Saturday, December 09, 2006

Iraq OIL privatization and democracy butt heads

The Iraq Study Group admitted what the public has suspected but few politicians or reporters have discussed: the war was about oil and specifically about giving Iraq's oil to our oil companies on terms those companies dictated.

The oil companies are even playing their hand in a way that could leave them with nothing--they are demanding provisions to the Iraqi constitution and a "hydrocarbon law" that allows foreign ownership of oil assets.

Ironically, to the degree that the Iraqis withhold this, it shows that they have a legitimate democracy. The Bush administration put off elections right after the invasion to have a clear path to implement this theft of their natural resources since they knew no real democratic government would sell out their own people like that. GOP strategist and one of the authors of the privatization plan, Grover Norquist, said, "The right to trade, property rights, these things are not to be determined by some democratic election."

Although he has never fired a shot or dropped a bomb on an Iraqi, Norquist is more of a war criminal than Lyndie England and all those hillbillies who followed the White House's orders at Abu Ghraib.

Gen. Jay Garner, appointed by Bush to run the occupation and who successfully ran the occupation of the Kurdish region for over a decade, said postponing elections and implementing these economic changes would incite violence. He was right. And fired.

Until the American public moves this from the back of their minds to the front of our debate on Iraq, we won't get out of Iraq because we won't know why Bush is holding onto it like a squirrel with his last nut.


KEY EXCERPTS:
Digg!




http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-juhasz8dec08,0,4717508.story

It's still about oil in Iraq

A centerpiece of the Iraq Study Group's report is its advocacy for securing foreign companies' long-term access to Iraqi oil fields.

By Antonia Juhasz

ANTONIA JUHASZ is a visiting scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time."

December 8, 2006

WHILE THE Bush administration, the media and nearly all the Democrats still refuse to explain the war in Iraq in terms of oil, the ever-pragmatic members of the Iraq Study Group share no such reticence. Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Iraq Study Group report lays out Iraq's importance to its region, the U.S. and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be commercialized and opened to foreign firms.

***
For any degree of oil privatization to take place, and for it to apply to all the country's oil fields, Iraq has to amend its constitution and pass a new national oil law. The constitution is ambiguous as to whether control over future revenues from as-yet-undeveloped oil fields should be shared among its provinces or held and distributed by the central government.

This is a crucial issue, with trillions of dollars at stake, because only 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields have been developed. Recommendation No. 26 of the Iraq Study Group calls for a review of the constitution to be "pursued on an urgent basis." Recommendation No. 28 calls for putting control of Iraq's oil revenues in the hands of the central government. Recommendation No. 63 also calls on the U.S. government to "provide technical assistance to the Iraqi government to prepare a draft oil law."

This last step is already underway. The Bush administration hired the consultancy firm BearingPoint more than a year ago to advise the Iraqi Oil Ministry on drafting and passing a new national oil law.

Plans for this new law were first made public at a news conference in late 2004 in Washington. Flanked by State Department officials, Iraqi Finance Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi (who is now vice president) explained how this law would open Iraq's oil industry to private foreign investment. This, in turn, would be "very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies." The law would implement production-sharing agreements.

Much to the deep frustration of the U.S. government and American oil companies, that law has still not been passed.

In July, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced in Baghdad that oil executives told him that their companies would not enter Iraq without passage of the new oil law. Petroleum Economist magazine later reported that U.S. oil companies considered passage of the new oil law more important than increased security when deciding whether to go into business in Iraq.

FULL TEXT: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-juhasz8dec08,0,4717508.story





public relations

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I find it quite silly that someone who acts like they are so inteligent would believe so much propaganda and so many lies. Maybe some day when you're older and more wise, you'll realize how far your head was up your ass. I doubt that will ever happen though. Oh, and good luck with "impeaching bush." Honestly, you obnoxious liberal sons of bitches have no damn common sense.

Professor Smartass said...

So are you disagreeing the factuality of what I posted, disagreeing that it's a bad thing to invade another country to seize their natural resources, or just mad that I posted something that made your dear leader look bad?

You are free to believe whichever ideology you like, but when you ignore facts that have been admitted by some of the key players on video, you are being intellectually dishonest, emotionally immature, or openly contemptuous of the kind of discussion necessary for democracy to function.

Have you read any history of the region besides Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity? A guy who worked with Papa Bush, Daniel Yergin, wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning history of oil called THE PRIZE.

These guys are business people, and there are trillions of dollars worth of oil under the sand. If Homer Simpson broke into a donut shop, would you believe him if he said he was there to do a health inspection?

Anonymous said...

I can't take you seriously if you're going to compare our president to homer simpson.

Do you really believe that the reason we invaded Iraq was to take their oil? I see no proof of this, and you havn't shown any. How do you call it factual if you have no proof? What about the good we are doing for the Iraqi citizens? What about the hanging of their long time opressive dictator Sadam? What about us helping them form a democratic government? Is that all just a cover so we can gain oil? Until you give me PROOF that the reason we invaded iraq was so we can take their oil, then i'll believe it. But until then, i'm going to focus on the good we're doing over there. And, hell, we better be getting some oil out of it with the god damn gas prices so high here.

"... or just mad that I posted something that made your dear leader look bad?"

- No, i'm not mad that you're making my "Dear leader" look bad. It just is agrivating that Liberals such as yourself are focusing on your unproven theories. such as saying that we invaded Iraq just so we can take their oil. How about the fact that he's pussy footing around the illegal immigrants issue and trying to ban gay marriage as a distraction. He's not the conservative president I voted for. I don't agree with EVERYTHING he believes, but i do support him as the president of my dear country.

Anonymous said...

I can't take you seriously if you're going to compare our president to homer simpson.

Do you really believe that the reason we invaded Iraq was to take their oil? I see no proof of this, and you havn't shown any. How do you call it factual if you have no proof? What about the good we are doing for the Iraqi citizens? What about the hanging of their long time opressive dictator Sadam? What about us helping them form a democratic government? Is that all just a cover so we can gain oil? Until you give me PROOF that the reason we invaded iraq was so we can take their oil, then i'll believe it. But until then, i'm going to focus on the good we're doing over there. And, hell, we better be getting some oil out of it with the god damn gas prices so high here.

"... or just mad that I posted something that made your dear leader look bad?"

- No, i'm not mad that you're making my "Dear leader" look bad. It just is agrivating that Liberals such as yourself are focusing on your unproven theories. such as saying that we invaded Iraq just so we can take their oil. How about the fact that he's pussy footing around the illegal immigrants issue and trying to ban gay marriage as a distraction. He's not the conservative president I voted for. I don't agree with EVERYTHING he believes, but i do support him as the president of my dear country.