Al-Ghad

This is an English summary of the statement of the Iraqi Communist Party (CL) published in the previous post:

The statement is an urgent warning that the Occupying Forces are preparing, in the coming hours, a vast massacre of the Sadr-City people, having been defeated by the uprising of the people of Basra. The Basra uprising had ignited a series of uprisings by the Iraqi people in many cities, especially by the by the people of Sadr-City, the bastion of millions of the deprived masses. In solidarity with the people of Basra, the people of Sadr-City showered the Green Zone - the seat of the American Embassy and the Maliki puppet Government - with rockets and mortars. According to press reports, 700 projectiles were fired at the Green Zone during April, making an average of one rocket per hour.

This had made life uncomfortable if not impossible to the occupiers and their puppets, and showed the US giant to be powerless in facing a people determined to gain their freedom. The US had to appeal to Iran to find a way out of its predicament.

After gaining time through this humiliating deal the US turned its fury against the people of Sadr-City who continued their fire on the Green Zone making hiding in underground shelters a norm of life. Another Iraqi delegation was dispatched to Iran, under the pretext of confronting Iranian officials with evidence of smuggled Iranian weapons to Iraq. It includes of the same persons who negotiated the ceasefire of Basra. Their aim is to secure a cover for the imminent massacre.

The occupiers have decided to implement the Israeli style ghettos of imprisoning people in concrete walls. When this didn’t solve their problem, they came to the idea of mass slaughter of the whole of Sadr-City, using mass bombing, rockets and heavy artillery against a civil population.

The Statement said that Sadr Current has its main popular base in the harsh slums of Sadr-City, and is in some ways like phenomenon of Hezbollah in Lebanon which had its origins in the slums of Dhahia in Beirut. Both became the strong nuclei round which the poor and disposed rallied, together with those of varied patriotic inclinations. The two had developed into bastions of the mass movements.

The Statement called upon the Iraqi people to continue the struggle, and to the people of Sadr-City. It concluded that the Iraqi people are facing dire dangers which can not be faced successful in the absence of broad national unity. Victory in this great struggle is fully dependent on that unity.

(Since this was written, it does seem now that the massacre has already started. It was just announced that the only functioning hospital in Sadr-City was destroyed by heavy American bombing. 20 people were wounded and dozens of ambulances were destroyed.)

On March 19th, 2008, the day after Vice President Richard Cheney’s unannounced visit to Iraq, events for the battle for Basra started to take off. The Jerusalem Post (March 20, 2008) welcomed the results of the visit with a whiff of ecstasy:

“US Vice President Richard Cheney visit to Iraq on the fifth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom was given scant coverage in the media. And yet it may go down in history as a pivotal moment in the transformation of post-Saddam Iraq into a beacon of democracy and freedom in the Arab world.
Hours after Cheney’s departure, the Iraqi presidency council announced that it had approved the Iraqi parliament’s elections law. The long-awaited act will facilitate Iraq’s development into a federal state and so cement the grassroots-level political progress that has made such strides in the last year as a result of the revised US counter-insurgency or “surge” campaign.”

Shortly After Cheney’s departure, Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki ,suddenly appeared in Basra to declare a curfew in the port city and issue a deadline of 72 hours for the people of Basra to surrender their arms. He ordered the occupation of the city deploying a military force of thirty thousand, with support of American Navy jets, and British military helicopters, tanks and artillery. President Bush hailed Maliki’s offensive as marking a “defining moment” for Iraq’s history.

Halfway through the 72 hours Maliki had to eat his own words. His threat ended in a resounding flop. In the short encounter Maliki “blinked first”, in the words of the BBC. The Cheney-Maliki saga, was like a replay of the five years of US occupation of Iraq: starting with a huge fanfare, and ending, most times, in disgrace. But it is the unfortunate fate of the Iraqi people to pay the heavy price in blood for American madness and the treacherous puppet government.

Satisfying the Oil Companies

There is now mounting evidence that Maliki’s “sudden” offensive on Basra was decided during Cheney’s visit to Baghdad. Cheney was present in Baghdad, at a press conference called by Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of the occupying forces in Iraq. Oddly enough Petraeus said that he was speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to call on the major Western oil companies to invest in Iraq’s energy sector, as Iraq looks outside to boost oil, gas and power production. He said: “The prime minister is very keen on getting large Western corporations re-engaged in the oil and electricity sectors.” (UPI, Ben Lando, March 18, 2008).

Why it was left to General Petraeus to speak on behalf of the prime minister of occupied Iraq in the presence of the US Vice President and the American Ambassador was not explained. But it was obvious that the major oil companies need strong military backing to enter into huge investment and long-term projects. The UPI report also pointed out:

“if deals were to be signed there’s no guarantee the companies will send money, let alone people, to Iraq until the security situation improves.”

Later on Shell, which is actively working to secure entry in exploiting Iraq’s rich natural resources, publicly expressed such condition. Its chief executive declared:

“We are very much prepared to go back to Iraq … But first, Shell employees must be able to work safely in the country and a petroleum law must be passed”.

(Reuters, April 1, 2008). Other major oil companies must have been reluctant to sign even limited oil agreements called “Technical Support Agreement”, TSAs, and that they would prefer to wait for the big deals of Production Sharing Agreements, PSA’s.

These calculations seem to be confirmed by Charles Ries, U.S. State Department minister for economic affairs and coordinator for economic transition in Iraq. He said the proposed Oil Law isn’t necessary for Iraq to produce oil “but it would clearly be much, much better and incentivize private investment to help Iraq produce more if a bill would pass.”

Operation Knights Charge

It is clear U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney came to Iraq Monday March 17, to make sure everything was in order, as there was no time to waist. To secure passing of the Oil Law and pacify the regions of the oil fields, Basra had to be under total control. Here comes “Operation Knights Charge”.

This operation was, for months, under preparation by the British forces occupying Basra. The Daily Telegraph (Sat. March 29. 2008), disclosed the plan, but it was over-ruled by the US during Cheney’s visit to Baghdad. The paper said:

“In preparation for Operation Knights Charge, British forces spent months training Iraqi soldiers in urban warfare. Basra was where Mr Maliki was to prove that Baghdad had the control over the whole country.”

The British were furious as they were ignored. Writing in the Sunday Times, March 30, 2008, Professor Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute, said: ”This battle of Basra, say British military spokesmen, is what we have been working for.” Explaining the different agendas of the two powers in Iraq, he said: “Britain and the United States have been fighting different wars in Iraq since they crossed the start line in March 2003. America’s war will go on. Britain’s war may in effect end with a victory for Iraqi forces in and around Basra… If this was the battle the British have been working for, they did not want it now.”

The writer explained what happened:

“General Mohan, commander of the Iraqi 14th Division in Basra _ the unit at the heart of the fighting – may have been planning an operation like this for later in the year but Maliki summarily arrived in Basra, swept aside and started it immediately. General David Petraeus, the US commander, had merely hours’ notice of the operation, the British none at all. Far from acting under British advice, Maliki has done his best to ignore UK commanders and is working with the US corps commander at his side.”

What happened next is well known. It was the courage of the Iraqi masses, the impoverished and the deprived, rallying around the Sadrist Current, that defeated the US and British armies together with their air forces, not only in Basra but also in Baghdad and other cities of Iraq. Maliki and his US masters have gambled and lost, making it sure that what the fate of US invasion would be. In the words of the Daily Telegraph, quoted above: “Mr Maliki is gambling not only with his country’s future but also the fate of America’s intervention in the Middle East.”

As a kind of post mortem*, the Wall Street Journal (April 1, 2008), quoted Vali Nasr, a scholar who has advised US policy makers: “President Bush was right that Basra marked a defining moment for Iraq, but not in the way that he intended.” adding: “This is the birth of Sadrist power.”

Al-Ghad

(*) The Uprising of Basra, Baghdad and the rest of Iraq truly marked a defining moment. Al-Ghad hopes to publish a series of comments about the New Iraq.

Al-Ghad is publishing, below, this important document, both in Arabic and English, by the prominent Iraqi oil expert, Mr. Fouad Qasim Al Amir. The document was a paper prepared by Mr. Al Amir, to be read at the Iraqi Oil Seminar, scheduled to be held in Paris on 25 - 27, February 2008.

However, Mr Fouad Al Amir is unable to attend the Seminar due to unforeseen circumstances beyond his control. The author wished to have the paper available to those attending the Seminar, and those who are interested in the Iraqi Oil problem, especially those sympathetic to the rational and patriotic view regarding that thorny problem.

Al-Ghad

An Opinion Opposing the Draft Oil Law (Arabic)

An Opinion Opposing the Existing Draft Iraqi Oil & Gas Law

by Fouad Alamir

It is clear now, and we are at the end of the fifth year of occupation, that the reasons announced by USA for the war were completely untrue, and the main reason, which was not announced, was Iraqi oil, a fact knows for many who were following the Iraqi affair then. Lot of articles, books, debates and analyses were performed in the last five years, in USA and other countries emphasizing the oil reason. Here we are not going to repeat this, but we are going to point out those that are connected to this paper.
Read more »

Al-Ghad is pleased to publish a new major study by the prominent Iraqi oil expert Mr. Fouad Qasim Al Amir, written in Arabic. It is our wish to publish an English
translation soon.

Al-Ghad

KRG and the Iraqi Oil Law (Arabic)

Sixty Iraqi oil experts, representing a broad political spectrum, sent a letter to the Speaker and Members of Iraqi Parliament and to Dr. H. Shahrastani, Iraqi Minister of Oil. The letter denounced the actions taken by the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in signing production sharing agreements, including some outside the territories of the KRG, and supporting the stance taken by the Oil Ministry and the oil & gas parliamentarian committee. This is a bright example of the rising solidarity among wide sections of Iraq society against US occupation and the greedy international oil companies to deprive the Iraqi people of theit natural resources.

This brave joint action of the top Iraqi oil professionals representing a wide range of political currents of Iraqi society, should be heeded by all members of the Iraqi Parliament and supported by the Iraqi people.

Click on “Read More” for the full text of the letter in English and Arabic.
Read more »

According to the Iraqi Prime Minister, Mr. Maliki, the Iraqi Draft Oil Law sent to Parliament in July, 2007 should have already been passed and signed, albeit in an amended form, to suit all concerned, especially the U.S. and Mr Bush. So far, this could still happen but, according to well-informed sources, Maliki is finding increasing resistance in Parliament. Even his close advisers seem to have cold feet regarding passing the Draft Law. Be that as it may, the most likely outcome would be stalling or rejection. This dawning realisation has already changed the atmosphere in Capital Hill, Washington. Suddenly the Democrats abandoned their aggressive posture of breaking-up Iraq into three sectarian enclaves, and demanded the passing of the Draft Oil Law by Iraqi Parliament as a “benchmark” of its good behaviour. But, by November 14th the House of Representatives, sensing the drastically changed situation forgot its benchmarks and the breaking-up exercise, and approved a Bill linking Bush’s war funds to troop withdrawals from Iraq by the end of next year. Meanwhile the State Department hinted it no longer insists on passing the Draft Oil Law. What has happened is too large to pass unnoticed. It all came as if in a ripple effect linking Iraq, the Kurdish Question, Turkey, Pakistan and, last but not least, Iran:

First, the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), signed in a rush several oil deals, the last of which is part of the giant Kirkuk oilfield, forming part of its ‘Third Dome’. Kirkuk is facing a plebiscite to decide its fate by the end of this year, according to the US drawn Iraqi Constitution. This plebiscite, and its possible results seem to be the first casualty of the new series of crises. The other KRG deal was with Reliance Industries, India’s largest company. This made it quite difficult for Maliki and his Oil Minister Hussain Al-Shahristani to swallow, but it provided a convenient alibi to stall on the Draft Oil Law and about Kirkuk which was already raised by influential officials of the ruling party in Baghdad.

Second, came the Turkish crisis: Apparently, this seems to have cooled down. But in reality the apparent relaxation is deceptive, and may be deliberately so. As both Turkey and the US probably trying to keep what is happening, or what is planned to happen away from the headlines. There are now one hundred thousand soldiers on the Northern Iraqi-Turkish border. Where they will enter in force in Iraqi territory is not yet clear, although a senior Turkish general in the area said: “We are in the process of implementing the cross-border operation”, (Reuters Nov. 15).

In such situation where all involved parties avoid disclosing their actions or intentions, it is difficult to get the truth of what is happening. A web site, quoted “Iraqi Kurdish sources” , as it claimed, that Iran started building a security wall on its border with Iraqi Kurdish region while continuing bombarding the frontier area. The same source reported that Turkey has threatened to build a similar, 400 km long, dividing wall on its border with Iraq. While this report may well be just hearsay, there is no doubt that Saudi Arabia has already received tenders from two America companies to build a 900 km barbed wire border fence, costing 5.33 bn dollars, as reported by Iraq Directory, Nov. 2.

A more serious Turkish scheme is an article published in the Turkish newspaper, Today’s Zaman, on 12, Nov. It was written by Professor M. E. Çağıran of Gazi University, entitled “Coercive economic measures against northern Iraq: Are they the best choice?” Whether they are or not, the author hints they could be. He said that a decision was made by the National Security Council (MGK) meeting on Oct. 26, brought up another alternative in addition to others discussed. The decision stressed: “The political and military measures in accordance with the motion have been discussed. It is hereby decided that the cabinet be given recommendations on economic measures that need to be taken vis-a-vis the groups supporting the separatist terrorist organisation in the region.” The author, concludes by asking: “Will the economic measures by Turkey make the [Kurdish] regional administration take effective action? As I noted earlier, at first glance, it appears that the measures will work out. however, a more thorough analysis will suggest that proceeding with economic measures against northern Iraq will involve unbearable risks.” Risks to whom, is not hard to guess.

Third, Pakistan’s crisis has not had a direct result of the Iraqi situation, but the American leadership has managed to achieve the impossible: joining all these shattering crises together and all at the same time! These crises are still unfolding, and it would rash to conclude what and when the end would be. Writing at the beginning of the crisis on Nov. 7, David Ignatius, in an article entitled “In Pakistan, Echoes of Iran“, said: “As we struggle to make sense of the current political crisis in Pakistan, it’s useful to think back nearly 30 years to the wave of protests that toppled the shah of Iran and culminated in the Islamic Republic - a revolutionary earthquake whose tremors are still shaking the Middle East.”

This is not the end, there is more to come. Bush administration officials already “are losing faith that the Pakistani president… can survive and have begun discussing what comes next, according to senior adminstration officials.” (New York Times Nov. 14).

Fourth, Iran: As the Bush administration makes a lot of noise about the recent drop in US military loses, the whole world is watching and waiting with suspense when the American and Israeli bombers will start their attacks. AP had a report on Nov. 16, with an incredible title: “Roadside bombs waning in Iraq; Iran lauded”. The report explained: “Iran seems to be honouring a commitment to stem the flow of deadly weapons into Iraq, contributing to more than 50-percent drop in the number of roadside bombs that kill and maim American troops, a US general said yesterday.” The general in question is James Simmons, a deputy commander of Multinational Corps-Iraq. According to the AP report, he said the number of roadside bombs had fallen from 3,239 in March to 1,560 last month. Simmons also said the decline included all types of roadside bombs, including highly lethal “explosively formed penetrators” - the signature weapon of Shia extremists. U.S. authorities have insisted that penetrator bombs come from Iran.

The report also said: “Earlier this month, Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Iranians had apparently assured Iraq’s government they would stop the flow of weaponry. ‘We believe that the commitments … appear to hold up,’ Simmons said yesterday.” So, after all, the drop in U.S. military losses was not so much the “success” of the surge in American forces, but thanks to Iraq’s government and Iran’s “cooperation”.

All the host of crises have brought about the confused and confusing U.S. leadership, it is becoming apparent that the American project is disintegrating and falling apart, its clients are in disarray, its economy is in serious trouble, American public confidence in its rulers nearing the bottom … Iraq Oil and its Draft Law becoming out of reach, while oil prices broke all time records. So what is the response of the U.S. to all this?

Their response is summed up in a report in the Washington Post, on Nov. 15, written at Camp Liberty, Iraq:

“Senior military commanders here now portray the intransigence of Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias.”

Al-Ghad

In its exclusive report on September 20th, 2007, Al-Ghad disclosed that the, still secret, terms of the deal between the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) and Hunt Oil intrudes into disputed regions in the province of Ninevah, which covers the important Jabel Kand Structure.

Reports now add that the deal includes two more structures in the same governorate. They are the Fajir and Nerjis structures, both of which fall outside the jurisdiction of the KRG. This is in addition to other areas that fall in the KRG disputed areas which are due to be subject to the referendum on the areas around Kirkuk. The referendum is scheduled to be held in November, but now might be delayed due to two new factors.

The first is that the Iraqi Oil minister, Dr Shahristani, has declared these deals signed by the KRG to be illegal, and threatened to blacklist the foreign companies that signed them. This dispute has also overflowed into other disputes that further delayed the passing of the Draft Oil Law.

The second has an international and military dimentions, involving the PKK clash with Turkish forces, and at the same time the passing by a high US Government Committee of a strong reslolution condemning Turkey’s “Genocide of the Armenians” in 1915. While it is not clear that there was any relation between these two problems, their coincidence could have explosive results, linking the Oil Problem with military conflicts.

See also: an interview by MEES with Dr Isam Al-Chalabi. (published with permission of Dr. Chalabi):

Interview with Issam Chalabi on KRG & Hunt Oil

The Iraqi Communist Party-Central Leadership, Calls for National Unity to Defeat Partition & Occupation

The Iraqi Communist Party (ICP-CL), in a statement on 30 September 2007, condemned US Senate’s motion to partition Iraq on sectarian and ethnic lines. The party called for national unity, and proposes to form a united front by pateriotic parties to oppose partition and put an end the occupation of the country. The statement said that Senator Biden’s motion has already backfired. It was condemned by the great majority of the Iraqi people and the political personalities, including high-ranking officials of the US installed government. Among those who opposed the US Senate motion are the two vice-presidents of the Iraq, and the representatives of 8 parties and organisations, represented in Iraq Parliament.

The statement said that the motives behind the Senate’s motion is the realisation that the war on Iraq has reached a dead end. US forces in Iraq are exhausted and are facing un-glorious defeat, and the US might end up “having to go to a draft”, (Fox News, Sept.16.07). The Party’s statement quotes Biden’s word (Meet The Press Sept. 9.07) warning of a familiar end:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you what you said in Iowa last week. “If we do not change course in Iraq soon, you’re going to see, two years from now, helicopters hovering over our embassy in the Green Zone in Baghdad with people hanging” onto “the ladders just like Vietnam. Mark my words.”

SEN. BIDEN: Absolutely, positively, unequivocally, I believe that.

The Party’s statement concluded that the proposed United Front should be comprehensive and democratic, and should not be limited in its action to political action, though this must be of supreme importance, but it should tackle the serious security state of the country. There should be two unified sections of national defence. The first is Popular Defence Forces, and the second is Regular Armed Forces, each should be under unified command. This is to end the current chaos and bloodshed, on the one hand, to grantee peace, democracy, independence, and forestall any coups like those that created the Saddam regime.

Al-Ghad

Arabic statement conitnues below: Read more »

The Federation of Iraqi oil workers unions issued a statement replying to “vicious attacks” by hired writers who came to Iraq with occupiers, and who knew nothing of the difficult situation in the country and the dangerous conditions under which the Oil Workers Union carried the struggle to safeguard the oil installations against destruction and theft of oil. At the same time they organised the first workers strike against the KBR Company which was guarded by American and British tanks, to win back oil workers’ rights. The statement also denounced those who carry “dual nationality”, and who started their vicious attacks even before stepping on Iraqi soil. The statement rebutted accusation that the unions were under the influence of Kuwait declaring that the Oil Workers Unions were the first to demand that Kuwait should stop its theft of Iraqi oil from the frontier oil wells. The only ‘misdeed’ the unions committed was its criticism of and opposition to the Draft Oil Law. It is apparent that the Minister of Oil and Mr Al Mayahi are dissatisfied with our critique and they seem to think that Iraqis have no right of discussion.

* * *

The Arabic version of the statement is below

Al-Ghad

Read more »