|
|
Los consejeros de los E.E.U.U. dirigieron contratos iraquíes del aceite a las firmas occidentales
Miércoles 2 de julio de 2008
Por Bill Van Auken | ¿Como el régimen iraquí abrió formalmente hacer una oferta para las compañías petroleras extranjeras para reasumir la explotación del país? ¿abundancia del aceite de s, fue revelado que los E.E.U.U.? ¿consejeros? desempeñó el papel principal en el bosquejo de los procedimientos que contraían y la dirección de repartos preferenciales a los conglomerados grandes de la energía de los E.E.U.U. ¿? ¿Un grupo de consejeros americanos condujo por un equipo pequeño del departamento del estado hizo una parte integral en la elaboración de contratos entre el gobierno iraquí y cinco compañías petroleras occidentales para desarrollar algunos de los campos más grandes de Iraq? Tiempos de Nueva York lunes divulgado. ¿El equipo de los abogados del gobierno y de los consultores del sector privado proporcionados? ¿sugerencias detalladas en el bosquejo de los contratos? Épocas divulgado, citando a un funcionario mayor del departamento del estado. ¿Entre el otro? ¿servicios? ofrecido por los consejeros de los E.E.U.U. se aseguraba de que el ministerio iraquí del aceite despidió demandas de la compañía petrolera rusa Lukoil basado en los contratos firmados con el gobierno iraquí antes de la invasión de los E.E.U.U. del marzo de 2003. Épocas continuado: ¿? ¿Es confuso cuánto influencia su trabajo tenía en el ministerio? ¿decisiones de s.? No hay nada confuso sobre él. El gobierno de los E.E.U.U. dictó los términos que se fijan para traer detrás Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, total y el galón, muy los mismos gigantes multinacionales de la energía que dominaron la producción petrolífera iraquí antes de que Bagdad nacionalizara el sector hace 36 años. , Junto con un consorcio de firmas más pequeñas, se han ofrecido ninguno-hicieron una oferta contratos por el gobierno iraquí. Estos acuerdos supuestos de la ayuda técnica, digno de $500 millones por cada uno, representan el pie en la puerta para las firmas occidentales principales del aceite, dándoles una ventaja decisiva sobre las compañías rivales de Rusia, China, la India y a otra parte. Iraq ha probado las reservas crudas de 115 mil millones barriles más otros pies cúbicos 112 trillones de gas. Bajo condiciones en las cuales otras naciones, de Rusia y de Kazakhstan en el este a Venezuela y a Bolivia en el oeste, son control nacional más apretado imponente sobre sus recursos energéticos, la ocupación de los E.E.U.U. de Iraq ha abierto el potencial para una bonanza sin par del beneficio para el aceite grande. Que ésta era la puntería principal de la invasión de los E.E.U.U. en el primer lugar está llegando a ser cada vez más imposible de negar. ¿Detrás de todas las mentiras alrededor? ¿armas de la destrucción total? and supposed ties between Baghdad and Al Qaeda, the US war was about reinstating the domination of the US-based oil giants over the world?s third largest petroleum reserves and blocking access to them by their foreign rivals. Domination of strategic energy resources and their utilization to further Washington?s increasingly desperate struggle to preserve its global economic hegemony were the real reasons that, as of Monday, 4,113 US troops have lost their lives, with nearly 30,000 more having returned from Iraq wounded, many of them grievously. These predatory strategic aims, and the related profit interests of the oil conglomerates, are the sole justification for the slaughter of more than one million Iraqis and the transformation of nearly five million more into exiles or internal refugees. The determination of both major political parties and the US ruling establishment as a whole to pursue this criminal war, whatever their tactical differences, was underscored Monday with President George W. Bush?s signing into law another $162 billion war funding bill, sent to his desk by the Democratic leadership of the US Congress. Bush praised the Democrats in Congress for having ?agreed to provide these vital funds without tying the hands of our commanders, and without an artificial timetable of withdrawal from Iraq.? As in the past, Bush portrayed the funding for the war as an act of support for the ?brave men and women, who … risk their lives to defeat our adversaries and to keep our country safe.? What lies! This funding will pay to ensure the sacrifice of more US soldiers and Marines and the killing of far greater numbers of Iraqi civilians to ensure US domination of Iraqi oil and vast new profit streams for Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron and the other major energy companies. Moreover, the Democratic Congressional leadership has crafted the spending package?which brings the total amount spent thus far on the war to over $650 billion?so that it pays for the war through the first six months of the next administration. Their aim was to get the issue off the political agenda well before the November election?allowing them to better posture as opponents of the war?while at the same time sparing an incoming Democratic administration led by Barack Obama from having to seek new money for this vastly unpopular war during its first months in office. The nakedly colonial character of the oil deals now being pushed by the administration has provoked murmurs of criticism from sections of the Democratic Party. Democratic Senators Charles Schumer of New York, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Claire McCaskill of Missouri released a letter addressed to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week urging her to block the no-bid contracts. As the Associated Press reported, the Democrats feared the agreements ?could fan the perception that US involvement in Iraq was motivated by oil.? In other words, the agreements are so blatant that they give the entire game away. The Democratic senators called for any contracts to be postponed until the Iraqi regime succeeds in passing a long-delayed hydrocarbon law, working out such thorny issues as the precise role that the foreign oil firms will play in the country and how revenues accruing to Iraq are to be divided between the federal government and various regional entities. The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has failed to pass the bill for the past year and a half. The legislation has been stalemated in large measure because of the overwhelming popular opposition within Iraq to the return of the major oil companies that are so closely identified with the country?s history of semi-colonial subjugation. ?We urge you to persuade the (government of Iraq) to refrain from signing contracts with multinational oil companies until a hydrocarbon law is in effect in Iraq,? read the Democrats? letter to Rice. ?We fear that any such agreements signed by Iraq?s Hydrocarbon Ministry without an equitable revenue-sharing agreement in place would simply add more fuel to Iraq?s civil war.? The Bush administration made it clear, however, that it had less concern about giving Washington?s imperialist venture on behalf of big oil a fig leaf of legality. ?Since the United States had no involvement in this, I?m not sure on what basis the United States could … block the Iraqi government from contracting in the way it sees fit,? State Department spokesman Tom Casey told the media. Similarly, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino commented, ?Iraq is a sovereign country, and it can make decisions based on how it feels that it wants to move forward in its development of its oil resources.? She added: ?And if that means that our companies here in the United States can compete and win business, then that?s for them and the Iraqis decide. But we don?t think the federal government of the United States needs to get involved.? How many lies can be crammed into a single statement? Iraq is an occupied, not a sovereign, country. The decisions undertaken by its government are sharply constrained by the presence of over 140,000 US troops, upon whom its survival depends. As for the US companies, they did not ?compete and win business,? but rather reached no-bid deals, prepared by US government advisers working out of the Iraqi oil ministry. A more honest assessment was provided to the Times by Frederick Barton, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an establishment think tank whose board of trustees includes figures such as Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski. ?We pretend it [oil] is not a centerpiece of our motivation, yet we keep confirming that it is.? Barton told the paper. ?And we undermine our own veracity by citing issues like sovereignty, when we have our hands right in the middle of it.? The Iraqi regime announced Monday that negotiations on the no-bid contracts with the big Western oil companies were continuing. Last week oil ministry officials had said that the deals were already concluded and would be signed Monday, yet no signing took place. The agreements had carved up Iraq?s oil fields between the major companies, with Shell gaining access to the northern Kirkuk oilfield, BP set to operate in the southern Rumaila field and Exxon seeking access to the Zubair oil field in the southern province of Basra. ?We did not finalize any agreement with them because they refused to offer consultancy based on fees, as they wanted a share of the oil,? Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani told a press briefing in Baghdad Monday. ?It?s a service contract and not a production-sharing contract,? he added. ?We think there is no need to share Iraq?s oil with anybody.? Last week it was widely reported that the Iraqi government had agreed to no-bid deals that would indeed provide the major Western companies with a share of the oil produced in the fields where they would be ?consulting,? offering a hugely lucrative return under the present conditions of soaring energy prices. This shift in the line from Baghdad is likely driven by the immense popular opposition to turning over the country?s oil wealth to the foreign companies and fear within Maliki?s puppet regime that the deals could provoke its downfall. While claiming that negotiations on the no-bid deals was continuing, Shahristani also announced that Iraq is opening up six giant oil fields and two gas fields to foreign companies, 41 of which have been invited to bid for contracts. The minister described the six fields being thrown open to foreign exploitation for the first time in nearly four decades as ?the backbone of Iraq?s oil production.? The bids are to be prepared over the next two weeks, with the Oil Ministry saying that deals will be signed by June 2009. The deals are supposed to include Iraqi ?partners? with a minimum of 25 percent interest. While the motives behind the US war of aggression have now been laid bare, their accomplishment remains anything but certain. Thus far, the major US oil firms have shown no intention to launch any immediate resumption of their long suspended operations in Iraq. The continuing resistance of the Iraqi people to the US occupation makes any such venture hazardous in the extreme. Moreover, the revelations of the profit interests for which the ongoing war in Iraq is being fought are certain to provoke increased anger and militancy among the Iraqi people and, despite the bipartisan support for this war in Washington, revulsion and opposition among masses of American working people as well. Have Your Say: US advisers steered Iraqi oil contracts to Western firms Please read our posting guidelines before posting. Alternatively you can discuss this report here. Related News
|
Activists arrested because of UK Indymedia secret IP logging Last post by Unregistered @ 10:58 AM Go to Forum
| Latest Topics
Hello from the Philippines Last post by loki @ 10:27 AM The Global Financial Pyramid Scheme Explained Last post by loki @ 10:25 AM Underground coal gasification Last post by lincdean @ 09:05 AM Saudi judge sentences pregnant gang-rape victim to 100 lashes for committing adultery Last post by Unregistered @ 04:06 AM Video shocker: Pig Filth smack the snot out of homeless man whilst restrained. Last post by Boris The Bullet Dodger @ 12:21 AM What Happened To Indymedia? Last post by Tony Gosling @ 12:14 AM WARNING for those living near Chicago!!!!! Last post by Boris The Bullet Dodger @ 12:14 AM Over 60% of People Do Not Trust the Government Last post by Tony Gosling @ 12:12 AM Canadian Governments UFO database Last post by loki @ 11:00 PM  Email This Page To A Friend Latest Headlines
More Breaking News  Archive
|
TOP NEWS DISCUSSIONS |
LATEST NEWS DISCUSSIONS |
|
|
UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, on drugs Iran Next Target, Warns Israeli Diplomat Top MI6 spy: Terrorism less serious than bird flu The Banality of Corporate Evil Lendman: Obama's 'War on Terror' Amy Goodman: Obama?s Afghan Trap Scottish Ministers 'completely opposed' to ID cards |
Dan commented on: Iran Next Target, Warns Israeli Diplomat Arash Is that like a rash on the ass Continue Reading & Reply trevor commented on: UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, on drugs Hi David, i really think you are nit picking over the issue about the provenance of the quote about... Continue Reading & Reply sofia commented on: The Banality of Corporate Evil “We will overthrow Parliament in a legal way through legal means. Democracy will be overthrown with the... Continue Reading & Reply Jim the Jamster commented on: Scottish Ministers ‘completely opposed’ to ID cards We do not do dodgy ID cards for ?10 and we do not hack into the... Continue Reading & Reply |
|
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. News Forum |
Loading ...
