Oil And The Iraq “Withdrawal”
By James Cogan
It is fitting that today’s deadline for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq’s cities coincides with a meeting in Baghdad to auction off some of the country’s largest oil fields to companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron and British Petroleum. It is a reminder of the real motives for the 2003 invasion and in whose interests over one million Iraqis and 4,634 American and other Western troops have been killed. The Iraq war was, and continues to be, an imperialist war waged by the American ruling elite for control of oil and geo-strategic advantage
The Scramble For Iraq's 'Sweet Oil'
By Nicole Johnston
On June 30 major companies - including Exxon, Shell, BP and Total - will gather at Iraq's oil ministry in Baghdad for a two-day meeting to take part in the first bidding round for oil service contracts. However, what the oil companies will be entitled to if they secure a contract has become one of the most controversial elements of the bidding process
By Nicole Johnston
On June 30 major companies - including Exxon, Shell, BP and Total - will gather at Iraq's oil ministry in Baghdad for a two-day meeting to take part in the first bidding round for oil service contracts. However, what the oil companies will be entitled to if they secure a contract has become one of the most controversial elements of the bidding process
A "hol iday" full of holes
Free Iraq
25th June 2009
Al-Maliki declared June 30 2009 a "holiday" commemorating the "withdrawal" of the American occupier soldiers from Iraqi cities. Fools may be celebrating. Let us see if the July 30 2009 referendum will be allowed.
.
"On November 17, 2008, when Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker signed an agreement for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, citizens from both countries applauded. While many were disappointed about the lengthy timeline for the withdrawal of the troops, it appeared that a roadmap was set to end the war and occupation. However, the first step — withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009 — is full of loopholes, and tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers will remain in the cities after the "deadline" passes.
The failure to fully comply with the withdrawal agreement indicates the United States is looking to withdraw from Iraq in name only, as it appears that up to 50,000 military personnel will remain after the deadline.
The United States claims it's adhering to the agreement, known as the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), even with so many troops being left in the cities. But the United States is changing semantics instead of policy. For example, there are no plans to transfer the 3,000 American troops stationed within Baghdad at Forward Operating Base Falcon, because commanders have determined that despite its location, it's not within the city.
The original intent of moving troops out of the cities was to reduce the U.S. military role and send the message to Iraqis that the United States would be leaving the country soon. But troops that are no longer sleeping in the cities will still take part in operations within Iraqi cities; they will serve in "support" and "advisory" roles, rather than combat functions. Such "reclassification" of troops as military trainers is another example of how the United States is circumventing the terms of the SOFA agreement.
The larger loophole in the agreement is the treatment of military contractors. There has been little mention of the 132,610 military contractors in Iraq. Of these, 36,061 are American citizens, according to a recent Department of Defense report.
Since September 2008, only 30,000 troops have left Iraq. The 134,000 soldiers that remain are just slightly below the number of troops that were in Iraq in 2003. These numbers are likely to remain well above 100,000 until 2010.
Instead of sending soldiers stationed in cities home, the military has been expanding and building new bases in rural areas to accommodate soldiers affected by the June 30 deadline. And Congress just passed a war-spending bill that includes more funding for military construction inside Iraq.
The implications of the June 30 pullout are manifest: As Iraqis grapple with increasing responsibility for the security of their country and American military leaders search for avenues to project their influence, withdrawal from urban areas will set important precedents for the proposed full withdrawal of American forces.
The ability of Iraqi and U.S. commanders to subvert the SOFA and extend the stay of U.S. troops in Iraqi cities past the June 30 deadline does not bode well for the other withdrawal deadlines laid out in the agreement. Moreover, the vague language of the agreement lends itself to the possibility that U.S. forces will remain in Iraq past the December 31, 2011 deadline.
This all may be for naught, however, as a referendum on the SOFA is scheduled for July 30 in Iraq [emphasis added]. Despite attempts by the Iraqi cabinet to postpone the vote, lawmakers think a delay is unlikely. The measure is likely to lose if it goes to popular vote given the widespread opposition to the SOFA in Iraq, which is seen as legitimizing the U.S. occupation until 2011. According to the latest polls, published in the Brookings Institution’s Iraq Index, 73% of Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition forces [emphasis added]. If the SOFA is struck down by the vote, U.S. forces could be forced out of Iraq immediately as the forces would not be legally protected.
The referendum could create big problems for the Obama administration, which has quietly discouraged the Iraqi government from holding it. The pressure from the administration is inconsistent with their goals of promoting democracy in Iraq. The people, who have been forced to live under occupation for the past six years, deserve a chance to have their voices heard.
Obama campaigned on a promise to leave Iraq. Yet the response to the June 30th deadline, the lack of support for the referendum, and the passage of another $70 billion for the war are stark indicators of what the real Iraq policy may be [emphasis added]."
A Withdrawal in Name Only June 24, 2009
.
"On November 17, 2008, when Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker signed an agreement for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, citizens from both countries applauded. While many were disappointed about the lengthy timeline for the withdrawal of the troops, it appeared that a roadmap was set to end the war and occupation. However, the first step — withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009 — is full of loopholes, and tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers will remain in the cities after the "deadline" passes.
The failure to fully comply with the withdrawal agreement indicates the United States is looking to withdraw from Iraq in name only, as it appears that up to 50,000 military personnel will remain after the deadline.
The United States claims it's adhering to the agreement, known as the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), even with so many troops being left in the cities. But the United States is changing semantics instead of policy. For example, there are no plans to transfer the 3,000 American troops stationed within Baghdad at Forward Operating Base Falcon, because commanders have determined that despite its location, it's not within the city.
The original intent of moving troops out of the cities was to reduce the U.S. military role and send the message to Iraqis that the United States would be leaving the country soon. But troops that are no longer sleeping in the cities will still take part in operations within Iraqi cities; they will serve in "support" and "advisory" roles, rather than combat functions. Such "reclassification" of troops as military trainers is another example of how the United States is circumventing the terms of the SOFA agreement.
The larger loophole in the agreement is the treatment of military contractors. There has been little mention of the 132,610 military contractors in Iraq. Of these, 36,061 are American citizens, according to a recent Department of Defense report.
Since September 2008, only 30,000 troops have left Iraq. The 134,000 soldiers that remain are just slightly below the number of troops that were in Iraq in 2003. These numbers are likely to remain well above 100,000 until 2010.
Instead of sending soldiers stationed in cities home, the military has been expanding and building new bases in rural areas to accommodate soldiers affected by the June 30 deadline. And Congress just passed a war-spending bill that includes more funding for military construction inside Iraq.
The implications of the June 30 pullout are manifest: As Iraqis grapple with increasing responsibility for the security of their country and American military leaders search for avenues to project their influence, withdrawal from urban areas will set important precedents for the proposed full withdrawal of American forces.
The ability of Iraqi and U.S. commanders to subvert the SOFA and extend the stay of U.S. troops in Iraqi cities past the June 30 deadline does not bode well for the other withdrawal deadlines laid out in the agreement. Moreover, the vague language of the agreement lends itself to the possibility that U.S. forces will remain in Iraq past the December 31, 2011 deadline.
This all may be for naught, however, as a referendum on the SOFA is scheduled for July 30 in Iraq [emphasis added]. Despite attempts by the Iraqi cabinet to postpone the vote, lawmakers think a delay is unlikely. The measure is likely to lose if it goes to popular vote given the widespread opposition to the SOFA in Iraq, which is seen as legitimizing the U.S. occupation until 2011. According to the latest polls, published in the Brookings Institution’s Iraq Index, 73% of Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition forces [emphasis added]. If the SOFA is struck down by the vote, U.S. forces could be forced out of Iraq immediately as the forces would not be legally protected.
The referendum could create big problems for the Obama administration, which has quietly discouraged the Iraqi government from holding it. The pressure from the administration is inconsistent with their goals of promoting democracy in Iraq. The people, who have been forced to live under occupation for the past six years, deserve a chance to have their voices heard.
Obama campaigned on a promise to leave Iraq. Yet the response to the June 30th deadline, the lack of support for the referendum, and the passage of another $70 billion for the war are stark indicators of what the real Iraq policy may be [emphasis added]."
A Withdrawal in Name Only June 24, 2009
وطنية أم تبعية النفط العراقي؟
وزير النفط العراقي السابق عصام الجلبي يدق جرس الانذار من عقود نفط تبرمها حكومة الفساد في المنطقة الخضراء والتي تعيد العراق الى التبعية.ـ
مقابلة مع عصام الجلبي على قناة روسيا اليوم
ـ 1 تموز 2009
posted by Imad Khadduri
أعلن مؤخرا في العراق عن فوز شركتي " بريتش بتروليوم" البريطانية و"CNPC" الصينية بعقدين لخدمة حقل الرميلة الضخم في جنوب العراق. وفي الوقت الحالي تتنافس عشرات الشركات على عقود أخرى من بينها شركتا " لوك اويل" و"غاز بروم" الروسيتان . وللتعليق على ذلك أجرى برنامج "حدث وتعليق" لقاء مع الدكتور عصام الجلبي الخبير النفطي الدولي وزير النفط العراقي الأسبق .
وقد استهل الدكتور الجلبي حديثه بالتحذير من توقيع عقود استثمار مع شركات أجنبية والتأكيد على أن النفط ثروة وطنية تعود للشعب العراقي والأجيال القادمة وإن النفط كان المرتكز الرئيسي في كافة التقسيمات الجغرافية والسياسية، التي جرت في النصف الأول من القرن الماضي، ولا يمكن بأي حال من الأحوال التفريط بهذه الثروة.
ولفت وزير النفط العراقي السابق الانتباه إلى العقد أنه تم التوقيع على مذكرة تفاهم بين وزارة النفط العراقية وشركة" شيل" البريطانية الهولندية وأشار قائلا:" إن لهذا العقد خصوصيته إذ استدعيت شركة واحدة فقط دون اتاحة المجال لشتى الشركات للتنافس. فلايمكن ابرام عقد بعشرات المليارات دون تقديم عروض تنافسية. وعموما لسنا بحاجة إلى شريك وإنما يلزمنا معدات وصيانة. ويجب أن نضع نصب أعيننا ان قوانين النفط والغاز الصادرة في العهد السابق لاتزال سارية المفعول. وهي تؤكد على ضرورة تطوير النفط من خلال الاستثمار الوطني المباشر. وفي حال تحويل العمل إلى اسلوب شراكة تقضي هذه القوانين بوجوب استصدار موافقة خاصة من قبل البرلمان . على كل حال لسنا ضد التعامل مع شركات نفطية اجنبية ولكن ضمن صيغ مقبولة".
