Thread: Iraq/Dinar News until 5/23/07 Midnight CST

Integrity : participate in a new Public Contracts Act

(صوت العراق) - 15-05-2007

(Voice of Iraq) - 15-05-2007

ارسل هذا الموضوع لصديق

Send this topic to a friend

The public integrity participated in a workshop held in the Jordanian capital of Amman, with the central ministerial committee consisting of a number of ministries, including (the public integrity and the State Consultative Council and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in addition to other ministries) to prepare a draft law (public contracts) under the new World Bank to discuss with the expert consultant in the area of contracts.

The representative of the public integrity need to speed up the completion of the draft law at the earliest because of its significant impact in reducing administrative and financial corruption was rampant especially in the area of public contracts which are broader field him.

The price representative of the World Bank attention Judge Radi Hamza Radi, head of the public integrity and follow-up of the work of the ministerial committee and the central support.
Media Bureau

Translated version of http://www.sotaliraq.com/

British hold talks with Sunni rebel leaders

Politics 5/15/2007 2:09:00 PM



LONDON, May 15 (KUNA) -- British military officers have held secret talks with leaders of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, according to the country's president Jalal Talabani.
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph newspaper Tuesday, Talabani said British officers played a key role in talks between his government and insurgent groups over reducing the sectarian violence that has torn the country apart.
The parties were now on the verge of an historic breakthrough after the negotiations showed "good signals" of success, he said.
Speaking during a visit to London, Talabani said the meetings had been with groups outside Osama bin Laden's al Qaida network.
"These are resistance movements that are now meeting with the prime minister, with me, with British military officers and the ambassador for reconciliation talks", he said.
Talabani told the daily the Sunni groups fighting the Iraqi state now regarded Iran to be a greater threat than Western forces, as Tehran's influence continued to increase.
"There is a big change in the mentality of the Sunni Arabs. They are now considering Iran is the danger and no longer considering America the danger", he continued.
Talabani acknowledged that Iran had a hand in attacks against British and American forces in Iraq.
He also drew a direct link between Iran's internal battles against dissent and the attacks by Iranian-backed militias in the Shia-dominated south that have killed dozens of Britons.
"They haven't declared war against the multi-national forces but sometimes there are attacks", he said.
"When there are some attacks inside (in Iran) they think it is British-backed activities, so they do some limited things in Basra".
Talabani said British Prime Minister Tony Blair was an architect of Iraq's liberation.
He fears that the departure of the Prime Minister might bring forward a British withdrawal.
When Talabani met Blair last Friday, he reminded him that as a Kurdish student he had protested against the British military presence in Iraq in the 1950s.
"I told him this is the first time that British troops are welcome in Iraq. They should stay".
While he was confident that Iraq's security forces were gaining ground against insurgents, Talabani said British and American forces must not contemplate withdrawal before the end of next year.
"We need to have a coalition presence this year and next year. Then we can say goodbye, dear friends".
To Talabani, the British deployment is a model for all foreign forces in Iraq. In particular, he pointed to a rarely discussed achievement.
"The British did a very big job for us in securing and guaranteeing the oil for the Iraqi people", he said.
Talabani said he is optimistic that the worst sectarian violence will begin to ease within months. But the bloodshed will continue.
"I am sure by the end of the summer the city will be cleansed of terrorists, but if you mean by security the end of car bombs, I don't think it is possible", he added.
Talabani said the Shia-dominated government was under intense pressure to reach out to its internal opponents, especially the Sunni Muslim clans that lost power and influence with the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Reconciliation holds the key to breaking the foothold of al Qaida-linked extremists, who have bombarded the Iraqi capital with devastating car bombs in recent weeks.
"When only the terrorist group of al Qaida remains, it will be easy to secure Iraq by eradicating it", Talabani concluded. (end) he.hm KUNA 151409 May 07NNNN

PAn8tv, I don;t like to sound negative because I AM NOT -----JUST keep seeing things on FOX and CNN that are discouaging. HECK , IF the RV were to Happen ---even at a small rate of exchange----I would be as happy as a pig wallering in a Pig stye, But with all the past failed reports of SOON, SOON, SOON It may Just be In JULY. JMHO!
My SUV (Toyota Rav4 Sl was stolen over this past weekend ) Forgive me if i sound a little negative.. *(Very little.)* I am waiting with Paticene FOR the GREAT RV OF the IQD!!!! whoooot?

Agreement on Federalism, Debathification awaits understanding


Baghdad, May. 15,

Constitution Amendment Committee closed to end the amendments according
to article 142 of the constitution, and information refer to agree on

Constitution Amendment Committee closed to end the amendments according to article 142 of the constitution, and information refer to agree on

the federalism, Iraq’s Arabism while the Debathification needs little touches as source in the committee said.

The federalism, Iraq's Arabism while the Debathification needs little touches as source in the committee said.

MP Abbas Bayati reporter of the committee said that final form of the amendments would refer to presidency of Parliament on 22 nd of recent month though the law imposes upon the committee finishing its work today.

MP Abbas Bayati reporter of the committee said that the final form of amendments would refer to presidency of Parliament on 22 nd of recent month though the law imposes upon the committee finishing its work today.

Translated version of http://www.alsabaah.com/

Originally Posted by Mike5200

We've Not Yet Seen The Worst Case In Iraq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted GMT 5-15-2007 14:58:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter how bad or how good Iraq gets from day to day, the war is always reported as a worst case scenario by a mainstream media that hates George Bush more than it loves America. Simply put, the war coverage is being slanted with the conscious intent of demoralizing America's will to fight, so that a defeat can be hung round the neck of Bush and the GOP. This is a supremely immoral act, since Bush does not have an Army in Iraq -- America does.

It is not "Bush's War"; it is an American War. And any defeat will wound America long after George Bush has returned home to Texas to write books and play on his hobby farm. So let's take a step back from the political spin and consider what a worst case in Iraq would actually look like, because we haven't seen anything close.

A true defeat in Iraq -- withdrawing under fire, Saigon style, and allowing the insurgents to flood into the streets (and onto the airwaves) declaring uncontested victory -- would be a disaster unparalleled in American history. In an afternoon, it would destroy America's reputation as a military power for at least a generation. Stop and imagine how the world would react to seeing America's soldiers running from a fight we started, while our enemies' propaganda machine goes into overtime crowing about the weakness of the United States and the power of jihad, terrorism, suicide bombing and radical Islam.

Our enemies would be energized as only victory can energize a movement. And a victory on such a history-changing scale would send shockwaves of confident jihadis throughout the Middle East and the world. Kiss Saudi Arabia goodbye as you know it today, because it will fall to a bin Laden clone in short order, and Jordan would be lucky to escape the same fate. Millions of Sunni Arabs and the world's largest oil supply will become resources in the hands of fanatics who hate America and believe the fastest way to defeat it is direct violent attack.

If we run, the Shiites that are currently our nominal allies in Iraq will feel betrayed and disgusted by America and will likely openly align themselves with Shiite powerhouse Iran, whose aid they will need in fighting a true all-out civil war with the Sunni population. Iran's de facto Shia Empire will then extend from the Afghan border to metastases on the Mediterranean and it will control even more oil.

Regardless of who wins, loses or draws in the conflict that will follow our retreat, the region will be filled with refugee camps the size of major cities -- an ideal breeding ground from which to recruit terror disciples for both "victorious" Sunnis and betrayed Shiites. All will see America as a weak enemy and a worthless friend.

America currently has only two true friends in the Middle East: Israel and the Kurds of Iraq. Once we run, we'll lose the Kurds like we lost the friends we had in Vietnam. The Kurds will fight on, and probably survive. But they'll know how truly useless we are as long term allies.

Terrorism in Europe and America will spike and remain high. And why wouldn't it? Nothing succeeds like success. The radicalization if Islam will be complete. Once the sole superpower has been defeated and sent home crying, what ambition will seem beyond the grasp of the radical leaders? Remember that Hitler's rise to power, and all the disasters that followed, was fueled by his restoration of simple pride to the humiliated German people. How powerful will the Middle East's new radical leaders be after they can claim victory over the United States?

And before you answer, consider that Arab culture is perhaps the world's best major example of an honor/shame culture. Shame is feared more than death. Honor is loved more than life. The population will flock overnight to those that offer such honor, and whose victory seems to erase so much shame.

Outside the Arab and Muslim Worlds, our enemies in Russia, in Asia, in Latin America, in Africa and elsewhere will see the example of our defeat and be moved into new ways of thinking about the wisdom of conflict with America. We are 300 million strong, and yet we consider surrender after only 3000 dead spread over years. Why not fight us? Anyone can kill a couple of Americans a day, if that is all it takes to break us.

Look for humiliations like the Iran hostage "crisis" of the 1970's to pop up wherever a piss-ant dictator needs an ego boost. Everyone is a tough guy when you're down. Many little wars and rescues, interventions and treaty obligations will begin to appear. Defeat encourages attack. Withdrawal encourages chase. "Bring the troops home" now, and you will save a few in the short term. And then they will be sent back out again -- all over the world -- without their aura of competence and power to help protect them.

That is the worst case. What we have now is just a protracted guerilla war, one that cannot go on forever, because no war ever does. If you think the war is hard on you, since you have to hear about two or three American deaths on the news each night, imagine what it is like for the insurgents and their host population. They die in far larger numbers than we do, their families suffer deprivation, they are increasingly hounded by Iraqi death squads bent on block punishment, and they see their most hated enemy (Iran, not us) growing stronger, while their Al Qaeda "allies" try to brainwash their children and take over their communities.

On the other side, the Shiite population suffers terror attacks daily, cannot exploit their oilfields, and risks global dishonor if they fail to control the country. This war is thus an untenable long-term situation. It will end. War is inherently unstable and shakes out to a settlement when one side prevails or both sides have had enough. When the war ends in this natural and inevitable way, we win. No, the peace will not be final; there will be another war five or 20 years from now. But that will be a different war. Perhaps we can sit that one out after we go home intact and undefeated at the end of this present war.

But we would do well to slog this war through. The consequences of defeat are too great for anyone who loves America -- Republican, Democrat, or Independent -- to allow that to happen. The troops in Iraq are not fighting for the ungrateful Iraqis as claimed by the demoralizers. They are fighting for America. They are fighting to avoid the worst-case scenario: defeat and its disastrous aftermath.

The American people booted Republicans from control of Congress because of dissatisfaction with the war. Now the Democrats, rather than coming up with a better plan for victory, seem to have settled on a plan to accelerate defeat -- through timetables for withdrawal and de-funding of the troops in the field. Defeat in Iraq will destroy the GOP, it's true. But it will also damage America so severely that it will consume the Democrats too, for leading the retreat. The electorate will wish a pox on both houses. Surrender is no plan for avoiding defeat.

We must win. The only thing worse than a long war is a lost.

by Mac Johnson
Conservative News, Views & Books - HUMAN EVENTS

© 2007, Assyrian International News Agency

OK Ward, this is another opportunity for you...another article that needs to be sent to Ms. Pelosi and her cronies

Iraqi official plays down significance of US-Iran talks

Politics 5/15/2007 12:46:00 AM



WASHINGTON, May 14 (KUNA) -- The planned US-Iran agreement to hold face-to-face-talks in Baghdad on efforts to stabilize Iraq will "not seal the fate of Iraq," said Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih on Monday.
"In terms of whether the fate of Iraq will be sealed just by the United States and Iran (agreeing to meet), it will have to be fundamentally decided by the people of Iraq,: Salih said at a conference organized by the Woodrow Center, a Washington-based Think-Tank.
One day after the Bush administration and Iran announced plans to meet in Baghdad, Salih said the Iraqi government believed that "enough is enough" for both Iraq and Iran to move past their oft-bumpy and tumultuous relations that have existed for the last century in order to achieve peace in the region.
"It is ultimately up to the Iraqi people to decide the fate of Iraq.
"Salvation of Iraq, stability of Iraq is contingent upon a domestic pact among Iraqis. But that can only work if there is a regional international pact supporting this domestic pact," he said.
He added that countries neighboring Iraq have a stake in what is happening in Iraq, calling on neighboring countries and the international community to help in building stability and success in Iraq.
Salih and other Iraqi officials are in Washington on a mission to drum up support for the Iraqi cause amidst political standoff between the democratic and republican parties on the issue of the US war plans in Iraq, at a time when US support is rapidly drowning.
He said Iraqis are watching the US debate very closely and his colleagues in "Iraqi government and places of political leadership are worried" about the possibilities of a US withdrawal, but remarked that the recent deployment of 30,000 more US troop, backed by President Bush, has been successful in parts of Baghdad.
Salih acknowledged that Iraq's insurgency cannot be defeated by military means alone, saying a political solution among Iraqis must have the backing of regional powers in the Middle East and the international community.
"But until then, most Iraqis who believe in democracy want U.S. forces to stay in the country," he said.
"We are all victims, Iraqis and Americans, of expectations. Expecting that building a democracy would be an easy proposition." he said. (end) sa.bs KUNA 150046 May 07NNNN

Creation of the Iraq Transition Assistance Office
May 15, 2007

By Executive Order on May 9, 2007, the President created The Iraq Transition Assistance Office (ITAO) as the successor organization to the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office (IRMO). The purpose of the ITAO is to perform the specific project of supporting executive departments and agencies in concluding remaining large infrastructure projects expeditiously in Iraq, to facilitate Iraq's transition to self-sufficiency, and to maintain an effective diplomatic presence in Iraq.

The ITAO coordinates and oversees all U.S. Government non-security related assistance for the Chief of Mission. The organization has fiduciary oversight over the approximately $3.0 billion remaining in the Iraq Reconstruction and Relief Fund (IRRF). The ITAO also ensures that U.S. Government assistance programs across all agencies are closely linked to the Mission strategy and are delivering desired results. Finally, the ITAO employs senior consultants assigned to essential services ministries with ongoing reconstruction projects who will oversee the successful completion of projects in their respective sectors.

Mark Tokola arrived in Baghdad at the beginning of May to assume his responsibilities as the Director of ITAO. Most recently, he was the Minister Counselor for Economic Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in London. Mr. Tokola was the Counselor for Political and Economic Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, from 1997 to 1999.

VOL NO REGD NO DA 1589

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

HEADLINE
POLITICS & POLICIES
METRO/COUNTRY
VIEWS & REVIEWS
EDITORIAL
LETTER TO EDITOR
COMPANIES & FINANCE
TRADE/FINANCE
FE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
BOOK REVIEWS
BUSINESS/ECONOMY
LEISURE & ENTERTAINMENT
MARKET & COMMODITIES
SPORTS
WORLD

FE Specials
URBAN PROPERTY
Comment
Saturday Feature
Asia/South Asia
Special on Logistics

Feature
13th SAARC SUMMIT DHAKA-2005
Foundation Stone Laying Ceremony of DSE Tower

Archive
Site Search

HOME

VIEWS & REVIEWS The struggle over Iraqi oil: Eyes eternally on the prize-II Michael Schwartz 5/15/2007 Saddam's expansionist war against Iran, his use of public funds to build ostentatious monuments and palaces, his transfer of billions to his personal accounts, and his failure to maintain the infrastructure of the country all were excellent evidence that the debt was indeed odious; and the US claimed as much for almost $40 billion of it, held by 19 industrialised countries known as the Paris Club. Instead of seeking to cancel this debt (and the remaining $80 billion) entirely, however, the Bush administration sent James Baker, former Secretary of State under George H. W. Bush, to the Paris Club to negotiate conditional forgiveness. The resulting agreement immediately forgave $12 billion, but left $28 billion on the books. A second $12 billion would be abrogated when the Iraqi government signed onto "a standard International Monetary Fund program," and a further $8 billion three years later, after the IMF confirmed Iraqi compliance. Even if "successful," almost $8 billion would still be outstanding to the Paris Club -- together with $80 billion not covered by the agreement.
The "standard International Monetary Fund program," not surprisingly, included the now familiar American policies regarding Iraqi oil, as well as the use of Profit Sharing Agreements and a host of other provisions that would open the Iraqi economy as a whole, and the oil sector in particular, to investment by multinational corporations. Among the most punitive of the provisions was a demand for an end to the economic breadbasket that guaranteed all Iraqi families low prices for fuel and food staples. In a country with, by 2005, somewhere between 30% and 70% unemployment, average wage levels under $100 per month, and escalating inflation, these Saddam-era subsidies meant the difference between basic subsistence and disaster for a large proportion of Iraqis.
Independent journalists Basav Sen and Hope Chu summarised the new agreement thusly:
"A move that appears on the surface to be beneficial for Iraq -- debt cancellation -- is being used as a tool of control by the World Bank, the IMF and the wealthy creditor countries. What is more, it is a tool of control that will last long after the withdrawal of US combat forces."
Zaid Al-Ali, an international lawyer working on development issues in Iraq, described the agreement as a "perfect illustration of how the industrialised world has used debt as a tool to force developing nations to surrender sovereignty over their economies."
The newly elected Iraqi National Assembly promptly denounced this agreement as "a new crime committed by the creditors who financed Saddam's oppression." This forceful expression reflected the opinions of the Assembly's constituents. After all, 76% of Iraqis believed that the main reason for the Bush administration's invasion was "to control Iraqi oil."
As it happened, the protest did not prevent that government from endorsing the deal. Otherwise, it faced the prospect of the US -- which still had operational control over Iraqi finances -- simply appropriating most of its revenues for debt service. When the agreement was announced, interim Oil Minister Thamir Ghadbhan, a British-trained technocrat, publicly protested the provisions eliminating fuel and food subsidies. He was subsequently pushed out.
The US. then began pressuring the Iraqi government to draft a definitive petrochemical law that would conform to the IMF guidelines. Given the levels of resistance to the very idea, this work was conducted in secret and took until the end of 2006 to complete. As independent journalist Joshua Holland described the process:
"Just months after the Iraqis elected their first constitutional government, USAID sent a BearingPoint adviser to provide the Iraqi Oil Ministry 'legal and regulatory advice in drafting the framework of petroleum and other energy-related legislation, including foreign investment'…. The Iraqi Parliament had not yet seen a draft of the oil law as of July [2006], but by that time… it had already been reviewed and commented on by US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, who also 'arranged for Dr. Al-Shahristani to meet with nine major oil companies -- including Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips -- for them to comment on the draft.'"
Even the Iraqi Study Group, James Baker's Commission, got into the act at the end of 2006, devoting three pages of its proposal for a partial redeployment of American forces from Iraq to exhorting the Iraqis to enact a petrochemical bill that would place its oil reserves in the hands of the major oil companies.
When the "Draft Hydrocarbon Law" was finally delivered to the Iraqi Parliament on February 18, 2007, key provisions had already been leaked and immediately denounced by the full spectrum of the Iraqi opposition. Taking turns registering dismay were the majority of the Parliament, a wide range of government officials, the leadership of major Sunni political parties, the union of oil workers, the Sadrists -- the most powerful Shia grouping -- and the visible leadership of the insurgency.
All this led to many changes in the law, including the removal of all mention of either privatisation or Production Sharing Contracts, which would have given multinational oil companies 15-25 years of basically unregulated operational control over Iraqi oil facilities. The amended version in no way excluded the use of PSAs, but it removed the explosive designation from the actual wording of the law.
It is worth reviewing the logic of PSAs to understand why the US was so determined to make them a part of the law, and why many Iraqis were so ferociously opposed.
Production sharing agreements are generally applied in circumstances where there is a strong possibility that oil exploration will be extremely costly or even fail, and/or where extraction is likely to prove prohibitively expensive. To offset huge and risky investments, the contracting company is guaranteed a proportion of the profits, if and when oil is extracted and sold. In the most common of these agreements, the proportion remains very high until all development costs are amortised, allowing the investing company to recoup its investment expenditures (if oil is found), and then to be rewarded with a larger-than-normal profit margin for the remainder of the contract which, in the Iraqi case, could extend for up to 25 years.
This is perhaps a reasonably fair, or at least necessary, bargain for a country which cannot generate sufficient investment capital on its own, where exploration is difficult (perhaps underwater or deep underground), where the actual reserves may prove small, and/or where ongoing costs of extraction are very high.
None of these conditions apply in Iraq: huge reservoirs of easily accessible oil are already proven to exist, with more equally accessible fields likely to be discovered with little expense. This is why none of Iraq's neighbours utilise PSAs. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates all pay the multinationals a fixed rate to explore and develop their fields; and all of the profits become state revenues.
The advocates of PSAs in Iraq justify their use by arguing that $20 billion would be needed to develop the Iraqi fields fully and that favourable PSAs are the only way to attract such heavy doses of finance capital under the current highly dangerous circumstances. This assertion seems, however, to be little more than a smokescreen. No major oil companies are willing to invest in Iraq now, no matter how sweet the deal. If order is restored, on the other hand, Iraq would have no trouble attracting vast amounts of finance capital to develop reserves that could well be worth in excess of $10 trillion and hence would have no need whatsoever for PSAs.
Based on leaked information, journalists reported that the PSAs envisioned by the Iraqi petrochemical law contained extremely favourable provisions for the oil companies, in which they would be entitled to 70% of profits until development expenses were amortised and 20% afterwards. This would have guaranteed them at least twice the typical profit margin over the long run and many times that figure during the initial years.
There are other elements in the law (and the possible PSA contracts) that have also roused resistance inside Iraq. Among the most controversial:
*Insofar as PSAs or their legal equivalent were enacted, Iraq would lose control over what levels of oil the country produced with the potential to substantially weaken the grip of OPEC on the oil market.
*The law would allow the oil companies to fully repatriate all profits from oil sales, almost insuring that the proceeds would not be reinvested in the Iraqi economy.
*The Iraqi government would not have control over oil company operations inside Iraq. Any disputes would be referred instead to pro-industry international arbitration panels.
*No contracts would be public documents.
*Contacting companies would not be obliged to hire Iraqi workers, and could pursue the current policy of employing American technicians and South Asian manual labourers.
Several African countries with vast mineral riches have been subjected to these sorts of conditions, with large multinational companies extracting both minerals and profits while returning only a tiny fraction of the proceeds to the local population. As the resources are taken out of the ground and the country, the local population actually becomes poorer, while the potential for future prosperity is drained.
The draft petrochemical law, if enacted and implemented, could ensure that Iraq would remain in a state of neoliberal poverty in perpetuity, even if order did return to the country.
The petrochemical law is hardly assured of successful passage, and -- even if passed -- is in no way assured of successful implementation. Resistance to it, spread as it is throughout Iraqi society, has already shown itself to be a formidable opponent to the dwindling power of the American occupation.
The Parliament itself may be the first line of defense. It challenged the original IMF agreement and has refused to consider the bill for two months, already missing a March deadline for passage that American politicians of both parties had pronounced an important "benchmark" by which to judge the viability of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government.
In addition, the government officials responsible for administering the oil industry could prove formidable opponents. Rafiq Latta, a London-based oil analyst, told Nation reporter Christian Parenti, "The whole culture of the ministry opposes [the law].... Those guys ran the industry very well all through the years of sanctions. It was an impressive job, and they take pride in 'their' oil."
Perhaps most formidable of all is the Federation of Oil Unions, with 26,000 members and allies throughout organised labour. The oil workers overturned contracts in 2003 and 2004 that would have placed substantial oil facilities under multinational corporate control; and they initiated a vigorous campaign against the US sponsored oil program as early as June 2005 -- calling a conference to oppose privatisation attended by "workers, academics, and international civil-society groups." In January 2006, they convened a convention composed of all major Iraqi union groups in Amman, Jordan, which issued a manifesto opposing the entire neo-liberal US program for Iraq, including any compromise on national control of oil production.
At a second Amman labour meeting in December of 2006, the Federation of Oil Unions announced its opposition to the pending law even before it was released. Iraq's trade unions, speaking in a single voice, declared that:
"Iraqi public opinion strongly opposes the handing of authority and control over the oil to foreign companies, that aim to make big profits at the expense of the people. They aim to rob Iraq's national wealth by virtue of unfair, long term oil contracts that undermine the sovereignty of the State and the dignity of the Iraqi people."
When the bill was made public, oil union president Hassan Jumaa denounced it before yet another protest meeting, stating:
"History will not forgive those who play recklessly with our wealth…. We consider the new law unbalanced and incoherent with the hopes of those who work in the oil industry. It has been drafted in a great rush in harsh circumstances."
He then called on the government to consult Iraqi oil experts (who had not participated in drafting the law) and "ask their opinion before sinking Iraq into an ocean of dark injustice."
If the oil workers and their union allies decide to organise protests or strikes, they are likely to have the Iraqi public on their side. Fully three-quarters of Iraqis believe that the United States invaded in order to gain control of Iraqi oil, and most observers believe they will surely agree with the oil workers that this law is a vehicle for that control. Even Iyad Allawi has now publicly taken a stand opposing it, perhaps the best indication that opposition will be virtually unanimous.
Finally -- and no small matter -- the armed resistance is also against the oil law. The Sunni insurgency underscored its opposition by assassinating Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi, a major advocate of the pending law, on the day the bill was made public. The significance of the opposition of the Sunni insurgency is amplified by the stance of the Sadrists, the most rebellious segment of the Shia majority. Sadr spokesman Sheikh Gahaith Al Temimi warned journalist Christian Parenti that while the Sadrists would "welcome" foreign investment in oil, they would do so only "under certain conditions. We want our oil to be developed, not stolen. If a bad law were to be passed, all people of Iraq would resist it."
It seems clear that what the oil law has the power to do is substantially escalate the already unmanageable conflict in Iraq. Active opposition by the Parliament alone, or by the unions alone, or by the Sunni insurgency alone, or by the Sadrists alone might be sufficient to defeat or disable the law. The possibility that such disparate groups might find unity around this issue, mobilising both the government bureaucracy and overwhelming public opinion to their cause, holds a much greater threat: the possibility of creating a unified force that might push beyond the oil law to a more general opposition to the American occupation.
Like so many American initiatives in Iraq, the oil law, even if passed, might never be worth more than the paper it will be printed on. The likelihood that any future Iraqi government which takes on a nationalist mantel will consider such an agreement in any way binding is nil. One day in perhaps the not so distant future, that "law," even if briefly the law of the land, is likely to find itself in the dustbin of history, along with Saddam's various oil deals. As a result, the Bush administration's "capture of new and existing oil and gas fields" is likely to end as a predictable fiasco.
(Michael Schwartz, Professor of Sociology and Faculty Director of the Undergraduate College of Global Studies at Stony Brook University, has written extensively on popular protest and insurgency, and on American business and government dynamics.) Concluded
TomDispatch

More HeadlineThe struggle over Iraqi oil: Eyes eternally on the prize-II Poor could lose 67 billion dollars Wolfowitz prepares defence as Bank board opposition mounts

Print this page | Mail this page | Save this page | Make this page my home page
About us | Contact us | Editor's panel | Career opportunity | Web Mail

Copy right @ financialexpress.com

Originally Posted by bob1940

PAn8tv, I don;t like to sound negative because I AM NOT -----JUST keep seeing things on FOX and CNN that are discouaging. HECK , IF the RV were to Happen ---even at a small rate of exchange----I would be as happy as a pig wallering in a Pig stye, But with all the past failed reports of SOON, SOON, SOON It may Just be In JULY. JMHO!
My SUV (Toyota Rav4 Sl was stolen over this past weekend ) Forgive me if i sound a little negative.. *(Very little.)* I am waiting with Paticene FOR the GREAT RV OF the IQD!!!! whoooot?

YIkes! I hope they catch those creeps!!

Originally Posted by bob1940

PAn8tv, I don;t like to sound negative because I AM NOT -----JUST keep seeing things on FOX and CNN that are discouaging. HECK , IF the RV were to Happen ---even at a small rate of exchange----I would be as happy as a pig wallering in a Pig stye, But with all the past failed reports of SOON, SOON, SOON It may Just be In JULY. JMHO!
My SUV (Toyota Rav4 Sl was stolen over this past weekend ) Forgive me if i sound a little negative.. *(Very little.)* I am waiting with Paticene FOR the GREAT RV OF the IQD!!!! whoooot?

Oh sorry to hear you got ripped off. Just think how positive you'll be when this thing goes in June and you can upgrade to the FJ Cruiser or Land Cruiser or better yet step up to the Lexus line.