Armed Robbery? Iraq Labor vs. ExxonMobil, BP and Shell
In a story about oil and Iraq, Kathlyn Stone writes in "Iraq Labor vs. ExxonMobil, BP and Shell" that "the US and UK governments are on track to achieve a March victory in Iraq." This "victory" is far from the one many people would like to see. Victory, in this sense, means the new Iraq hydrocarbon law written by Bush and Blair's big oil business partners. This law allows "international investors, led by BP, Exxon and Shell, to siphon off 75 percent of Iraq oil wealth for 30 years." This economic policy is called a "Production Sharing Agreement," but, as Stone asks, "is a 75/25 split, with bloated oil companies taking 75 percent of the country's wealth and leaving just 25 percent for the devastated Iraqis, a sharing agreement or an armed robbery?"
Obviously, Iraqi unions, if not the occupied government, are standing firm against the oil law. "With the oil sector representing 95 percent of the country's revenues, and with only 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields under production, much is at stake." The General Union of Oil Employees in Basra is one of the most outspoken unions against this plan. In fact, in a February 6 speech, the GUOE's President delivered these harsh words against the United States - "Among the objectives America wishes to achieve from the military occupation of Iraq, all the causes of which we do not want to return to, but simply to emphasize one central objective of the American political leaders who crossed oceans and wasted billions of dollars, that is Iraqi oil. Indeed we in the Federation of Oil Unions consider this the most important reason for this foul war." It then goes on to talk about how Saddam Hussein's 1987 Law 150, banning unions and union organizing, remains in effect. "In 2004 U.S. administrator Paul Bremer declared them illegal." Stone then goes on to explain more and more about unions in Iraq. Check out more.
Posted By Greg @ 2:02 PM 6 CommentsRelated Click to Email:
6 Comments:
This is a test. I tried to post a comment yesterday and it didn't work.
If this works I'll post my real comment!
OK, looks like that worked.
I often read Juan Cole's blog Informed Comment, www.juancole.com.
He is a professor of Middle East History at the University of Michigan. He posts daily news (often translated from Arabic), analysis, and commentary. He provides some clarity on the many factions and shifting alliances in Iraq and Iran.
On the subject of the Iraqi hydrocarbon law, he linked yesterday to this column in Asia Times:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01.html
Here's another article from Time that suggests the bill will have a rough time getting passed.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1594388,00.html
I hope it doesn't pass. Is there anything we can do to keep it from going through?
Straightly speaking, we should all question multinational companies whether they solely serve their own economic benefit.
On the other side, it is quite unusual to find such a straightforward statement from the government, especially with the given percentage.
Should it becomes true, then it depends on the American/British people to stop this policy, because it is very likely to trigger another wave of violence towards foreigners.
What is the most "astounding" thing about this proposed law/bill is that it is fully written in English, as opposed to Arabic (source: BBC newscast), which is the language that is followed officially, by the Govt. there.
It is said that money corrupts, but power corrupts absolutely - the two together make a heady (read deadly) cocktail, don't they?
Post a Comment