BIG OIL READY TO SETTLE FOR LESS IN IRAQ?
By Nick Mottern, Director, Consumers for Peace.
It looks like U.S. Senator from Texas Kay Bailey Hutchison sent a message this month that big oil is abandoning ambitions for quick access to all of Iraq’s oil wealth, for now, and is willing to settle for operating in northern Iraq.
Ms. Hutchison, running for reelection, joined the GOP shuffle away from the Bush “stay the course” refrain on Oct. 20 when she said: “If I had known then what I know now about the weapons of mass destruction, which was a key reason that I voted to go in there, I would not vote to go into Iraq the way we did.” While she does not support troop withdrawal, the AP reports she told Texas newspapers “the option of partitioning Iraq into semiautonomous regions should be considered.”
Ms. Hutchinson is an excellent messenger for communicating big oil’s view that politicians should start lowering whatever public expectations may be fluttering around the notion of a unified “democratic” Iraq. She is the largest recipient of oil and gas campaign contributions in the U.S. Congress for 2006 election cycle, according to Open Secrets, at over $500,000. This does not include the $108,100 she got from Vinson & Elkins, the Texas-based law firm, deeply involved in the oil business, where her husband works. Major oil interests contributing to her campaign include Valero Energy and ExxonMobil.
Partitioning has been publicly opposed by the Bush organization, but Ms. Hutchison’s remarks appear to be a hint from big oil to Mr. Bush and company not to let concerns about consistency and how history will view them get in the way of dollars and cents oil business. Moreover, she is also sending a message to Congress to get ready for partitioning and to start calling the White House and the oil lobbyists for copies of pro-partition talking points.
By last week, the Bush people had ditched “stay the course” as a pre-election loser and are probably trying to figure out a way to drop the unified Iraq theme before the end of the year. It is likely that partitioning will be called “federalism”.
It has been reported in Harper’s magazine that James Baker III is likely to be floating the partition idea as part of his plan for resolving the Iraq conflict in a way beneficial to the U.S.
As discussed elsewhere on this website, ExxonMobil and other firms have been eager to get access to Iraq’s vast oil reserves under extremely lucrative production sharing agreements that were designed in the U.S. State Department prior to the Iraq invasion in 2003. But getting early access to the whole of Iraq under sufficient security to do business is a fading dream.
Hey, We Want Some of That!
The Kurdish northern section of Iraq, with a militia reportedly mustering 60,000, has already made oil production sharing deals with non-American firms, two Turkish and one Canadian.
The Kurds have a continuing dispute with the central government over income from northern oil, condemning the central government for saying it will not recognize contracts that the Kurds had signed with the oil companies to develop new fields. At stake is the distribution of income from fields that could produce more than 500,000 barrels of oil a day.
The central government wants complete control over northern oil because the central part of the country, viewed as the Sunni region, has no oil. The Sunnis do not want the oil-rich southern region to follow the same independent path as the north.
If U.S. troops pull back into the northern region, they can protect the reserves, attempt to suppress any dissent and keep out Iraqis who don’t like the partition scheme. U.S. casualties would probably be reduced.
It’s Hot in the South
The largest oil reserve prize is reportedly in southern Iraq, where it appears that there will be a continuing struggle for political and military control between militias of Muqtada al Sadr and the Badr Brigade, which is tied to Iran. A week ago, militia loyal to Sadr briefly seized control of the southern town of Amara in a dispute with Badr militia. Fighting between the groups continues. Sadr, whose base is in Baghdad in central Iraq, is reported by the Associated Press to be opposed to partition or federalization. The Badr Brigade is believed to be closely affiliated with Iran.
Experienced observers say that Iran effectively controls what happens in southern Iraq. It is likely that the U.S. confrontation with Iran, said to be about Iran’s processing of radioactive material, has much to do with trying to pressure Iran to help pacify southern Iraq and to approve the opening the southern Iraq’s oil fields to U.S. companies.
The seizure of Amara, a provincial capital, demonstrated, to the embarrassment of the U.S., the inability of the central government, the U.S. and the British forces to provide security in the south. The incident is probably one of the reasons the Bush people scuttled “stay the course”.
The south is also a less appealing area for big oil right now because the General Union of Employees in Basra (GUOE), known as the Basra Oil Union, which represents 23,000 workers in the south major oil producing regions, opposes letting international oil companies gain control of Iraq’s oil fields. The Socialist Review, cited in ZNet, reports, for example:
“The International Monetary Fund is backing a new oil resources law which would give free rein to foreign corporations over Iraq’s oil. (Kamil) Mahdi (an Iraqi lecturer in economics of the Middle East at Exeter University in the United Kingdom) says that while fighting for workers’ rights is important to the GUOE, it is the preservation of the national oil industry this is foremost in their minds: ‘There is an existing national oil industry and it has continued to work and develop production under very difficult circumstances of war and sanctions. Industries have been attacked, bombed, and received no investment. The efforts of thousands of workers have kept the oil industry going, and their experience of companies brought in by the occupation to take over the management of the industry is completely negative.’”