[Texgreen] Iraq study group report - privatizing Iraq's oil

[Craig MIller]

Here is some related material ...

Craig Miller 

  Iraq Study Group Calls for Privatization of Iraq's Oil     
 
Dear Friends,
Significant media attention is being given to the Iraq Study Group Report. 
Absent from virtually all
analysis, however, is the fact that the Report calls for the privatization of
Iraq’s oil industry. 
Whether or not such privatization is achievable, the report makes clear that
U.S. intervention in
Iraq should continue until the country’s oil is “secure.”  It is vital that we
in the peace movement
continue to demand loudly and clearly the end of BOTH the military and CORPORATE
invasions of Iraq.

Below you’ll find a link to an interview I did today on this topic with Amy
Goodman on Democracy
Now!, it is followed by a piece released today on Alternet.org also discussing
the Iraq Study Group
Report and the privatization of Iraq’s oil.

In peace,
Antonia

http://www.democracynow.org/
Thursday, December 7th, 2006
Oil for Sale: Why the Iraq Study Group is Calling for the Privatization of
Iraq's Oil Industry

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3       
Watch 128k stream       Watch 256k stream 

Among its recommendations, the Iraq Study Group advised that Iraq privatize its
oil industry and to
open it up to international companies. Author and activist Antonia Juhasz writes
"Put simply, the oil
companies are trying to get what they were denied before the war or at anytime
in modern Iraqi
history: access to Iraq's oil under the ground."



--

Oil for Sale: Iraq Study Group Recommends Privatization
By Antonia Juhasz, AlterNet
Posted on December 7, 2006, Printed on December 7, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/45190/

In its heavily anticipated report released on Wednesday, the Iraq
Study Group made at least four truly radical proposals.

The report calls for the United States to assist in privatizing Iraq's
national oil industry, opening Iraq to private foreign oil and energy
companies, providing direct technical assistance for the "drafting" of
a new national oil law for Iraq, and assuring that all of Iraq's oil
revenues accrue to the central government.

President Bush hired the U.S. consultancy firm Bearing Point Inc. over
a year ago to advise the Iraq Oil Ministry on the drafting and passage
of a new national oil law. As previously drafted, the law opens Iraq's
nationalized oil sector to private foreign corporate investment, but
stops short of full privatization.

The ISG report, however, goes further, stating that "the United States
should assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as
a commercial enterprise." In addition, the current Constitution of
Iraq is ambiguous as to whether control over Iraq's oil should be
shared among its regional provinces or held under the central
government. The report specifically recommends the latter: "Oil
revenues should accrue to the central government and be shared on the
basis of population." If these proposals are followed, Iraq's national
oil industry will be privatized and opened to foreign firms, and in
control of all of Iraq's oil wealth.

The proposals should come as little surprise given that two authors of
the report, James A. Baker III and Lawrence Eagleburger, have each
spent much of their political and corporate careers in pursuit of
greater access to Iraq's oil and wealth.

"Pragmatist" is the word most often used to describe Iraq Study Group
co-chair James A. Baker III. It is equally appropriate for Lawrence
Eagleburger. The term applies particularly well to each man's efforts
to expand U.S. economic engagement with Saddam Hussein throughout the
1980s and early 1990s. Not only did their efforts enrich Hussein and
U.S. corporations, particularly oil companies, it also served the
interests of their own private firms.

On April 21,1990, a U.S. delegation was sent to Iraq to placate Saddam
Hussein as his anti-American rhetoric and threats of a Kuwaiti
invasion intensified. James A. Baker III, then President George H.W.
Bush's secretary of state, personally sent a cable to the U.S embassy
in Baghdad instructing the U.S. ambassador to meet with Hussein and to
make clear that, "as concerned as we are about Iraq's chemical,
nuclear, and missile programs, we are not in any sense preparing the
way for preemptive military unilateral effort to eliminate these
programs."*

Instead, Baker's interest was focused on trade, which he described as
the "central factor in the U.S-Iraq relationship." From 1982, when
Reagan removed Iraq from the list of countries supporting terrorism,
until August 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Baker and Eagleburger
worked with others in the Reagan and Bush administrations to
aggressively and successfully expand this trade.

The efficacy of such a move may best be described in a memo written in
1988 by the Bush transition team arguing that the United States
would have "to decide whether to treat Iraq as a distasteful
dictatorship to be shunned where possible, or to recognize Iraq's
present and potential power in the region and accord it relatively
high priority. We strongly urge the latter view." Two reasons offered
were Iraq's "vast oil reserves," which promised "a lucrative market
for U.S. goods," and the fact that U.S. oil imports from Iraq were
skyrocketing. Bush and Baker took the transition team's advice and ran
with it.

In fact, from 1983 to 1989, annual trade between the United States and
Iraq grew nearly sevenfold and was expected to double in 1990, before
Iraq invaded Kuwait. In 1989, Iraq became the United States'
second-largest trading partner in the Middle East: Iraq purchased $5.2
billion in U.S. exports, while the U.S. bought $5.5 billion in Iraqi
petroleum. From 1987 to July 1990, U.S. imports of Iraqi oil increased
from 80,000 to 1.1 million barrels per day.

Eagleburger and Baker had much to do with that skyrocketing trade. In
December 1983, then undersecretary of state Eagleburger wrote the U.S.
Export-Import Bank to personally urge it to begin extending loans to
Iraq to "signal our belief in the future viability of the Iraqi
economy and secure a U.S. foothold in a potentially large export
market." He noted that Iraq "has plans well advanced for an additional
50 percent increase in its oil exports by the end of 1984."
Ultimately, billions of loans would be made or backed by the U.S.
government to the Iraqi dictator, money used by Hussein to purchase
U.S. goods.

In 1984, Baker became treasury secretary, Reagan opened full
diplomatic relations with Iraq, and Eagleburger became president of
Henry Kissinger's corporate consultancy firm, Kissinger Associates.

Kissinger Associates participated in the U.S.-Iraq Business Forum
through managing director Alan Stoga. The Forum was a trade
association representing some 60 American companies, including
Bechtel, Lockheed, Texaco, Exxon, Mobil, and Hunt Oil. The Iraqi
ambassador to the United States told a Washington, D.C., audience in
1985, "Our people in Baghdad will give priority -- when there is a
competition between two companies -- to the one that is a member of
the Forum." Stoga appeared regularly at Forum events and traveled to
Iraq on a Forum-sponsored trip in 1989 during which he met directly
with Hussein. Many Kissinger clients were also members of the Forum
and became recipients of contracts with Hussein.

In 1989, Eagleburger returned to the state department now under
Secretary Baker. That same year, President Bush signed National
Security Directive 26 stating, "We should pursue, and seek to
facilitate, opportunities for U.S. firms to participate in the
reconstruction of the Iraqi economy, particularly in the energy area."

The president then began discussions of a $1 billion loan guarantee
for Iraq one week before Secretary Baker met with Tariq Aziz at the
state department to seal the deal.

But once Hussein invaded Kuwait, all bets were off. Baker made a
public plea for support of military action against Hussein, arguing,
"The economic lifeline of the industrial world runs from the Gulf and
we cannot permit a dictator such as this to sit astride that economic
lifeline."

Baker had much to gain from increased access to Iraq's oil. According
to author Robert Bryce, Baker and his immediate family's personal
investments in the oil industry at the time of the first Gulf War
included investments in Amoco, Exxon and Texaco. The family law firm,
Baker Botts, has represented Texaco, Exxon, Halliburton and Conoco
Phillips, among other companies, in some cases since 1914 and in many
cases for decades. (Eagleburger is also connected to Halliburton,
having only recently departed the company's board of directors). Baker
is a longtime associate and now senior partner of Baker Botts, which
this year, for the second year running, was recipient of "The
International Who's Who of Business Lawyers Oil & Gas Law Firm of the
Year Award," while the Middle East remains a central focus of the
firm.

This past July, U.S. Energy Secretary Bodman announced in Baghdad that
senior U.S. oil company executives told him that their companies would
not enter Iraq without passage of a new national oil law. Petroleum
Economist magazine later reported that U.S. oil companies put passage
of the oil law before security concerns as the deciding factor over
their entry into Iraq.

Put simply, the oil companies are trying to get what they were denied
before the war or at anytime in modern Iraqi history: access to Iraq's
oil under the ground. They are also trying to get the best deal
possible out of a war-ravaged and occupied nation.

However, waiting for the law's passage and the need to guarantee
security of U.S. firms once they get to work, may well be a key factor
driving the one proposal by the Iraq Study Group that has received
great media attention: extending the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq
at least until 2008.

As the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group are more thoroughly
considered, we should remain ever vigilant and wary of corporate war
profiteers in pragmatist's clothing.


 


                    Inbox       

 Print View     Download message     View full header     Attach note   





________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag


---- On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Roger Baker (rcbaker@eden.infohwy.com) wrote:

[This is by an Austin peace activist now living in Ireland. -- Roger]



Analysis of the Assessment and External recommendations of the
Iraq Study Group
doug foxvog

[An analysis of Section II B, "The Internal Approach: Helping
Iraqis Help Themselves" will be published in a separate article]

The Iraq Study Group Report came out today. It provides a lot
of information about the US war on Iraq, but ends up with several
faulty reccomendations.

They report:
* the situation is deteriorating.
* The ability of the United States to shape outcomes is diminishing.
Time is running out.
* The global standing of the United States could suffer if Iraq descends
further into chaos.
* none of the operations conducted by U.S. and Iraqi military forces are
fundamentally changing the conditions encouraging sectarian violence
* U.S. forces seem to be caught in a mission that has no forseeable end.
* the United States has spent roughly $400 billion on the Iraq
War, and the consts are running about $8 billion per month.
* Estimates run as high as $2 trillion for the final cost of the
U.S. involvement in Iraq.

This cost is almost $7,000 for each resident of the United States.

The report included some facts that most in the U.S. are unaware of:
* the United States and Iran cooperated in Afghanistan.
However, they fail to note that Syria assisted the U.S. in the Global
War on Terror, including by torturing a suspect kidnapped by the CIA
and "rendered" to Syria.

The Iraq Study Group is concerned that the ethnic conflicts that have
broken out in Iraq (due to our invasion and occupation) could spread
to neighboring countries. This would harm the U.S. because, as they so
delicately put it:
* If the instability in Iraq spreads to other Gulf States, a drop in oil
production and exports could lead to a sharp increase in the price of
oil and thus could harm the global economy.

They Iraq Study Group recognizes that the U.S. public opposes the war:
* Sixty-six percent of Americans disapprove of the government's handling
of the war.
as does the Iraqi public:
* 79 percent of Iraqis have a "mostly negative" view of the influence  
that
the Unied States has in their country.
* Sixty-one percent of Iraqis approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces.
* [The Sunni Arab resistance] has significant support within the Sunni
Arab community.

However, they make it clear that the war is about US hegemony:

* Perceived failure [in Iraq] could diminish America's credibility and
influence in a region that is the center of the Islamic world and vital
to the world's energy supply. This loss would reduce America's global
influence ...
* the longer that U.S. political and military resources are tied down in
Iraq, the more the chances for American failure in Afghanistan increase.

The Iraq Study group does accept some of the Bush Administration's far-
fetched claims.
-- They evidently do not consider us an occupying power,
since they write, "[i]f the Iraqis continue to perceive Americans as
representing an occupying force".
-- They claim, "Iraq is a sovereign state".
-- Even though the International Atomic Energy Commission's  
inspectors have
found no evidence and the US government have produced none, the  
report claims
(also citing no evidence) that Iran "is on a path to producing  
nuclear weapons."

The reports appears to try to mislead the reader on who is involved in
the resistance to occupation:
* The [Sunni Arab] insurgency comprises former elements of the Saddam
Hussein regime, disaffected Sunni Arab Iraqis, and common criminals.
Since Sunni Arabs who are contented with the current regime would not  
be part
of the resistance, all Iraqi members of the Sunni Arab resistance would
fit in the second category. This first category is included in the
second and need not be mentioned. It's possible that some of the Sunni
Arab common criminals might be non-Iraqis, but they are basicly included
in the "disaffected Sunni Arab Iraqis" catch-all. The only thing that
this sentence tells us is that the Sunni Arab insurgency does not  
contain
significant amounts of foreigners.

Their analysis of "U.S.-Led Reconstruction Efforts" is disingenuous.
They report that:
* The United States has appropriated a total of about $34 billion to  
support
the reconstruction of Iraq....
* Nearly $16 billion has been spent, and almost all of the funds have  
been
committed.
They do not note that much of these funds were spent for "security"  
for the
"reconstruction" effort as opposed to actual construction. They do  
not report
that auditors have been unable to account for how billions of these  
dollars have
been spent. They do not provide any figures on what reconstruction  
has been
done, nor what structures now exist in Iraq as a result of the  
reconstruction
effort. What portion of this is investment in petroleum export  
infrastructure?
What portion was spent repairing schools, hospitals, and water treatment
facilities? What portion was spent for Halliburton (and others)  
importing
gasoline and food from Kuwait?

They discuss three major viewpoints in Iraq, but mislead in calling them
"sectarian" since one of the viewpoints is that of Iraqi Kurds, who  
do not
have a sectarian difference with the Sunni Arabs.

Some of the figures included in the report just seem wrong. They  
report that
"[t]here are roughly 5,000 civilian contractors in the country" just  
days after
a leaked US government report documented that there are around  
100,000. The
report states that "[a]pproximately 141,000 U.S. military personnel  
are serving
in Iraq" while news reports say the number is 150,000.

The report states that "[n]one of Iraq's neighbors ... see it in  
their interest
for the situation in Iraq to lead to aggrandized regional influence  
by Iran."
Since they do realize that Iran is one of Iraq's neighbors, this must  
mean that
Iran does not see it in its own interest to have its regional influence
aggrandized -- or else this is just sloppy writing.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Although the Iraq Study Group claims that it "has carefully  
considered the
full range of alternative approaches for moving forward", it dismisses a
rapid withdrawal by only discussing a "precipitate withdrawal of  
troops AND
SUPPORT". It doesn't examine an immediate halt to offensive actions and
return to base, a withdrawal negotiated with the resistance and Iraqi
government, and a commitment to years of reconstruction/reparations  
funding.

The Iraq Study Group agrees with what it calls "THE goal of U.S.  
policy in
Iraq" [Emphasis added]: "an Iraq that can 'govern itself, sustain  
itself, and
defend itself.'" Of course, this was the state of affairs before the  
U.S.
invasion, although only marginally so due to the sanctions. It goes  
without
saying that the desired ability to defend itself does not cover  
defense against
the U.S. They go on to state that this goal entails additional goals  
that are
far harder to achieve: "a broadly representative government", "denies  
terrorism
a sanctuary", and "doesn't brutalize its own people".

The first recommendation is a "New Diplomatic Offensive". I suppose  
that they
included the word "Offensive" to appeal to the Bush Administration  
hawks, but
i consider the word offensive.

They recommend a meeting in Baghdad of the Orgainization of the Islamic
Conference and/or of the Arab League, without recognizing that such a  
meeting
could not take place until the country has become peaceful again.  
There is
no way that heads of state or even foreign ministers would gather  
together
in such a dangerous location. One might argue that the Green Zone  
would be
secure enough for such a meeting to take place, but this ignores the  
fact that
many countries would not find holding such a meeting in what is in  
effect a
huge U.S. military base to be totally unacceptible.

They suggest that Saudi Arabia "could ... cancel the Iraqi debt owed  
them."
Strange how it was so important for Iraq under sanctions to pay this  
debt,
but now that the U.S. has to fund the Iraqi government, it should be  
cancelled.

They recommend the creation of an Iraq Support group including all  
the countries
bordering Iraq, the five permanent Security Council members Egypt,  
and the Gulf
States. They expect Iran to decline to participate, which "would  
demonstrate to
Iraq and the rest of the world Iran's rejectionist attitude and  
approach, which
could lead to its isolation."

They recommend that Israel return the Golan Heights to Syria in  
exchange for
peace, but they fail to recommend that Israel return all Palestinian
territory captured in the 1967 war to Palestine in exchange for peace  
on that
front.

They recommend additional military "support" for the Afghan government,
"including resources that might become available as combat forces are  
moved
from Iraq."

************************************************************************ 
***

-- 
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@foxvog.org http://ProgressiveAustin.org

"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
=============================================================

_______________________________________________
texgreen mailing list
texgreen@lists.gp-us.org
http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/texgreen