Protecting U.S. Oil Interests in Iraq

[thedrifter]

Protecting U.S. Oil Interests in Iraq



Instead of bailing-out the Iraqi people, new debt for Iraq’s people will formally accrue through the program that President Bush pledged would "benefit the people of Iraq."



By Mr. Craig B Hulet



07/28/03: Most did not know that during the initial assault on Baghdad, soldiers set up forward bases named Camp Shell and Camp Exxon. Soldiers often know the score, even if Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush and of course the Pentagon’s talking points dismissed any ties between Iraqi oil and their war.

But often their actions demonstrate that yes indeed this is about oil; not just Iraqi oil but our oil, read: corporate oil: in fact U.S. corporate ownership of that oil from Iraq. How does one make such a claim? One looks to the law. Under U.S. law, whose oil and oil products belong to whom are decided by law. The Development Fund for Iraq established by the United Nations does not spell out ownership as it was assumed it would be the Iraqi people who would own the oil from Iraq. Putting Mr. Paul Bremer, an old American oil-hand in charge of Iraq made him the perfect choice as head of the fund, though most would have disagreed had they been asked, and seemed natural for the U.N. and the Bush regime.



As two authors recently pointed out, "The Bush/Cheney administration has moved quickly to ensure U.S. corporate control over Iraqi resources at least through the year 2007. The first part of the plan, created by the UN under U.S. pressure is the Development Fund for Iraq which is being controlled by the U.S. and advised by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second is a recent Bush executive order that provides absolute legal protection for U.S. interests in Iraqi oil....In May, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1483, which ended sanctions and endorsed the creation of the Development Fund for Iraq, to be controlled by Paul Bremer and overseen by a board of accountants, including UN, World Bank, and IMF representatives. It endorsed the transfer of over $1 billion (of Iraqi oil money) from the Oil-for-Food program into the Development Fund. All proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil and natural gas are also to be placed into the fund." (Sources: Steve Kretzmann and Jim Valette, Media Culture, July 24, 2003; See also, White House home page)



In the creation of the Development Fund for Iraq, it was argued that this was to alleviate the poverty in Iraq and was sold as Humanitarian Assistance yet "one finds the fingerprints of the global economic structural adjustment that has attracted so much protest in recent years. World Bank and IMF programs, backed by the rules of the World Trade Organization, have imposed dramatic financial restructuring upon much of the world. Developing countries have amassed huge debts in exchange for selling out their natural resources to powerful Northern corporations." (Ibid.)



Instead of bailing-out the Iraqi people, new debt for Iraq’s people will formally accrue through the program that President Bush pledged would "benefit the people of Iraq." The Development Fund, derived from actual and expected Iraqi oil and gas sales, apparently will be used to leverage U.S. government-backed loans, credit, and direct financing for U.S. corporate operations in Iraq. Some of the funds are to go towards restructuring facilities and oil systems, pipelines, etc., and all are aware of Halliburton, Bechtel, Brown and Root receiving contracts under the Pentagon’s non-competitive bidding; some of the funds will also be used as collateral for projects approved by the U.S. Export-Import Bank (ExIm Bank). The mission directive of the ExIm Bank is the creation of U.S. jobs and the promotion of American business abroad, not humanitarian assistance.



As the two authors noted "ExIm recently announced that it was open for business in Iraq and would begin considering applications by subcontractors (that is, companies hired by Bechtel and Halliburton) in Iraq." (Ibid.) U.S. Corporations have found it difficult to obtain private bank credit for work in Iraq, due to the ongoing insecure environment. But the ExIm Bank has stepped in to take a lead role in facilitating U.S. business in Iraq just as it did during the Cold War when the ExIm Bank financed hundreds of American corporate projects in the Soviet Union even as Ronald Reagan called the regime the "Evil Empire." Also the Overseas Private Investment Company (OPIC) has, as its charter spells out, obliged by underwriting (insuring) the corporate ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan with U.S. taxpayers dollars. (Source; See "The Hydra of Carnage" this author, 2002)*



They blow-up a pipeline you and I pay to repair it. They blow up an oil facility, not only do you and I pay up front, but the Iraqi people find their debt burden increasing, as in the end it will be the Iraqi people who must pay for all of this. The corporations make their money in compensation and profit, all their costs covered, they never lose as they control the machinery of governance as surely as they profit by it. Peter S Watson is the current director of OPIC, and has the usual suspect’s credentials for this particular governing administration.**



"The primary source of repayment, is the Development Fund for Iraq,

or another entity established under the auspices of the

Coalition Provisional Authority with access to

foreign exchange and protection from

claims of creditors of the former regime."

(Source: ExIm Bank Press Release)



In other words, the U.S. government is happy to provide credit to any U.S. business wishing to do business in Iraq – especially because the money comes from Iraq. OPIC guarantees the investments with U.S. taxpayers dollars. For the Bush/Cheney oil administration and their allies in the oil industry, this was not enough. Hours after the UN endorsed U.S. control of the Development Fund for Iraq, Bush signed an executive order 13303 (see text below) that we were told was simply implementing Resolution 1483, but in reality, went much further towards attracting investment and minimizing risk for U.S. corporations in Iraq.

Executive Order 13303 states categorically that "any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void," with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and "all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein."



If ExxonMobil ChevronTexaco remove Iraqi oil, they will be immune from legal proceedings in the U.S.. Anything goes wrong where U.S. corporate oil operations are in play and they will be immune to any legal judgment. An oil tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; pipelines destroyed, etc., "the President, with a stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of Saddam’s victims, creditors and of the next true Iraqi government to be compensated through legal action. Bush’s order unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. corporations. (Ibid.) In their closing argument the two authors make their point as well as I could ever have done:



In the short term, through the Development Fund and the Export-Import Bank programs, the Iraqi peoples’ oil will finance U.S. corporate entrees into Iraq. In the long term, Executive Order 13303 protects anything those corporations do to seize control of Iraq’s oil, from the point of production to the gas pump - and places oil companies above the rule of law.

It should be noted that Mr. Bush signed the EO less than three weeks after declaring a coalition victory and secession of all hostilities. We know he was dead wrong about the first; I would suggest this scam to protect U.S. monopoly corporate interests will be challenged not only in the courts, no matter that Bush has already declared all claims null and void, but challenged in blood for decades to come!

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/c...4.722404017819


Sempers,

Roger

[firstsgtmike]

I'll admit, this too far over MY head to be able to sort it out.

I have two ways of looking at things I see, hear, or read about.

If I understand the situation, I either agree with it or ask myself what I would have done about it.

If I DON'T understand it, as in this case, I assume the author knows what he is talking about. Then I want to know what HE would have done.

That would give me two points of view to evaluate and consider.

One point on a map is meaningless.

[Lock-n-Load]

For the average and hard-working Americans, we have no clout in what Pres Bush has decreed about Iraqui oil fields [2nd largest in the world]...I'm a Pres Bush guy, but he doesn't know me [us] on a first name basis...I have put my trust in him and his administration...my level of economics are calculated at the gas pump prices which I hope decline sharply...since I live in the snowbelt, I pray my heating oil prices get slashed...same for my electric rates as it takes huge amounts of oil to turn their generators, etc...if this comes about...I will vote for Bush's re-election...if oil commodities and oil dealers continue to rape us...then Bush did not keep his word...GW Bush is now on the clock!!!

[JChristin]

Trickle Down?

Like Lock-n-Load, I'm a Bush supporter. However, I live in a major city that has a 8.8 % unemployment rate, of which group I belong. There are many professionals in my field who are unemployed. Being too educated and too well-qualified deminsions my ability to earn a living.

Gas Prices are out of sight. I live in a port city too! Gas should be cheaper here, but it costs more!

If I am employed at election time and the national economy reaches a breakeven point that positively affects my state, then I will vote for GW election. Can't really say reelect as he never won the popular vote the last time. He gained the presidency on a techical issue based upon the electoral college and installed by the Supreme Court.

semper fi,
jchristin