|
|
新! RINF書店 | RINF DVD商店翻譯：美國顧問操縱了伊拉克油合同對西部企業
星期三， 2008年7月2日
由 比爾・範・ Auken | 伊拉克政權正式打開了為外國石油公司恢復國家的開發的出價？s油財富，它顯露了美國？顧問？ 在起草收縮的規程和操縱優先成交扮演主角對大美國能量聚結。 ？一個小組美國顧問由一個小國務院隊在草擬合同在伊拉克帶領了扮演了整體部分在伊拉克政府和五家西部石油公司之間開發某些最大的領域， ？ 紐約時代週刊 報告的星期一。 政府律師和提供的私人部門顧問的隊？關於起草合同的詳細的建議， ？ 時期 報告，援引一位國務院高級官員。 在其他之中？服務？ 由美國顧問提供保證伊拉克油部由俄國石油公司根據合同的Lukoil駁回了要求簽字以伊拉克政府在2003年3月之前美國入侵。 時期 繼續： ？它是不明的多少影響他們的工作有在部？s決定。？ 沒什麼不明對此。 美國政府口授了設置把Exxon MOBIL、殼、BP、共計和Chevron帶回的期限，控制伊拉克石油生產的非常同樣多民族能量巨人，在巴格達國有化了區段36年前之前。 與更小的公司一起財團，提供了他們由伊拉克政府沒有出了價合同。 這些所謂的技術支持協議，相當$500百萬價值每，在門代表腳為主要西部石油公司，給他們果斷好處勝過敵手公司從俄國，中國，印度和在別處。 伊拉克證明了115十億桶粗暴儲備加上另外112兆立方英尺氣體。 在其他國家，從俄國和卡扎克斯坦在東方向委內瑞拉和玻利維亞在西方，是對他們的能源的轟烈的更緊的全國控制的情況下，伊拉克的美國職業開放了在一個空前的贏利富礦體的潛力為大油。 這是美國入侵的主要目標在冠軍變得越來越無法否認。 在所有謊言之後？大規模殺傷性武器？ 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
|
Buy Apple iPhone 16GB 3G,Nokia N96,Sony Ericsson C905 Last post by save22 @ 02:36 PM Go to Forum
| Latest Topics
Ex spy chief says government risks "police state" Last post by Nostalgia @ 02:22 PM Pirate Bay triumphant as prosecution drops half of charges Last post by Nostalgia @ 02:20 PM Activists arrested because of UK Indymedia secret IP logging Last post by Unregistered @ 01:56 PM Householders to be charged for each flush of toilet Last post by Victor @ 01:35 PM Study takes step toward erasing bad memories Last post by Nostalgia @ 01:32 PM DNA left at crime scene could be used to create picture of criminal's FACE, say scien Last post by Nostalgia @ 01:24 PM UK mobile phone firms to sell data about customer activity Last post by Nostalgia @ 01:17 PM Nano Ink 'Tattoo' Could Monitor Diabetes Last post by Nostalgia @ 01:14 PM Can geo-engineering rebuild the planet? Last post by Nostalgia @ 01:08 PM  Email This Page To A Friend Latest Headlines
More Breaking News  Archive
|
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 ...
