Shiite Iran to start meaningful diplomatic ties which really freaks Sunni Saudi Arabia who is sending their radicalized Sunni youth to attack Americans in Iraq yet Saudi Arabia has been promised an immense delivery of jets and weapons by the United States which made Russia promise Iran a boatload of weaponry as well which makes no sense to weaponize the Middle East because it is so volatile but it makes perfect sense to Bush to sell weapons to the country that supplied 15 of the 9/11 hijackers so they can claim part of the Iraq that we invaded because of 9/11 but had nothing to do with 9/11 while we ignore Afghanistan which is returning to the Taliban which harbors Osama bin Laden and probably will destablize Pakistan who has nukes.

It's becoming clear to me now...

I wrote this in August of 2007

So the very shaky U.S. backed al-Maliki's Shiite government which had Sunnis resigning out of the so-called Iraqi Parliament because the Shiite government is being shored up by Sunni-killing Shiite death squads and al-Sadr which our military promptly attacked while al-Maliki was out of Iraq visiting Shiite Iran to start meaningful diplomatic ties which really freaks Sunni Saudi Arabia who is sending their radicalized Sunni youth to attack Americans in Iraq yet Saudi Arabia has been promised an immense delivery of jets and weapons by the United States which made Russia promise Iran a boatload of weaponry as well which makes no sense to weaponize the Middle East because it is so volatile but it makes perfect sense to Bush to sell weapons to the country that supplied 15 of the 9/11 hijackers so they can claim part of the Iraq that we invaded because of 9/11 but had nothing to do with 9/11 while we ignore Afghanistan which is returning to the Taliban which harbors Osama bin Laden and probably will destablize Pakistan who has nukes.

Has the surge worked yet because it seems that nothing has changed....

And it's one, two, three,

What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn....

So. Trillions of dollars later and hundreds of thousands dead, a destroyed infrastructure and ruined country, a depleted uranium-poisoned environment, a broken and misused military, and thousands of young terrorists in the making.... all for...

Continuing where Saddam left off:

Baghdad, Iraq (AHN) - Iraq's government approved Tuesday a $3 billion deal with a Chinese company to develop an oil field in the central Shiite province of Wasit.

China Petroleum National Corp. will make the Al-Ahdab oil field produce 25,000 barrels of oil per day in the first three years making it the first foreign company to be awarded a service agreement to tap Iraq's oil reserve since the ouster of former leader Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The same agreement revives a $700 million joint venture deal between Iraq and the company signed by Hussein's regime in 1997 but was scuttled because of United Nations sanctions and the war following the U.S. invasion of the country.

How's Cheney taking the news? Planning any air raids on al-Maliki's house and the irritatingly functional democratic Iraqi parliament?

How are the real head honchos taking it? Not Deciderer Commander Guy Georgie Bush, but Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP?

Oh yeah? Well I double dog dare ya!

Via Pygalgia:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's parliament on Saturday approved a nonbinding resolution labeling the CIA and the U.S. Army ``terrorist organizations,'' in apparent response to a Senate resolution seeking to give a similar designation to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The hard-line dominated parliament cited U.S. involvement in dropping nuclear bombs in Japan in World War II, using depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq, supporting the killings of Palestinians by Israel, bombing and killing Iraqi civilians, and torturing terror suspects in prisons.

``The aggressor U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency are terrorists and also nurture terror,'' said a statement by the 215 lawmakers who signed the resolution at an open session of the Iranian parliament. The session was broadcast live on state-run radio.

We know Cheney is just waiting to triple dog dare Iran....

You can't quit! Bush was going to fire you!

Come back here!

Nicole Belle of Crooks and Liars:

Oh yeah, things are just going swimmingly in Iraq, aren't they?

Independent UK:

The nationalist Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered his ministers to leave the Iraqi government because of its refusal to set a timetable for US troop withdrawal from Iraq.

A violent confrontation between America and the Sadrist movement, popular among the Shia majority, would mark a new stage in the four-year war in which the US has hitherto been fighting the minority Sunni community.

The departure of the six ministers will weaken the Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who relied on the support of their movement for a majority in parliament. The Sadrists accused Mr Maliki of "ignoring the will of the people" over the issue of a timed American withdrawal.

Muqtada al-Sadr has been hiding for two months but in recent weeks has demanded an end to the occupation. He has organised peaceful rallies attended by tens of thousands of demonstrators in Najaf at which Sadr supporters waved Iraqi flags and chanted their opposition to the continuing US presence.

Just continuing the tradition he began back in college

When he'd party at the frat house until just before the final, then cram furiously for the test. Explains why he was a 'gentleman's C student':

Iraq report card: only 3 of 18 benchmarks met.
On the one year anniversary of President Bush’s State of the Union address justifying his “New Way Forward” in Iraq, Center for American Progress has compiled an “Iraq Benchmark Report Card” showing that “the surge has failed to meet its objectives” as “the Iraqi government has only met three of the 18 benchmarks laid out last year.”

This time you get an F, Georgie. The surge is a dud, the war is a disaster. And it happened on your watch and during your presidency. This is your legacy and yours alone.





Update: Oh, and by the way, the surge was supposed to bring different sides together. All that press about the meeting? What meeting?:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 Negotiations are not taking place in Baghdad on the controversial oil law and other oil disputes, contrary to previous news accounts.

UPI confirmed that a top U.S. State Department official tasked with moving the oil law forward is in Washington, not Iraq.

A number of Iraqi media had reported that a delegation from the Kurdistan Regional Government was in Baghdad meeting with top national oil officials in an effort to find agreement on the stalled oil law.

Al Mowaten newspaper quotes a KRG spokesman that the region's oil minister is in Baghdad. But the paper also quotes a Kurdish member of the national Parliament Mahmoud Othamn said there's no such meeting taking place.