Al-Ghad

President Bush’s promised ‘new strategy’ was finally disclosed in his Address to the Nation, on 10 January 2007. The address was in reply to the report of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, which characterised the present situation in Iraq “grave, and deteriorating”, calling for an exit strategy from the mess created by the failure of the occupation of Iraq in 2003. The declared aim of Bush’s ‘new strategy’ was to secure Baghdad by deploying five additional American brigades with the support Iraqi forces, to end the resistance to the occupation and pacify the country.

As a military plan this new adventure was dismissed by the American military commanders in Iraq, the chiefs of staff and by the former highest American military leader in Europe, Gen. Wesley Clark, who summed up, in an article in The Independent On Sunday, 07 January 2007, the current military situation, by the following words:

“The situation in Baghdad departed from the well-laid plans of the pentagon planners long ago.”

However if the ‘new strategy’ can not be taken seriously from the military point of view, it may not ignored altogether, as it does allude to certain aspect of the overall Iraqi situation that are of decisive importance. Viewed from another angle, it does make some sense, which if overlooked could affect the present grave situation even more negatively. For there is some logic to the unfolding sequence of events since the appointment of the present government in Iraq, not withstanding the fact that Bush and his advisers proved to be incompetent and failed politicians.The sudden execution of Saddam and others, the violent activity in the country, the deep internal political crisis in the US itself, all point to a deep deterioration in the military, economic and political crisis that acquired a momentum of its own, which foretell imminent developments about to happen, or already happening, judging from the proliferation of crisis in several continents, all with a strong smell of oil and blood.. here are some samples relating to Iraq:

The Secret Dealings

* Portal Iraq, posted, on Dec. 27, 2006, news of the secret negotiations.

“Iraqi and U.S. officials have announced near agreement on a draft law that gives the central government in Iraq the authority to distribute oil revenues among Iraqi regions based on their population. A U.S. official said on condition of anonymity, that the committee working on the draft law for several months was comprised of ministers and politicians from Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish blocs, and has expedited its work recently.”

* More detailed reports and comments on the same subject were carried by The Independent On Sunday, 07 January 2007:

The paper disclosed an early copy of a secret draft oil agreement (of 40 page document) which was circulated to oil companies in July 2006. The final draft, with no significant changes is expected, to be submitted to parliament soon after being approved by the Iraqi Cabinet. On 15 Jan. the formation of a Federal Council for Iraq was announced. The present Iraqi government had already announced its intention to amend constitution for allowing foreign extraction of Iraqi oil giving Western companies access to the world’s second, if not first, largest oil reserves. The draft offers Production Sharing Agreement (PSA), lasting up to 30 years, with up to 75 per cent of Iraqi oil revenues to Western oil companies until recouping their initial investment costs. The loss to Iraq, if the project carried through, was estimated by experts to be about $200 billions.

Since oil revenues covers 95 per cent of Iraq’s income, passing the Law would practically mean depriving the Iraqi people of all their livelihood, it is a death sentence on the whole Iraqi people. This is not a theoretical danger but real and about to happen, if the Iraqi people are left in the dark, unaware of what is being planned to happen very, very soon.. And this is the real Bush’s ‘new strategy’.

Already he has made, in his January 10th address, two brief, but significant, references to this subject, though there no mention of the word, oil. In the first. He said:

“To established its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all the of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share revenues among all Iraqis.”

He is obviously referring here to the secret Law of Oil and Gas, being currently discussed by the Iraqi Cabinet, as announced by the Iraqi Oil Minister, Dr. Shahristani. This can be seen from his second reference of the American President in his address:

“We endorse the Iraqi government’s call to finalise an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform.”

It is not difficult to guess what lies behind this jargon. It is the opening up Iraq’s oil to foreign control.”legitimate questions must be asked” Said The Independent On Sunday in its article referred above.

“How did this decision come to be made? How much pressure was [Prime Minister] Nuri al-Maliki placed under to bend to the American corporate interests? Conservative US think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation has been plotting the whole sale privatisation of the Iraqi oil industry for years… Iraqis will reach the natural conclusion that, from the beginning, the Iraq adventure was an attempt to steal imperial spoils.”

* * *

American attempts to privatise Iraqi oil in order to hand it over to foreign companies are not new. Oil was and is, the Prize of the invasion of Iraq. The reason of American failure to secure the signature of an Iraqi government, so far, was due to Iraq’s people resistance. Bremer Privatised 200 state-owned companies, in 2003, and tendered “Iraq for Sale”, as al-Ghad denounced it at the time. However his attempt to grab Iraq’s oil failed due to that resistance. Another proposal advanced by Ahmed Chalabi did not go very far. It was, as disclosed by al-Ghad in 2003, to ship Iraq oil reserve to store in US Strategic Reserves, to be used as collateral to loans to the Iraq. After the failure of those attempts, the Americans were forced to state in “draft Iraqi constitution” they drafted that oil is national Iraqi property”.

The road was blocked for the legal privatisation of Iraqi oil, but not for long. The Americans did not give up, and a new attempt was made in 2004, this time using the framework of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the formation of the Club of Paris. In that international framework, Iraq’s ‘odious debts’ were to be cancelled and a financial arrangement was made to grab Iraq’s oil.

A Date with Destiny: End of December 2006

In Jan. 2005, before the appointment of the new Iraqi government, the IMF agreed to cancel 30 per cent of Iraq’s debt in exchange for Iraqi compliance with IMF conditioned economic policies. Nestled in the fine print, the agreement forces Iraq to pass an oil law be the end of Dec. 2006. (later to be the date set for the sudden execution of Saddam Hussein). Was it by mere chance that the two facts coincided? Perhaps, but then there is the logic to events.

Oil is the Prize of the invasion, losing Iraq’s oil is the real loss of the war. Now the fate of the draft oil law is in the balance. Bush worked hard to have that draft passed by the Iraqi Parliament giving the law a semblance of legitimacy. Securing Iraqi government’s signature on the oil agreement, could well shore up the president position, offering him a chance to claim an important victory.

President Bush had already made a surprise visit to Baghdad, in which oil had been one of the main subjects of discussion with the new Iraqi government [headed by Maliki] which took power in May 2006. After his return, he declared in a press conference on the White House lawn in June: “The oil belongs to the Iraqi people. It’s their asset […] We talked about how to advise the government to best use that money for the benefit of the people”.

Writing in (Foreign Policy In Focus) , August 28, 2006, G. Muttitt said :

“Last month, the administration and major oil companies reviewed and commented on a new law governing Iraq’s crucial oil sector, before it has even been seen by the Iraqi parliament.Violating the very notions of freedom and democracy Bush invokes in nearly every speech on Iraq, the U.S. government has actively intervened in the restructuring of Iraq’s oil industry since at least 2002.In October 2002, the State Department established a working group on oil and energy, as part of its “Future of Iraq” project. The project brought together influential exiled Iraqis with US government officials and international consultants. Later, some members of the group became part of the Iraqi government.”

On the other hand, there was the mid-term US Congress elections pointing to a probable defeat of the President’s party. Losing the election could well jeopardise the passage of the oil law by the Iraqi parliament, docile as it is. There was also the Baker Group’s report attacking many of the President policies, but sharing a stand on oil with the President. Indeed Baker, himself was the father of the Paris Club, and Iraq’s new oil law.

Bush was desperate, and could face censure if the Iraqi crisis aggravated. Winning the battle for Iraq’s oil, could offer him a way out. For this to succeed, however, he must find a way to divert attention from the delicate secret oil negotiations, as once this is exposed to Iraqi and world opinion, it could very well end up like the previous attempt in 2003. So it is not beyond Bush and his consultants to use a spectacular execution online of a former head of Iraq, as the most convenient exit strategy. This is thinly disguised in the White House message immediately after the execution:

“Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not end the violence in Iraq, but it is an important milestone on Iraq’s course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain, and defend itself, and be an ally in the war on terror.”

In the statement, the past acts, positive or negative, of the condemned were of no concern him, but only the future of Iraq as an American colony. Some observes have considered the signing of the execution as an exercise to grant the appearance of legitimacy to the Iraqi regime, enabling it to sign off the entirety of Iraq’s oil riches, and to facilitate amending the constitution for that end. Certainly the current behaviour does not discourage such accusations.

* * *

In support of this, one can point out the following sequence of events: Before November 2006 Saddam and the other accused were in high spirits confidently ridiculing the Iraqi court prosecuting them, turning its proceeding into something of a live circus. Indeed, the New York Times (Jan. 7, 2007) disclosed in a detailed report prepared by a group of its journalists, that Saddam was still hoping to escape the gallows until Friday 29th December, 2006, the day before the execution. The report said:

“When his cell lights were dimmed on Friday night, Mr. Hussein may have hoped that he would live a few days longer, and perhaps cheat the hangman altogether.According to Task Force 134, the American military unit responsible for Iraqi detainees, Mr. Hussein ‘had heard some of the rumour on the radio about potential execution dates’. But never one to underestimate his own importance, had told his lawyers for months that the Americans might spare him in the end, for negotiations to end the insurgency whose daily bombings rattled his cellblock windows.”

As a matter of fact efforts were made, by his lawyers and members of his family, to try him outside Iraq, as reported by al-Quds al-Arabi, (Jan. 8, 2007), Saddam had refused, according to the paper. The paper also reported that, he had told his lawyers: “President George Bush would execute him for voting considerations, on the eve of the elections.” As it happened the execution was not carried out then, but much later, negating connections with the mid-term elections on Nov. 7, 2006. According to (BBC. 15 Jan.) Primakov, who knew Saddam intimately, said that Saddam remained convinced that the Americans would never execute him, and that there was probably a deal between the two parties allowing the US forces to occupy Baghdad without resistance. The Republican Guards just vanished, he said.In this light it can be seen that Saddam’s trial, his execution and its aftermath were cynically manipulated to serve the interests of the intentional oil lobby. This may be not so evident, both for those who had suffered, or those who benefited, under his rule. But this fact has not escaped the notice and censure of those disinterested observers like, the eminent American Professor, Dr Francis A Boyle, who had close knowledge of the Neocons and their calculations. He said regarding Saddam’s trial and execution:

“The Death Penalty for him came down just before the November (U.S.) elections, the execution itself, the hanging, lynching, I don’t know what else you’d call it, was designed for political reasons. His execution under these circumstances violated the third Geneva convention of 1949. We had originally designated him as a prisoner of war, which the convention prohibited, setting up this kangaroo court proceeding that was run out of the White House.The trial was strictly controlled because had it not been, mountains of evidence would have poured forth detailing how criminal elements within the US government brought Saddam to power, maintained him in office, underwrote his tyranny, and rewarded his aggression.”Dr Boyle then said of the Neocons: “They encouraged the Israel “war”, massacre, whatever you want to call it against Lebanon, and Israel’s war massacre against the Palestinians, both this Summer. And now they are planning for a war against Iran, a bombing campaign that very well could turn into world war three.”

Dr Boyle suggested that the timing of the execution served two purposes, first it was a good way to try and get out of the press the fact that the 3000th dead US soldier in Iraq was fast approaching. Executing Saddam was orchestrated to try and distract public attention according to the Professor.

Secondly Dr Boyle believes the execution was rushed forward in order to intentionally stir up violence in the region and thus provide a pretext to send more troops into the middle east: “There is the other factor of deliberately stirring up animosity between the Shia and the and the Sunni, which this lynching was also designed to do.” Boyle said. He pointed out that the same philosophy is being used today as was used by the United States during the Iran/Iraq war, as Henry Kissinger said, ‘we want them all to kill each other off’.

Neo-Nazis Have Signed Us Onto WWIII,

Infowars.net, Friday, January 5, 2007

What Next?

As this article goes goes online, the first units of the military ’surge’ have landed in Baghdad, they promised to face the ‘Mahdi Army’ in the slums of Madinat al Sadr. However these moves came in the aftermath of fierce fighting in West Baghdad in which the US forces used tanks and air power, while the supreme commander of the US forces, Gen. Casey warned not to expect any early results in the forthcoming month or two. However the ‘Mahdi Army’ remains a principal target for the American new campaign.

Whatever the military fate of the pending US military deployments in Iraq, it is the battle against foreign oil companies which would decides the future of our country. Corrupt elements with millions being offered, and traitor organisations together with the American occupation forces, all are trying to force the oil law on the Iraqi people. Such a law, if forced through the docile Iraqi parliament, or through tricky means as happened during the debate on the extension of the UN mandate for the occupying forces last year. The version of the motion passed by the Parliament, did not reach the UN, as was disclosed by the Sadrist Current representatives in Parliament.

* * *

The Iraqi people demand that all drafts relating to Iraq’s oil industry be published, so that the Iraqi people are fully informed about their natural riches, which are the main sources of their livelihood, and the guaranty of the future generations. Those who conceal the facts from the people should be prosecuted, and meet the punishment they deserve.

The Iraqi people should not leave their fate to an illegitimate Parliament acting under the control of the foreign occupation forces. They should take their destiny in their own hands. They should unite, and resist the tricks of the occupation in fomenting sectarian strive, which is foreign to our country.

It is only through united patriotic mass action that the occupation and its lackeys will be defeated and Iraq liberated. Oil and all natural riches are the property of the all the Iraqi people.