Truthout Original

Facebook DIGG

In Final Days, Bush Pushes for Iraq's Oil

by: Maya Schenwar, t r u t h o u t | Report

photo
Many Iraqis fear that the Bush administration's last-ditch efforts to gain control of their oil will leave their resources in the hands of the US for decades to come. (Photo: Nabil al-Jurani / AP)

    As the Bush administration rumbles to an end, it is pushing with increasing urgency for a commitment to a long-term US presence in Iraq. Though the military aspect of this "commitment" has garnered substantial publicity, the administration is equally invested in the economic aspect: securing US control over Iraqi oil before Bush leaves office, according to experts in the field.

    A leaked version of the US-Iraq status-of-forces agreement (SOFA), supplied and translated for Truthout by American Friends Service Committee Iraq consultant Raed Jarrar, states that the US will indefinitely "continue to protect Iraq's natural resources of gas and oil and protect Iraq's foreign financial and economic assets."

    According to Jarrar, the Bush administration and the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are in basic agreement on the SOFA, probably because an American presence in Iraq would keep Maliki in power. However, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people oppose the pact and reject US control over Iraq's resources.

    In October, just as the Bush and Maliki administrations were attempting to finalize the SOFA's terms - under the wary gaze of Parliament - the Iraqi cabinet dropped another big one in Parliament's lap: the Iraq oil law. The law would set the rules for foreign investment in Iraq's oil industry, and determine how oil revenues are shared within Iraq. Many in Parliament say both the SOFA and the oil law would prolong the US occupation, allowing American control over both its people and its resources. Parliament will debate the oil law this week.

    Cleric Hashim al-Ta'i, of the Iraqi Islamic Party, captured the sentiments of many in a late October sermon on the Baghdad Satellite Channel, saying, "There is a unanimous Iraqi voice which says: No to an agreement that consolidates the occupation and prolongs its life; no to an agreement that consolidates sectarianism and racism and fragments the country into groups and cantons; no to an agreement that mortgages the country and its resources for many decades."

    However, that unified voice clashes with another, very powerful voice in Iraq: American and British oil companies, which share the interests of the Bush team, according to Antonia Juhasz, a fellow with both the Institute for Policy Studies and Oil Change International.

    "US and British oil companies and the Bush administration have been circling their wagons in Iraq over the last few months to bring both the SOFA and the Iraq oil law to a conclusion before Bush's term in office officially comes to a close," Juhasz told Truthout. "The Bush administration, US oil companies and the al-Maliki government are all on the same timeline for trying to lock in the continued presence of the US military in Iraq, which is the al-Maliki government's only hope of holding on to power - and US oil corporations' only hope of securing their long-sought control over Iraqi oil."

    The large oil companies seek long-term contracts that would give them control over much of Iraq's oil and oil production, according to Juhasz. Although Kurdistan has entered into several contracts with foreign oil companies, Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein Al Shahristani declared that any contract signed before the passage of the oil law is void.

    In addition to pushing the international SOFA and Iraq's oil law, the Bush administration is attempting to unilaterally carve a place in US law for a takeover of Iraqi oil, according to Jim Fine, legislative secretary for foreign policy for the Friends Committee on National Legislation. In a signing statement tacked on to the 2009 Defense Authorization Bill, Bush excused himself from a provision intended to rein in US power of Iraq's oil.

    The statement - if one accepts it as authoritative - would allow Bush to use defense funds "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq." Bush wrote that prohibiting such a use of funds "purport(s) to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations."

    Experts view this latest expansion of Bush's powers in Iraq as a kind of rush to the finish line: an attempt to accomplish as many of the administration's oil-control goals before it steps down and the Obama administration - which may well have different ideas - steps up. Bush's signing statement could forebode a weighty US push for Iraq's oil in the next two months, whether or not the SOFA passes, according to Fine.

    "The signing statement is in effect a corollary to the Bush doctrine of preventive warfare, which he is now extending to military action to seize control of natural resources in a foreign country," Fine told Truthout. "The logic of the signing statement is inescapable and extremely dangerous. Absent repudiation by a future president, this and other authorities that President Bush has asserted in signing statements constitute a foundation for draconian unilateral action by the US."

    However, the US's next president seems to have a very different interpretation of the US's relationship to Iraq's oil. In fact, Juhasz took the title of her book, "The Tyranny of Oil," from a line in President-elect Barack Obama's Iowa Caucus victory speech. Obama emphasized his hopes for a transition away from oil and toward sustainable energy sources throughout his campaign. He has also promised a drawdown of troops in Iraq.

    The next two months will measure just how far President Bush is willing to go to fulfill the objectives that, many say, underlie his occupation of Iraq. Erik Leaver, Foreign Policy in Focus's policy outreach director, says that the administration's last-ditch efforts - the signing statements, the SOFA, the oil law pressure - demonstrate that Bush has not taken his eye off Iraqi oil.

    "Although Bush has verbally assured the Iraqi people that we are not occupying their country for oil, the actions of the United States
indicate otherwise," Leaver told Truthout. "The language calling for the protection of Iraq's oil resources in the long term agreement between Iraq and the US is another strong indication of what the US intent is inside of Iraq - gaining long-term access to Iraq's oil."

»


Maya Schenwar is an editor and reporter for Truthout.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Pretty sick . . . how much

Pretty sick . . . how much of America Bush and Cheney have wastefully expended on behalf of their fat-cat energy cronies. The adverse effects of this administration, originally stolen from the public during the 2000 election, will be felt down through many generations of history. George Bush has proved that it is entirely possible for one man--with an over-inflated ego, dim wit, disregard for the world's common man, and general incompetence--to destroy the earth,

Instead of trying to get

Instead of trying to get what isn't ours, the US should focus its energies on developing the alternative energy resources that are readily available here: Wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal. A combination of all of these could easily fill the energy needs of the entire country and the good news is: These are renewable energy resources.

Good thing this war wasn't6

Good thing this war wasn't6 about oil. People would have died for other peop0le's money.

Same old same old... heute

Same old same old... heute Deutschland, morgen die Welt. Today America, tomorrow ze vorld. Why is it so uncool to call the Bushies what they are... Fascists?

That is real sick. I don't

That is real sick. I don't know if god (if there is one) should have mercy on buchco's souls.

Efficiency It would have

Efficiency It would have been easier just to mail Halliburton and Blackwater some money, instead of bankrupting the world's wealthiest country and destroying Iraq.

This article puts in sharp

This article puts in sharp perspective the opinion of those who say, "The Iraq war was not really about oil." They think they're smart, about as smart as George Bush and Dick Cheney. Anyone who argues that we have enemies and therefore we must spend ourselves into the poorhouse for "defense" is half right: we have enemies because we make enemies by treating the Muslim world like fools we can bilk out of their resources. Meanwhile alternative energy research is postponed, i.e. the way out of this crisis without war. It isn't even US corporations in general but just Boeing, Lockeed, Haliburton, Exxon. Proctor and Gamble and other domestic product manufacterers are only complicit because they don't criticize the energy and construction industries under some "Thou shalt not criticize another CEO" commandment. THAT's sick.

Bush and Cheney have made a

Bush and Cheney have made a mess of things and have not stopped yet. The truth however is that "We the People" put them there and have put up with them for eight years. There must be a lesson there someplace.

If we had taken all the

If we had taken all the money we put into the Iraq war and built windmills, solar, geothermal, and the electric infrastructure, we probably would not need Iraq's oil. Or if we switched all our trucks to natural gas, we would not need the oil. When you have to fight wars for oil, it's too expensive and not worth the life of one person. In fact, using oil is killing us and the planet. We have cheaper less polluting stuff here at home. Get smart America!

i'll sew them a pretty name

i'll sew them a pretty name badge for his and cheney's jail suits for the world court for their crimes against humanity. and continue to pray for all the victims of their power illness.

Our actions in Viet Nam left

Our actions in Viet Nam left me feeling shameful of being an American. Now, after these Bush years, that shame is swelling to a rage. What man would choose to be the first to openly disregard a vow made before the American people and before God to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Shame on America for not responding decisively the moment Bush broke that vow. No President, in my opinion, more deserves impeachment than Bush. He has done damage to this nation equal to any terrorist. I realize that no man can change the course of our nation. We have allowed corporations to take the control of most aspects of policy. Anyone who may attempt that change toward common decency and Christian ideals, (or spiritual ideals expressed at the highest level of any religion) would soon follow the Kennedy's and King. While it is important to stand up against the direction we are taking those who have the courage to do so must know they will be killed if they try. If you do not believe that, you do not know where the power lies. Bush is not our leader because the people came knocking at his door begging him to lead them. So what is to be done? At some point we, the people, must stop allowing politics as usual to sweep us into false hopes and foolishness - like, Vote for Change. What nonsense. We can no more vote for change than we can "Vote for Rain. Change comes about by changing. Not some thing. Not some one. YOU. If you don't change, nothing changes. If I don't change, nothing changes. That's something no candidate ever said in these current campaigns. They have you believing things will change without your having to alter your ideas or perceptions or attitudes or..... Never happen - watch and see if I am correct. Einstein said it as clearly as it need be said. "A problem cannot be resolved at the level at which it manifests." Prayer is not the only method with which to rise to a higher level. It is a good one, however. As it is not allowed in government any longer, I see little hope that we will avert the disaster we are designing for our children and the world. We have the power and the resources to wreck havoc, and we will. As Bush has intimated, it doesn't matter how many enemies we make. We have the power to kill them all. Good luck. Christian Michaels Sedona, AZ

This is precisely why a page

This is precisely why a page from the Bush doctrine MUST be applied here & now you may recall R Pat Robertson-Ks for political purposes withheld the second half of the 9/11 report, made public Saddam`s would not have been the only neck stretched! This is not tit for tat it means answering all the Cindy Sheehan`s right to hear the truth or at the very least take some solace in the knowledge BUSHCO INC choked on "yellowcake" and the world decides who runs Iraq`s oil NOT "US and British oil companies and the Bush administration have been circling their wagons in Iraq over the last few months to bring both the SOFA and the Iraq oil law to a conclusion before Bush's term in office officially comes to a close," Juhasz told Truthout. "The Bush administration, US oil companies and the al-Maliki government are all on the same timeline for trying to lock in the continued presence of the US military in Iraq, which is the al-Maliki government's only hope of holding on to power - and US oil corporations' only hope of securing their long-sought control over Iraqi oil."

Even now we won't just admit

Even now we won't just admit it. This was a war of choice and it was and is all about the second largerst and sweetest easy to get to Crude on the planet. It never belonged to us but that didn't matter and it still dosen't. Got to ask what does that say about us and our ignorance.

Come on, did you expect

Come on, did you expect otherwise? First Bush and Cheney framed Yellow Cake on Saddam in order to kill him and his sons. Al Qaeda was the excuse to destroy Iraq so Bush and his cronies could muscle their way in to take over a weak situation. Oil control was run by Baker in the White House basement. Interestingly, the neo-cons seemed to have gotten the raw end of the stick. Without the oil there is no cost benefit for the war. It cost too much. 2 trillion minimum, or does anyone care to ask?

Thank you Truthout for

Thank you Truthout for giving us the real truth in writing. You are the first and only to do so. apparently your investment portfolio doesn't include oil companies. Why do we take this? WHY? WHY? WHY?

Embarrassing enough, outside

Embarrassing enough, outside the USA there never was the slightest doubt that this 'war' was on oil and the control thereof. It's almost unbelievable that some people still think that would be anything new.. And quite frankly, I still believe most Americans knew it as well as anybody else and simply didn't give a hoot about it. Most of them might still hope that once the US corporations have settled there it will reduce gas prices. In fifty years or so Bush will be viewed as 'one of the greatest American presidents' for being the one who first acted to secure those ressources for the USA, and the half-forgotten fact that they aczually belonged to someone else will be as irrelevant as the notion that Oklahoma was once considered Indian territory. Americans just think if they want something thy can take it and who ever stands in their way has no place on this earth.

While China is spending

While China is spending something like $600 billion over the next couple of years to build it's infrastructure, our nation spends it's money destroying the infrastructure and populations of other nations while also allowing our own infrastructure to continue to deteriorate.

. . . "then who are these

. . . "then who are these mystery puppeteers, holding the strings on Chaney and Bush, and do they hold the strings on Obama too?" . . .

It began to go wrong when we

It began to go wrong when we helped the Brits oust democratically elected Mossadeq in Iran in 1953 because he nationalized Iran's oil. The trend since then over most of the world has been for countries to nationalize their oil. The USA's idea in Iraq is to re-privatize Iraq's oil by selling off choice oil fields to western oil companies, such as Exxon/Mobil, Shell, and Total Fina Elf. This is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to succeed, because it goes "backward" toward the old colonial days. Most likely China will get the oil by offering the highest bids (They're rolling in Dollars) and because they DO NOT threaten military action in the region. Who would you sell to?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.