Re : RECONCILIATION COULD REAP GREATER REWARDS FOR KURDS
Dear Sir,
In his commentary about Kerkuk and its population the author undermines the importance of the Turkmens and their legitimate claims to the city of Kerkuk.
He writes that “the long-oppressed Kurds are thirsting for justice and power in post-Saddam Iraq” omitting to mention that the Turkmens were the most discriminated and oppressed community in the north of Iraq since the beginning of the Iraqi State in 1921 and especially for the past three decades under the Ba’ath regime.
Contrary to the Turkmens, the Kurds obtained an autonomous region in the north of Iraq under the Baath regime in 1970. Indeed, the Baath regime in order to put an end to the Kurdish rebellion in the north-east of Iraq sacrificed Erbil, a Turkmen city with its 250.000 Turkmen inhabitants, by offering it to the Kurdish rebellion leader Mustafa Barzani to become the capital of his autonomous region, in total denigration of the rights of the city’s Turkmen inhabitants!
It is important to remember that up to the middle of the 20th century the Turkmens constituted the majority in Erbil. The Kurds began to move into Erbil at the beginning of the 20th century and became the majority in the 1970s and the same applies to the other big Turkmen city Kerkuk.
Contrary to the Kurds and Arabs, the Turkmens do not have any armed militia and they never terrorized or harmed any of their Iraqi compatriots. Despite all their sufferings and killings at the hands of the Iraqi regimes and the Kurdish militia the Turkmens never sought revenge. Throughout their long history in Iraq the Turkmens always remained true Iraqi patriots.
Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the Kurdish parties who collaborated with the occupying armies have brought and installed not “nearly 100.000 Kurds” as mentioned in the article which was probably written some time ago, but over 600,000 Kurds in Kerkuk, in order to change the demography of the city in anticipation of the Referendum which the Kurds want to take place before the end of 2007.
Moreover, contrary to what Safa Hussein writes the great majority of these Kurds are not “returning” to Kerkuk, as most of them have never lived, worked or owned properties in Kerkuk.
It is a well known fact that after April 2003 the two Kurdish parties KDP and PUK organized the transport of Kurds from the Kurdish autonomous region and even from neighbouring countries such as Syria, Turkey and Iran and brought them to Kerkuk in order to Kurdify the city.
The US authorities have allowed the Kurdish militia to install their hegemony over the entire north of Iraq and especially in the Turkmen region, TURKMENELI, where they are imposing their authority by force on the Turkmen towns and cities.
As for property rights, it is clear that the Kurds will not hesitate to provide forged documents in an attempt to prove the legitimacy of their claims to Kerkuk, after all, it is THEY who looted and burned the city’s Land Registry and Population Registry Offices the very first day the Americans allowed them to enter and occupy Kerkuk on 10th April 2003.
The Americans put the Kurds in the most important positions in Kerkuk and even the Property Claims Commission’s Kerkuk Office was staffed mainly by Kurds. As a consequence, this Commission is refusing to return hundreds of thousands hectares of lands to the Turkmen owners, while tens of thousands of Kurdish families, who were brought in by the Kurdish militias are building houses on Municipality and Turkmen lands.
One must remember also that American authorities turned a blind eye when the Kurds manipulated the elections in the north of the country in order to win the majority in the Kerkuk Council.
In fact, since 2003, the Kurdish militia with the help of the American occupiers have managed to completely change the demography of the Turkmen region, what the Baath regime had not been able to achieve in thirty-five years!
The Turkmens - who are the third main ethnic group in Iraq alongside their Arab and Kurdish compatriots and the second main ethnic group in the north of Iraq - are not willing to accept this “fait accompli”, they do not want to be considered as ‘second class citizens’ in their own region in the north of Iraq.
The Turkmens want to be masters of their own destiny in Iraq, they refuse to be part of any Kurdish entity and refuse to be under Kurdish domination; therefore they will never give up their struggle to obtain their legitimate rights to govern their own towns and cities in the north of Iraq.
Merry Fitzgerald
Committee for the Defence of the Iraqi Turkmen Rights
Hereunder is the article published in the Daily Star
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=82537
Reconciliation could reap greater rewards for Kurds
Commentary by Safa A. Hussein*
May 28, 2007
One might argue that the discovery of vast quantities of oil near Kirkuk in 1927 shaped the direction in which the process of the formation of the modern Iraqi state was heading. It provided the impetus for the United Kingdom to support the Kingdom of Iraq (which was under its mandate) in its dispute with Turkey over the former Ottoman wilaya of Mosul (of which the Kirkuk region was a part). With British support, that region was annexed to Iraq. It is striking that after 80 years there is a new process of "reshaping" the Iraqi state in which Kirkuk may play a significant, even the most significant, role.
Historically, the city of Kirkuk had a mixed population (now around 750,000) of Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians, Turkmen and Armenians who lived together in peace. This changed starting in the 1970s, when the Baath regime made continuous attempts to transform the ethnic make-up of the region. Kurds and Turkmen were forced out of Kirkuk to be replaced with Arab oil workers. These plans culminated in Saddam Hussein's "Arabization" plan and the anti-Kurdish Anfal campaign in 1988. After the 1991 Gulf war, the Iraqi government systematically expelled tens of thousands of Kurds, Turkmen and some Assyrians from Kirkuk and resettled Arab families from the south and center of Iraq in their place.
Soon after the United States-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, tensions surfaced between the different local ethnic groups. These tensions stimulated different responses from neighboring countries. Five factors may be behind these tensions.
First, the Iraqi insurgents, consisting mainly of people who lost their privileges after the collapse of the Baath regime, coordinated with international terrorists like Ansar al-Islam and Ansar al-Sunna, both Al-Qaeda-affiliated organizations. Attacks by these groups on the Kurds, Turkmen Shiites and Arab Shiites today threaten the ethnic balance. The successes of the security plans in Baghdad and Anbar may push more terrorists to Kirkuk to foment ethnic trouble, capitalizing on the divisions that already exist there.
Second, there is the threat of long-oppressed Kurds who are thirsting for justice and power in post-Saddam Iraq. Nearly 100,000 Kurds returned to Kirkuk in 2003 in an effort to reverse the Arabization of the city. As a result, many Arabs were forced to leave in what seemed a second wave of violence and ethnic cleansing. Kurdish leaders have appealed to their constituents to be patient and let the legal process determine property rights. For its part, the Iraqi government has endorsed a decision to relocate and compensate thousands of Arabs who moved to Kirkuk as part of Saddam Hussein's Arabization plan.
Third, Sunni Arabs, Turkmen and Turks fear the annexation of Kirkuk to the Kurdistan region. Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution mandates a referendum scheduled to occur no later than December 31, 2007, on whether Kirkuk Province should become part of Iraqi Kurdistan. The Turkmen, who claim they were the majority in the city 50 years ago, believe that the annexation of Kirkuk by Kurdistan will further dilute their power and increase violence. The deputy head of the Iraqi Turkmen Front in Kirkuk recently said the implementation of Article 140 "will mean the total loss of the power of Turkmen." The local Turkmen believe that the solution to the Kirkuk problem mostly depends on what role Turkey plays. Meanwhile, Sunni Arabs have concerns about wealth-sharing after any annexation.
Fourth is the fact that Kurds are ignoring the concerns of the Sunni Arabs, the Turkmen and the Turks. The Kurds are moving systematically to guarantee Kirkuk's annexation into the Kurdistan Regional Government. Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, a prominent Kurdish leader, recently said that Kurds have a "claim to Kirkuk rooted in history, geography and demographics. [But this] is a recipe for civil war if you don't do it right."
Fifth, Turkey has concerns that Kirkuk, with its over 10 billion barrels of proven oil reserves (as of 1998), will be annexed by the Kurdistan region. Turks believe that such annexation will provide the Kurdish region with the resources it needs to establish an independent Kurdish state. This in turn will create a security challenge for Turkey because of its Kurdish minority situation. Turkish officials have frequently expressed their concerns about the security of Turkmen in Kirkuk.
In the final assessment, the Kurds hold the wild card. The Turkmen are too fragmented politically and too weak militarily to stop the Kurds. Turkey can and will use the Turkmen card, but knows it is not a winning one. The Sunni Arabs will not be able to stop the Kurds democratically unless they align with the Shiites, which is unlikely. The insurgents can make life difficult, but they can't stop the Kurds. It seems the Kurds will go ahead and make Iraq pay a price of more violence and instability. This is unfortunate since the path of reconciliation could reap potentially greater future reward for Kurds.
* Safa A. Hussein is a former deputy member of the dissolved Iraqi Governing Council. Prior to joining the Transitional Government he served as a brigadier general in the Iraqi Air Force and worked in the military industry as director of a research and development center. Currently he works in the Iraqi National Security Council.
This commentary first appeared at bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsletter.
mardi 29 mai 2007
BASIC, British think tank says Bush cabal want a war with Iran
British think tank BASIC, says the Bush cabal want a war with Iran so bad, they are accusing Iran of bomb attacks in Iraq to strengthen their case for another Bush War.
The BASIC report is here in PDF...
News Report on this in The Independent:
Iran 'accused of attacks in Iraq to bolster US strategy'
By Anne Penketh and Eric Silver in Luxembourg
Excerpt
The Bush administration may be highlighting accusations that the Iranian government is behind attacks in Iraq in order to strengthen its hand in preparing for military strikes on Iran, according to a leading British think-tank.
In a report sifting the evidence produced by US authorities against Iran, the independent think-tank Basic cast doubt on the strength of the intelligence, saying that proved links between the Tehran regime and militia inside Iraq remained "sketchy".
Given the close ties between Shia Muslim Iran and Iraq, which has a dominant Shia population in the south, the report warned of the dangers of conflating "legitimate acts of foreign relations and cross-border movements of people" with the alleged Iranian involvement in violence.
The UK and US governments have frequently accused Iran of aiding militant groups in Iraq who are attacking coalition forces. However, the report said that "despite efforts by the Bush administration to confirm the strength of evidence presented, doubt still surrounds the case against Iran, particularly with regard to the degree of direct involvement of the Iranian leadership.
"Whatever the true extent and nature of Iranian military action in Iraq, few independent analysts believe Tehran is playing a decisive role in the sectarian warfare and insurgency," said the report.
Turning to the US strategic motivation for highlighting the Iranian role in Iraq, Basic (British American Security Information Council) suggested that Iran could be a "useful scapegoat to divert the blame" for failures in Iraq away from the occupying powers. But also, "if Tehran can be cast as a source of regional instability in the eyes of the international community, then the US administration's hand will be strengthened as it seeks support for stronger measures to oppose Iranian nuclear ambitions".
The BASIC report is here in PDF...
News Report on this in The Independent:
Iran 'accused of attacks in Iraq to bolster US strategy'
By Anne Penketh and Eric Silver in Luxembourg
Excerpt
The Bush administration may be highlighting accusations that the Iranian government is behind attacks in Iraq in order to strengthen its hand in preparing for military strikes on Iran, according to a leading British think-tank.
In a report sifting the evidence produced by US authorities against Iran, the independent think-tank Basic cast doubt on the strength of the intelligence, saying that proved links between the Tehran regime and militia inside Iraq remained "sketchy".
Given the close ties between Shia Muslim Iran and Iraq, which has a dominant Shia population in the south, the report warned of the dangers of conflating "legitimate acts of foreign relations and cross-border movements of people" with the alleged Iranian involvement in violence.
The UK and US governments have frequently accused Iran of aiding militant groups in Iraq who are attacking coalition forces. However, the report said that "despite efforts by the Bush administration to confirm the strength of evidence presented, doubt still surrounds the case against Iran, particularly with regard to the degree of direct involvement of the Iranian leadership.
"Whatever the true extent and nature of Iranian military action in Iraq, few independent analysts believe Tehran is playing a decisive role in the sectarian warfare and insurgency," said the report.
Turning to the US strategic motivation for highlighting the Iranian role in Iraq, Basic (British American Security Information Council) suggested that Iran could be a "useful scapegoat to divert the blame" for failures in Iraq away from the occupying powers. But also, "if Tehran can be cast as a source of regional instability in the eyes of the international community, then the US administration's hand will be strengthened as it seeks support for stronger measures to oppose Iranian nuclear ambitions".
Iraq's Assyrians want an autonomous region on the Nineveh Plains
Iraq's Assyrians Need Their Own Region
5-28-2007
Assyrian International News Agency
Excerpt:
The sectarian violence and the general chaos in Iraq affects all Iraqis, regardless of their ethnicity. But the Christian Assyrians suffer the most, because they are Assyrians and Christians.
Besides the sectarian persecution which the Assyrians are subjected to, the KDP (Kurdish Democratic Party) led KRG (Kurdish Regional Government) is systematically persecuting and oppressing the Assyrians, which are the indigenous people of Iraq. The purpose of the actions of the KRG is the Kurdish nationalist ambition to take over all historically Assyrian territory in northern Iraq.
The Assyrians lack protection in today's Iraq and suffer non-proportionally, something that is affirmed by the fact that 40% of all Iraqi refugees are Christians, although their numbers only constitute 5% of the Iraqi population.
The Assyrians will never be able to live in peace, liberty and security as equal citizens in Iraq, not among Arabs nor Kurds. The oppression will continue until the last Assyrians have fled the country. The only way to prevent Iraq from being entirely drained of its indigenous people is to give the Assyrians the possibility to create an own autonomous region on the Nineveh plains, the historically Assyrian heartland, where the majority of the population is still Assyrian.
This item is available as: html
5-28-2007
Assyrian International News Agency
Excerpt:
The sectarian violence and the general chaos in Iraq affects all Iraqis, regardless of their ethnicity. But the Christian Assyrians suffer the most, because they are Assyrians and Christians.
Besides the sectarian persecution which the Assyrians are subjected to, the KDP (Kurdish Democratic Party) led KRG (Kurdish Regional Government) is systematically persecuting and oppressing the Assyrians, which are the indigenous people of Iraq. The purpose of the actions of the KRG is the Kurdish nationalist ambition to take over all historically Assyrian territory in northern Iraq.
The Assyrians lack protection in today's Iraq and suffer non-proportionally, something that is affirmed by the fact that 40% of all Iraqi refugees are Christians, although their numbers only constitute 5% of the Iraqi population.
The Assyrians will never be able to live in peace, liberty and security as equal citizens in Iraq, not among Arabs nor Kurds. The oppression will continue until the last Assyrians have fled the country. The only way to prevent Iraq from being entirely drained of its indigenous people is to give the Assyrians the possibility to create an own autonomous region on the Nineveh plains, the historically Assyrian heartland, where the majority of the population is still Assyrian.
This item is available as: html
lundi 28 mai 2007
TURKMENELI PARTY COMMUNIQUE
In its communiqué dated 27th May 2007 the Turkmeneli Party reiterates its demand for KERKUK to be considered a "special territory" placed under the supervision of the UN Security Council and confirms its demand to cancel the referendum on KERKUK planned for the end of 2007:-
COMMUNIQUE
COMMUNIQUE
Turkmen Masses in Kirkuk appeal to the international community to cancel the referendum planned at the end of this year
It is well known that Turkmen constitute an essential part of the Iraqi people; they are deployed on the line near the Syrian-Iraqi-Turkish border; then extend eastward the Iraqi-Iranian border, along this line villages and towns inhabited by Turkmen people lies.
It seems evident from the foregoing that the demographic, geographical and the historical situations support the Turkmen ethnic background in Iraq alongside Arabs and Kurds; it obviously recognizing that the Turkmen issue is a key part of the Iraqi national issue. We all know what Iraqis suffered during the dictatorial regime within thirty-five years, but the Turkmen did not raise the banner of disobedience against the state even in earlier eras, as they did not create any organizations advocating independence or foreign association scuffle, Despite being subjected to massacres and ugly campaigns It did not happen that any Turkmen, killed or insulted Arab or Kurd citizens for political reasons, in other words, Turkmen who flouted their intercourse did not grasp the rights of others even where they were able to do so.
Turkmen masses have joined into political movements which sponsor Iraqi citizenship in the first place and uphold the unity of home soil, Iraqi citizens, and solidarity among Iraqis.
What happened after the formation of the Kirkuk Governorate exactly four years ago (this month from 2003): armed factions supported by occupation forces took the control of Kirkuk city, this made the Turkmen people and their city living again similar tragedy could even be more assertive and oppressive than what Turkmen people suffered during the rule of the former dictatorship.
Unfair Elections with overt bias of the American administration produced the following results:
Governor, President of the Council, Vice president of the Council, Mayor, Pro-governor, Vice Governor, Municipals Manager, Municipal Manager, director of the municipal water, director of the municipal sewer, police chief Director, Intelligence director, Security Commander, Army Commander, director of the Civil Defense, traffic Director, University President, Director of Agriculture Department, director of the Religion Affairs etc. under the control of the two main Kurdish parties (PUK, KDP).
The issue of Kirkuk is intractably held in Iraqi politics for more than 50 years; as successive governments pursued a chauvinistic fruit common to change the demography of Kirkuk governorate in favor of a certain nationality and still these attempts are in one way or another after the fall of the previous regime, has become the reality of Kirkuk as a result of too many immigrants and the collapse of the security situation and economic collapse completely.
The Turkmen people still exposed to all levels of intimidation and repression policies to force them to leave this city, where all Turkmen businessmen, physicians and Turkmen political officials have been threatened.
Turkmen youth are subjected to indiscriminate arrests by militias belonging to the two Kurdish parties (PUK, KDP).
The American administration in Kirkuk (Consulate and the army) did not take any clear stand against the two Kurdish parties attitude in Kirkuk, but there is a clear harmony between the American Administration and Kurdish parties regarding the future of the city, so we as Turkmen people and as Turkmeneli Party, confirm what we have previously said; that the only solution to Kirkuk city's issue is to be a special territory and under the supervision of the UN Security Council, the United Nations and cancels the referendum planned for the end of 2007
It is well known that Turkmen constitute an essential part of the Iraqi people; they are deployed on the line near the Syrian-Iraqi-Turkish border; then extend eastward the Iraqi-Iranian border, along this line villages and towns inhabited by Turkmen people lies.
It seems evident from the foregoing that the demographic, geographical and the historical situations support the Turkmen ethnic background in Iraq alongside Arabs and Kurds; it obviously recognizing that the Turkmen issue is a key part of the Iraqi national issue. We all know what Iraqis suffered during the dictatorial regime within thirty-five years, but the Turkmen did not raise the banner of disobedience against the state even in earlier eras, as they did not create any organizations advocating independence or foreign association scuffle, Despite being subjected to massacres and ugly campaigns It did not happen that any Turkmen, killed or insulted Arab or Kurd citizens for political reasons, in other words, Turkmen who flouted their intercourse did not grasp the rights of others even where they were able to do so.
Turkmen masses have joined into political movements which sponsor Iraqi citizenship in the first place and uphold the unity of home soil, Iraqi citizens, and solidarity among Iraqis.
What happened after the formation of the Kirkuk Governorate exactly four years ago (this month from 2003): armed factions supported by occupation forces took the control of Kirkuk city, this made the Turkmen people and their city living again similar tragedy could even be more assertive and oppressive than what Turkmen people suffered during the rule of the former dictatorship.
Unfair Elections with overt bias of the American administration produced the following results:
Governor, President of the Council, Vice president of the Council, Mayor, Pro-governor, Vice Governor, Municipals Manager, Municipal Manager, director of the municipal water, director of the municipal sewer, police chief Director, Intelligence director, Security Commander, Army Commander, director of the Civil Defense, traffic Director, University President, Director of Agriculture Department, director of the Religion Affairs etc. under the control of the two main Kurdish parties (PUK, KDP).
The issue of Kirkuk is intractably held in Iraqi politics for more than 50 years; as successive governments pursued a chauvinistic fruit common to change the demography of Kirkuk governorate in favor of a certain nationality and still these attempts are in one way or another after the fall of the previous regime, has become the reality of Kirkuk as a result of too many immigrants and the collapse of the security situation and economic collapse completely.
The Turkmen people still exposed to all levels of intimidation and repression policies to force them to leave this city, where all Turkmen businessmen, physicians and Turkmen political officials have been threatened.
Turkmen youth are subjected to indiscriminate arrests by militias belonging to the two Kurdish parties (PUK, KDP).
The American administration in Kirkuk (Consulate and the army) did not take any clear stand against the two Kurdish parties attitude in Kirkuk, but there is a clear harmony between the American Administration and Kurdish parties regarding the future of the city, so we as Turkmen people and as Turkmeneli Party, confirm what we have previously said; that the only solution to Kirkuk city's issue is to be a special territory and under the supervision of the UN Security Council, the United Nations and cancels the referendum planned for the end of 2007
27/5/2007
KHALIL AL-ZAHAWI, renowned Iraqi calligrapher shot dead
Khalil al-Zahawi, renowned Iraqi calligrapher shot dead
Another attack on culture and learning in Iraq
One of the Muslim world's leading calligraphers has been shot dead by gunmen in Baghdad.
Khalil al-Zahawi, shaykh al-khattatin, was killed outside his house in the New Baghdad district of the city.
Al-Zahawi had taught students from all over the Middle East and was highly regarded.
It is said that anyone in Iraq who wanted to be considered proficient in Arabic calligraphy had to have his seal of approval.
Another attack on culture and learning in Iraq
One of the Muslim world's leading calligraphers has been shot dead by gunmen in Baghdad.
Khalil al-Zahawi, shaykh al-khattatin, was killed outside his house in the New Baghdad district of the city.
Al-Zahawi had taught students from all over the Middle East and was highly regarded.
It is said that anyone in Iraq who wanted to be considered proficient in Arabic calligraphy had to have his seal of approval.
dimanche 27 mai 2007
WHEN OIL AND WATER MIX
By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
05/26/07 "ICH"
-- -- -The concoction becomes lethal. America’s relentless drive to dominate the Middle East and its oil, blends well with Israel’s insatiable appetite for water and unstoppable expansion. It is said that oil and water do not mix – but when they do, it becomes a lethal concoction with no easy solution. The fatal blend engulfing the Middle East today seems to have no end in sight other than darker clouds showering more innocent blood.
The relationship between war and resources is nothing new. “One drop of oil,” said Georges Clemenceau, the Prime Minister of France in the second half of World War I, “is worth one drop of blood of our soldiers.” Today, the U.S. policy makers seem to think that one drop of oil is worth one drop of blood of soldiers and the slaughter of thousands of Arab and Muslim lives. However, to cover their racist ambitions, they disguise their greed as ‘war on terror’ or ‘democratization’.
Knowing that by controlling the world's energy resources in conjunction with the superiority of the U.S. military, the United States would be able to intimidate and coerce the world more effectively, oil policy--wars or covert actions -- have become the overriding determinant of the American foreign policy.
In a New York Times article on February 24, 2006, “Ted Koppel responded to what he described as the Bush administration's "touchiness" about the charge that we are in Iraq because of oil by stating the obvious, though often unsaid, truth, "Now that's curious. Keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf and through the Strait of Hormuz has been bedrock American foreign policy for more than half a century."
Today control over the world's oil supply is at the forefront of Washington policy makers' thinking, even if the president and his team deny any such intent and talk publicly of reducing dependence on Middle East oil by three-quarters of present levels, an absurdly impossible goal. Two-thirds of the oil in the world is in the Middle East, much of it under Iraq and Iran, the axis of oil, the current targets of the U.S. War on Terrorism. Control of oil is integral to Washington's official goal of world domination, a goal stated this baldly in national security documents.”[i]
While oil is the primary motive for the United States, water ideology and expansion are Israel’s motives for giving the Bush administration reason for war, leaving Israel room to benefit from the Bush administration’s ambitions.
In an astonishing interview[ii], the world renowned Israeli military strategist, Martin Van Creveld, whose books are required reading for the U.S. Army officers, revealed that there was “no danger at all of having an Iranian nuclear weapon dropped on us. We cannot say so too openly, however, because we have a history of using any threat in order to get weapons. And it works beautifully: Thanks to Iranian threat, we are getting weapons from U.S. and Germany. I think some people in Israel are deliberately exaggerating our fears because it prompts the response, "Oh, those poor Jews. They're going to have the Holocaust again. Give them weapons"[iii].
Israel needs weapons for wars of aggression and expansion. In its nascent stages, Zionism not only advocated a return to Palestine, but also the redemption of the Jewish people through agrarian physical labor, “and the transformation and rebirth of the ‘wasteland’ of Palestine into a ‘land of milk and honey’”.
The goal of the early Zionist leadership became not only to secure all water resources, but control them at their sources.[iv] Following independence, the same doctrine continued. Israel continued its policy of establishing Jewish settlements in areas of Arab majority (e.g. Galilee) as well as peripheral areas alongside the borders of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and the Negev. Saul Arlosoroff, Chairman of the Israel-Water Engineers Association says:
“The whole philosophy of the Zionist movement was that you maintain control of the land, over your country, by working there and being there. There’s no doubt that if they move out of the border with Lebanon, somebody else will be there, and that somebody is Arabs, not Jews, and the government of Israel doesn’t want Arabs to be there on the border, because the border will move further and further south. The same is true in the Negev.”
Although today Israel imports most of its food staples from the US, and while agriculture is economically insignificant, in territorial-political terms it is of utmost importance. In July 2006, Israel bombed and destroyed Lebanon for 33 days as the world stood by. This was oil and water mixing. Israel did not want Arabs on the border, the United States wanted Hezbollah disabled, a fact readily admitted by then ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton[v].
In January the Jerusalem Post announced that Israel the Israeli Air Force had plans to buy military equipment from the United States that would help transform regular missiles into precision, satellite-guided weapons. Israel is busy bombing and destroying Palestine and the Gaza at the moment. While on the other hand, it would seem that even a year is too long for the people of Lebanon to recover from destruction and death.
Lebanon is being subjected to internal conflict; Arab is being set up against Arab. After the renowned investigative reporter Sy Hersh revealed that the United States, the Saudis, and the Siniora government are engaged in covert operations in funding and supporting the Jihadist movements in Lebanon in a fight against Hezbollah, the Bush White House had to reveal that it was sending military aid to the Lebanese army[vi].
Once the administration is assured of a full scale civil war which will no doubt engage Hezbollah, the U.S. will attack Iran.
The stage has been set. As nine more U.S. warships enter the Persian Gulf threatening Iran, and with news leaked (informative leak in this writer’s opinion) that the Bush administration has authorized new covert actions against Iran, it is undoubtedly a sign that Bush & Co. hope to provoke a strong reaction from Iran in an attempt to justify a military attack.
Having convinced the world that Iran’s nuclear program is an existential threat to Israel, and outrageous accusations abound, where even the once reputable paper The Guardian is repeating the warmongers allegations of linking Iran with al-Qaeda, the only enemy recognized by the less savvy global citizen, and those thought to have been responsible for 9/11- given that perhaps differentiating between Sunni and Shiite may be too much of a burden for some to consume,[vii] the U.S. seeks to commit mass murder for the sake of power and greed while Israel will expand unhindered.
One has to wonder how many more millions have to be slaughtered before the collective consciousness of humanity is stirred into action. Has the ongoing stench of the genocidal concoction obscured our compassion? Perhaps the fatal potion brings with it another message - shame? Or perhaps even a glimmer of hope that there is still time.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has lived and studied in Iran, the UK, France, Australia and the US. She obtained her Bachelors Degree in International Relations from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and she is currently pursuing a Masters Degree in Middle East Studies concentrating in Political Science. She has done extensive research on US foreign policy towards Iran and Iran’s nuclear program.
[i] Tabb, William, K. “Monthly Review.” New York:Jan 2007. Vol. 58, Iss. 8, p. 32-42
[ii] Levin, R. “Reality Fights: The Future of War, A talk with military theorist Martin Van Creveld” Playboy Magazine. June 2007, pages 52-53
[iii] http://img158.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=68991_VanCreveld_122_899lo.jpg
[iv] Selby, Jan. “Water, Power & Politics in the Middle East: The Other Israel-Palestinian Conflict” Palgrave & MacMillan NY:2003 pp65-69
[v] http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/2/hi/middle_east/6479377.stm
[vi] UPI
[vii] Guardian
05/26/07 "ICH"
-- -- -The concoction becomes lethal. America’s relentless drive to dominate the Middle East and its oil, blends well with Israel’s insatiable appetite for water and unstoppable expansion. It is said that oil and water do not mix – but when they do, it becomes a lethal concoction with no easy solution. The fatal blend engulfing the Middle East today seems to have no end in sight other than darker clouds showering more innocent blood.
The relationship between war and resources is nothing new. “One drop of oil,” said Georges Clemenceau, the Prime Minister of France in the second half of World War I, “is worth one drop of blood of our soldiers.” Today, the U.S. policy makers seem to think that one drop of oil is worth one drop of blood of soldiers and the slaughter of thousands of Arab and Muslim lives. However, to cover their racist ambitions, they disguise their greed as ‘war on terror’ or ‘democratization’.
Knowing that by controlling the world's energy resources in conjunction with the superiority of the U.S. military, the United States would be able to intimidate and coerce the world more effectively, oil policy--wars or covert actions -- have become the overriding determinant of the American foreign policy.
In a New York Times article on February 24, 2006, “Ted Koppel responded to what he described as the Bush administration's "touchiness" about the charge that we are in Iraq because of oil by stating the obvious, though often unsaid, truth, "Now that's curious. Keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf and through the Strait of Hormuz has been bedrock American foreign policy for more than half a century."
Today control over the world's oil supply is at the forefront of Washington policy makers' thinking, even if the president and his team deny any such intent and talk publicly of reducing dependence on Middle East oil by three-quarters of present levels, an absurdly impossible goal. Two-thirds of the oil in the world is in the Middle East, much of it under Iraq and Iran, the axis of oil, the current targets of the U.S. War on Terrorism. Control of oil is integral to Washington's official goal of world domination, a goal stated this baldly in national security documents.”[i]
While oil is the primary motive for the United States, water ideology and expansion are Israel’s motives for giving the Bush administration reason for war, leaving Israel room to benefit from the Bush administration’s ambitions.
In an astonishing interview[ii], the world renowned Israeli military strategist, Martin Van Creveld, whose books are required reading for the U.S. Army officers, revealed that there was “no danger at all of having an Iranian nuclear weapon dropped on us. We cannot say so too openly, however, because we have a history of using any threat in order to get weapons. And it works beautifully: Thanks to Iranian threat, we are getting weapons from U.S. and Germany. I think some people in Israel are deliberately exaggerating our fears because it prompts the response, "Oh, those poor Jews. They're going to have the Holocaust again. Give them weapons"[iii].
Israel needs weapons for wars of aggression and expansion. In its nascent stages, Zionism not only advocated a return to Palestine, but also the redemption of the Jewish people through agrarian physical labor, “and the transformation and rebirth of the ‘wasteland’ of Palestine into a ‘land of milk and honey’”.
The goal of the early Zionist leadership became not only to secure all water resources, but control them at their sources.[iv] Following independence, the same doctrine continued. Israel continued its policy of establishing Jewish settlements in areas of Arab majority (e.g. Galilee) as well as peripheral areas alongside the borders of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and the Negev. Saul Arlosoroff, Chairman of the Israel-Water Engineers Association says:
“The whole philosophy of the Zionist movement was that you maintain control of the land, over your country, by working there and being there. There’s no doubt that if they move out of the border with Lebanon, somebody else will be there, and that somebody is Arabs, not Jews, and the government of Israel doesn’t want Arabs to be there on the border, because the border will move further and further south. The same is true in the Negev.”
Although today Israel imports most of its food staples from the US, and while agriculture is economically insignificant, in territorial-political terms it is of utmost importance. In July 2006, Israel bombed and destroyed Lebanon for 33 days as the world stood by. This was oil and water mixing. Israel did not want Arabs on the border, the United States wanted Hezbollah disabled, a fact readily admitted by then ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton[v].
In January the Jerusalem Post announced that Israel the Israeli Air Force had plans to buy military equipment from the United States that would help transform regular missiles into precision, satellite-guided weapons. Israel is busy bombing and destroying Palestine and the Gaza at the moment. While on the other hand, it would seem that even a year is too long for the people of Lebanon to recover from destruction and death.
Lebanon is being subjected to internal conflict; Arab is being set up against Arab. After the renowned investigative reporter Sy Hersh revealed that the United States, the Saudis, and the Siniora government are engaged in covert operations in funding and supporting the Jihadist movements in Lebanon in a fight against Hezbollah, the Bush White House had to reveal that it was sending military aid to the Lebanese army[vi].
Once the administration is assured of a full scale civil war which will no doubt engage Hezbollah, the U.S. will attack Iran.
The stage has been set. As nine more U.S. warships enter the Persian Gulf threatening Iran, and with news leaked (informative leak in this writer’s opinion) that the Bush administration has authorized new covert actions against Iran, it is undoubtedly a sign that Bush & Co. hope to provoke a strong reaction from Iran in an attempt to justify a military attack.
Having convinced the world that Iran’s nuclear program is an existential threat to Israel, and outrageous accusations abound, where even the once reputable paper The Guardian is repeating the warmongers allegations of linking Iran with al-Qaeda, the only enemy recognized by the less savvy global citizen, and those thought to have been responsible for 9/11- given that perhaps differentiating between Sunni and Shiite may be too much of a burden for some to consume,[vii] the U.S. seeks to commit mass murder for the sake of power and greed while Israel will expand unhindered.
One has to wonder how many more millions have to be slaughtered before the collective consciousness of humanity is stirred into action. Has the ongoing stench of the genocidal concoction obscured our compassion? Perhaps the fatal potion brings with it another message - shame? Or perhaps even a glimmer of hope that there is still time.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has lived and studied in Iran, the UK, France, Australia and the US. She obtained her Bachelors Degree in International Relations from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and she is currently pursuing a Masters Degree in Middle East Studies concentrating in Political Science. She has done extensive research on US foreign policy towards Iran and Iran’s nuclear program.
[i] Tabb, William, K. “Monthly Review.” New York:Jan 2007. Vol. 58, Iss. 8, p. 32-42
[ii] Levin, R. “Reality Fights: The Future of War, A talk with military theorist Martin Van Creveld” Playboy Magazine. June 2007, pages 52-53
[iii] http://img158.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=68991_VanCreveld_122_899lo.jpg
[iv] Selby, Jan. “Water, Power & Politics in the Middle East: The Other Israel-Palestinian Conflict” Palgrave & MacMillan NY:2003 pp65-69
[v] http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/2/hi/middle_east/6479377.stm
[vi] UPI
[vii] Guardian
vendredi 25 mai 2007
TURKISH PM WOULD BACK IRAQ INCURSION AGAINST PKK
Turkish PM would back Iraq incursion after suicide bombing
by Hande Culpan
May 24
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed to support any Turkish military incursion in Iraq against Kurdish rebel bases there after a deadly suicide bombing in Ankara blamed on the militants.
Upping the pressure on its southern neighbour, Ankara urged Baghdad Thursday to act against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) holed up in northern Iraq.
"We expect urgent and resolute measures," foreign ministry spokesman Levent Bilman told reporters shortly after reports of more violence with a landmine explosion attributed to the PKK killing six soldiers in the southeast.
Erdogan said late Wednesday his government would secure parliamentary authorisation if the army sought to conduct a cross-border operation targeting PKK bases.
"It is out of the question for us to disagree on this issue with our... soldiers," he told the private ATV network. "When the time comes, we will take the necessary step, there will be no delay."
Officials said the method of Tuesday's suicide bomb attack in Ankara, which killed six people, and the type of explosives used tallied with past practices of the PKK, which has been fighting for self-rule in Turkey's mainly Kurdish southeast since 1984.
Ankara charges that the Iraqi Kurds who run an autonomous administration in northern Iraq tolerate -- and even assist -- thousands of PKK rebels who have found refuge in their region.
It says the PKK enjoys unrestricted movement in the mountain enclave and obtains weapons and explosives for attacks inside Turkey.
In a diplomatic note handed to Baghdad on April 9, Turkey demanded that Iraq capture and hand over PKK members, close down organisations linked to the group and put the group on its list of terrorist organisations.
Baghdad responded on May 17, voicing "its intention to cooperate on the issue of PKK terrorism," Bilman revealed in a statement later Thursday.
"We continue to closely follow up on our demands from Iraq... and cooperation opportunities in this field," he said.
Violence in southeastern Turkey increased after the army said last month that it had launched large-scale operations against the PKK in what has become an annual event as the spring thaw makes it easier for rebels to cross the frontier.
Local security sources said six Turkish soldiers were killed and 10 others wounded when PKK rebels set off a remote-controlled landmine during a security sweep in Sirnak province.
The explosion occurred about 40 kilometers (25 miles) from the border with Iraq, the sources said.
The PKK has denied any involvement in Tuesday's bombing at a busy shopping centre in Ankara, which also left 121 people injured. But Turkish newspapers reported Thursday that the bomber was a former far-left militant believed to have joined the Kurdish insurgency.
Guven Akkus, 28, once affiliated to the ultra-leftist Union of Revolutionary Communists of Turkey (TIKB), switched to the PKK after he was jailed for two years pending trial over May Day violence in 1996, the reports said.
In a statement posted on a far-left Turkish Internet site, the TIKB denied any involvement with Akkus or the explosion.
Other than fighting Turkish security forces, the PKK, listed as a terrorist organisation by Turkey and much of the international community, has also carried out suicide bombings.
The Turkish army regularly seizes from the PKK large amounts of plastic explosives it says militants bring across the border into Turkey from their bases in northern Iraq.
More than 37,000 people have died since the PKK picked up arms.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070524/wl_mideast_afp/turkeyattacks_070524184936
by Hande Culpan
May 24
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed to support any Turkish military incursion in Iraq against Kurdish rebel bases there after a deadly suicide bombing in Ankara blamed on the militants.
Upping the pressure on its southern neighbour, Ankara urged Baghdad Thursday to act against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) holed up in northern Iraq.
"We expect urgent and resolute measures," foreign ministry spokesman Levent Bilman told reporters shortly after reports of more violence with a landmine explosion attributed to the PKK killing six soldiers in the southeast.
Erdogan said late Wednesday his government would secure parliamentary authorisation if the army sought to conduct a cross-border operation targeting PKK bases.
"It is out of the question for us to disagree on this issue with our... soldiers," he told the private ATV network. "When the time comes, we will take the necessary step, there will be no delay."
Officials said the method of Tuesday's suicide bomb attack in Ankara, which killed six people, and the type of explosives used tallied with past practices of the PKK, which has been fighting for self-rule in Turkey's mainly Kurdish southeast since 1984.
Ankara charges that the Iraqi Kurds who run an autonomous administration in northern Iraq tolerate -- and even assist -- thousands of PKK rebels who have found refuge in their region.
It says the PKK enjoys unrestricted movement in the mountain enclave and obtains weapons and explosives for attacks inside Turkey.
In a diplomatic note handed to Baghdad on April 9, Turkey demanded that Iraq capture and hand over PKK members, close down organisations linked to the group and put the group on its list of terrorist organisations.
Baghdad responded on May 17, voicing "its intention to cooperate on the issue of PKK terrorism," Bilman revealed in a statement later Thursday.
"We continue to closely follow up on our demands from Iraq... and cooperation opportunities in this field," he said.
Violence in southeastern Turkey increased after the army said last month that it had launched large-scale operations against the PKK in what has become an annual event as the spring thaw makes it easier for rebels to cross the frontier.
Local security sources said six Turkish soldiers were killed and 10 others wounded when PKK rebels set off a remote-controlled landmine during a security sweep in Sirnak province.
The explosion occurred about 40 kilometers (25 miles) from the border with Iraq, the sources said.
The PKK has denied any involvement in Tuesday's bombing at a busy shopping centre in Ankara, which also left 121 people injured. But Turkish newspapers reported Thursday that the bomber was a former far-left militant believed to have joined the Kurdish insurgency.
Guven Akkus, 28, once affiliated to the ultra-leftist Union of Revolutionary Communists of Turkey (TIKB), switched to the PKK after he was jailed for two years pending trial over May Day violence in 1996, the reports said.
In a statement posted on a far-left Turkish Internet site, the TIKB denied any involvement with Akkus or the explosion.
Other than fighting Turkish security forces, the PKK, listed as a terrorist organisation by Turkey and much of the international community, has also carried out suicide bombings.
The Turkish army regularly seizes from the PKK large amounts of plastic explosives it says militants bring across the border into Turkey from their bases in northern Iraq.
More than 37,000 people have died since the PKK picked up arms.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070524/wl_mideast_afp/turkeyattacks_070524184936
DIVIDE RULE AND PLUNDER
Iraqis are being left in the dark about the real consequences of the proposed oil law Maliki and Bush are trying to impose on Iraq, writes Nermeen Al-Mufti
The law of oil and gas, due for debate at the parliament, has caused much controversy outside the country. Unfortunately, the local media has treated it as routine news, failing to explain its full significance to the public. The forceful manner in which the occupation authorities keep pushing for that law is alarming, especially at a time when all construction work in the country has ground to a halt due to widespread disturbances. If the law is passed, experts argue, US and multinational companies would benefit at Iraq's expense.
Parliament is divided over the law. Those who don't mind a divided Iraq praise the law for its "fair" distribution of oil revenues. The Kurds, who were hoping to get the lion's share of oil revenues, oppose the law; so do others who believe that the law would lead to the partition of the country.
Most recent governments have promised a fair distribution of oil revenues. Every government had a plan, but none of them have been implemented. One plan was to give an allowance from oil money to employees along with their monthly salaries, but how would people not working for the government get their share? Iraq is now importing fuel from abroad, although it has the second largest oil reserves in the world. Iraq still suffers from fuel shortages, although the government has removed oil subsidies upon the advice of the World Bank.
Jenan Ali, an expert in Iraqi affairs, says that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki to pass the new law. President Bush has on more than one occasion expressed the same wish. All of this is indication, Ali says, that the US president wants oil as a trophy.
"The US president wants to feel that he won the oil, although he lost the war." Ali dislikes the obtuse phrasing of the law. "Concerning contracts with foreign companies, we don't know if the companies in question intend to operate the existing fields or develop new ones."
According to the draft law, the revenues of oil and gas would be distributed among the entire nation, in accordance with the population density of every region. The law gives the regions the right to negotiate and sign oil deals. But no agreement is final unless approved by the central government.
Issam Al-Chalabi was Iraq's petroleum minister from 1978- 1990. A much-respected expert both at home and abroad, Chalabi says that the law is a "ready-made recipe to divide Iraq." Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly, he admits that the country needs an oil law. "It also needs to restructure the Ministry of Petroleum, but is this the right time?"
The government in Kurdistan has drawn up laws to attract investment and signed contracts to develop the petroleum industry. Such behaviour, Chalabi argues is "hasty". He calls on Iraqi oil experts to urge the postponement of the law. The law should be discussed only after constitutional amendments are approved, he says.
"The oil sector in Iraq needs maintenance. The petroleum industry is in a terrible condition as a result of the general situation in the country. Petroleum installations have been subject to a lot of sabotage, smuggling, and looting."
According to Chalabi, racketeers have sabotaged Iraqi pipelines to steal oil and smuggle it to neighbouring countries. The smugglers use small boats in the Shatt Al-Arab sea passage. There are seven docks on the Shatt Al-Arab, all controlled by politically-backed militias and racketeers, he says. "The losses exceed $1 billion a year." Chalabi fears that due to the vagueness of the law foreign corporations would exploit existing oil fields instead of developing new ones.
Following a symposium about the law, 61 Iraqi oil experts signed a petition to parliament in which they questioned the "timing" of the law, its "compatibility" with the constitution, and its "economic value" for the country as a whole.
Opposition to the law doesn't come solely from experts such as Chalabi. Prominent politicians also spoke out against the law. One is Abdul-Hadi Al-Hassani of Al-Daawa Party (the prime minister's party), who noted his objections to the law during a seminar he organised in London.
The law is supposed to set up a central body -- the Federal Council for Oil and Gas (FCOG) -- to draw up oil policies. The FCOG would ask "an office of independent advisers" to help out with technical details regarding concessions, contracts and production.
An Iraqi oil expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Weekly that the "office of independent advisers" could be just another name for giant US corporations. "The new law would place Iraq's oil fields in the hands of foreign companies for decades, and after the companies have their cut, the Iraqis would be left short, perhaps with as little as 14 per cent of the revenues," the expert said.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Maliki has invited Iranian companies to build four oil refineries in south Iraq. The Iraqi Petroleum Ministry has confirmed that Iranian companies will be submitting bids for the refineries. If the Iranians have their way, they would seize a large portion of Iraq's oil, refine it and export it through a pipeline passing through Abadan, experts say.
A parliamentarian speaking to the Weekly on condition his name be withheld said that it would be a mistake to pass the law first and amend it later, as some are trying to do. That would leave the country in a debacle similar to the one created by the hastily-approved constitution, he remarked.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/846/re81.htm
The law of oil and gas, due for debate at the parliament, has caused much controversy outside the country. Unfortunately, the local media has treated it as routine news, failing to explain its full significance to the public. The forceful manner in which the occupation authorities keep pushing for that law is alarming, especially at a time when all construction work in the country has ground to a halt due to widespread disturbances. If the law is passed, experts argue, US and multinational companies would benefit at Iraq's expense.
Parliament is divided over the law. Those who don't mind a divided Iraq praise the law for its "fair" distribution of oil revenues. The Kurds, who were hoping to get the lion's share of oil revenues, oppose the law; so do others who believe that the law would lead to the partition of the country.
Most recent governments have promised a fair distribution of oil revenues. Every government had a plan, but none of them have been implemented. One plan was to give an allowance from oil money to employees along with their monthly salaries, but how would people not working for the government get their share? Iraq is now importing fuel from abroad, although it has the second largest oil reserves in the world. Iraq still suffers from fuel shortages, although the government has removed oil subsidies upon the advice of the World Bank.
Jenan Ali, an expert in Iraqi affairs, says that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki to pass the new law. President Bush has on more than one occasion expressed the same wish. All of this is indication, Ali says, that the US president wants oil as a trophy.
"The US president wants to feel that he won the oil, although he lost the war." Ali dislikes the obtuse phrasing of the law. "Concerning contracts with foreign companies, we don't know if the companies in question intend to operate the existing fields or develop new ones."
According to the draft law, the revenues of oil and gas would be distributed among the entire nation, in accordance with the population density of every region. The law gives the regions the right to negotiate and sign oil deals. But no agreement is final unless approved by the central government.
Issam Al-Chalabi was Iraq's petroleum minister from 1978- 1990. A much-respected expert both at home and abroad, Chalabi says that the law is a "ready-made recipe to divide Iraq." Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly, he admits that the country needs an oil law. "It also needs to restructure the Ministry of Petroleum, but is this the right time?"
The government in Kurdistan has drawn up laws to attract investment and signed contracts to develop the petroleum industry. Such behaviour, Chalabi argues is "hasty". He calls on Iraqi oil experts to urge the postponement of the law. The law should be discussed only after constitutional amendments are approved, he says.
"The oil sector in Iraq needs maintenance. The petroleum industry is in a terrible condition as a result of the general situation in the country. Petroleum installations have been subject to a lot of sabotage, smuggling, and looting."
According to Chalabi, racketeers have sabotaged Iraqi pipelines to steal oil and smuggle it to neighbouring countries. The smugglers use small boats in the Shatt Al-Arab sea passage. There are seven docks on the Shatt Al-Arab, all controlled by politically-backed militias and racketeers, he says. "The losses exceed $1 billion a year." Chalabi fears that due to the vagueness of the law foreign corporations would exploit existing oil fields instead of developing new ones.
Following a symposium about the law, 61 Iraqi oil experts signed a petition to parliament in which they questioned the "timing" of the law, its "compatibility" with the constitution, and its "economic value" for the country as a whole.
Opposition to the law doesn't come solely from experts such as Chalabi. Prominent politicians also spoke out against the law. One is Abdul-Hadi Al-Hassani of Al-Daawa Party (the prime minister's party), who noted his objections to the law during a seminar he organised in London.
The law is supposed to set up a central body -- the Federal Council for Oil and Gas (FCOG) -- to draw up oil policies. The FCOG would ask "an office of independent advisers" to help out with technical details regarding concessions, contracts and production.
An Iraqi oil expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Weekly that the "office of independent advisers" could be just another name for giant US corporations. "The new law would place Iraq's oil fields in the hands of foreign companies for decades, and after the companies have their cut, the Iraqis would be left short, perhaps with as little as 14 per cent of the revenues," the expert said.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Maliki has invited Iranian companies to build four oil refineries in south Iraq. The Iraqi Petroleum Ministry has confirmed that Iranian companies will be submitting bids for the refineries. If the Iranians have their way, they would seize a large portion of Iraq's oil, refine it and export it through a pipeline passing through Abadan, experts say.
A parliamentarian speaking to the Weekly on condition his name be withheld said that it would be a mistake to pass the law first and amend it later, as some are trying to do. That would leave the country in a debacle similar to the one created by the hastily-approved constitution, he remarked.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/846/re81.htm
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
