The New Iraqi Oil Law: Leaked

[slipslidingaway]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17120.htm

By Raed Jarrar

snip>>

"I spent the weekend translating this leaked copy of the Iraqi oil law with Niki (thank you Salam for sending me the link). Translating legal documents can be really hard!

Please feel free to widely distribute this document. It's important to start a stronger debate and to try to educate Iraqis and Americans about this catastrophic law that will facilitate the further looting of Iraqi oil, and will achieve nothing other than increasing the levels of violence and anger in Iraq.

This law legalizes PSAs (production sharing agreements) in Iraq. Iraq will be the only country in the middle east with such contracts privatising Iraqi oil and giving foreign companies crazy rates of profit that may reach to more than three fourth of the general revenue. Iraq and Iraqis need every Dinar that comes from oil sales. In addition to the financial aspects of this law, it can be considered the funding tool for splitting Iraq into three states. It undermines the central government and distributes oil revenues directly to the three regions, which sets the foundations for what Iraq's enemies are trying to achieve in terms of establishing three independent states."

[Erika]

1. W got his oil for his world buds

How he or this administration can look an Iraqi or a U.S. troop in the eyes, is beyond me. He sold us and them out for world corporatist greed.

When will the Republican base finally wake up? Or maybe they have joined him in world corporatism.

[slipslidingaway]

4. When will anyone in Congress wake up? There certainly has not

been much discussion of this plan in Congress or the media. :shrug:

[Jack Sprat]

7. W is making enemies that will last generations.

Instead of making Americans safer, he has made us targets for the next generation of terrorists. Bush is the most worthless piece of slime that was ever given life.

[slipslidingaway]

12. Yes, competent at generating terrorists and profits for some n/t

[Auntie Bush]

33. "W is making enemies that will last generations." That's a fact as my

children and grandchildren and great grandchildren this hate bush as they have to do without or suffer high taxes to pay for bush's wars and the federal deficit and have no Social Security. You bet, bush will have enemies for generations to come!

[mod mom]

21. They may have their oil but the instability * caused greatly threatens their ability

to retrieve it.

[Jack Sprat]

2. It was easy to see this coming

Bushco did not attack a defenseless Iraq because they feared any WMDs. They wanted to privatize Iraq's oil. They have no intention of leaving Iraq, either. Those permanent bases are for protecting that oil once it is secured by foreign/American investments.

[slipslidingaway]

5. Agree and welcome to DU :) n/t

[snappyturtle]

32. That's it in a nutshell. And, don't forget that huge Embassy--bet

the oil companies will have offices in it!

[snot]

3. The silence in the US re- Iraq oil contracts has been deafening. nt

[slipslidingaway]

6. Yes!! n/t

[dennisnyc]

24. one small exception here proves your point

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2006/12/07

[Supersedeas]

31. those BP and Exxon Mobile advertising dollars are well spend on channels with News whores

[Emit]

8. On a related note, did you catch this?

Posted yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=243759&mesg_id=243759

Iraqi Sunni Lands Show New Oil and Gas Promise

[slipslidingaway]

11. No and thanks for posting, I see it only had a few 'R's' Also

saw this post of yours too late and have it bookmarked, might be worth a repost because of the holiday.

Bush & Co.'s Intelligence on Iran: A Preview

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=212315&mesg_id=212315

[Emit]

28. Thanks for mentioning that post I made

that dropped like a lead balloon. Yes, likely the holiday and all -- or my title wasn't sexy enough. My addendum to that thread didn't get much play, either:

Regime Change in Iran

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=233209&mesg_id=233209

But, at least it is not locked yet. And, perhaps, somebody other than myself is interested in the contents.

Anyway, thanks for your OP on the New Iraqi Oil Law. I had read about this a few weeks ago and wondered what the status was.

[slipslidingaway]

29. YW, sorry they did not receive the needed attention. Do you

know if there is a forum to collect the pre-Iranian war information? I noticed that there was no reply button on the MEK post otherwise I would have responded. :argh:

[slipslidingaway]

9. More discussion at the link below.

http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/2007/02/new-iraqi-oil-leaked.html

""


snip>>

"The Arabic draft, which was written on January 15, 2007, refers to three annexes that are not included in the draft I have in hand. Those annexes are very important and actually part of the law. Despite the fact that all international agencies and newspapers said the Cabinet has approved the law and will pass it soon to the parliament for ratification, and the CNN said in its Arabic news bulletin, January 28, 2007, that the Iraqi Parliament is scheduled to discuss the constitution draft on February 10, it is quite surprising to hear some of those concerned with this law claim the annexes have not been finished to this day (i.e. January 27, 2007). No one can buy the claims that annexes are unfinished until now. The only reasonable possibilities are either the annexes do exist but need to be approved by higher authorities inside or outside Iraq, or they are complete and approved but those responsible would rather pass them under the table. There is though a very slim chance that the bill was passed to the national assembly without annexes! Mind you, the English draft above had no annexes as well. The secrecy and attempts to pass the law as if it were any other ordinary bill not only do they stir bafflement, they also invoke questions about what could be hatched in the dark and could place officials under huge and legitimate doubts.

Through a number of sources I laid my hand on a copy of the law I am discussing here. To the best of my knowledge, this bill is the final version and it is the one that will be passed to the national assembly. Once changes occur, notes will be changed accordingly."

[TahitiNut]

10. The "Entitlement Class" strikes again.

This is what it's all about. "Ownership" (an entitlement) can only exist where the government enforces it with the power of its legal system, police, and military. This is why the Cheney/Bush invasion and occupation gutted Iraq's legal system and fired all the police and military. They then forced a 'constitution' on Iraq and pushed corporate stooges into their government. It's corporate colonialism - governments are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the global corporate consortium. When elected leaders like Chavez restructure the state-enforced 'ownership' of the national resources of their countries, the corporate fascists do everything they can (as in Haiti, Afghanistan, and Iraq) to overthrow or destroy that political leadership and insert 'cooperative' stooges with Swiss bank accounts. Mexico has been such a corporate colony for decades.

[slipslidingaway]

13. I thought we were fighting the bad guys :(( n/t

[snot]

14. Love your quotations (Acton & Burke). nt

[lligrd]

15. So It Was The Oil

What a surprise!

[TheBaldyMan]

16. the redacted sections make interesting reading

Lock the Iraqis into a secret contract, take 50% of the oil , charge the Iraqis for processing and transport of petroleum production.

The http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRMeRVHq03o">casus belli has been revealed.

[SpiralHawk]

17. "Smirk, smirk, smirk." - Commander AWOL

"Sneer, sneer, sneer." - Dickie War Profits Cheney

[farmbo]

18. Bush's Iraq War: Making the World Safe for ...Exxon Mobile

PSA is an acronym for "License to Steal".

[GreenZoneLT]

19. PSAs are probably necessary in Iraq

The problem isn't the PSA as a structure, it's how any individual PSA is written. Iraq needs PSAs because their oil infrastructure (unlike the rest of the Middle East) is wrecked. They can't afford to repair it, let alone upgrade it to current standards, and nobody's going to come in and do it for them without a major stake in the future revenues. Iraq's behind the 8 ball, because any PSA will certainly hugely favor the oil company (just as likely to be Chinese or Russian as a western multinational), because of the large risk of the company losing their entire investment to a future nationalization. That's even without the likely strategy of bribing the Iraqi officials for a more favorable contract.

But all that oil doesn't do the Iraqis any good if it's in the ground, and Iraq doesn't have the financial resources to create its own state-owned oil infrastructure. They've got a choice: cut the oil companies in for the lion's share of the revenues, in hope of seeing an increase in the Iraqis' cut of revenue, or leave the oil in the ground and forego any increased revenue at all. Unless the fairy Allahmother bestows a trillion dollars on Iraq with some way to prevent it being stolen, they don't have the choice of owning their own useful, working oil infrastructure.

The way the law has been reported here is that it will distribute revenues to Iraqis as individuals, not regionally. I just read Section 11 of the translation above, and it says nothing about allocating the revenues regionally; it says there should be a central oil treasury with a governing council that includes some provincial representatives as part of its makeup. The details of revenue distribution and the oil treasury council are left up to future draft laws written by the Council of Ministers (Maliki's cabinet) and approved by parliament.

[dennisnyc]

23. these improvements could be done with

Technical Service Contracts like in the neighboring countries. Check out Antonia Juhasz on this issue on Democracy Now! this morning: www.democracynow.org

The choice you present, "They've got a choice: cut the oil companies in for the lion's share of the revenues, in hope of seeing an increase in the Iraqis' cut of revenue, or leave the oil in the ground and forego any increased revenue at all." is, i think, IMHO, a false one.

The actual production of oil in Iraq is almost back to pre-invasion levels (see Juhasz above) with Iraq spending only $1/gallon to get it out of the ground. With some TSCs, infrastructure improvements, the Iraqis could retain sovereignty AND increase production while keeping the other +/- $55 per gallon.

Also:
Oil Change International http://priceofoil.org/ is coming out with a reaction to the new oil law, with specific recommendations for US citizen actions.

[Leopolds Ghost]

25. You are arguing Bush's strategy for him. Bravo.

Destroy Iraq's financial, industry, economy, cultural artifacts so they are utterly beaten and must resort to Western oil companies to design, build, and own the wells, refineries, and office buildings.

That is the only type of "rebuilding" Bush will legalize, much lest fund, either in Iraq or here, in America's inner cities.

[JackRiddler]

38. Infrastructure is indeed destroyed and needs capital to be repaired...

And who destroyed this infrastructure? You don't seem to remember.

Your argument reminds me of the custom (said to obtain in some places) that requires a woman to marry her rapist, since after the rape she is destroyed for anyone else.

What Iraq needs and deserves is not PSAs, which reward the destroyer of the Iraqi oil infrastructure, but reparations from that destroyer, to make up at least for that part of its crime by rebuilding the oil infrastructure.

I think one year's budget for the continuing war ($120 billion), re-purposed to rebuild the Iraqi pipelines, roadways and electrical grid, using exclusively Iraqi contracters, would be a decent start.

[JackRiddler]

39. GreenZoneLT... is that meant literally?

Are you in the Green Zone, or have you been posted there at some point? Are you part of the occupation command? What is your role in Iraq, if any?

[dogday]

20. Haven't you heard? It was never about oil!!!

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

[dennisnyc]

22. Raed Jarrar is on Democracy Now! today with

Antonia Juhasz discussing this story!


www.democracynow.org

[slipslidingaway]

27. Thank you!!! Direct link to interview.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/20/1523250

snip>>

"AMY GOODMAN: Antonia Juhasz, what is the significance of this for Western oil companies?

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, in my mind, the law certainly opens the door to US oil companies and the Bush administration winning a very large piece of their objective of going to war in Iraq, at least winning it on paper. The law does almost word for word what was laid out in the Baker-Hamilton recommendation, which I discussed previously on your show, which is, at the very basic level, to turn Iraq's nationalized oil system, the model that 90% of the world’s oil is governed by, take its nationalized oil system and turn it into a commercial system fully open to foreign corporate investment on terms as of yet to be decided. So it leaves vague this very important question of what type of contracts will the Iraqi government use. But what it leaves clear is that basically every level of the oil industry will be open to private foreign companies.

And, as Raed said, it introduces this very unique model, which is that ultimate decision making on contracts rests with a new council to be set up in Iraq, and sitting on that council will be representatives -- executives, in fact -- of oil companies, both foreign and domestic. In addition, it does maintain the Iraq National Oil Company, but gives the Iraq National Oil Company almost no preference. It’s almost in all cases just another oil company among lots of other companies, including US oil companies. And this council, the new oil and gas council, is going to be the decision making body to determine what kind of contract the Iraqis can sign, and all contract models are still on the table, yet to be determined. I think that’s left vague or open, so that the very necessary criticism to earlier drafts of the law, which included specifically production sharing agreements, might be quieted."

[Leopolds Ghost]

26. Sad that so few DUers have, or will, notice this or understand its significance

Most people have no clue how "globalization" works.

They walk down the street of their city, incurious as to why blocks of old houses and shops are left to rot until they are finally pulled down to make way for skyscrapers.

They don't understand where their food comes from, or why people in the country of origin who produce fish for Western consumption are forced to live on the discarded fish heads and carcasses.

(See "Darwin's Nightmare", a film about globalization)

[donkeyotay]

30. So, it wasn't about terror vs democracy, but nationalized vs privatized

Making the world safe for globalization, one market at a time, or making the world safe for democracy, one nation at a time. This is difficult. Give me a minute...

[prolesunited]

34. Why do you think they hate Chavez so much?

He is demanding a fair share of profits for his country and wants to improve the lives of the poor.

They don't care what kind of despot a country has for a leader or how people are treated (i.e. Saudi Arabia or China) as long as the rulers play nice and let the megacorps rape and pillage the country's resources for fun and profit.

[donkeyotay]

36. That's why we should keep dragging the GOP back to Sept 10, 2001

and rubbing their noses in it. They've been given a free pass on morphing into the terra-all-the-time party, and they haven't been held accountable for their failed economic policies and the truly awful rightwing politics that go with them. The teevee demonizes Chavez as if he were a terrorist. The corporations running teevee do bidness in China and have no problem with them being COMMUNISTS, but declare Chavez enemy number one for not seeing his nation's assets as belonging to the multinationals. It clearly is more about greed, power and control than security.

[nam78_two]

35. K&R.nt

[Emit]

37. Don't know if this has been mentioned somewhere else in this thread, and

you may already be aware of this, but I thought I'd point this out, as it relates to your OP:

May 22, 2003

The United Nations Security Council approves Resolution 1483, which sets up a “Development Fund for Iraq,” financed mainly by Iraqi oil exports. The same day, Bush quietly signs Executive Order 13303, which provides absolute legal protection for U.S. interests in Iraqi oil. Bush prohibits all judicial processes regarding Iraqi oil that is in the possession of U.S. corporations.

The same day, Wolfowitz tells Congress, “One of the keys to getting Iraq up and running as a country is to restore its primary source of revenue: its oil infrastructure. The resolution <1483> envisions the resumption of oil exports, and provides that revenues be deposited in the Development Fund for Iraq, with transparency provided by independent auditors and an international advisory board. Decisions regarding the long-term development of Iraq's oil resources and its economy will be the responsibility of a stable Iraqi government. The United States is dedicated to ensuring that Iraq's oil resources remain under Iraqi control. Iraq's resources--including all of its oil--belong to all of Iraq's people.”

http://www.ips-dc.org/wolfowitz/tl_01-05.htm#_ednref44


More discussion here:

Effects of EO 13303
The primary effect of EO 13303 is the legal protection of US oil companies. EO 13303 is part of a broader endeavor by the Bush administration to exert control over Iraqi oil revenues. The plan centers on the Development Fund for Iraq, created by the United Nations and nominally controlled by the United States, with advise from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second part of the plan is EO 13303, providing absolute legal protection for US interests in Iraqi oil.


Controversy
Critics of EO 13303 contend new debt for Iraq will accrue from the new Development Fund for Iraq. They say that it will allow opportunities for grave abuses because it offers little illuminating context and its tone suggests the language should be read quite broadly. These concerns stem from the apparent likelihood the fund will be used to leverage US government and corporate interests.

The United Nations Security Council approved Resolution 1483 on May 22, 2003, ending economic sanctions against Iraq while clearing a path for the transfer of over $1 billion from the Oil-for-Food program as seed money for establishment of the development fund. Critics are also alarmed because all proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil and natural gas are to be placed into the fund, noting developing countries have amassed huge debts in exchange for selling out their natural resources to powerful corporations. This paradigm, they contend, cloaks corporate welfare and neocolonialism in terms of 'poverty alleviation', and now in Iraq as 'humanitarian assistance'.

There are differences between the original text (UN Security Council Resolution 1483) and EO 13303, which may lead a court to hold implementation is overbroad.

http://www.answers.com/topic/executive-order-13303


And, now, we read here today on DU:

Wolfowitz about to fund Iraq with WORLD BANK Funds (NOT WB policy)
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36690

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x275156

I feel that these are all just large pieces to one giant puzzle. Parts of it are getting clearer, in retrospect, now.


edited to add link

[JackRiddler]

40. nice work emit - thanks - and thread K&R - n/t

[Emit]

41. Thanks. n/t