Al-Ghad

Al-Amir - Shell Agreement Study (Arabic)

Al-Ghad is publishing an important study (in Arabic) on the Draft Agreement signed by between Shell and the Iraqi Oil Ministry.

This study is by the prominent oil and gas expert Mr Fouad al-Amir. This study comes during complex conditions in Iraq and, an unprecedented, world economic crisis. In Iraq itself the political situation has been radically transformed by the now most famous pair of shoes in the world that turned President Bush secret visit to Baghdad into an international farce, and ignited high tide of resentment and determination to throw out the invaders. This was already reflected by the rejection of the Iraqi docile Parliament of a new draft Law regulating the presence of foreign troops in the country, especially the British forces in Iraq.

In this new phase of US occupation of the country the Draft Gas Law already signed by Hussain Shahristani, the Iraq Oil Minister, comes as new aggression to loot the huge gas reserves in Iraq. This timely study Fouad al-Amir throws new light on the latest attempt to loot the country.

Al-Ghad

Shell - Ministry of Oil Secret Agreement (English)

Shahristani Agreement on Gas Investment

Al-Ghad is publishing the confidential text (in English), of an agreement signed by the Iraqi Ministry of Oil and Shell and a further document by Oil Minister, Hussain Shahristani, proposing surrendering South Iraq Gas to Shell. The Agreement is more important and far reaching than was expected. The scope of the agreement covers the whole of gas sources in South Iraq. It gives the impression that it would be a model for further control and exploitation of the whole oil and gas of the country.

This confidential gas agreement comes at a time of vicious American efforts to force through the Status of Forces (SOFA) military agreement on the Iraqi Parliament. It shows the extents to which the US and its lackeys in the Iraqi government will go to deprive occupied Iraq not only of its sovereignty but its extensive natural resources as well.

It is our hope to publish other documents and opinions in the near future.

Al-Ghad

Al-Amir US-Iraq Security Agreement Book (Arabic)

Al-Ghad is pleased to publish the full book (in Arabic) by our prominent contributor, Fouad Qasim Al-Amir, on the US-Iraq draft treaty. The book will be published in Iraq in next few days.

Al-Ghad has published most chapters of this important study. The release of the whole book comes in the wake of the sweeping defeat of the Bush presidency, and the resounding victory of the President-elect Barack Obama. The full text of the book, at this conjucture, will no doubt illuminate the intense battle taking place in Iraq to defeat the treaty.

Al-Ghad

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE FOR UNIFICATION OF THE TRADE UNIONS MOVEMENT IN THE SOUTH

We Call on All workers to Unite Their Struggle Against the Passing of the
Shameful Security Agreement

Mr Jum’a Awwad, the president of the Standing Committee for the Unification of the Trade Union Movements in South Iraq, issued a statement (in Arabic below) calling for united action to reject the Security Agreement which the US is trying to impose on Iraq, as Had our people done in destroying the Portsmouth Treaty and the Baghdad Pact. He said that the Iraq working class has played a vanguard leading the popular and political mass movements in our country.

The statement is one of the current mass movements in Iraq to defeat the US draft treaty on the country with aim of perpetuating American military occupation of Iraq.

Al-Ghad

In July, 2008 Al-Ghad published an important study of 73 pages, on the proposed security agreement between US and the Iraqi Government, by Mr Fouad Qasim Al-Amir, the well-known commentator and oil expert. Al-Ghad is glad to publish a new chapter (in Arabic) to that study covering the important vassalage relationship the US strives to impose on Iraq, under the title (SOFA), short for “Status of Force Agreement”, which was used by the US officials to cover up the real meaning and history of that concept.

The writer goes in details to present the background to this kind of relationship, and how it is being used by the US to mislead Iraqi and world opinion on its real aim to perpetuate the colonial status of occupied Iraq. This document is most relevant to what is happening today in Iraq.

Al-Ghad

Al-Amir US-Iraq Security Agreement (Arabic)

By Fouad Qasim Al-Amir

Al-Amir US-Iraq Agreement Study (Arabic)

This is an important study of 73 pages, of the proposed security agreement between US and the Iraqi Government, by the prominent Iraqi commentator and oil expert, By Fouad Qasim Al-Amir. The author has published several important studies on the subject of occupied Iraq, mainly on the oil question in Iraq and of the subject of world energy.

Mr Al-Amir starts his study by alluding to the fact that despite the importance of the US-Iraqi agreement there is almost complete absence of official details of the proposed agreement, with the result that the author had to base his analysis and conclusions, on what has been leaked by the press and the incomplete and misleading pronouncements of US and Iraqi officials. However, the author’s unique knowledge of the country, of the oil problem and his contacts with those interested in the Iraqi affairs, compensates some of the gabs in the closely guarded subject.

He discussed, in several chapters, the relevance of Section 7, of the UN charter to Iraq, both during Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait, and that of the US, of Iraq. One of the main themes in this regards is US posture to claim that it is making a favour to Iraq by felicitating its release from the restrictions of Section 7, by Iraq signing the proposed Security Agreement. He showed that those restrictions of UN Resolution 1483, on 22 May, 2003, had been placed to define, and restrict, the US unlawful occupation of Iraq which is a victim of unlawful occupation. The author points out in many places in the study, that it is the US who is the restricted party by Section7, not Iraq.

Then the study points out the US attempt to mislead Iraqi and international public opinion in mixing-up the case of Saddam’s occupation of Kuwait in 1990, with that of US of Iraq. Here US logic turns the victim into an aggressor, and vice versa.

Towards the end of the study the author refers to the probability of US attacking Iran in the hope of escaping its failure in Iraq and the region. Mr Al-Amir warns of the serious consequences of such action and its probable results. After this the author discusses the role of the Kurdish parties, their shaky position, and the attitude of its leaders towards the situation in Iraq and the proposed US-Iraq agreement.

This Study should be read by all those interested in fate of Iraq, the region and the world.

Al-Ghad

بيان الحزب الشيوعي العراقي – القيادة المركزية

This is an English summary of the statement of the Iraqi Communist Party (CL) published in the previous post:

The statement is an urgent warning that the Occupying Forces are preparing, in the coming hours, a vast massacre of the Sadr-City people, having been defeated by the uprising of the people of Basra. The Basra uprising had ignited a series of uprisings by the Iraqi people in many cities, especially by the by the people of Sadr-City, the bastion of millions of the deprived masses. In solidarity with the people of Basra, the people of Sadr-City showered the Green Zone - the seat of the American Embassy and the Maliki puppet Government - with rockets and mortars. According to press reports, 700 projectiles were fired at the Green Zone during April, making an average of one rocket per hour.

This had made life uncomfortable if not impossible to the occupiers and their puppets, and showed the US giant to be powerless in facing a people determined to gain their freedom. The US had to appeal to Iran to find a way out of its predicament.

After gaining time through this humiliating deal the US turned its fury against the people of Sadr-City who continued their fire on the Green Zone making hiding in underground shelters a norm of life. Another Iraqi delegation was dispatched to Iran, under the pretext of confronting Iranian officials with evidence of smuggled Iranian weapons to Iraq. It includes of the same persons who negotiated the ceasefire of Basra. Their aim is to secure a cover for the imminent massacre.

The occupiers have decided to implement the Israeli style ghettos of imprisoning people in concrete walls. When this didn’t solve their problem, they came to the idea of mass slaughter of the whole of Sadr-City, using mass bombing, rockets and heavy artillery against a civil population.

The Statement said that Sadr Current has its main popular base in the harsh slums of Sadr-City, and is in some ways like phenomenon of Hezbollah in Lebanon which had its origins in the slums of Dhahia in Beirut. Both became the strong nuclei round which the poor and disposed rallied, together with those of varied patriotic inclinations. The two had developed into bastions of the mass movements.

The Statement called upon the Iraqi people to continue the struggle, and to the people of Sadr-City. It concluded that the Iraqi people are facing dire dangers which can not be faced successful in the absence of broad national unity. Victory in this great struggle is fully dependent on that unity.

---

(Since this was written, it does seem now that the massacre has already started. It was just announced that the only functioning hospital in Sadr-City was destroyed by heavy American bombing. 20 people were wounded and dozens of ambulances were destroyed.)

On March 19th, 2008, the day after Vice President Richard Cheney’s unannounced visit to Iraq, events for the battle for Basra started to take off. The Jerusalem Post (March 20, 2008) welcomed the results of the visit with a whiff of ecstasy:

“US Vice President Richard Cheney visit to Iraq on the fifth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom was given scant coverage in the media. And yet it may go down in history as a pivotal moment in the transformation of post-Saddam Iraq into a beacon of democracy and freedom in the Arab world.
Hours after Cheney’s departure, the Iraqi presidency council announced that it had approved the Iraqi parliament’s elections law. The long-awaited act will facilitate Iraq’s development into a federal state and so cement the grassroots-level political progress that has made such strides in the last year as a result of the revised US counter-insurgency or “surge” campaign.”

Shortly After Cheney’s departure, Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki ,suddenly appeared in Basra to declare a curfew in the port city and issue a deadline of 72 hours for the people of Basra to surrender their arms. He ordered the occupation of the city deploying a military force of thirty thousand, with support of American Navy jets, and British military helicopters, tanks and artillery. President Bush hailed Maliki’s offensive as marking a “” for Iraq’s history.

Halfway through the 72 hours Maliki had to eat his own words. His threat ended in a resounding flop. In the short encounter Maliki “blinked first”, in the words of the BBC. The Cheney-Maliki saga, was like a replay of the five years of US occupation of Iraq: starting with a huge fanfare, and ending, most times, in disgrace. But it is the unfortunate fate of the Iraqi people to pay the heavy price in blood for American madness and the treacherous puppet government.

Satisfying the Oil Companies

There is now mounting evidence that Maliki’s “sudden” offensive on Basra was decided during Cheney’s visit to Baghdad. Cheney was present in Baghdad, at a press conference called by Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of the occupying forces in Iraq. Oddly enough Petraeus said that he was speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to call on the major Western oil companies to invest in Iraq’s energy sector, as Iraq looks outside to boost oil, gas and power production. He said: “The prime minister is very keen on getting large Western corporations re-engaged in the oil and electricity sectors.” (UPI, Ben Lando, March 18, 2008).

Why it was left to General Petraeus to speak on behalf of the prime minister of occupied Iraq in the presence of the US Vice President and the American Ambassador was not explained. But it was obvious that the major oil companies need strong military backing to enter into huge investment and long-term projects. The UPI report also pointed out:

“if deals were to be signed there’s no guarantee the companies will send money, let alone people, to Iraq until the security situation improves.”

Later on Shell, which is actively working to secure entry in exploiting Iraq’s rich natural resources, publicly expressed such condition. Its chief executive declared:

“We are very much prepared to go back to Iraq … But first, Shell employees must be able to work safely in the country and a petroleum law must be passed”.

(Reuters, April 1, 2008). Other major oil companies must have been reluctant to sign even limited oil agreements called “Technical Support Agreement”, TSAs, and that they would prefer to wait for the big deals of Production Sharing Agreements, PSA’s.

These calculations seem to be confirmed by Charles Ries, U.S. State Department minister for economic affairs and coordinator for economic transition in Iraq. He said the proposed Oil Law isn’t necessary for Iraq to produce oil “but it would clearly be much, much better and incentivize private investment to help Iraq produce more if a bill would pass.”

Operation Knights Charge

It is clear U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney came to Iraq Monday March 17, to make sure everything was in order, as there was no time to waist. To secure passing of the Oil Law and pacify the regions of the oil fields, Basra had to be under total control. Here comes “Operation Knights Charge”.

This operation was, for months, under preparation by the British forces occupying Basra. The Daily Telegraph (Sat. March 29. 2008), disclosed the plan, but it was over-ruled by the US during Cheney’s visit to Baghdad. The paper said:

“In preparation for Operation Knights Charge, British forces spent months training Iraqi soldiers in urban warfare. Basra was where Mr Maliki was to prove that Baghdad had the control over the whole country.”

The British were furious as they were ignored. Writing in the Sunday Times, March 30, 2008, Professor Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute, said: ”This battle of Basra, say British military spokesmen, is what we have been working for.” Explaining the different agendas of the two powers in Iraq, he said: “Britain and the United States have been fighting different wars in Iraq since they crossed the start line in March 2003. America’s war will go on. Britain’s war may in effect end with a victory for Iraqi forces in and around Basra… If this was the battle the British have been working for, they did not want it now.”

The writer explained what happened:

“General Mohan, commander of the Iraqi 14th Division in Basra _ the unit at the heart of the fighting – may have been planning an operation like this for later in the year but Maliki summarily arrived in Basra, swept aside and started it immediately. General David Petraeus, the US commander, had merely hours’ notice of the operation, the British none at all. Far from acting under British advice, Maliki has done his best to ignore UK commanders and is working with the US corps commander at his side.”

What happened next is well known. It was the courage of the Iraqi masses, the impoverished and the deprived, rallying around the Sadrist Current, that defeated the US and British armies together with their air forces, not only in Basra but also in Baghdad and other cities of Iraq. Maliki and his US masters have gambled and lost, making it sure that what the fate of US invasion would be. In the words of the Daily Telegraph, quoted above: “Mr Maliki is gambling not only with his country’s future but also the fate of America’s intervention in the Middle East.”

As a kind of post mortem*, the Wall Street Journal (April 1, 2008), quoted Vali Nasr, a scholar who has advised US policy makers: “President Bush was right that Basra marked a defining moment for Iraq, but not in the way that he intended.” adding: “This is the birth of Sadrist power.”

Al-Ghad

(*) The Uprising of Basra, Baghdad and the rest of Iraq truly marked a defining moment. Al-Ghad hopes to publish a series of comments about the New Iraq.