EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- Naomi Klein: 'Anti-Shock Doctrines' Show the Way to Resist
Popular content
Today's Top News
Iraqi Blocs Opposed to Draft Oil Bill
ERBIL, Iraq - Kurdish and Sunni Arab officials expressed deep reservations on Wednesday about the draft version of a national oil law and related legislation, misgivings that could derail one of the benchmark measures of progress in Iraq laid down by President Bush.
The draft law, which establishes a framework for the distribution of oil revenues, was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in late February after months of negotiations. The White House was hoping for quick passage to lay the groundwork for a political settlement among the country's ethnic and sectarian factions. But the new Kurdish concerns have created doubts about the bill even before Parliament is to pick it up for debate.
The issue comes at a delicate moment for Mr. Bush, who on Wednesday began negotiations with Congressional Democrats over a new war-spending measure.
The president vetoed a $124 billion bill on Tuesday because it included timetables for troop withdrawals, and a House vote on Wednesday fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, with 222 voting in favor and 203 opposing the override.
In a speech to a construction industry trade group in Washington, Mr. Bush said he was "confident that with good will on both sides, that we can move beyond political statements" and agree on a new measure.
But he continued to criticize Congress for trying to use the bill to dictate timelines for withdrawal.
"The question is, 'Who ought to make that decision, the Congress or the commanders?' " Mr. Bush said. "As you know, my position is clear - I'm the commander guy."
In Iraq, the Kurds have taken issue with a new provision that was quietly packaged with the draft oil law by the Shiite-led Oil Ministry last month. The measure would essentially cede control of the management of nearly all known oil fields and related contracts to a state-run oil company to be established after passage of the law, said a spokesman for the Kurdish regional government.
The spokesman, Khalid Salih, said the provision violated a clause in the Constitution that says the central government must work with regional governments to determine management of known fields that have not been developed. The Kurds, who have enjoyed de facto independence in the north since 1991, have been arguing for maximum regional control over oil contracts.
The provision is part of four so-called annexes that are to be debated with the draft oil law in Parliament. Any objection to one or more of the annexes will stall passage of the law.
"We are worried about these ideas put into the annexes," Mr. Salih said in an interview in Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. "It worries us a lot." If the law and the annexes go to a vote before Parliament, a rejection by the Kurdish bloc alone, which holds 58 of 275 seats, would not doom the law. But Parliament operates by consensus, and members say it is almost certain that no law regarding oil will pass without the approval of the Kurds.
A senior Shiite Arab legislator, Sheik Jalaladin al-Saghir, said the concerns raised by the Kurds amounted to a bargaining tactic. "I think it's a maneuver," he said, adding that he believed the Kurds "will move forward to pass the law since everybody needs it."
Contributing a further layer of complication, a Sunni Arab legislator said Wednesday evening that the main Sunni Arab bloc, which has 44 legislative seats, objected to any discussion of the law in Parliament at this time. "Acceleration in presenting it is inappropriate since the security condition is not encouraging," said the legislator, Saleem Abdullah. He said Sunni Arabs were also worried that the law would give foreign companies too large a role in the country's oil industry. Sunni Arab political leaders supported cabinet approval of the draft law, but appear ambivalent now.
White House officials have said passage of the oil law is one of four major benchmarks they would like the Iraqi government to meet before fall.
During a visit to Baghdad last month, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, that Mr. Bush would weigh Iraq's commitment to meeting the goals when he decided at the end of the summer whether to extend the recent troop increase.
Differences on benchmarks for the Iraqi government are a central issue in the spending-bill talks between Mr. Bush and Democrats. Democrats, conceding they are unable to use the bill to force the withdrawal of troops, hope to write new benchmarks into the legislation, with consequences if the goals are not met.
Speaking to reporters after Wednesday's meeting, Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, said Democrats were determined that the bill would include "language in it that has the Iraqis take care of their own country." But the White House is likely to resist any attempt to punish the Iraqis for failure to reach certain goals, and Republicans say the president would consider benchmarks only if they are nonbinding.
"I think Republicans and the president are amenable to some benchmarks," said Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the No. 2 Republican, "provided that they don't slop over into trying to dictate to the commander in chief or the commanders on the ground."
The draft oil law provides for the distribution of revenues from all current and future oil fields to regions or provinces based on population. That agreement was meant to assuage the fears of the Sunnis, who suspect that the Shiites and Kurds are conspiring to hoard oil wealth, which is concentrated in the areas they dominate.
The minority Sunni Arabs are at the heart of the insurgency against the Shiite-led government, and hold swaths of land in western and northern Iraq that produce little oil, though geologists believe there are substantial untapped reserves there.
The Sunnis have been pushing for centralized control of the oil industry to assure equitable distribution of the revenues, while the Kurds have favored strong regional control. The Shiites have fallen somewhere in between.
The Kurds held up cabinet approval of the draft law for months, seeking to ensure that it guaranteed maximum regional autonomy to sign oil contracts. They fear that the central government might steer exploration and development contracts toward the Shiite-dominated south, at the expense of other regions.
The Kurds recently discovered two fields in northern Iraq, after signing contracts with a Norwegian and a Turkish company. But on Wednesday the Iraqi oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, a Shiite, said at a conference in Saudi Arabia that any contracts signed by the Kurds before passage of the oil law were considered invalid and illegal, news agencies reported.
In Erbil, Mr. Salih, the Kurdish spokesman, said the Kurdish contracts were legal and "had been prepared according to international standards and norms."
The draft law approved by the Iraqi cabinet says regions may enter into contracts, but a powerful new central body called the Federal Oil and Gas Council would have the power to "prevent" the contracts from going forward if they did not meet certain standards. A panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq would advise the federal council on the contracts.
Oil industry analysts estimate the country's proven oil reserves at 115 billion barrels. Iraqi oil production peaked at 3.7 million barrels a day in 1979, according to the United States Department of Energy. Production stood at 2.6 million barrels a day before the 2003 invasion, but has dropped since. Passage of the draft law is seen as critical for encouraging the foreign investment needed to lift production levels.
The draft oil law would allow regions to enter into production-sharing agreements with foreign companies, which some Iraqis and critics of the Bush administration say could lead to foreigners reaping too much of the country's oil wealth.
Iraqi officials say all contracts will be subjected to a fair bidding process, but there are fears that American companies could be favored.
In March, Mr. Shahristani said at an industry conference in Austria that 27 fields currently producing oil would be managed by the Iraq National Oil Company, which was shut down by Saddam Hussein in 1987 but would be re-established once the draft oil law was passed. Another 65 known fields would be offered for exploration and development contracts through rounds of bidding.
Edward Wong reported from Erbil, and Sheryl Gay Stolberg from Washington. Khalid al-Ansary contributed reporting from Baghdad, and Jeff Zeleny from Washington.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


27 Comments so far
Show AllRead Antonia Juhasz's book, "The Bush Agenda" and then you will understand that the US and its puppet government in Baghdad only have the welfare of the multinationals in mind when they construed the oil sales program. This is not about warring factions within Iraq; it is not about how to "split up" the oil revenues between the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds; it simply is about the manipulation of a precious and limited natural resource by a a group of multi-nationals, supported by the Bush Neocons. You have to ask yourself - is this what we are tellilng our young men and women when we send them off to die? How many sons and daughters of Exxon-Mobil execs do you think you will find in the killing fields of Iraq?
odoco you are correct.
Perhaps you can give some background on Ms. Juhasz. She researches quite a lot on the Iraq oil law.
Bush will not remove rapists, I mean troops, from Iraq until the oil law is passed, granting US-based Multinational oil companies from ownership of the resource.
Since the US Congress is well aware that their nation is utterly dependent upon oil, and will be until US-based multinationals finish off the Amazon basin and North American biodiversity to grow ethanol (oh, for the good days when such things were only drunk and only brains shrunk), that Congress will not oppose nor depose him and his Svengali, Rove, nor his daddy Cheney.
"We" do not send our children off to die. They choose to suicide for Oilaw, believing that the baddest rock climbers huck turbos to join the marines and gain immortality, as the latest commercials and the warrior-worshiping culture tell them. Meanwhile the big pickups inseminate the living land with dirt tracks and the air with carbon. Death is their child, death to the forest, the prairie, the tundra, the sea, and all that lives. Suicide is the game of all sides. Praise Oilaw!
All sing along with me:
Money makes the World go around
the world go around the world go around...
...until the world goes down.
The best proof of the Iraqi 'Government' to be
a subsidiary of Washington is the fact that
Iraq as a Nation has not dragged the US before
the International Criminal Court and sued for
reparations for the invasion and ongoing occupation.
Regarding any oil law that in itself would be
'Irrevocable and non-cancel able by any future Iraqi government'
means nothing else than that there will be no sovereign
Iraqi Nation period. That said, anything the 'Iraqi' puppets
come up with originates from the American ventriloquist.
Which in turn makes clear that Iraq will have to become the 52nd State of the US (after Isreal being 51st).
The Iraqi citizenry will need to be completely removed to achieve Uncle Sam's goal of total control of the Iraqi oil fields.
Even with Blackwater as bushes praetorian butchers there are more resistance fighter turned suicide bombers than anybody can imagine. As long as the Empire's troops and its mercenaries occupy Iraq it is unlikely that more than a drop of oil will leave the country.
The US has become the biggest loser in the international community. Oppressor or supporter of oppressors, abuser, torturer, polluter, raging militarist.
Either way Americans allow bush et al to finish the job of bringing down America, or they bring down and to justice this
totalitarian regime.
Times Up.
The first 26 paragraphs of this article address the smokescreen issues(dividing oil revenue among Iraqis and the Iraq War funding charade). The last 3 paragraphs barely address the real issue: giving Iraq's oil to the multinational corporations.
GWB's May 1, 2003 mission accomplished stunt was a smokescreen for the real mission accomplished event that will occur when the Iraqis sign this deal and lose control of their oil.
This Hydrocarbon Law that the Iraq government is considering is one of the benchmarks that Iraq has to pass if US troops are to be withdraw. This "law" was to provide the equitable division of oil revenues between the three major players - Sunni, Shea, and Kurd. That's all well and good and the only part of the "law" that our brilliant Congressional folks understand. What they did not tell anybody about was the fact that Iraq had to turn over the majority of their oil revenues to western oil companies.
Now, if I have this right, if Iraq doesn't pass the Hydrocarbon Law, the U.S. will continue to kill them and destroy their country. If they pass the "law", then they have to turn over their wealth to the U.S.
Can anyone here spell EXTORTION?
"White House officials have said passage of the oil law is one of four major benchmarks they would like the Iraqi government to meet before fall."
Yeah, just in time for "Big Oil's" last quarter projection reports!
What a F*%#ing fiasco! This government is sickening!
What a piece of BS! You're right, the Times just airbrushed over the real issue.
You guys are not giving enough credit to Darth Cheney. He just figured that if the lion's share of the oil revenue goes to US and UK oil companies, then the Iraqis would not have much to fight about between themselves and that could resolve the issues causing the civil war. Absolutely brilliant.
The Iraqis cannot seem to recognize how wonderful the plan is. But Cheney figures that over time all the depleted uranium will give so many of them brain tumors that they will see the logic in his plan and vote to endorse it.
kivals May 3rd, 2007 6:05 pm
"The Iraqis cannot seem to recognize how wonderful the plan is. But Cheney figures that over time all the depleted uranium will give so many of them brain tumors that they will see the logic in his plan and vote to endorse it."
I'm still laughing, kivals.
Vince Lawrence, that's exactly what the NYT did. And the fact that they danced around it tells me they saw it, not as if they didn't know what's going on. So they're complicit. I think what we have here is a not very intrepid rep0orter who only dares hint at the truth, that if spoken out loud, would cost that reporter a job. I think this issue is exactly why the Iraqi parliament wants it's 2 month vacation. To try to negotiate a settlement out from public scrutiny. Wasn't that cute of Bremer to void all contracts prior to the upcoming one with Big Oil? This will be interesting.
Afraid I'm not laughing, kivals. My sense of humor is weak around DU. I'd rather drag these criminals into the International Criminal Court.
kathyodat and Gail,
It was an attempt at very dark humor. Cheney inspires that. And as a cancer survivor myself, I will venture to some dark places many others won't go. The DU use does not get nearly enough press, for it may be the most egregious of the war crimes being committed.
Hey kivals, kudos to you. As a nurse and a cancer survivor muself, I know about dark humor. I do agree with what you said about DU war crimes. After the first Gulf "war", my father, a retired physicist, said the Gulf Syndrome sure sounded like radiation poisoning and as a new nurse, I had to agree with him. Textbook symptoms. But he couldn't understand how depleted uranium could cause it. Well, now we know a lot more about how DU acts upon impact.
BTW, some years ago, Rumania was selling lead-free crystal water pitchers. I was very suspicious about what besides silicon dioxide was in those pitchers, having read that there was a movement afoot to make hardened kitchen utensils with depleted uranium.
I am so happy to read that one of Bush and Company's "benchmarks" is in jeopardy. The Iraqi people should not be forced to accept foreign control or ownership of their natural resources. I am glad the Kurds are skeptical as well as the Sunnis. This would truly be a huge blow to those who planned and fabricated the invasion of Iraq; a country that had never threatened or harmed a US citizen before this travesty.
If this Oil Law doesn't get passed, I wonder what other measures will be taken to make this happen? If it is rejected, then it will all have been a tremendous error and loss in lives, money, national image, national security, and our own countries very real needs all because the large oil companies want to control the huge amounts of easily extractable Iraqi oil.
Is this why Saddam was a threat to the United States?
If the Oil Law doesn't get passed it looks as if this country stays in Iraq until it does get turned over. Democracy my foot!
kathyodat,
You touch upon another topic that does not get nearly enough coverage, even in the progressive press, and that is the long-term costs of care for soldiers in Gulf War I and in Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) who were exposed to DU. These costs are going to be astronomical. Of course all the benefits of the wars go to the well-connected -- the oil companies, the arms manufacturers, those with rebuilding and services contracts (e.g. Halliburton), and the private security agencies (mercenaries like Blackwater) -- while the costs will be spread among the general population of the nation (basic Republican policy - privatize the profits and socialize the costs) as well as the Iraqi people. And as Bush moves to reduce or remove taxes on unearned income (which would affect his "base"), these costs will be shared among all of us who have to work for a living.
So glad Common Dreams ran this..I saw it this morning in the NY Times and wanted to write them about their twisted coverage, but the NYT doesn't make that easy over the net. I really hope the Iraqis refuse to pass this total rip-off and that they make a big stink and tell the world what the Americans are trying to do. Maliki must have been bought off big-time or else someone is holding a gun to his head.
ballerina,
I wonder how much of the "lost" $10 billion is being used to grease the skids for this deal (payoffs). There are absolutely no limits to the treachery, mendacity, cruelty, insensitivity, and greed of this criminal gang in charge.
Actually, either way, the oil companies win. As long as Iraqi oil is off the market, they can keep the prices as high as they want. And as long as the country is at war there will be profits for the war-profiteers.
ballerina is right- plus if any country nationalizes oil like Hugo Chavez just did all the corporate, intelligence, and military power will be used to see to it that it fails.
PEOPLE, WATCH THIS HAPPEN by w or any of the msm supported candidates.
Thanks ballerina. I hadn't made that connection.
I would like to add that the Hydrocarbon Law had the original purpose of equally sharing Iraq's oil revenues among the various factions there. And that is a good thing, particularly for the Sunnis. The original bill, however, was written in English by American oil interests and they slipped in the language about the oil contracts going to western companies. All the Iraqi's have to do is "strip" this language out of the legislation. That way they can meet the "benchmark" without giving away their oil. Now that the legislation has been translated into their native language, I'm sure the Iraqis will figure this out while they are on vacation.
My suspicion that my sense of humor is pathological was confirmed by the number of guffaws produced by some above comments.
My sense is that most Anericans (and many legislators) know very little about what's really at stake in the entire Iraq tragedy.
Also tragically the only path to individual, collective, and global redemption is immediate unrelenting impeachment of Bushies. The process must start with Cheney. He's most visible, most vulnerable, and most easily attacked by the less than completely courageous Washington crowd.
If the US finds itself incapable of telling Nancy P. that she speaks not for us but only for her political self, then my worst fears for grandchildren will be realized. UGH, YUK, and BARF!
jbwestwood, yeah tell me about it I have a 5 month old grandson myself.
Rebel Farmer, Greg Palast made that point about withholding Iraqi oil in his book, Armed Madhouse. He said that was the reason for going in, that Saddham was flooding the market and going around OPEC. In 2000, gas was $1.43/gal, well, we know what it is now. And I read the oil companies recently said it wouldn't go over $4/gal. Right.
Secondarily the oil companies see Iraq as an opportunity for them to become a part of OPEC, using Iraqi oil fields.
al Maliki doesn't need a gun to his head. The only reason he's still in office (and breathing) is the US presence. Once they're gone, he's gone. Meanwhile, he's on a tightrope, since his base is Sadr and his goons which the US wants Maliki to curb. He can't. The entire situation is FUBAR and WE did it. Bush is running a puppet government in Iraq and that's how it will be while we steal their oil, or so Bush thinks. I really don't know how it will turn out, but I don't think the Iraqis will settle for us stealing their assets, even if the puppets we call their government are agreeing for their own ends to it. And I do think we know which rathole that $10 billion disappeared into.
I also think the Dems are suspiciously ambivalent about giving up that oil as well. They certainly aren't touching that PSA benchmark.
I read that Bremer's last day in Iraq was spent signing 100 laws, which under their constitution (which we "helped" write) are binding and can't be rescinded, including oil sharing agreements. He also was very busy distributing pallets of money all over the place. I think the problem is the Iraqi parliament wants us there and cannot survive without us. Much as the puppet government of Saigon didn't want us to leave.
al Maliki does not control the legislature. And Sadr isn't going to allow the handover of Iraqi oil. Sistani won't go for it either. It really doesn't matter what the U.S. wants at this point because of the way the "benchmark" is written. As long as they share their oil revenues among their factions, Iraq has met the benchmark. Done.
If I were an Iraqi. I'd say, "Thanks a lot, but NO THANKS!!! - - - and while you're at it, get the _ _ _ _ out of here, and don't show your face anywhere near again!"