AP: Iraqi officials fail yet again to reach compromise on draft oil law

[Eugene]

Alternate AP headline: Iraqis: Oil law won't favor Americans

Iraqi officials fail yet again to reach compromise on draft oil law

The Associated Press
Published: January 27, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq: Iraqi officials say a hotly debated proposed oil law will not favor
Americans but acknowledge that foreign companies will be allowed to take their profits
out of the country — an incentive to draw foreign investment.

The Oil Ministry has been struggling for months to reach a compromise over draft
legislation to govern Iraq's most important industry and pave the way for much-needed
investment and know-how to revitalize the devastated infrastructure. But the measure
faces strong objections by ethnic Kurds and concern about American influence in the
sector.

-snip-

Trade Minister Abed Falah al-Sudani told The Associated Press that American companies
will be among those bidding for contracts under the proposed law and the Iraqis will
"take the best offer ... and take into consideration the experience of the company."

-snip-

In Washington, White House spokesman Trey Bohn said Saturday: "This development
is part of the give and take of the parliamentary process. Iraqis are taking the lead
in securing their own future and it's reasonable to expect not all parties are going
to agree on the best way to do that."

-snip-

Full article: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/28/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Oil-Law.php

[maddezmom]

1. and the Top Trade Minister was gunned down this am

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2706514&mesg_id=2706514

[maddezmom]

2. nix that, he was Top Industry Minister,

http://au.news.yahoo.com/070128/15/1280l.html

[jody]

3. "Kurds want the final say in signing contracts with foreign oil companies"

Othman said the Kurds want the final say in signing contracts with foreign oil companies for projects in their area, signaling opposition to plans to give full control over contracts to a central oil committee.

"If they don't amend the law or the current draft or reach a mutual agreement, the Kurdish side will not accept it," Othman said.

Why would Kurds allow a central planning group dominated by U.S. oil companies to control Kurdish oil?

[acmavm]

4. Kurdish oil? I thought it was Iraqi oil.

[jody]

5. Iraq is a creation of colonialism ignoring disparate tribal and sectarian divisions.

Over half of marriages in Iraq are between first or second cousins and that maintains tribal governance.

Historically tribes own resources in their territory.

It's not surprising then that Kurds say it's their oil.

Of course Bush claims it's Iraq's oil with the condition that oil is controlled by a central committee dominated by U.S. oil companies that fund US. political campaigns.

It appears it's either Kurdish oil or Foreign oil.

How evil of nature to put foreign oil under Kurdish sand.

ON EDIT ADD:

See Wikipedia's Iraqi Kurdistan

The Kurdistan Region (Kurdish: حكومه تى هه ريمى كوردستان, Hikûmetî Herêmî Kurdistan, Arabic: إقليم کردستان) is an autonomous, federally recognized political entity located in northern Iraq. It borders Iran to the east, Turkey to the north and Syria to the west. Its capital is the city of Arbil, known in Kurdish as Hewlêr.

Governorates
Iraqi Kurdistan is divided among 6 governorates of which currently three are under the control of the Kurdistan Regional Government. These governorates are called in Kurdish parêzge. Particularly in Iraqi government documents, the term governorate is preferred:

· The governorates wholly under the Kurdistan Regional Government are:
1. As Sulaymaniyah (Slêmanî)
2. Erbil (Hewlêr)
3. Dahuk (Duhok)

· The governorates claimed totally or in part by the Kurdistan Regional Government are:
4. Diyala
5. Kirkuk (Kerkûk)
6. Ninawa

There will be a referendum to determine whether these governorates will be included in the Kurdish Regional Government sometime between now and December 2007, while Kurds are insisting that the referendum be held as soon as possible.

[acmavm]

6. I understand perfectly tribal and sectarian divisiveness in that area. I

also understand the original piecing to gether of what we call the country of Iraq. If you want to discuss sectarianism, tribalism, and ethnicism, I have a historical atlas that illustrates the changes in the world from 2100 - 1300 b.c. Looking through that book you can see that nothing stays the same, even borders or the existence of countries. But the Kurds (or more accurately, their ancestors which consist of various and sundry ethnic peoples) have lived in the same area for thousands of years. They are not new to the area. And they have been under one or another nation's thumb continuously. They are the poster child of the Middle East.

My point is that Iraq was (up to the invasion) one big country. Albeit it was held together by a very forceful dictator, it was one country. The Shi'ites and the Kurds were at a disadvantage most definitely. But again, it was one country.

The Kurds want their own homeland. And they want to take the Kurkuk oil fields with them. Turkey says that will not happen. And now the Kurds are fighting the oil 'agreement' that the bush** administration has been trying to shove down the throats of the Iraqi people and thier 'government'. The US/UK will not allow that to happen. That was the point of their war.

So what is the answer to these problems? Another territorial redrawing of the area, creation of three countries? Who's going to decide what the boundaries are. Historically its been the British who've fucked up the area and decided who belongs where and gets what land. This time, are the people indigenous to the area in question going to be allowed to decide for themselves, or is this going to be all out warfare in the Middle East, a total free-for-all with all the nations including the US, Russia, and China putting in their two cents?



The Kurds, if anyone, deserve to have a homeland. They've been persecuted throughout history by EVERYONE. By an American installed and supported government (Iran under Shah Reza Pahlavi). You can see a picture of the firing squad executing Kurds if you go to this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people

But what I want to know is can Iraq be divided up without the Middle East ending up erupting in flames?

[jody]

7. "divided up without the Middle East ending up erupting in flames?" We're going to find out. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

8. "can Iraq be divided up without the Middle East ending up erupting in flames"

a) no.
b) it already has erupted into flames.

The plan all along was to balkanize the region. The plan is on target.

[oblivious]

10. Nope. See maps below.

[stillcool]

9. Where does it end?

History of Oil in Iraq

Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Secretary, denied that oil interests influenced policy in Iraq, but the archives show that the British government rushed troops to Mosul in 1918 to gain control of the northern oil fields. Britain and France clashed over Iraq's oil during the Versailles Conference and after, but Britain eventually took the lion’s share by turning its military victories into colonial rule. The powerful Iraq Petroleum Company, in which US and French firms held minority positions, acted always in the cartel interests of the Anglo-American companies. To the fury of the Iraqis and the French, it held down production to maximize profits elsewhere. The company kept a monopoly of Iraq’s oil sector until nationalization in 1972.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/oilhistindex.htm

Oil in Iraq
Iraq has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq’s reserves to 200+ billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, everything has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades. The new Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiators hope soon to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the fabled super-giant Majnoon. However, despite pressure from the US government and foreign oil companies, the current Iraqi government has not passed a national oil law. While regional governments angle for influence over the foreign oil contracts, most Iraqis favor continued control by a national company and the powerful oil workers union opposes de-nationalization. Iraq's political future is very much in flux, but oil remains the central feature of the political landscape.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

[MasonJar]

11. We are just looming there like a giant vulture waiting to screw the

Iraqi people once again.