The Rag Blog

Throughout nearly four years of the daily mayhem and carnage in Iraq, President Bush and his aides in the White House have scoffed at even the slightest suggestion that the U.S. military occupation has anything to do with oil.

The President presumably would have us all believe that if Iraq had the world’s second-largest supply of bananas instead of petroleum, American troops would still be there.

Now comes new evidence of the big prize in Iraq that rarely gets mentioned at White House briefings.

A proposed new Iraqi oil and gas law began circulating last week among that country’s top government leaders and was quickly leaked to various Internet sites – before it has even been presented to the Iraqi parliament.

Under the proposed law, Iraq’s immense oil reserves would not simply be opened to foreign oil exploration, as many had expected. Amazingly, executives from those companies would actually be given seats on a new Federal Oil and Gas Council that would control all of Iraq’s reserves.

In other words, Chevron, ExxonMobil, British Petroleum and the other Western oil giants could end up on the board of directors of the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, while Iraq’s own national oil company would become just another competitor.

The new law would grant the council virtually all power to develop policies and plans for undeveloped oil fields and to review and change all exploration and production contracts.

Since most of Iraq’s 73 proven petroleum fields have yet to be developed, the new council would instantly become a world energy powerhouse.

“We’re talking about trillions of dollars of oil that are at stake,” said Raed Jarrar, an independent Iraqi journalist and blogger who obtained an Arabic copy of the draft law and posted an English-language translation on his Web site over the weekend.

Take, for example, the massive Majnoon field in southern Iraq near the Iranian border, which contains an estimated 20 billion barrels. Before Saddam Hussein was toppled by the U.S. invasion in 2003, he had granted a $4 billion contract to French oil giant TotalFinaElf to develop the field.

In the same way, the Iraqi dictator signed contracts with Chinese, Russian, Korean, Italian and Spanish companies to develop 10 other big oil fields once international sanctions against his regime were lifted.

The big British and American companies had been shut out of Iraq, thanks to more than a decade of U.S. sanctions against Saddam.

But if the new law passes, those companies will be the ones reviewing those very contracts and any others.

“Iraq’s economic security and development will be thrown into question with this law,” said Antonia Juhasz of Oil Change International, a petroleum industry watchdog group. “It’s a radical departure not only from Iraq’s existing structure but from how oil is managed in most of the world today.”

Throughout the developing world, national oil companies control the bulk of oil production, though they often develop joint agreements with foreign commercial oil groups.

But under the proposed law, the government-owned Iraqi National Oil Co. “will not get any preference over foreign companies,” Juhasz said.

The law must still be presented to the Iraqi parliament. Given the many political and religious divisions in the country, its passage is hardly guaranteed.

The main religious and ethnic groups are all pushing to control contracts and oil revenues for their regions, while the Bush administration is seeking more centralized control.

A dispute about who should lead Islam after Muhammad died ultimately split the faith into two branches, the Sunnis and the Shias.

The young Muslim community faced a pivotal decision after the prophet’s death early in the seventh century in what is now Saudi Arabia.

The “Meccan elite” wanted to pick a successor according to their tribal customs, with candidates drawn from a handful of elders, said Juan Cole, an expert on modern Middle East history at the University of Michigan. “The people who rose on their list tended to be intermarried with (the prophet’s) family, but not directly related.”

Two hundred miles north in Medina, where Muhammad had settled after he left Mecca, a more dynastic view favored a blood relative of the religion’s founder. The closest male relative was Ali, Muhammad’s first cousin and son-in-law.

The Meccans prevailed, and Abu Bakr, the prophet’s father-in-law, became the first caliph, or head of Islam. Ali became the fourth caliph in 656, but the question of who should rule rose again after his assassination five years later.

A relative of the third caliph became the next leader, and he moved the caliphate to Damascus, Syria.

About this time Muslims who had been followers of Ali objected to what they saw as a shift away from Muhammad’s teachings. The people of Kufa, in what is now Iraq, called on Ali’s second son, Hussein, to lead them.

Hussein and 72 people, including his family, ultimately faced the caliph’s army of thousands in the fields of Karbala. Cole said they were surrounded and killed.

Shias believe Hussein, the prophet’s grandson, sacrificed his life for Islam, a concept scholars refer to as the “Karbala paradigm.” It explains lingering feelings of persecution and martyrdom and a desire to fight perceived injustices.

The sectarian character of the Sunni-Shia split, Cole said, became firm after Hussein’s death in 680. The Sunnis continued to follow the caliphate for several centuries. The Shias looked only to Hussein’s descendants for religious leadership.

Ali, Hussein and their descendants became known as the 12 Imams, who are considered infallible by their followers.

After the 11th imam died in the ninth century, followers believed his young son went into hiding. Since then Shias, also known as the Twelvers, have waited for the 12th imam’s return.

WASHINGTON — Serious new divisions have emerged between the Bush administration and its Iraqi allies over the Baghdad government’s refusal to enact a reform that the White House considers crucial to its new strategy for bringing the country’s violence under control.

In spite of a commitment by Iraq’s prime minister to its passage, legislation that would ease rules barring former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party from government service has been blocked by the country’s Shiite-dominated parliament.

U.S. officials repeatedly have expressed confidence that Prime Minister Nouri Maliki would work for passage of “de-Baathification” reform. However, they have begun to express disappointment over the Iraqi stalemate, saying that the reform remains a top political priority and is essential to convince the country’s Sunni minority that it can receive fair treatment in the new system.

One U.S. official said the reform, far from advancing as promised, was “moving backward” and “almost dead in the water.”

Al-Zaman provides two other interesting but unconfirmed narratives. One is that al-Hakim’s party came under fire as they entered Iraq near Kut and one or two of his guards were actually killed. The paper also reports an allegation that the US in arresting al-Hakim was acting on a tip from the Sadr Movement of Muqtada al-Sadr, which is popular in the Kut region and is a rival of the al-Hakims.

In contrast, al-Hayat reports that the US may have been hoping that the convoy coming from Iran was that of Muqtada al-Sadr, whom they have determined to arrest. In that case, the incident would be a case of mistaken identity.

Al-Hakim says his guards were abused and still have not been released. US military sources say that they were following procedure in verifying his identity, since passports can be forged, and that the issue had to go to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for resolution since the latter had prohibited lower-level officials from just releasing detainees.

I am unconvinced by this explanation, since there was not good reason to doubt al-Hakim’s passport, and it can’t have taken 12 hours to call al-Maliki. There is also the question of why US troops were even in the area, since it is a Polish sphere of operations. They had to have come over for some specific purpose. The likelihood is that it was an intelligence operation of some sort.

The incident, which produced a small demonstration in Basra and a lot of bad feeling among Iraqi Shiites, demonstrates the dangers of Bush’s cowboy policies in Iraq, such that he recently urged suspected Iranian agents be shot on sight. If Ammar had been killed instead of arrested for 12 hours, there would have been hell to pay.

02/23/07 “ICH” — — Hugo Chavez Frias was reelected by an overwhelming nearly two to one margin over his only serious rival on December 3, 2006 giving him a mandate to proceed with his agenda to build a socialist society in the 21st century on a Bolivarian model designed to meet the needs of the current era in Venezuela and Latin America overall. Chavez first announced his intentions on January 30, 2005 at the Fifth World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and his people affirmed they want him to proceed with it in his new term to run until December, 2012.

Chavez wants to build a humanistic democratic society based on solidarity and respect for political, economic, social and cultural human and civil rights, but not the top-down bureaucratic kind that doomed the Soviet Union and Eastern European states. He said he wants to build a “new socialism of the 21st century….based in solidarity, fraternity, love, justice, liberty and equality” as opposed to the neoliberal new world order model based on predatory capitalism exploiting ordinary people for power and profit that’s incompatible with democracy. Newly appointed Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte expressed Washington’s concern about the challenge to its hegemony in his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing saying Chavez’s “behavior is threatening to democracies in the region (because he exports a form of) radical populism.” He didn’t mention how glorious it is.

He also never explained Venezuelans voted for it and love it and so do people throughout the region wanting what Venezuelans now have. Since first taking office in February, 1999, Chavez radically transformed the country from one of power and privilege to a participatory democracy governed by principles of political, economic and social equity and justice. He now wants to advance his social democratic agenda well into the new century, and his landslide electoral victory empowers him more than ever to do it. Like a true democrat, he intends to serve his people and deliver what they asked for.

Chavez began his new term with the formation of a new unity party called the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) to “construct socialism from below,” built “from the base” in communities, patrols, battalions, squadrons, neighborhoods “to carry out the battle of ideas for the socialist project (to) build Venezuelan socialism.” He wants it to be an “original Venezuelan model” to become the most democratic in Venezuela’s history and include a coalition of many smaller parties along with his former Movement for the Fifth Republic (MVR) party that completed its work and “must now pass into history.”

In December, 23 parties joined with the MVR to reelect Chavez, including three major ones that can add strength and credibility to the PSUV – For Social Democracy (PODEMOS), Homeland For All (PPT), and the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV). The inclusion of all or most allied parties in the new PSUV will be a step toward building a foundational unity to address the agenda ahead – building 21st century socialism using state revenues to benefit people in new and innovative ways. Chavez wants to reform the constitution, eliminate a two-term presidential limit, and institute new progressive changes giving more power to people at the grass roots the way democracy should work.

He also wants to transform the country’s economic model believing it’s “fundamental (to do) if we wish to build a true socialism (therefore) we must socialize the economy (including the land and create) a new productive model.” He wants all proposed changes submitted to popular referendum so Venezuelans decide on them, not politicians. That’s how it should be in a participatory democracy from the bottom up Chavez says must “transcend the local framework (to achieve) “a sort of regional federation of Communal Councils.” There are 16,000 of them already organized across the country dealing with local issues, each with 200 – 400 families, and that number is expected to grow to 21,000 by year end 2007. “They are the key to peoples’ power,” Chavez stressed, and he sees them as the embryo of a new state driven by the PSUV.

Communal Councils are central to Chavez’s plan for people empowerment. They were created in April, 2006 with the passage of the Communal Council Law. Once fully in place and operational, they’ll represent true participatory democracy unimaginable in the US now governed from the top down by authoritarian rule allowing no deviation from established policies people have no say on and often don’t know exist.

Councils work the opposite way. They’re to deal with all community issues in local umbrella groups addressing matters of health, education, agriculture, housing and all other functions handled up to now by Social Missions and Urban Land Committees. They represent grass roots democracy in action giving them muscle and meaning and are administered by the Intergovernmental Fund for Decentralization that will distribute $5 billion to them in 2007 or more than triple the $1.5 billion allocated in 2006. Additionally, Chavez hopes $7 billion more will be put in the Venezuelan National Development Fund for industrial development use.

These are dramatic examples of two nations going opposite ways. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez supports free expression, social democracy, and using state revenues to insure and improve both. In the US, both parties support wealth and power, are jointly running a criminal enterprise masquerading as legitimately elected government, scorn the law and constitutional freedoms, are heading the country toward despotism in a national security police state conducting wars without end, and want to rule the world including its oil-rich parts inside Venezuela’s borders.

Editor’s Note: The author identifies the most obvious problem facing the people of the United States in the corporate government: corporate influence in government decision-making. He also identifies a slew of lobby groups who have Senators and House Members feeding at their troughs. We find it interesting that neither he nor NYT finds room in this analysis to identify the most powerful lobby of all: American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Here’s how Wikipedia describes APAIC:

“The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a special interest group that lobbies the United States Government in favor of maintaining a close US-Israel relationship. Describing itself as “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,” it is a mass-membership organization including both Jews and non-Jews. AIPAC was formed during the Eisenhower administration, and since then has helped increase American aid and support to Israel. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked Congressmen to rank the “25 most powerful” lobbying organizations in DC. In 2005, the National Journal did the same. Both times, AIPAC came in 2nd – ahead of, for instance, the AFL-CIO and the NRA, but behind the AARP. In 2001, it came in 4th on the Fortune list, cementing its reputation for effectiveness.”

Join us during the week of March 12 for the Encampment to Stop the War when we confront Congress and demand an immediate end to the US war on the people of Iraq. – Les Blough, Editor

Congress Finds Ways to Avoid Lobbyist Limits
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: February 11, 2007

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 — The 110th Congress opened with the passage of new rules intended to curb the influence of lobbyists by prohibiting them from treating lawmakers to meals, trips, stadium box seats or the discounted use of private jets.

But it did not take long for lawmakers to find ways to keep having lobbyist-financed fun.

In just the last two months, lawmakers invited lobbyists to help pay for a catalog of outings: lavish birthday parties in a lawmaker’s honor ($1,000 a lobbyist), martinis and margaritas at Washington restaurants (at least $1,000), a California wine-tasting tour (all donors welcome), hunting and fishing trips (typically $5,000), weekend golf tournaments ($2,500 and up), a Presidents’ Day weekend at Disney World ($5,000), parties in South Beach in Miami ($5,000), concerts by the Who or Bob Seger ($2,500 for two seats), and even Broadway shows like “Mary Poppins” and “The Drowsy Chaperone” (also $2,500 for two).

The lobbyists and their employers typically end up paying for the events, but within the new rules.

Instead of picking up the lawmaker’s tab, lobbyists pay a political fund-raising committee set up by the lawmaker. In turn, the committee pays the legislator’s way.

Lobbyists and fund-raisers say such trips are becoming increasingly popular, partly as a quirky consequence of the new ethics rules.

By barring lobbyists from mingling with a lawmaker or his staff for the cost of a steak dinner, the restrictions have stirred new demand for pricier tickets to social fund-raising events.

Lobbyists say that the rules might even increase the volume of contributions flowing to Congress from K Street, where many lobbying firms have their offices.

Some lawmakers acknowledge that some fund-raising trips resemble the lobbyist-paid junkets that Congress voted to prohibit.

Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said its leaders had decided to stop holding fund-raising events for lobbyists with political action committees because of the seeming inconsistency.

So the committee canceled its annual Colorado ski weekend for lobbyists and lawmakers to raise money for the next campaign. Gone, too, is its Maryland hunting trip with Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, the avid hunter who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

AN EGYPTIAN blogger was jailed for four years yesterday after being convicted of insulting Islam and Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak.

Abdel Karim Suleiman, 22, a former law student, was the first blogger to stand trial in Egypt for his internet writings. He was charged in connection with eight articles written since 2004.

Rights groups and opposition bloggers said they feared it could set a legal precedent, limiting internet freedom in Egypt.

Amnesty International said: “This is yet another slap in the face of freedom of expression in Egypt.” It added that it considered Suleiman to be a prisoner of conscience, jailed for peacefully expressing his opinion.