Endgame for Iraqi Oil?
The Sovereignty Showdown in Iraq
By Jack Miles
The oil game in Iraq may be almost up. On September 29th, like a landlord serving notice, the government of Iraq announced that the next annual renewal of the United Nations Security Council mandate for a multinational force in Iraq -- the only legal basis for a continuation of the American occupation -- will be the last. That was, it seems, the first shoe to fall. The second may be an announcement terminating the little-noticed, but crucial companion Security Council mandate governing the disposition of Iraq's oil revenues.
By December 31, 2008, according to Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, the government of Iraq intends to have replaced the existing mandate for a multinational security force with a conventional bilateral security agreement with the United States, an agreement of the sort that Washington has with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and several other countries in the Middle East. The Security Council has always paired the annual renewal of its mandate for the multinational force with the renewal of a second mandate for the management of Iraqi oil revenues. This happens through the "Development Fund for Iraq," a kind of escrow account set up by the occupying powers after the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime and recognized in 2003 by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483. The oil game will be up if and when Iraq announces that this mandate, too, will be terminated at a date certain in favor of resource-development agreements that -- like the envisioned security agreement -- match those of other states in the region.
The game will be up because, as Antonia Juhasz pointed out last March in a New York Times op-ed, "Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?":"Iraq's neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia…. have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced."By contrast, the oil legislation now pending in the Iraqi parliament awards foreign oil companies coveted, long-term, 20-35 year contracts of just the sort that neighboring oil-producers have rejected for decades. It also places the Iraqi oil industry under the control of an appointed body that would include representatives of international oil companies as full voting members.
The news that the duly elected government of Iraq is exercising its limited sovereignty to set a date for termination of the American occupation radically undercuts all discussion in Congress or by American presidential candidates of how soon the U.S. occupation of Iraq may "safely" end.
...
[keep reading!]
I attended Representative Brian Baird's September 21st Town Hall Meeting at Capital High School. I am concerned about Rep. Baird's change of direction, his explicit support for the surge. He reported having difficulty finding Iraqis who supported the surge. He didn't mention talking to ordinary Iraqis. In fact he didn't mention discussing the surge or occupation with any Iraqis in opposition.
Representative Baird claimed that withdrawal would result in a "bloodbath." I also, can imagine the spike in violence that a hastily executed withdrawal might cause. But it's also a possible that violence could be lessened, if the USA were to commence, in good faith, upon a responsible and complete, phased, withdrawal, say, over the course of one year. This idea of a responsible withdrawal was something that Rep. Baird did not seem to consider, nor has he indicated consideration in correspondence with him since the Town Hall Meeting.
The invasion was unnecessary. There was no threat, posed by WMD or otherwise, prior to the invasion. Supposed evidence of a WMD threat has reasonably been shown to have been contrived. The management of the occupation has been incompetent. The failures can be traced to the topmost command in Washington D.C.. Instead of supporting the Bush Administration policy, I want my Representative to represent me, and to support two things. One, hold the Bush Administration, and associated entities, to account for any malfeasance relating to the invasion and occupation. Two, I want a responsible withdrawal of US forces from Iraq to commence immediately.
"I quit because I couldn't stand seeing kids come to class hungry and needing shoes. I thought I could do more by organizing farm workers than by trying to teach their hungry children."
I attended a Town Hall Meeting with Brian Baird, who is my Representative to the US House of Representatives. The Town Hall Meeting was announced after a mass of dissent toward the Representative's change of direction regarding the surge in troop levels and the occupation of Iraq.
I was disappointed and aggrieved to hear of Rep. Baird's change of direction. I recently received a letter from the Representative, which has prompted me to become more active in expressing my opinion on this matter.Dear Representative Baird,I am still trying to draft a letter to the editor of the Olympian. Hopefully these ruminations will assist that effort. Stay tuned.
I received a letter from your office in acknowledgment of my attendance at a recent town hall meeting, which you sponsored in Olympia Washington. I am glad that I was able to attend, and I appreciate your support for civic engagement. I hope you were able to hear and listen to the views and opinions of your constituents despite the somewhat hostile environment in the Capital High School Performance Center Auditorium that night. Unfortunately, I was only able to stay for two and a half hours, until 9:30 p.m., so I didn't get to hear the rest of the comments, or your responses to them.
I care about the USA and also that the actions of the USA genuinely and accurately reflect what I think and feel to be the best aspects of the character of Americans. I believe that Americans are capable of great hospitality - even compassion, I believe that Americans are generous and that we have an interest in equitable and fair relations amongst all people. After all, America was born out of dissent over unfair taxation - taxation without representation - that was essentially a colonial power's effort to exploit its "subjects."
So I am writing to you with an eye toward the past, as well as toward the future, when I express my concern and disapproval over your change of direction in regard to your policy on Iraq. I am concerned that America is becoming that colonial/imperial force that the founders of our own government rejected.
I am also dissatisfied with the content of your letter of acknowledgment. At the Town Hall Meeting I expressed (in a handwritten statement on a note card that was delivered to your staffers) my concern that you hadn't considered the possibility of a gradual withdrawal. It sounded to me like you opposed a withdrawal that would be sudden and shocking (like the invasion) which would likely result in a major security vacuum and further violence - a "bloodbath."
But if the withdrawal were to take place over the course of one year, allowing the security situation to fill in organically as the US forces withdraw gradually, I think there is the potential to prevent much violence. So much of the violence in Iraq is the result of the US presence.
I agree with you that the US has an obligation to work toward a stabilized Iraq. I am concerned that the military option is not the best option. For one, it seems that the military mission is vague. Is it to destroy insurgency? Well, how can our military personnel destroy something which they cannot identify?
I think that the mission must be changed. It must be changed to this: provide basic defense for the Iraqi Civilians, begin reconstruction immediately, and in earnest. Increase troop levels if needed. Rebuild the infrastructure to current US standards. Give the Iraqis something to feel pride in. Restore the water, sewage, electricity, roads, schools and hospitals to pre-war standards.
Make that the mission and those the goals for the occupation. And set certain criteria to enable the withdrawal.
Without that change in mission, and without holding the Bush Administration accountable, and to the standards of Justice, then there is no other reasonable option, in my mind (as well as in the minds of the vast majority of my fellow constituents) but to commence immediately upon a safe and responsible complete withdrawal.
Thank you, Mr. Representative, for taking the time and making the effort to read and understand my comments.
Sincerely,
Robert Whitlock
go to original
"How Bush Changed My Life"
by David R. Henderson
...
Until 9/11. Like almost everyone else in America and, indeed, most people in the world, I was outraged by the 19 criminals who murdered 3,000 innocent victims. But when George Bush said, on that very same day, "Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward … and freedom will be defended," I smelled a rat. In saying that freedom was attacked, Bush was saying something about the motives of the attackers, even though he couldn't have known that soon what their motives were. So it seemed to me that Bush was trying to set the groundwork for a war rather than trying to go after the higher-ups behind the perpetrators. I turned out to be right. In response to 9/11, George Bush made war on Afghanistan and, depending on which audience he and Dick Cheney were speaking to, a response to 9/11 was part of their motive in attacking Iraq.
...
So. Here we are. I was hesitant about signing up for the league because it was marketed as a "competitive" league for "moderate" to "advanced" players. I am definitely not an advanced player - and I probably won't ever be. I might be a moderate player, if I was playing in a novice league. But I was encouraged to sign up for the league anyway, partly I think because of concerns that there would not be enough people to field 4 teams. Which is not to say that I wasn't encouraged for my positive attitude or my sense of humor, for example, among the long list of my good qualities that there are to choose from.
making the transition to a "life serving society." It can happen. I just know it.
