Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Kurdish Leader: Oil Law Is a Deal Breaker

By Ben Lando, UPI. Posted May 14, 2007.


In Washington, the passage of a final oil law is a key benchmark for the Iraqis to achieve. But Iraq's factions aren't on the same page, and their differences could lead to even more conflict.
Advertisement

Editor's note: The supplemental defense bill President Bush vetoed last week required the passage of an oil law as a "benchmark" for continued U.S. support. A draft of a new bill expected to be passed by Congress has similar language.

To Iraq's Kurdish leadership, the issue of how to apportion the third-largest pools of oil in the world is "a make-or-break deal" for the country as a whole, a top official told United Press International.

"The oil issue for us is a red line. It will signify our participation in Iraq or not," Qubad Talabani, son of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and the Kurdistan Regional Government's representative to the United States, said in an interview from his Washington office.

The KRG and the central Iraqi government reached a deal in February on the hydrocarbons framework -- though not on other key companion bills -- and a self-imposed deadline of late May seemed possible to meet.

But the Iraqi Oil Ministry, at a meeting it set up last month in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, with other Iraqi oil experts and politicians, unveiled the annexes to the hydrocarbons law -- its list distributing control of oil fields between central and KRG control -- and a law reestablishing the Iraq National Oil Co., which Kurdish leadership automatically rejected.

"This sets us back to square one, a point that's unacceptable to us. We're trying to modernize Iraq, build a new Iraq, built on new foundations, new policies. The symbol of this new Iraq will be how it manages its oil infrastructure," Talabani said. "And if people want to revert back to Saddam-era policies of a state-controlled oil sector with no accountability, with no accountability to the parliament or the people of the country, with no oversight except from one or two, then I'm sorry, that is not the Iraq that the Kurds bought into. That is not the Iraq that the Kurds would want to be part of."

"If a centralized oil regime is imposed on us, we will not participate in the state of Iraq," Talabani said. "And we have to make it absolutely clear to our friends in Washington, to our brothers in Baghdad, this is a make-or-break deal for Iraq."

He said Iraq needs to embrace the free market and break free from the nationalized mindset. Numerous oil and Iraqi experts as well as key Iraq oil union leaders have told UPI that Iraqis see nationalized oil with pride. And opponents of the oil law also say it gives too much to foreign companies.

The Kurds, however, have little to show from the Saddam Hussein era, aside from persecution, death and little investment in its economy or oil sector. They gained autonomy in 1991 and, governing an autonomous three-province region now, are prospering. Airplanes fly internationally from the airport in Irbil, Iraqi Kurdistan's capital. Violence in the region is relatively nil compared with the rest of the country, though the first major attack in more than four years killed 14 people in Irbil Wednesday. Despite lacking the law, the KRG has signed multiple deals with foreign companies to develop its oil and natural gas sector.

Iraq only produces about two million barrels per day. With investment -- domestic or foreign -- Iraq's 115 billion barrels in reserves could handle much higher output.

Many of the arguments over the law are related to the 2005 constitution. It was written vaguely to garner support. Now there is a dispute as to which oil fields are to be governed by the central government and which by the regions.

Tariq Shafiq, an Iraq oil expert now living in Amman, Jordan, and drafter of the original law last summer, said the Iraq National Oil Co. should be independent of the oil ministry, and regions could choose the company's board of directors. (Shafiq has since come out against the law, saying it has been altered too much in negotiations.) He said Iraq needs a central strategy for the best management of the country's oil.

Talabani said the KRG favors an INOC limited in scope and open to foreign investment, and says the current law gives INOC control over 93 percent of Iraq's oil. "This will hamper needed investment," he said.

"It's only by bringing in the biggest and the best from the international community, to partner with, not to steal, but to partner with the Iraqi government, can we develop Iraq's oil accordingly," Talabani said. "And there's a worrying unwillingness to act under a free-market-style concept here. It won't go through. It won't go through the parliament this way. There will be too many people opposed to it."

Other bills needing to be passed include a reorganization of the oil ministry and the revenue-sharing law. Talabani said there were lingering fears Kurds will again be deprived of funds and investment.

"We want to create an automatic payment mechanism where it doesn't rely on the goodwill of the finance minister or the oil minister for the regions to get their fair share," he said.

"Trust is lacking in Iraq, and unfortunately it's been Iraq's miserable history that has created this system, this society that mistrusts each other, which is why something as critical as oil can be a trust-building measure," Talabani said. "By putting in place mechanisms and institutions that can ensure that I will not get robbed again, that my resources will not be used against me again, will eventually over time build my trust."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: oil law, kurds, iraq

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Oh yeah, the truth is in the crude pudding
Posted by: Rolomax on May 14, 2007 1:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course the Kurds are going to reject his law. They don't want the American influenced 'State' to control the oil. They don't want it any more than any normal Iraq citizen would want it.

duh. American controlled Iraq oil = bad for Iraq citizens. Even an educated US citizen should know that. The Kurds know it for sure, since they'd have enough trouble with non-Kurd Iraqis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bahhatha@yahoo.com
Posted by: alisoudani on May 14, 2007 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It is all about oil" is an open secret. Iraqi oil reserves of 115 billion barrels ascertained and 125 billion to augment, both are easy to tap and produce. The cost of extracting one barrel in Iraq is between $0.50 and $1.5, the cheapest in the world. Iraqi reserves are the longest lasting in the world (100 years). There is no technical reason for Iraq to include "Production Sharing Agreements" in the new proposed hydrocarbon law, per which Iraq would get probably 1 out of 160 that will go to the big oil giants. In fact, Iraq would be better off not signing the proposed Hydrocarbons Law. The reason put by advocates: Iraq needs huge amounts ($20 billion) to restructure and expand its oil infrastructure can wait. We'd waited nearly four decades for the overthrow of the dictatorship. Surely we can wait a few years more until no foreign presence or influence is there. Iraq now is even outside the categorization of 3rd world country, may be 5th or down below. We need to build our water system, electricity, schools, hospitals and other supporting facilities. This can be done bit after bit. We need to honour those who have suffering for the last four decades, and supporting their families with social benifits and housing. We need to rebuild our universities all over Iraq, including northenr Kurdistan.

Our political process should be treaded slowly and cautiousely. Many do not want us to succeed for obvious reasons. Heritage of Iraq may be a blessing for its people, but could be the envy for others.

To the good American people, I would like to recall a quartet by the Persian thinker and poet Hafiz-e Shirazi:
All treasures ain't worth this oppression.
All pleasures ain't worth one transgression.
Not even seven thousand years of joy
Is worth seven days of depression.

Although a matter of high contention, the US intervention was instrumental in saving Iraqis from dictatorship and mass- grave culture of the Baathist, the like of whom Nazis and fascists dwarfs. Every system has its own interests and strategic goals, even if they were the neocons in the US. We Iraqis should look over our own interests in return, by not sanctioning any legislation that would be harmful both to present suffering Iraqis and future generations to come.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bahhatha@yahoo.com Posted by: roo
» RE: bahhatha@yahoo.com Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: bahhatha@yahoo.com Posted by: Conservasaurus
Don't concede one drop!
Posted by: phindrup on May 14, 2007 6:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only Iraqis wanting to sign any oil deal with international players are the puppets installed by the US.
The price you have paid, that you are paying, is horrendous! Keep control of your oil, Kick out the 'coalition', mount a case in the international court for damage, theft, Iraqi's personal loss and hurt, and for the cost of reconstruction.
Demand that those who are responsible for the invasion are charged with war crimes.
There are a good many that ought to be hanged!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wordylefty
Posted by: wordylefty on May 14, 2007 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi, the author didn't talk to the other oil experts - the Basra Oil Workers Union. It is important to make sure their voice is continually heard

Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Score Card for 2007 by James Petras
Posted by: rwa on May 14, 2007 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...The role of Israel in mobilizing the Zionist Lobby in favor of Bush’s broad war powers was evident in Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni’s speech to the annual AIPAC conference in March 2007. According to Haaretz (March 12, 2007) Livni “warned the US not to show weakness in Iraq.” She went on to emphasize the importance of exercising violence and power… “in a region where impressions are important, countries must be careful not to demonstrate weakness and surrender to extremists.” This is another way of stating the familiar Israeli canard that ‘Arabs only understand force’, a well-worn colonial-racist justification for widespread and continued repression of subjugated Arab people.

Livni’s speech served several purposes. It laid down the ‘line’ to pro-Israel loyalists in the US to continue supporting Bush-Cheney’s policy on the Iraq war, independently of the sentiments of most American Jewish voters. It strengthened the hand of the Lobby and its US Congressional followers by forcing House liberals to retract their American voter-mandated constraints on Bush’s war powers. Thirdly it laid out the high priority agenda and campaign for its Zionist followers to pursue with regard to Iran...

The Israeli Foreign Minister’s direct intervention in the politics of the US, its blatant support for the war, and attack on the US public’s anti-war sentiments, is reminiscent of the worst diplomatic intrusions by the US in the banana republics of Central America. Not a single Congress member dared to point this out, let alone oppose Israeli interference in US politics for fear of retaliation by the aroused mass of ‘Israel Firsters’. Not a single ‘progressive’ commentator noted that Livni’s attempt to universalize Israel’s hostility to Iran was nothing but a demagogic ploy...The Jewish-based ‘AIPAC Alternative’, especially the ‘Jewish Voice for Peace’, spends as much time denying the power of the pro-Israel Lobby as criticizing US policy (Nation, April 23, 2007 on AIPAC Alternative).

In an ironic and perverse twist of the pro-Israel, anti-war slogan, ‘No War for Oil’, Livni demanded ‘No Peace for Oil’. Livni’s warning to those “states who know the threat but still hesitate because of narrow economic or political interests”, is a clear reference to the United States. More specifically it is aimed at politicians who might look toward peaceful negotiations with Iran, or accept the Saudi peace plan in order to safeguard US oil interests, rather than sacrificing these interests to serve Israel’s political and military supremacy in the Middle East. Livni is clearly directing its ‘Israel Firsters’ in the US to trump the Oil Appeasers, to browbeat any politicians who raise US market concerns over Israeli and Zionist war demands.

While Livni’s perception of the danger to Israel emanates from the peaceful-diplomatic approach of ‘narrow economic or political interests’ (to the even narrower Israeli concern for land grabs in Palestine and Lebanon), what passes as a US peace movement joins in chorus by blaming the oil industry for US Middle Eastern wars. There is a convenient coincidence of Israeli hawks and US doves in denouncing Big Oil, which is not such a coincidence if we remember that what passes for the US peace movement is inordinately influenced by prominent left Zionists, who combine criticism of ‘Bush’s war’ with exclusion of any mention of Israel or criticism of the war mongering Zionist lobby. Before, during and after the AIPAC conference several thousand of its zealots blitzed the offices of Congress members. More than half the Congress members and practically every Senator were browbeaten in over 500 meetings in favor of Israel’s war agenda against Iran...
full article

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of the thousands of Alternet posts on Iraq,Oil, 'the Dems',.....
Posted by: ekipnrut on May 14, 2007 8:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the daily stream of factoid lectures from rwa,thoughtcriminal
and all the others..this post of Ms. Sutton strikes me as one of the MOST singularly revealing....it makes a case for a definitive unqualified assessment of the Dems as complete sellout corrupt accomplices in the war crime.(or total ignorant fools.....'we didn't read it'!!!)
DENNIS KUCINICH,5/5/07,West Los Angeles Democratic Club
[Report this comment] Posted by: Linda Sutton on May 13, 2007 7:21 AM
DENNIS KUCINICH, 5/5/07, West Los Angeles Democratic Club
"You would think that by reading the reports that this bill was going to take us out of Iraq. Not a chance. What it would do, it would remove a substantial number of U.S. troops, to be sure, but an equally substantial number would stay. Why would they stay there? They would stay there to protect the contractors. They would stay there to run special missions. It doesn't end the occupation. The base is still staying there. The occupation continues.
But there was another provision of this bill that most American citizens don't even know about. This bill had provisions that the White House asked for, and the Democrats said to the president, okay, this is what you say you want, well we're going to give you what you want. Here's the provision is the provision that I argued against in the Democratic Caucus. This is the provision that says that the Iraqi government must privatize its oil.
And it's wrapped up as part of a reconciliation program. Really. And, if they don't do it, in this bill that the president just vetoed, if they don't do it, we've said that we'll withdraw our troops without providing for replacement peacekeepers.
I want to run it by you one more time. I want this to sink in. You really need to understand how dangerous the situation is in Washington right now. We have the Democratic Congress promoting President Bush's bill that provides for the privatization of Iraq's oil under the guise of a reconciliation program, that tells the Iraq government that unless they agree to privatize their oil, that we're going to pull our troops out and not put replacement troops and peacekeepers in.
You see, this doesn't represent what America is about. No way. This isn't who we are.
I talked about this in the Democratic Caucus. Everyone in this room understands politics, that's why I'm in the West L.A. Dems club. Let me bring you inside the Democratic Caucus for a moment, six weeks ago. I told my Democratic colleagues, I said, has anyone here read the bill? No one, most people were not familiar with it. I said, do you know that in this bill there's a provision that forces Iraq to privatize its oil?
from the audience----Are you talking about the Congresspeople who were supposed to be vote for this bill had not read it, is that what you're saying?---
Yes, most people didn't read the Patriot Act and they had voted for it. So, that's exactly what I'm saying. Most members hadn't read it. They were shocked that that was in the bill. So it created an uproar. One member, one of the leaders in Congress, said this bill is about sharing the revenue. Yea, right! It's like 80 for me and 20 for you and you can split the 20 three ways. And so, really, I mean that really is the formula.
So, I pointed it out. And then finally one of the other leaders said well Dennis is right. I was told that the following day on the House floor they were going to take it out of the legislation. And you know what? Well, not only did they NOT take it out, but they passed a rule that said they COULDN'T amend the bill when it was up for debate on the floor."
[closing remark of Sutton to follow]
So ,Oh Great Watermouths of Alternet..what flows next???
Hmmmmmm???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Privatizing Oil
Posted by: dkm on May 14, 2007 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me get this straight. Iraq now has an elected Parliment and therefore must be a self-governing democracy. The US is dictating to Iraq how it will sell its oil, the only major source of income the country has. Somehow it doesn't jibe.

As for the Kurds' fear of a centralized oil board controlling oil production and income distribution, based on history, the fears are legitimate. But they would be exceedingly foolish to fear an Iraqi central control but trust US corporate control. They have a much better chance of working out differences within their own country than they do of getting any relief from the depredations of EXXON-MOBIL, Shell and the rest. I hope they aren't fools because once Corporate Oil gets its hands on Iraq, there will be hell to pay until the last drop of oil is pumped out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL)
Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon on May 14, 2007 1:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This new oil law was concocted by the NEOCONS in Washington along with the complete approval of Cheney. There were 2 versions of the plan, and this one is the Defense Dept. plan. Read "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast. Excellent book that details what the neocons were about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Freedom
Posted by: Maryanne on May 14, 2007 3:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the goal of the current administration is to help Iraq establish itself as a free, independent and functioning country, capable of taking care of itself before we can let them grow up and be themselves, we have to assume that the administration has not set up a puppet government in Iraq that will do its bidding- aka "benchmarks"

We should get out of Iraq- Americans want this, the Iraqis want this and the Iraqi Parliament has asked for a date for withdrawl so they can solve their own problems. By this request, Iraqis are presenting themselves as independent and on their way to taking care of themselves.

Therefore the "benchmark" of the oil law contradicts what this administration says it wants. If the Iraqis go for it, they are not meeting the goal of this administration, but continuing their dependance upon the guidance of the US.

So if they vote for this "benchmark" they are foolish. If the US insists on this benchmark, it is hypocritical in its "goal" for the independence of Iraq.

Let's learn to live with a smaller footprint. We did it in the 1940s and 50s- without much trouble. We can do so again.

Freedom for Iraq- let them decide what they will do with their own oil!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Freedom Posted by: Erik1968
» RE: Freedom Posted by: Maryanne
bahhatha@yahoo.com. WMD's, liberation, democracy and Oil!
Posted by: alisoudani on May 15, 2007 12:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone, in the Iraqi government, who opposes the proposed Oil Law would be bombed and later investigations may be held and no results ever heard! Maliki's government "passsed" the said law at the end of February 07. Soon after, the Sadrists pulled their six cabinet members to avoid being a soft target for their arch-enemy, the US forces. But they kept their 40 strong members in Parliament. So long as Iraqis have a parliament that can sign in 144 of its 275 members calling for the scheduling of foreign troops withdrawal, they can still have a good chance of weathering out the hurricane "Bush-Cheyney".

Iraq was the abode of Adam, Noah and Abraham. The first code of law humanity ever came to know was drafted by the Mesopotamian Hamourabi. The late Pope, John Paul II, had a life's wish to visit the shrine of the father of the prophets, Abraham, near Ur, Nasiriya, south of Iraq. He was advised against it lest it be considered a sign of support for the late pathetic dictator, Saddam.

No Iraqi Parliamentary block want this proposed new law to pass. On the contrary, the parliament was intent on taking a two month vacation to avoid the deadline, set by the US, of end May 07 for passage of the law. The Democrats in Washington are no different than the Republicans in sticking to "benchmarks" set by the Administration. Iraqis pray that the American people are more in a position to force the Bush administration in letting Iraqis truly take over the fight against Baathist and Takfiris (Wahhabis). Neither Bush nor Cheney has any intention to do so until Oil "benchmark" is securely in their post boxes. During his latest visit to Baghdad, Cheney was to give PM Maliki an ultimatum to deliver Oil "benchmark" by a date no later than the end of this May. Bush and Cheney do not like Maliki or his government. Whether it is Maliki or someone else, no Iraqi is willing to oblige. It is the future of their country and future generations. The Bush Administration is making sure that all Iraqi governments stay weak. They are not even allowed to have tanks, helicopters or airplanes to counter the stronger armed Baathists and Takfiris (Wahhabis). Through large doses of patience and steadfastness they could succeed in convincing Bush and Cheney to let them arm. As I said, the support and pressure of the American public is vital in this.

Readers can rest assured that NeoCons are ingenious plotters of deceit. Backed by their millions of years of history, Iraqis can surely weather out this hurricane, but at a huge cost of blood and destruction for quite a number of years to come.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]