Al-Amir US-Iraq Agreement Study (Arabic)

This is an important study of 73 pages, of the proposed security agreement between US and the Iraqi Government, by the prominent Iraqi commentator and oil expert, By Fouad Qasim Al-Amir. The author has published several important studies on the subject of occupied Iraq, mainly on the oil question in Iraq and of the subject of world energy.

Mr Al-Amir starts his study by alluding to the fact that despite the importance of the US-Iraqi agreement there is almost complete absence of official details of the proposed agreement, with the result that the author had to base his analysis and conclusions, on what has been leaked by the press and the incomplete and misleading pronouncements of US and Iraqi officials. However, the author’s unique knowledge of the country, of the oil problem and his contacts with those interested in the Iraqi affairs, compensates some of the gabs in the closely guarded subject.

He discussed, in several chapters, the relevance of Section 7, of the UN charter to Iraq, both during Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait, and that of the US, of Iraq. One of the main themes in this regards is US posture to claim that it is making a favour to Iraq by felicitating its release from the restrictions of Section 7, by Iraq signing the proposed Security Agreement. He showed that those restrictions of UN Resolution 1483, on 22 May, 2003, had been placed to define, and restrict, the US unlawful occupation of Iraq which is a victim of unlawful occupation. The author points out in many places in the study, that it is the US who is the restricted party by Section7, not Iraq.

Then the study points out the US attempt to mislead Iraqi and international public opinion in mixing-up the case of Saddam’s occupation of Kuwait in 1990, with that of US of Iraq. Here US logic turns the victim into an aggressor, and vice versa.

Towards the end of the study the author refers to the probability of US attacking Iran in the hope of escaping its failure in Iraq and the region. Mr Al-Amir warns of the serious consequences of such action and its probable results. After this the author discusses the role of the Kurdish parties, their shaky position, and the attitude of its leaders towards the situation in Iraq and the proposed US-Iraq agreement.

This Study should be read by all those interested in fate of Iraq, the region and the world.

Al-Ghad

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.)

بيان الحزب الشيوعي العراقي – القيادة المركزية

يا جماهير شعبنا الصابرة

تعدّ قوات الاحتلال، هذه الساعات، مجزرة كبرى تغرق فيها ما تبقى من مدينة الصدر الثائرة؛ مجزرة تستخدم فيها الطائرات الحربية والصواريخ والمدفعية الثقيلة وغيرها من أسلحة فتاكة. وقد خططت لتنفذ خلال الأيام القليلة القادمة من شهر أيّار/ مايو الجاري، في سياق عملية عسكرية وسسياسية واسعة النطاق تشمل الخليج والعراق وإيران والباكستان وغيرها من البلدان المجاورة، بدأت مع وجود حاملتين أمريكيتين للطائرات في الخليج، إضافة إلى تجمعات عسكرية وأعداد كبيرة من طائرات الدرون (بغير طيار) في العراق والمنطقة.

وقد أوعز إلى المالكي للكشف عن هذا التحرك الجديد فأعلن في بيانٍ أذاعته قناة “الحرة - عراق”، يوم الجمعة 2 أيار، تهديداً صريحاً لإيقاع مذبحة تنفذها القوات الأمريكية والقوات العميلة التي جنّدها الاحتلال. يقول بيان المالكي نقلاً حرفياً عن القناة المذكورة: “قواتنا المسلحة ستباشر عاجلاّ ملاحقة المسلحين في مدينة الصدر، ويطالب رجال الدين والعشائر بدعم الدولة”. وذكر المالكي ضمن كلام طويل في مؤتمر صحفي عقده يوم الأربعاء 30 نيسان نقلاً عن راديو سوا: “الهدف النهائي الذي لم نتراجع عنه هو نزع سلاح المليشيات، حل جيش المهدي…”، ولم يذكر المالكي المليشيات الكبيرة التي تدعمها قوات الاحتلال، ومنها جيش “الصحوة” الذي أوجدته ومولته وزارة الدفاع الأمريكية .

ويأتي هذا التحّرك الستراتيجي الواسع، ضمن الخطط الحربية والسياسية الأمريكية الجديدة في أعقاب انتفاضة البصرة وامتدادها إلى بقية مدن العراق، وإلى مدينة الصدر في بغداد، على وجه التخصيص. فقد برزت المنطقة الخضراء، باعتبارها مقعد إدارة الاحتلال والحكومة العميلة و”البرلمان”، هدفاً لغضب الجماهير ومناصرة لمذبحة البصرة. وقد تحولت هذه القلعة الأمريكية فجأة رهينة تحت رحمة جماهير الشعبية، من حصن حصين إلى سجن كبير يختبأ في ملاجئه تحت الأرض قادة الاحتلال ودبلوماسيوه هرباً من الصواريخ وقذائف الهاون التي أخذت تنصب عليه كالمطر. فحسب الأرقام التي نشرتها الصحافة العالمية بلغ عدد القذائف خلال شهر نيسان الماضي نحو 700، أي بمعدل صاروخ في كل ساعة، ليلاً ونهاراً. وكان من طبيعة هذا الوضع أن يظهر الجبروت الأمريكي على حقيقته كمهزلة يتندر بها العالم؛ مهزلة تجري لسوء الحظ، وسط بحر من الدماء والخراب. وقد تطور هذا الحال ليشرك إيران على بعدها في هذا الصراع الدموي.

التدخل الإيراني:

إن انتفاضة البصرة الباسلة، وما لحقها من انفجارات جماهيرية غيّرت الأوضاع السياسية في العراق المحتل، وحملت الدوائر الأمريكية، بغطرستها العالية، على تجرع استعطاف عدو طالما حاولت إذلاله، فأعزت إلى وفد من جماعة المالكي الذي أُذلّ هو الآخر، التوجه إلى إيران لإنقاذ المارد الأمريكي من الفضيحة الدولية، فحصلت واشنطن بذلك على هدنة ذهبية سمحت لها لملمة كبريائها الجريح وللإعداد لجولة جديدة ميدانها هذه المرة، مدينة الصدر، حصن الحركة الجماهيرية. ولقد أفادت قوات الاحتلال كثيراً من الهدنة في البصرة وبقية المدن العراقية الثائرة لتركيز هجومها بالخصوص على مدينة الصدر، بالحصار والهجمات الجوية. ولم تكتف بذلك فشرعت بإنشاء جدران الخرسانة المسلحة وحرق الأسواق، شأن ما حدث في بعض محلات بغداد سابقاً، وقبل بغداد في فلسطين المحتلة.

الخطة لتدمير مدينة الصدر:

ولما استمرت أمطار الصواريخ على المنطقة الخضراء، دبت الحياة في الشارع العراقي، وبدأت الجماهير الشعبية بأخذ دورها التاريخي لتقرير مصيرها بأيديها ودمائها، لذلك تنبهت القيادات الأمريكية لحقيقة الخطر على مستقبل الاحتلال، في وقت تهافت السياسيون المرتزقة على أعتاب المنطقة الخضراء. وقد ظهرت للوجود مجدداً حركة جماهير من الكادحين والجياع ترسم حياتهم بأيديها وتخط الطريق لتحرير العراق من الاحتلال ومن الطفيليات التي نصبها لحكم البلاد. فبدأت تتنامى في العراق ظاهرة شبيهة بظاهرة حزب الله في لبنان الذي ولد وتترع في أزقة ضاحية بيروت نظيرة مدينة الصدر في بغداد. فقد تطور حزب الله كنواة شعبية مجاهدة تحتمي بها وتلتف حولها مختلف التيارات الوطنية ومن مختلف الانتماءات السياسية والدينية.. وكما هو معلوم غيرت تجربة حزب الله الأفق الوطني العربي بصمودها في وجه الغزو الإسرائيلي ومقاومتها الاحتلال الأمريكي لبيروت وصارت قدوة لجميع البلدان العربية والإسلامية المضطهدة، ومنها العراق المحتل. وكذلك الحال بالنسبة للتيار الصدري. إذ يجب الدفاع عنه باستماتة وإقدام، وحماية مدينة الصدر حصن الحركة الشعبية العراقية، وأمل الشعب العراقي بالتحرر والانعتاق.

إن الاحتلال الأمريكي للعراق يدرك هذه الحقيقة لذلك ركز ويركز أسلحته الفتاكة لتدمير هذا الحصن الشعبي المنيع، إذ لم يبقَ للاحتلال، بعد هزيمته في البصرة وبغداد غير الإبادة الجماعية لسكان مدينة الصدر الصامدة، سواءً بالأسلحة الثقيلة، أو بتشديد الحصار ومنع الطعام واستمرار الهجمات اليومية بالطائرات الحربية من مختلف الأنماط. لكن هذه السياسة لن يكتب لها النجاح لأـسباب عديدة. منها أولاً صمود شعب المدينة البطلة، ومنها بعد ذلك فوات الأوان لنجاح مثل هذه الخطة الخبيثة. ذلك مثل هذه الخطط الحربية تقتضي فترة طويلة نسبياً؛ فترة لا تسمح بها الأوضاع السياسية والاقتصادية وحملة الانتخابات الرئاسية داخل الولايات المتحدة. ومنها أيضاً التفاف شعوب العالم بدعم النضال الوطني لتحرير الوطن.

ومع ذلك هناك أخطار جسيمة وفرص قائمة لتواطؤ المصالح الأمريكية والأوساط الرجعية في إيران وغيرها من الدول المجاورة والبعيدة. ففي هذا الوقت بالذات توه وفد عراقي رسمي إلى إيران، وفد يضم هادي العامري وعلي الأديب وخالد العطية، وهم عين الوفد الذي عقد الهدنة المشؤومة في البصرة.

وقد أوكل إلى هذا الوفد أن يحمل “الأدلة” على وجود أسلحة إيرانية مهرّبة إلى العراق، ليجابه بها المسؤولين الإيرانيين. وقد أوضح جنرال أمريكي بارز يشغل إدارة الستراتيجية والخطط في رئاسة الأركان الأمريكية أن هذا الأمر أصبح بأيدي المالكي! رئيس الوزراء العراقي‘ أي أن الحكومة الأمريكية تستخدم الوفد العراقي كمندوبين عن الاحتلال لعقد صفقة مع الدوائر الأمريكية على حساب الشعب العراقي.

النصر رهن بالوحدة الوطنية

لذلك كله لا يمكن للشعب العراقي أن يواجه تلك الأخطار الجسيمة المحدقة بنجاح دون قيام وحدة وطنية شاملة تقوم على أسس تفتح فكري وتفانٍ في النضال ضد الاحتلال. نعم يجب أن تكون حرباً مفتوحة حتى التحرير، ولكن لتكن أولاً حرباً ضد التمزق الوطني والتشرذم والفساد… فالنصر رهن بالوحدة الوطنية.

الحزب الشيوعي العراقي – القيادة المركزية 2 أيار 2008 ]]> http://www.al-ghad.org/2008/05/03/qiada-markazia-sadr-city-statement/feed/ http://www.al-ghad.org/2008/04/03/bush%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cdefining-moment%e2%80%9d%e2%80%a6/ http://www.al-ghad.org/2008/04/03/bush%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cdefining-moment%e2%80%9d%e2%80%a6/#comments Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:31:00 +0000 salamadil General http://www.al-ghad.org/2008/04/03/bush%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cdefining-moment%e2%80%9d%e2%80%a6/ 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.

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.

1-USA policy to develop Iraqi oil.

When Dick Cheney was the head (CEO) of Halliburton, he addressed a number of big oil companies heads, at a meeting held in 1999 at the “Institute of Petroleum”, reminding the oil companies that by 2010, the oil industry will need extra (50) million barrel daily MBD . The oil will be always a government affair since 90% of world reserves are controlled by the oil national companies. Middle East will remain the main supplier, since it has two third of the world reserves and the cheapest to produce. (Of course Cheney was ignoring Kyoto Treaty when he estimated the extra need by 50 MBD, now it maybe half of this figure since Europe and Japan went ahead with applying the treaty). Then, Cheney became USA vice president, and the oil file was his work and interest. He formed what was called “Development Group”, or “Cheney Basic Force”, that included the heads of the biggest American energy companies. In March/2001 this group ended what was called “National Energy Policy”, advising USA Government to take initiative in the Middle East, pressuring their governments to open their oil market for foreign investment.

So USA was preparing the political atmosphere along site the military preparation for the occupation of Iraq. State Department took the initiative to prepare post war plans for Iraq future since April\2002, by forming several groups, and the most important one was “Oil & Energy” group, which included Iraqi expatriate experts as well as foreign ones, chosen by the state department. This group, and after several meetings, between December\2002 and April\2004, gave their advice which was that Iraq should be open on oil companies very soon , and create the proper atmosphere to attract foreign investment to work in accordance to PSAs Production Sharing Agreements , and in flexible ways.

In 2004 the “International Tax & Investment Center ITIC” issued its study “Oil and Iraq Future”, advising that the PSAs are the proper legal and financial solution to ease the work for developing Iraqi oil industry. The members of ITIC are about (110) company, including oil giant companies like BP, Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Halliburton, Conoco Phillips, and others.

So the Road Map for oil development of Iraq was put by USA and oil companies, that is should go PSAs before consulting the real Iraqi experts or the Iraqi people. PSAs are one of the major reasons for rejection the oil law, which endorsed those kinds of agreements. PSAs are “risk contracts”, that is you may or may not find oil or gas, and we are taking in Iraq about already well known defined discovered oil fields, some of them are “elephant” fields, without any “risk” what so ever.

2-Oil Reserves and Needed Investment:

The importance of Iraq comes from its high oil reserves, and the very good possibility of increasing it. It is now clear that there is shortage of oil in the world, and the shortage will be more in future, even with the application “Kyoto Agreement” to control global warming. We are not going here to inter in a debate whether we have reached “Peak” stage of oil production, but definitely we are near it.

There are different figures quoted for world oil reserves. Here we are taking about “conventional oil”, which exclude bitumen and sand tar. According to estimate of BP for 2005, the total of oil reserves are about (1190) billion barrel BB, 67% of it in the ME , and 77% of it in Opec countries, which may be enough for nearly (40) year , assuming today consumption. Out of this reserve about (263) BB, 22% in Saudi Arabia, the biggest reserves in a single country. Then Iran, (132.5) BB, and Iraq (115) BB as the third country. There is a lot of talk about exaggeration of Saudi oil reserves.

Now the question arises; is the importance of Iraq comes only from its (115) BB?!. To answer this, a lot of new evaluations and studies have been done in many reputable institutes and companies. “The Institute of Analysis of Global Security”, in a report, issued on 12 May 2003, mentioned different figures. The report said the “Petroleum Economic Magazine” estimated the reserves (200) BB. Also a study by “Federation of American Scientists”, estimated it as (215) BB. The joint study of the “Council of Foreign Relations” and “James Baker III Institute Rice University” raised it to (220) BB. The “Center for Global Energy Studies and Petrology & Associates” put it as (300) BB.

In a very recent study by HIS, issued in May/2007, it said that it was very easily to add another (100) BB, to raise the Iraqi reserves to (215) BB. The study of the Iraqi expert Tarik Shafiq put it as (330) BB. As an example, the reserves of East Baghdad field was always estimated as (11) BB. A very recent study done by one of the very big companies, that restudied the previous information and using new technologies , reached a new estimate as (15) BB.

So, we can easily say that USA has found the “Treasure “, which may contain 25% of world oil reserves. They thought that by occupying Iraq, the Iranian regime will fall easily, and the whole oil will be in USA hand. But things did not go the way they wanted it!.

* * *

The draft oil law included (4) annexes, the first (3) defined (78) discovered oil fields. The fourth annex, specify (65) exploration blocks, good number of them contain structures of high possibility of finding hydrocarbon, but no well has been drilled. Here, we should mention that in previous exploration in Iraq, (7) wells out of (10) exploration wells were successful and oil or gas was found, so the risk of not finding oil or gas in those blocks is very small.

Different studies, in USA and Iraq, just before the war and after it, estimated the investment needed to raise oil export to (3.3) MBD million barrel a day, (or to produce 4 MBD), as (4) B$ billion dollar, to be spent in (2-3) years. And also estimated the investment needed to raise export to (6.3) MBD, as (21) B$, to be spent in (4-5) years. Now some are talking about double of those estimates, without any new real study, just to frighten some Iraqis that the investments are very high and we have to accept sharing with foreign companies. Even if we add 50% to the first estimates that were done through proper studies, we will need (33) B$ to be spent in (5-6) years, and production would be increased gradually.

The Iraqi expert, Tarik Shafiq, sent last spring a memorandum to the Iraqi parliament, informing them that with existing reserves (115) BB, we could develop production gradually to (10) MBD, and maintain it at this level for (10) years, and continue at this level for another (10) years when production will start to decrease, and this could be done without any need to discover another single barrel. He compare the situation with Russia, where production is (9.5) MBD, while oil reserves is only (74) BB.

3-Why the Insistence on Passing Iraqi Oil Low Now?

The existing laws in Iraq allow all kind of oil development, except foreign sharing in Iraqi oil; which means that it would not allow PSAs. But what USA wants and already planed, are PSAs. So a law must be issued to satisfy their planning. This could be seen from the pressure they are putting on the government and parliament.

As for Iraqis objecting on passing oil law now, including me, we see no immediate need for it, since we can develop easily oil industry without it. We have the oil field which can easily produce (7) MBD, we have the investment needed for a gradual properly planned development, we have the experience for such works or we can rent it, and we can buy the technology if needed. Also there is no problem in export of produced oil, as long as we plan our gradual increase in production in coordination with OPEC. Iraq is the only country which can fill the future shortage of oil.

As a matter of fact there is no need, in my opinion, for big immediate increase in oil production with the present oil prices. Production should depend on the spending capability of Iraq, with suitable money reserve to cope with unforeseen conditions and to cover the value of our currency. Export of (3) MBD would give (88) B$ annually, & (5) MBD export would give (146) B$, (assuming price of oil as 80$ per barrel), and these amount are quite adequate for all required needs. Foreign investment should be encouraged in the downstream industries like refineries and petrochemical plants.

There would be a need for oil law later when safe and stable, political and social, matured conditions are prevailing. There would be a need for oil law to suit the new internal political condition, since we have now a federal state, which needs reorganization in the oil industry structure. It should be reorganized to emphasis central planning and decentralized application of the plans. Foreign sharing should be clearly prohibited, and approval of contracts should be under control of the federal parliament and government, since it concern all the Iraqis and not a certain region. A law that includes above mentioned conditions will help in avoiding chaos in the oil industry; otherwise it may even cause international problems, like oil price collapse which will harm Iraq. We should now act fast to pass a law that re –establish Iraqi National Oil Company INOC immediately.

Kurdistan Regional Government KRG acted on their own. Their parliament passed their own oil and gas law, and they signed good number of contracts, nearly all of them are PSAs. Their interpretation of the Constitution that they could do that , while ours , and lot of other Iraqis and members of parliament , have exactly the opposite interpretation , and consider that KRG oil law and all oil contracts signed by them are unconstitutional and illegal .

The Iraqi constitution was prepared and passed in a rush manner and under a lot of pressure to satisfy different factions requirements. This resulted a constitution that contain a lot of contradicting articles, specially what concern oil and gas. If we try to take it as a whole, and study it thoroughly to solve the contradictions then, as I think, we will reach the same conclusion mentioned above , i.e. PSAs are not allowed , and there should be central planning in expansion including signing new production contracts, production and export . If we do not reach this conclusion and agree with KRG one , then we may see in future several oil laws , and tens of oil production contracts signed with foreign companies by Iraqi regions and governorates , ending into chaos and possible collapse of the Iraqi oil industry with all its consequences on world oil market . There are several articles in the constitution that reach clearly the same conclusions that we reached , for example article ( 27 ) states that public properties are “sacrosanct “ and the duty of every Iraqi is to product it . Oil and gas are definitely the most valuable public property. Article (111) states that “oil and gas are owned by the people of Iraq in all the regions and governorates “, which means that no region or governorate can act independently and without the approval of the federal parliament and government, also no foreigner can have a share in Iraqi oil &gas. We all know that with PSAs, the foreign companies consider their share as part of their assets to raise their financial position. In any case we can proceed with this argument furthermore, but this is not the place.

In conclusion, we can say that by passing the law, in the way it is drafted and without taking our objections, mentioned above, into consideration, then there will be further increase the instability of Iraq, and there will be great chaos not affecting Iraq only, but it will cover all future world oil market. There will be always huge Iraqi public objection, causing the oil law to be very unstable, and will certainly be rejected and refused in the very near future. All this will harm Iraqi people severely.

Fouad Alamir

Al-Ghad

KRG and the Iraqi Oil Law (Arabic)

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.

The letter in English (via Abu Tammam):

To the Speaker and Members of Iraqi Parliament

November 26, 2007

During the last few weeks, the region of Iraqi Kurdistan announced on its website and through media that they had signed nearly 15 production sharing agreements with foreign companies without the prior approval of the Ministry of Oil or awaiting the approval of a federal oil law.

Dr. Shahrastani, Minister of Oil has correctly declared on a number of occasions that the Ministry consider all those agreements as illegal and threatened that the Ministry will take legal action against those companies as well as putting them in a black list depriving them from participation in any future contracts with the Oil Ministry. The Oil & Gas parliamentarian committee adopted a similar position which is certainly the correct stance that must be supported by all political and popular groups regardless of their other politics to stand united against this deliberate and dangerous action by the KRG.

On another hand, the KRG actions were not only limited to a policy of signing such contracts but in fact followed a more dangerous step that has no legal or political standing whatsoever and that is by overstepping on the rights of other components of the Iraqi people when it awarded in some of those contracts blocks that extend well beyond the boundaries of Iraqi Kurdistan towards Ninewa, Tamim, Salah el-Deen and Diyala including the one with the US Hunt Oil.

KRG also decided unilaterally to give one of its newly founded oil companies the responsibility of developing Khurmala which is one of the three domes of Kirkuk field. Two years ago, SCOP of the Oil Ministry had recently completed the engineering & procurement of all related materials and equipment and was about to start construction activities but were not allowed to do so by KRG.

The Iraqi oil professionals, who had previously warned in their previous letters and declarations in February and July 2007 of the danger of dividing the responsibility of negotiations and signing of oil contracts and had asked for it to remain exclusively for the Ministry and Iraq National Oil Company, they now consider the steps by KRG as illegal.

It was also obvious that the signing of so many contracts within only few weeks indicate that KRG had continued negotiations with foreign companies even while discussing the draft oil law and regardless of the opinions and reservations of the other political blocks and popular organizations.

The deliberate action by the authorities of Iraqi Kurdistan and without any due considerations of other views and objections, proves clearly that the position taken by the Iraqi oil professionals previously was a correct one and they would like to confirm their stance and declare their support for the stance taken by the Minister of Oil and the Oil & Gas parliamentarian committee in rejecting those contracts.

They also hope that the legislating bodies will also take into considerations the vital comments made by the oil professionals on the various drafts of the oil law and ask them to rewrite it in such a way that it guarantees the national rights of the Iraqi people and not to rush into legislating the said law.

The letter in Arabic:

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

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