Iraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their country if an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year. A report produced by American and British pressure groups warns Iraq will be caught in an “old colonial trap” if it allows foreign companies to take a share of its vast energy reserves. The report is certain to reawaken fears that the real purpose of the 2003 war on Iraq was to ensure its oil came under Western control.
[…]
Earlier this year a BBC Newsnight report claimed to have uncovered documents showing the Bush administration made plans to secure Iraqi oil even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US. Based on its analysis of PSAs in seven countries, it said multinationals would seek rates of return on their investment from 42 to 162 per cent, far in excess of typical 12 per cent rates.
Taking an assumption of $40 a barrel, below the current price of almost $60, and a likely contract term of 25 to 40 years, it said that Iraq stood to lose between £74bn and $194bn. Andrew Simms, the NEF’s policy director, said: “Over the last century, Britain and the US left a global trail of conflict, social upheaval and environmental damage as they sought to capture and control a disproportionate share of the world’s oil reserves. Now it seems they are determined to increase their ecological debts at Iraq’s expense. Instead of a new beginning, Iraq is caught in a very old colonial trap.”
I always said it, so this comes as no surprise to me. From the beginning, the Iraq war has been an excuse for corporate plundering; we all knew Iraq would not have been invaded if it didn’t have oil. In the past three years I’ve talked to a lot of people about the war and the overwhelming majority of people, regardless of their political stance, was convinced this war was fought for oil. So why was this such a controversial point before the war? Too many anti-war activists seemed reluctant at the time to draw attnetion to this point, especially the socalled moderates, probably out of fear of being called a hippy or “radical”. Heck, Henry Farrell still thinks it’s crackpot to think Bush knew before the war that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.
It is doubtful that this plan would be legal, even if implemented by the socalled independent Iraqi government rather than the US occupier, but the article also ignores that sooner or later the Americans will leave and the insurgency will take control of the country, at which point any such agreement will be null and void.