Meanwhile, attempts to continue to hold US mercenary organisations accountable. The Blackwater group has changed its name to Xe, but the personnel and practices remain the same:
Xe-Blackwater Personnel Shot Iraqi Children, Others in Multiple Incidents
PR Newswire reports (July 1st): A spate of unprovoked civilian shootings by Xe-Blackwater personnel in Iraq between 2005 and 2008 are detailed in an amended lawsuit filed in Virginia federal court, according to the Washington, D.C. law firm that represents the families of those killed and wounded in the incidents.
The new allegations against several Blackwater-related defendants - now operating as Xe and other names under the control of chairman Erik Prince - include:
the shooting of three Iraqi families in a mini-van that killed nine-year-old Akram Khalid Sa'ed Jasim and wounded his three-month-old sister, who was shot in the face, his mother, his father, and uncle in July 2007;
the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Suhad Shakir Fadhil as she was driving home from work in the so-called Green Zone in February 2007;
the shooting of Maulood Mohammed Shathir Husein, a 31-year-old married professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Baghdad in August 2005;
the fatal shooting of 65-year-old Khalis Kareem Ali Al Qaysi, who was killed while he was being driven in Baghdad in March 2005;
the severe beating of 35-year-old Iraqi photographer Safeen Hameed Ahmed Qadir in April 2008 as he took photographs at a Ford automobile branch in the Arbil province that was visited by a U.S. diplomat, and;
the shooting of Husam Hasan Jaber, who was driving three passengers in Baghdad in a taxi cab he owns and operates.
Full article:
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-01-2009/0005053634&EDATE
Sunday, 5 July 2009
Oil, again
Both management and union in Iraq's Southern Oil Company oppose the current sell-off of Iraq's national wealth to western corporations:
The scramble for Iraq's 'sweet oil'
Al-Jazeera reports (June 30th): With proven oil reserves of around 112 billion barrels and up to another 150 billion barrels of probable reserves, Iraq is the greatest untapped prize for international oil companies.
The companies want a long-term share of the oil they produce under a Production Sharing Agreement, which allows them to book reserves in advance and tell the market exactly how much oil they expect to produce.
This is exactly the type of contract that Iraqis in the oil industry are opposed to. Fayad al-Nema, general manager of Iraq's South Oil Company, has written to Hussein al-Shahristani, the Iraqi oil minister, outlining his company's objections.
"We in the South Oil Company, that is all of its leadership, reject the first bidding round because it is against the interests of Iraq's oil industry."
Oil workers' unions in Iraq have also spoken out against the contracts. Hassan Joumah, president of the Federation of Iraqi Oil Workers Union, says: "Unfortunately, there are many problems with the first round of the allocation of Iraq's oil contracts, which have given huge advantages to the foreign companies to invest in Iraq's oil.
"Giving such returns to foreign companies will put Iraq's economy in the hands of foreign companies."
For the full article:
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/06/20096288505111580.html
The scramble for Iraq's 'sweet oil'
Al-Jazeera reports (June 30th): With proven oil reserves of around 112 billion barrels and up to another 150 billion barrels of probable reserves, Iraq is the greatest untapped prize for international oil companies.
The companies want a long-term share of the oil they produce under a Production Sharing Agreement, which allows them to book reserves in advance and tell the market exactly how much oil they expect to produce.
This is exactly the type of contract that Iraqis in the oil industry are opposed to. Fayad al-Nema, general manager of Iraq's South Oil Company, has written to Hussein al-Shahristani, the Iraqi oil minister, outlining his company's objections.
"We in the South Oil Company, that is all of its leadership, reject the first bidding round because it is against the interests of Iraq's oil industry."
Oil workers' unions in Iraq have also spoken out against the contracts. Hassan Joumah, president of the Federation of Iraqi Oil Workers Union, says: "Unfortunately, there are many problems with the first round of the allocation of Iraq's oil contracts, which have given huge advantages to the foreign companies to invest in Iraq's oil.
"Giving such returns to foreign companies will put Iraq's economy in the hands of foreign companies."
For the full article:
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/06/20096288505111580.html
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
Coincidence?
Despite bomb attacks that have killed 250 people in the last fortnight, today in Iraq is apparently 'sovereignty day' as the US withdraw troops a mere six and a bit years after they invaded.
Except that they aren't withdrawing, as the previous post on this blog explains. Channel 4 News reported that the 'withdrawal' of troops 'coincides' with the auctioning of lucrative oil contracts worth an estimated $16 billion. Presumably, such an auction might look more like plunder, if the military occupation still appeared to be in full force - as of course in reality it is.
Anyway, here's Mohamed Ali Zainy on the oil contracts (about 35 minutes from start of the BBC's World Today programme)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p003jc4q/The_World_Today_30_06_2009/
Except that they aren't withdrawing, as the previous post on this blog explains. Channel 4 News reported that the 'withdrawal' of troops 'coincides' with the auctioning of lucrative oil contracts worth an estimated $16 billion. Presumably, such an auction might look more like plunder, if the military occupation still appeared to be in full force - as of course in reality it is.
Anyway, here's Mohamed Ali Zainy on the oil contracts (about 35 minutes from start of the BBC's World Today programme)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p003jc4q/The_World_Today_30_06_2009/
Sunday, 28 June 2009
What US withdrawal?
I quote here the first few paragraphs of a very interesting analysis from Foreign Policy in Focus, which shows the Stae of Forces Agreement up for what it really is.
A Withdrawal in Name Only
Erik Leaver and Daniel Atzmon June 24, 2009
On November 17, 2008, when Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker signed an agreement for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, citizens from both countries applauded. While many were disappointed about the lengthy timeline for the withdrawal of the troops, it appeared that a roadmap was set to end the war and occupation. However, the first step — withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009 — is full of loopholes, and tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers will remain in the cities after the "deadline" passes.
The failure to fully comply with the withdrawal agreement indicates the United States is looking to withdraw from Iraq in name only, as it appears that up to 50,000 military personnel will remain after the deadline.
The United States claims it's adhering to the agreement, known as the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), even with so many troops being left in the cities. But the United States is changing semantics instead of policy. For example, there are no plans to transfer the 3,000 American troops stationed within Baghdad at Forward Operating Base Falcon, because commanders have determined that despite its location, it's not within the city.
The original intent of moving troops out of the cities was to reduce the U.S. military role and send the message to Iraqis that the United States would be leaving the country soon. But troops that are no longer sleeping in the cities will still take part in operations within Iraqi cities; they will serve in "support" and "advisory" roles, rather than combat functions. Such "reclassification" of troops as military trainers is another example of how the United States is circumventing the terms of the SOFA agreement.
The larger loophole in the agreement is the treatment of military contractors. There has been little mention of the 132,610 military contractors in Iraq. Of these, 36,061 are American citizens, according to a recent Department of Defense report.
Since September 2008, only 30,000 troops have left Iraq. The 134,000 soldiers that remain are just slightly below the number of troops that were in Iraq in 2003. These numbers are likely to remain well above 100,000 until 2010.
Instead of sending soldiers stationed in cities home, the military has been expanding and building new bases in rural areas to accommodate soldiers affected by the June 30 deadline. And Congress just passed a war-spending bill that includes more funding for military construction inside Iraq.
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6211
A Withdrawal in Name Only
Erik Leaver and Daniel Atzmon June 24, 2009
On November 17, 2008, when Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker signed an agreement for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, citizens from both countries applauded. While many were disappointed about the lengthy timeline for the withdrawal of the troops, it appeared that a roadmap was set to end the war and occupation. However, the first step — withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009 — is full of loopholes, and tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers will remain in the cities after the "deadline" passes.
The failure to fully comply with the withdrawal agreement indicates the United States is looking to withdraw from Iraq in name only, as it appears that up to 50,000 military personnel will remain after the deadline.
The United States claims it's adhering to the agreement, known as the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), even with so many troops being left in the cities. But the United States is changing semantics instead of policy. For example, there are no plans to transfer the 3,000 American troops stationed within Baghdad at Forward Operating Base Falcon, because commanders have determined that despite its location, it's not within the city.
The original intent of moving troops out of the cities was to reduce the U.S. military role and send the message to Iraqis that the United States would be leaving the country soon. But troops that are no longer sleeping in the cities will still take part in operations within Iraqi cities; they will serve in "support" and "advisory" roles, rather than combat functions. Such "reclassification" of troops as military trainers is another example of how the United States is circumventing the terms of the SOFA agreement.
The larger loophole in the agreement is the treatment of military contractors. There has been little mention of the 132,610 military contractors in Iraq. Of these, 36,061 are American citizens, according to a recent Department of Defense report.
Since September 2008, only 30,000 troops have left Iraq. The 134,000 soldiers that remain are just slightly below the number of troops that were in Iraq in 2003. These numbers are likely to remain well above 100,000 until 2010.
Instead of sending soldiers stationed in cities home, the military has been expanding and building new bases in rural areas to accommodate soldiers affected by the June 30 deadline. And Congress just passed a war-spending bill that includes more funding for military construction inside Iraq.
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6211
Sunday, 21 June 2009
Opposition to the corporate takeover
From the latest Iraq Occupation Focus Newsletter:
Iraq oil execs rebel over contract tenders
Reuters report (June 14th): The head of the unit that produces most of Iraq's crude said Sunday he opposed Baghdad's plan to auction off oil field service contracts, joining an apparently broad revolt against the country's first major foreign oil deals in 30 years.
South Oil Co. Director General Fayad al-Nema said the service contracts were "detrimental to the Iraqi economy" and asked Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani to cancel the first tender results, which are due to be announced June 29-30.
The protest by senior executives in the state-run industry added to growing discord around Shahristani, who faces criticism from parliament for not having boosted Iraq's oil output to beyond the level it was at before the 2003 U.S. invasion.
http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_3_MOLT/idUSTRE55D1IY20090614
This was reinforced by a piece in today's Independent on Sunday:
The contracts have been heavily criticised inside Iraq as a sell-out to the big oil companies, which are desperate to get back into Iraq – oil was nationalised here in 1972, and Iraq and Iran are the only two places in the world where immense quantities of oil might still be discovered. Several of those criticising the contracts work in the Iraqi oil industry. "The service contracts will put the Iraqi economy in chains and shackle its independence for the next 20 years," said Fayad al-Nema, head of the state-owned South Oil Company, which produces 80 per cent of Iraq's crude. "They squander Iraq's reserves."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/oil-rush-scramble-for-iraqs-wealth-1711570.html
Iraq oil execs rebel over contract tenders
Reuters report (June 14th): The head of the unit that produces most of Iraq's crude said Sunday he opposed Baghdad's plan to auction off oil field service contracts, joining an apparently broad revolt against the country's first major foreign oil deals in 30 years.
South Oil Co. Director General Fayad al-Nema said the service contracts were "detrimental to the Iraqi economy" and asked Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani to cancel the first tender results, which are due to be announced June 29-30.
The protest by senior executives in the state-run industry added to growing discord around Shahristani, who faces criticism from parliament for not having boosted Iraq's oil output to beyond the level it was at before the 2003 U.S. invasion.
http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_3_MOLT/idUSTRE55D1IY20090614
This was reinforced by a piece in today's Independent on Sunday:
The contracts have been heavily criticised inside Iraq as a sell-out to the big oil companies, which are desperate to get back into Iraq – oil was nationalised here in 1972, and Iraq and Iran are the only two places in the world where immense quantities of oil might still be discovered. Several of those criticising the contracts work in the Iraqi oil industry. "The service contracts will put the Iraqi economy in chains and shackle its independence for the next 20 years," said Fayad al-Nema, head of the state-owned South Oil Company, which produces 80 per cent of Iraq's crude. "They squander Iraq's reserves."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/oil-rush-scramble-for-iraqs-wealth-1711570.html
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Petition Brown for a proper enquiry!
The announcement of an enquiry into the war on Iraq by the Government has all the hallmarks of previous investigations, slanted in advance by its choice of Chair, limited in scope and secret in process. Some are calling for a proper enquiry:
Yesterday afternoon Gordon Brown finally announced an inquiry into the Iraq war. He also announced that he intends it to be held in secret, not report until after the next election, and not apportion any blame. Does that sound like a proper inquiry to you? Brown is hoping that this inquiry will draw a line under the whole episode.Sign our urgent petition to send a clear message to Brown that the British people will only accept a genuine inquiry, held in public and free to draw its own conclusions. The Iraq war was declared in the face of fierce opposition. Serious questions about its justification and legality remain unanswered. Millions of us marched against the invasion, and many more felt betrayed when claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction turned out to be false. Countless thousands of Iraqis have died, as well as 179 British service men and women. If we're going to expect people to die for their country, we need to be certain that we're doing it for the right reasons. A genuine inquiry would be our chance to understand why all this happened and how to prevent it happening again. A stitched-up, secret inquiry will encourage future governments to think they can get away with the same again. Only last week, in response to the expenses claims scandal, Gordon Brown promised more transparent and open government. Together we can show Brown that if he is serious about open and transparent government, he should allow an open and transparent inquiry into the reasons we went to war. We'll be inviting MPs of all the parties, previous opponents and supporters of the Iraq war alike, to support our petition. If enough of us speak out right away we can make sure Brown doesn't get away with failing to deliver the proper inquiry we need. [
To sign the petition, go to http://38degrees.org.uk/page/s/IraqInquiry
Yesterday afternoon Gordon Brown finally announced an inquiry into the Iraq war. He also announced that he intends it to be held in secret, not report until after the next election, and not apportion any blame. Does that sound like a proper inquiry to you? Brown is hoping that this inquiry will draw a line under the whole episode.Sign our urgent petition to send a clear message to Brown that the British people will only accept a genuine inquiry, held in public and free to draw its own conclusions. The Iraq war was declared in the face of fierce opposition. Serious questions about its justification and legality remain unanswered. Millions of us marched against the invasion, and many more felt betrayed when claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction turned out to be false. Countless thousands of Iraqis have died, as well as 179 British service men and women. If we're going to expect people to die for their country, we need to be certain that we're doing it for the right reasons. A genuine inquiry would be our chance to understand why all this happened and how to prevent it happening again. A stitched-up, secret inquiry will encourage future governments to think they can get away with the same again. Only last week, in response to the expenses claims scandal, Gordon Brown promised more transparent and open government. Together we can show Brown that if he is serious about open and transparent government, he should allow an open and transparent inquiry into the reasons we went to war. We'll be inviting MPs of all the parties, previous opponents and supporters of the Iraq war alike, to support our petition. If enough of us speak out right away we can make sure Brown doesn't get away with failing to deliver the proper inquiry we need. [
To sign the petition, go to http://38degrees.org.uk/page/s/IraqInquiry
Thursday, 28 May 2009
Army chief says US ready to be in Iraq 10 years
This, from Associated Press. So much for the hype about withdrawal...
The Pentagon is prepared to leave fighting forces in Iraq for as long as a decade despite an agreement between the United States and Iraq that would bring all American troops home by 2012, the top U.S. Army officer said Tuesday.
The Pentagon is prepared to leave fighting forces in Iraq for as long as a decade despite an agreement between the United States and Iraq that would bring all American troops home by 2012, the top U.S. Army officer said Tuesday.
Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, said the world remains dangerous and unpredictable, and the Pentagon must plan for extended U.S. combat and stability operations in two wars. "Global trends are pushing in the wrong direction," Casey said. "They fundamentally will change how the Army works."
He spoke at an invitation-only briefing to a dozen journalists and policy analysts from Washington-based think-tanks. He said his planning envisions combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade as part of a sustained U.S. commitment to fighting extremism and terrorism in the Middle East.
Casey's calculations about force levels are related to his attempt to ease the brutal deployment calendar that he said would "bring the Army to its knees."
Casey would not specify how many combat units would be split between Iraq and Afghanistan. He said U.S. ground commander Gen. Ray Odierno is leading a study to determine how far U.S. forces could be cut back in Iraq and still be effective. Casey said his comments about the long war in Iraq were not meant to conflict with administration policies.
President Barack Obama plans to bring U.S. combat forces home from Iraq in 2010, and the United States and Iraq have agreed that all American forces would leave by 2012. Although several senior U.S. officials have suggested Iraq could request an extension, the legal agreement the two countries signed last year would have to be amended for any significant U.S. presence to remain.
As recently as February, Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated the U.S. commitment to the agreement worked out with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
"Under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011," Gates said during an address at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. "We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned."
The United States currently has about 139,000 troops in Iraq and 52,000 in Afghanistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)