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

Iraqi Troops Face Off Against Striking Oil Workers

By Ben Lando, UPI. Posted June 7, 2007.


The strike, which began with domestic pipelines, will soon restrict Iraq's 1.6 million barrels of daily global exports.
iraqoilwideweb430x315
Advertisement

On the third day of an oil strike in southern Iraq, the Iraqi military has surrounded oil workers and the prime minister issued arrest warrants for the union leaders, sparking an outcry from supporters and international unions.

"This will not stop us because we are defending people's rights," said Hassan Jumaa Awad, president of IFOU. As of Wednesday morning, when United Press International spoke to Awad via mobile phone in Basra at the site of one of the strikes, no arrests had been made, "but regardless, the arrest warrant is still active." He said the "Iraqi Security Forces," who were present at the strike scenes, told him of the warrants and said they would be making any arrests.

The arrest warrant accuses the union leaders of "sabotaging the economy," according a statement from British-based organization Naftana, and said Maliki warned his "iron fist" would be used against those who stopped the flow of oil.

IFOU called a strike early last month but put it on hold twice after overtures from the government. Awad said that at a May 16 meeting, Maliki agreed to set up a committee to address the unions' demands.

The demands include union entry to negotiations over the oil law they fear will allow foreign oil companies too much access to Iraq's oil, as well as a variety of improved working conditions.

"Apparently they promise but they never do anything," Awad said, confirming reports the Iraqi Oil Ministry would send a delegation to Basra.

"One person from the Ministry of Oil accompanied by an Iraqi military figure came to negotiate the demands. Instead it was all about threats. It was all about trying to shut us up, to marginalize our actions," Awad said. "The actions we are taking now are continuing with the strike until our demands are taken in concentration."

The strike by the Iraq Pipelines Union in Basra started Monday, instigated by a decision by the Iraq Pipelines Co. to stop regular bonuses to workers. It is part of a larger picture, however, of 17 different demands laid out -- beginning last month -- to the Iraq Oil Ministry and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki by the Iraq Federation of Oil Unions.

Since the strike began, two small pipelines delivering oil products to Baghdad and other cities have been closed, as has a larger pipeline that sends gas and oil to major cities, including Baghdad and utilities.

The strike started with domestic pipelines transporting oil and oil products, but Iraq's top oil unionist says it will soon encapsulate the 1.6 million barrels per day of oil Iraq sends to the global market.

Basra, home to much of Iraq's 115 billion barrels of oil -- the third-largest reserves in the world -- is also Iraq's main port. Awad said the unions will continue to restrict all oil exports, which bring in 93 percent of Iraq's federal budget funds. Such a move, combined with the choking off of much-needed supplies of transportation, cooking and heating fuels, is what the unions hope to use as leverage against Maliki.

Awad said "the atmosphere here is full of tension," and added that he wants to pressure the government to agree to their demands, not topple an already weak Maliki government.

"At the end we are hoping that the situation will not go that way," Awad said.

Maliki has been unable to meet a key benchmark set by the Bush administration and backed by the Democratic-led Congress: to pass an oil law. Many in Iraq, including oil experts and parliamentarians, are calling for the law to be put on hold. Negotiators haven't been able to agree on the best means of revenue distribution, whether central or regional governments will have more power in the oil sector, or how much access foreign investors will have.

Manfred Warda, general secretary of the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions, Wednesday sent a letter to Maliki condemning his tactics in addressing the strike. "Genuine and democratic trade unions are a cornerstone of democracy and at the same time are a force for reconciliation, peace and stability in a society," Warda wrote.

The Brussels-based International Trade Union Confederation and London-based Trades Union Congress have also condemned the military action and arrest warrants.

A top official with the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine & General Workers' Union said his contacts say the strike had been toned down while negotiations were under way but has not ended.

"The strike began purely and simply at the pipeline," said Jim Catterson, the energy industry officer for Warda's federation, based in Brussels. IFOU "has membership capable of bringing an end to exports."

Kamil Mahdi, an Iraqi economist on Middle East affairs at the University of Exeter, said Maliki's swing from agreement with the unions to a military presence and warrants is "very surprising" and arresting the leaders won't quell the workers' demands.

"It may be the opposite. These are people who are highly respected in the community," he said. If the strike isn't stopped soon, "the effect on the global oil market will certainly be felt."

(Hiba Dawood contributed to this report.)

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, oil-workers

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:
Uh-oh
Posted by: Mop Cheese on Jun 7, 2007 12:35 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope for Iraq's sake that its government does not give unions much power. Workers should be able to bargain collectively if they want, but striking crosses the line: engage in mass quits if you want, but anything further, like preventing employers from finding new labor, crosses the line. Allowing unions to strike and requiring companies to deal with them is like allowing grocery stores to decide where consumers shop and allowing them to blockade the houses of those who refuse to go to their stores. I don't want to give capitalists that much control over me, and I don't want workers to have that much control over me. Unions have cost the US economy trillions in productivity over the years, I would hate to see the Iraqis suffer from them as well. To give them power to coerce would be a further act of war on an already embattled and abused people.

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

» RE: Uh-oh Posted by: polyquat50
» RE: Uh-oh Posted by: Mop Cheese
» RE: Uh-oh Posted by: Radicalizer
Sorry...
Posted by: SteveB on Jun 7, 2007 4:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but I'm not going to get into an argument with you over whether workers should have the right to strike, just as I avoid arguments about whether black people should have the right to vote, or whether women should have the right to drive.

Sorry you were born into the wrong century, but that's your problem.

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

» RE: Sorry... Posted by: Mop Cheese
» RE: Sorry... Posted by: wushih
» RE: Oh, and... Posted by: Mop Cheese
» RE: Oh, and... Posted by: wushih
» RE: Mop Cheese for fascism Posted by: wushih
» RE: Mop Cheese for fascism Posted by: Mop Cheese
» RE: Mop Cheese for fascism Posted by: wushih
» RE: Uh-oh Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Uh-oh Posted by: Mop Cheese
» RE: Uh-oh Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: leafsong Posted by: Mop Cheese
» RE: leafsong Posted by: Techubus
» RE: leafsong Posted by: Mop Cheese
» RE: leafsong Posted by: Techubus
» RE: mop cheese's utopia Posted by: wushih
» RE: Uh-oh Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: Worst analogy ever Posted by: Techubus
» RE: Worst analogy ever Posted by: Mop Cheese
» RE: Not really, no Posted by: Mop Cheese
» RE: Monopolies Posted by: Mop Cheese
A union hater turned supporter.
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 7, 2007 3:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a former Teamster and retired member of another labor organization. the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA).

A registered Republican since 1956, I always hated unions for the many reasons touted by big business. Then, in 1983, I went on strike against Continental Airlines after its tyrannical CEO, Frank Lorenzo, declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy to break what he decided were “onerous” labor contracts.

It occurred to me then that there wouldn’t have been a Chapter 11 filing had unions not been present at Continental. It was also obvious, absent union representation, that Lorenzo would have lowered my wages below the level stipulated in the bankrupty papers. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, the only way I could defend against the company’s attack on my salary was to join the CAL strike, which lasted 25 months.

Two things immediately happened to me when the work stoppage began. First, I lost my fear of being unemployed because I WAS unemployed. Second, despite the sudden financial hardship, I was a happier person because Continental no longer had me under its corporate control. Although I haven’t needed union representation since the CAL strike (I didn’t return to work after it ended), one thing I will never do is cross a picket line.

If President Bush truly believes Iraq should be a democracy, he will encourage the Maliki government to let the pipeline strike play out instead of using force to end it.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of the nonprofit website, King-George.biz -- the only one with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

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

Oil strike has potential to be political, general strike against occupation
Posted by: Universal on Jun 7, 2007 4:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The oil workers have the ability to bring together several issues that could threaten all class interests in the regions. The Maliki government, puppet regime of U.S. occupation, must decide whether to accept the criminal "benchmark" of both the Democrats and Republican corporate parties, occupying complicit war criminals that hands over the oil treasure to an aggressor, and its system Corporate fascism.

The oil workers have the ability to squeeze Maliki on this national, democrati issue, by forcing his hand. Already the regime has signalled that it finally has shifted to the wishes of Iraqi people in their majority, that they want the fascist class Empire of Amerika out. Furthermore, a struggle against the Corporate fascism and democratic control of oil has far reaching implications of a general strike for democratic control against all complicit class whores, national thugs.

This could lead to the downfall of the Maliki government, or a resistance against an imposed Corporate, imperial puppet regime, that could drive out the Nazi occupation of Iraq. Democratic demands if generalized to include other ethic groups, towards a plural socialist principle, away from both imperial class rule, and against internal class rule, has the potential to stop the communal violence and civil war, by focusing the resistance against all class masters.

An oil strike towards democratic control of resources, can turn into a political struggle like Latin America, where democratic resistance against Western Corporate fascism and imperial policies are now translated towards democratic and socialist policies. Iraq workers, take note of Venezuala, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Latin America and you may yet save your people from the ravages of Class fascism, religious dogma, and imperial domination. Down with Mailiki, Down with Amerikan occupation, and down with Corporate fascism, and up towards democratic rule by all people!!

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

Importing U.S. historical policies....
Posted by: sphoenix on Jun 7, 2007 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's take a step back in time to the early 20th century in Amerika...what do we find?

Sweatshops, horrible working conditions, child labor and the beginnings of the labor movement. But the labor movement was sometimes a bloody thing and much of it was due to the collaboration of government and big business.

In Howard Zinn's book, "A People's History of the United States", he cites numerous examples over many years of instances where labor clashed with government right here at home. In many cases our government called out the National Guard to force workers back to work at gun point. Innocent people were shot and killed while attempting to excercise their right NOT TO WORK if their voices were not heard.

And now...it looks like we have imported the Amerikan business/military philosophy to Bagdad. So, this is how DEMOCRACY works, is it?

The entire world is screwed thanks to our F***ed up political system and the F***s that exploit it. What an honor to live in the greatest country on the planet...no wonder the suicide rate is increasing.

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

Its just....
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jun 7, 2007 9:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democracy at work.

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

Big Oil Loves This
Posted by: bob t on Jun 7, 2007 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Big oil must love this because it will give them another excuse to raise the price of oil products.
And the band played on...

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

Will the American Unions step up and support their Iraqi friends?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 7, 2007 10:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I'd like to see is a strike by the US petroleum unions right here in the United States - everyone knows that Exxon, Chevron, ConocoP, BP and Shell are telling the Iraqi PM and the Iraqi army to go in with guns blazing and break the strike using violence.

If they win over there, the next place they'll attack is right here at home, and NO, I'm not talking about "the terrorists" - I'm taking about the corporate fascists.

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

Megaseth
Posted by: megaseth7 on Jun 7, 2007 1:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Concerning the Unions and how poor their reputation is here in the states, the slights concerning poor workmanship and the like I would like it to be know that most of the European and Japanese not to mention Korean Auto manufactures are all unionized. I have often felt ashamed at not buying an American auto for the simple fact that once it gets older its problally going to break down at a most inopportune time. Most people blame the Union worker for his or her poor workmanship but when one considers BMW, MerBens, Toyota, Honda and all the others are predominately Union I cant help but think that most of the fault lies in a design that will intentionally give rise to mechanical breakdown. Sure, have it designed so that it will break down in a timely manner, one so timely that this will happen just as the last payment is made, possibly some months before so that the owner gives some consideration for the need of a new auto. And then blame the union worker for their poor effort. Sure, I'll buy American its a patriotic duty isnt it?

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

» RE: Megaseth Posted by: Mop Cheese
Those Darn Workers
Posted by: Radicalizer on Jun 8, 2007 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To those critical of the striking Iraqi workers, I suppose such things as medical benefits, paid sick leave, regular wage increases (especially in times of excess profits), health and safety standards, etc. were negotiated by individual workers with sympathetic bosses, right? You might want to actually take a look at your labour history before you sprout off with your anti-labour rhetoric.

It was the solidarity of the working class (including trade and industrial unions) that are responsible for the "weekend", "40 hour work week", and other such things that many people in North America have at one time or another taken for granted. Most unionized employees only strike as a last resort, and only then because the "boss" does not wish to bargain in good faith and has called their bluff. The strike is the only trump card the working class has when it attempts to get a fair shake (and yes, consistently calling for wage increases IS fair, particularly when so many corporations are raking in never before seen profits).

To blame unions for inefficiency or laziness is akin to saying workers should be placed under the heel of their employers. We do not live in a egalitarian society where all are equal, so saying that workers can actually negotiate one-on-one with their bosses is pure rubbish (the boss would fire such a "squeaky wheel" without a second thought, as is the case with Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and countless others). Suggesting that workers should get other jobs if they don't like the ones they have is also quite a fanciful suggestion, as this completely absolves the capitalist class from their role in creating this workplace discontent.

Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, capitalism DOES impact ALL aspects of your life; only a fool (or a classical liberal) would actually believe that this is not the case and that some sort of "free association" still exists. If one truly cares about workers, they should see that an injury to one worker is an injury to ALL, and that how one labour dispute is handled has direct implications on others. Siding with the rich overtly or covertly (by pretending to be "neutral") only makes the plight of the working class that much more precarious.

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

Hey Mop Cheese...
Posted by: lessbread on Jun 8, 2007 3:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're quoting Mises like it was the Bible. How about expanding your horizons beyond what you find in one source of slanted commentary?

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

jmorton48
Posted by: jmorton48 on Jun 8, 2007 8:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has not been widely reported in the American press exactly what the Iraqi "Oil Sharing" agreement really is. If people knew this information, they would easily see why the Oil Workers are upset. The "oil sharing" agreement is constantly mentioned as one of the "benchmarks" the Iraqi government must meet. It sounds like a reasonable law,but it contains elements that are completely NOT in the best interest of a new Democracy in Iraq.

Briefly; Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. Most of the reserves have been "mapped". Almost all of the oil will be relatively cheap to extract ( about $1.00 per barrel). This is very cheap, and the US Government knows it. I don't want to think that the real reason for this war is OIL, but it is; This oil law was fashioned beginning before the war by Cheeney, the State Dept., the Defense Dept, U S oil executives, and some U.S. backed Iraqi groups.

The Oil agreement will privitaze Iraq's oil! Only the oil fields currently in production will be left to the Iraqi government. That means that Iraq will retain control of about 17% of the countries oil. All the rest will be out of their direct control.

All the other oil-producing countries in the region have nationalized oil companies, and so does Iraq ( at least currently). They contract with foreign (e.g. U.S.) oil companies for services, but the country itself retains authority over the oil.The U.S. wants to change this, and very little has been reported on this. The new oil agreement requires that the decision- making for Iraq's new privatized oil company will not be in the hands of the Iraqi's. U.S. and British members will be required on the new oil governing body. Othe rprovisions of the new law: No requirement that Iraqi's be hired to work in the fields, no requirement that the work on new fields begin soon (long delays are allowed), the agreement will last for the next 30 years ( and will be renewable), foreign companies are granted many exclusive concessions, including tax breaks. The law strips the country of Iraq its main resource and puts it into the hands of the occupires. Is this what Bush means by "Democracy" being good for Iraq?

The U.S. press has not covered this scandal. But the foreign press has. A few U.S legislators know about it, but most do not; they don't read about what's really going on with this law that we are so anxious for the Iraqi's to pass. Naturally they (Iraq) doesn't want to agree to it, but the pressure from the U.S. is mounting. There are many,many web sites that tell the story of the oil law better than I have. Just "google" Iraq, oil law" and do some homework. All the sickening facts are easy to find if you look. It really is about the oil!

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

It Has always been about the OIL
Posted by: james2021 on Jun 12, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing has changed, Big oil wants to rob the Iraqi's and sell the products to us a monopy prices. The Oil companies will have records profits for decades.

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