« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
A couple weeks ago, we learned that Iraq's oh-so-very-sovereign Ministry of Oil was about to award a round of no-bid contracts to several western oil companies that would bring the large multinationals back into Iraq for the first time in more than 35 years.
The Bush Administration insisted that they were not going to interfere in this deal, which was between Iraq's democratic leaders and private-sector companies.
But today's New York Times report confirms what many people have suspected for years -- that U.S. officials are working behind the scenes to influence the future of Iraq's massive oil reserves.
In their role as advisers to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, American government lawyers and private-sector consultants provided template contracts and detailed suggestions on drafting the contracts, advisers and a senior State Department official said.
...
The American government lawyers provided specific advice, the State Department official said, like: "These are the clauses you may want. You will need a clause on arbitration. You will need this clause to make this work."
Near the end of the story, the Times reports:
Advisers from the State, Commerce, Energy and Interior Departments are assigned to work with the Iraqi Oil Ministry, according to the senior diplomat. In addition, the United States Agency for International Development has a contract for Management Systems International, a Washington consulting firm, to advise the oil and other ministries. The agency's program is called Tatweer, the Arabic word for development.
A Washington consulting firm? Actually, Management Systems International is a subsidiary of a massive Australian company, Coffey International Ltd. focusing on mining, oil and gas infrastructure projects.
And guess who some of their clients are? Global oil companies including Cheveron, Royal Dutch Shell and BP.
So the company that touts big oil as clients is helping the Iraqi government negotiate with those companies -- and getting paid by the U.S. government to do so.
But USAID and the consulting firm they hired don't call that a conflict of interest, the call it "mentoring."
"The legal department of the Ministry of Oil passed us a draft of the contract," Samir Abid, a Canadian of Iraqi origin who is an employee of the Tatweer program, said in a telephone interview. "They passed it to us and asked for our comments because we were mentoring them."
U.S. officials suggested that the Iraqi's needed their help since they haven't dealt with western oil companies since the 1970s. That's when, you might recall, Saddam Hussein kicked out all the international oil firms and nationalized the Iraq National Oil Company.
The Times wrote Sunday, in a story about Iraq's oil in the Week in Review section, many oil experts say that Iraq is among the easiest places in the world to pull oil out of the ground.
Maybe. Or maybe that consulting firm is providing the Ministry with actual legal contract advice. Your quote above suggests that, because, guess what? In international law it is generally extremely wise to have an arbitration clause in the contract.
June 30, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beside the point. If the negotiations are between Iraq and the oil corporations, and the US govv't is said by Bush not to be involved, and yet the US gov't is involved -- Bushit is lying again -- then the Bushit criminal enterprise is again using taxpayer monies to pay private corporations to steal Iraqs oil -- doubtless for additional profits.
Regardless whether it is wise in international law to have an "arbitration" clause in a contract.
June 30, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least it's clear this war wasn't about oil.
It was about freedom. The freedom to be mentored.
Sheesh!
-- ARG
June 30, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope for the Iraqis sake they didn't use the same arbitration clause used by the big credit card companies to deny due process to credit card holders.
June 30, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure that's exactly what the provision was. That is the intent of arbitration provisions --> put any challenges on as favorable turf as possible.
June 30, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is nobody asking the most pertinent question?
What the heck is a "no-bid" contract between US business and Iraq - because certainly it isn't like a no-bid contract with government.
Do Iraqis have to take it or leave it, or they not free at all to rejected a completely unfair contract that gives 80% or more of all profits to big oil, which is hardly in Iraqs best interest?
Why isn't Iraq free to nationalize their oilfields as oppose to privatize? Isn't that really in the best interest for Iraqis? Strange too, how Seymour Hersh has a timly Iran threat as if on cue? I mean, we know that Iran has been advising Iraqi government and these "no-bid" (take it or leave it, or whatever) contracts are to be anounced today sometime as being signed into US made law. I can certainly see why Nancy Pelosi just does whatever this administration wants, lies for them about telecom immunity, because fear works in mysterious ways, does it not? Pelosi took impeachment off the table because I believe she is scared to death of Bush and Cheney. And the GOP insist on complete control whereby NO GOP could vote otherwise, not even in the interest of their own constituency, why because Bush and Cheney will not tolerate anything else?
And still nobody seems to realize what a completely criminal apparatus this administration is, or that so many Republicans seem to have taken retirement as opposed to being controlled by Bush and Cheney? We have a severe problem people because Bush and Cheney are as criminal as it gets.
June 30, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still waiting to see the before and after bank accounts of these ministers and leaders of Iraq.
In particular, I would like to see just how much money the American taxpayers have had to pay these guys in order for them to bow down to the Bush administration...
Probably as much as we had to pay alll those other countries who "Supported" our war effort... IMHO
It was worth it, though, wasn't it.
BTW: The report mentioned Congress (that's dems AND reps) gave the administration OUR money to do this deed. Who'd have thought....
June 30, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like State is trying to minimize its role. Supposedly, State simply advised Iraq that any international oil development contract will "will need a clause on arbitration."
If you look at the draft terms, however, I bet you'll see that the dispute resolution provisions provide for arbitration rules and in a location preferred by U.S. oil corporations. I can just imagine some U.S. foreign service officer advising the Iraqi Oil Ministry, "it doesn't matter where the arbitration is held, as long as it's somewhere in Texas."
June 30, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink