Antiwar.com Blog

The Blog | Michael O’Hanlon: Oil, Sunnis, and the Iraqi Constitution | The Huffington Post

Although what the draft text says, exactly, is somewhat unclear, I have big concerns about one reported issue in Iraq’s constitution — how oil revenue is to be distributed.

Oil accounts for 98% of Iraq’s export earnings. When foreign aid starts to dry up in a few years, it will be Iraq’s only real source of hard currency.

According to press reports about the draft, and somewhat ambiguous language in the draft constitution itself, the Kurds and Shia have agreed that revenue from existing oil wells is to be shared nationally, but earnings from new wells will accrue to whichever regional government develops the well in question.

This is a big problem. For one thing, it invites gamesmanship. An old well can be modernized and redefined as new. Even if the Kurds and Shia are fair-minded about it, someday all wells in Iraq will be "new" relative to a 2005 starting point. At that time, what will be the economic basis of the Iraqi state? Even more to the point, what will be the economic basis of any Sunni Arab rump state?

I was wondering about this issue yesterday as I cruised the internets looking for the warblogger spin on the Iraqi draft constitution.  Instaglenn was puffing this post on normblog which quotes an email from Brendan O’Leary (listed here as "constitutional advisor to the Kurdistan Government, presently in Iraq") mostly concentrating on how the Kurds fared in the draft.  However, O’Leary includes this bit:

Kurdistan has achieved its ‘red lines’ in the negotiations. The KRG [Kurdistan Regional Government] retains its full domestic legal autonomy; the legal competences of the federal government are narrowly circumscribed, and less than those in the Transitional Administrative Law; and in a clash between regional and federal law in an arena of regional competence, regional law is supreme. The Peshmerga will be the internal security/regional guard of Kurdistan; and the KRG will be able to block the deployment of the Iraqi army within Kurdistan. Natural resources that are currently exploited are a joint competence with joint revenues; unexploited/new natural resources belong to the regions. Art. 58 of the TAL (reversing Saddam’s ‘Arabization’) will be implemented, and there will be a referendum on Kirkuk and the disputed territories by 2007. The future constitutional amendment process requires the consent of the Kurdistan National Assembly if a change affects its powers.

Considering the well-known fact that the majority of Sunni Arabs live in a relatively resourceless area, as well as the known degraded state of both the Rumaylah and Kirkuk oilfields, coupled with the expectation that vast, unexplored fields ( According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Iraq contains 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the third largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia and Canada), concentrated overwhelmingly (65 percent or more) in southern Iraq. Estimates of Iraq’s oil reserves and resources vary widely, however, given that only about 10 percent of the country has been explored.) are the real future of Iraq’s oil wealth, it seems clear that the Sunnis have been dealt out of all but a pittance of the anticipated billions to be realized from Iraqi oil.

As O’Hanlon says, “Realizing how badly their interests are being protected, Sunni Arabs — already the core of the insurgency — will likely step up their resistance. At a minimum they will probably “veto” the constitution in the October referendum.

Iraq’s international friends need to pressure the Kurds and Shia to change this provision, or to clarify that new wells will be treated the same as the old ones.”

Other than this question, the spin from the warbloggers seems to be focused on keeping their anti-Muslim, Holy War allies from freaking out over the Iranian nature of the role of Islam inserted into the draft. The AP helpfully mistranslated the clause upon which all their democratic hopes hang, substituting “No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam” for the more ominous, but accurate translation ” No law may be legislated that contravenes the essential verities of Islamic law.” As Juan Cole points out: “The TAL and earlier drafts said that law may not contravene the verities of Islam. By specifying ISLAMIC LAW– ahkam al-Islam– this text enshrines the shariah or Islamic canon law quite explicitly in the constitution and would allow religious jurists to question secular legislation.” Look for even more warblogger heads to explode when they finally notice this.

Here’s one secular Shiite Iraqi woman’s take on the new constitution: "This is the future of the new Iraqi government – it will be in the hands of the clerics," said Dr. Raja Kuzai, a secular Shiite member of the Assembly. "I wanted Iraqi women to be free, to be able to talk freely and to able to move around."

"I am not going to stay here," said Dr. Kuzai, an obstetrician and women’s leader who met President Bush in the White House in November 2003.

Billmon has more here and here.

“… when even Fox News was piling on President Bush’s counselor, Dan Bartlett.” More from the Washington Post:

E.D. Hill, one of the “Fox & Friends” morning show anchors, said she thought the Iraq war “was a justified one” but now worries “that there’s not a plan to actually win that ground war.”

“Well, E.D., I can assure you that’s not the case,” Bartlett assured her. Allowing that it’s been a “bumpy process” with “difficult days,” he asserted: “We have the right strategy to prevail.”

Hill was not reassured by this assurance. “I guess I’m not convinced,” she replied.

If Fox News falls, who will Bush have left?

Pat Robertson’s statement that the US should knock off Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, because he is a “terrific danger” to the US and Venezuela will become “the launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism.” is a perfect illustration, outrage not withstanding, of the difference between public and private morality. It’s alright for Robertson to suggest murder, as long as it’s the State that’s carrying it out. If, on the other hand, Robertson were to seriously suggest that he was planning to kill his neighbor, or a competitor, what do you suppose the reaction might be? As I said, the comments have caused some public sensation, but not as much as they should have. In a more civilized era, Robertson would no doubt have been shunned to the point of effective non-existence for comments like these.
Robertson may not be aware that the US does not engage in political assassinations. It is, in fact, illegal by Executive Order;

“Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.”

Setting aside morality for the moment, Robertson identifies “communist infiltration” and “Muslim extremism” as his motives for the killing. Don’t make me laugh. Communism failed, as it was preordained to do. It never had a chance of succeeding and should have been greeted with snickers when first proposed. Robertson must be one of the only people left who’s willing to publicly say that he believes communism can work, so much so that he’s willing to commit murder to stop it. The irony of a prominent Fundie talking about Muslim extremism is…well he makes it too easy. Chavez is a danger to Venezuela, not the US, and it’s Venezuela’s problem to solve, if they choose to do so. America’s problem is Pat Robertson.
The contemptible thing about these kinds of helpful suggestions by warmongers is that they invariably involve someone else doing the dirty work. I say that if Robertson wants Chavez on the slab, he should have the guts to do the job personally.

This is really a pathetic story.  First, from Digby:

Cindy Sheehan, right, hugs President
Bush supporter Gary Qualls of Temple, Texas after the two met at her
camp near Crawford, Texas, Saturday, Aug. 13, 2005. Qualls’ son Marine
LCPL. Louis W. Qualls was killed in the battle of Fallujah Nov. 14,
2004. Qualls answered an invitation from Sheehan to meet with pro-Bush
parents that lost children in Iraq. Qualls was the only parent that
came.

“Over the weekend, as the camp prepared for the arrival of the counter-demonstrators, a huge diesel pickup truck rumbled into camp with its nose menacingly pointed towards the tents. It sat for a while, and everyone waited to see what would happen. Ann Wright, the main organizer of camp activities, finally approached the truck and met the driver. He was a father, Wright discovered, and his son had been killed in Iraq.

He did not agree with this protest, he said, but wanted to know if his son’s name was on one of the crosses in the Arlington West cemetery. Ann Wright invited the man to walk the rows of crosses and find his son’s name. They found it. Ann and the man from the truck sat down in front of the cross, wrapped their arms around each other, and wept. Later, the man shared a beer with Cindy Sheehan and told her he loved her.

Read the Rest Of The Story here.

“Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them to it” – Shakespeare, Henry V

Every so often, the confused cranium of George W. Bush emerges from seclusion and words escape his lips which are apparently designed to be explanations of his policies. Typically, his statements only create greater confusion amongst observers, possibly including the President himself. Ever expanding confusion, mirroring ever expanding entropy, the second law of thermodynamics applied to the gray matter of George Bush*; that would be a neat explanation for this statement, concerning deceased US servicemen;

“We owe them something. We will finish the task that they gave their lives for. We’ll honor their sacrifice by staying on the offensive against the terrorists and building strong allies in Afghanistan and Iraq that will help us win and fight … the war on terror.”

“Finish the task” — what task? as tex pointed out below, Bush has never defined the task. The task, like the justification for the task, is whatever Bush wants it to be, moment by moment. That’s what “they gave their lives for” as he puts it. They gave their lives for the imagination of George W. Bush. “Honor their sacrifice”…by wiping out any resistance to our dreams of world domination, no matter who be in our way. And who are “the terrorists” Bush is always referring to? The president is always talking about terrorists and insurgents, insurgents and terrorists. He hasn’t clearly delineated who the enemy is. Clearly, the enemy is anyone whom George W. Bush imagines them to be. “Building strong allies” refers to the permanent US military bases in Iraq, assuming Bush remembers that he is having them built. And then this matter of “the war on terror”, another thing Bush has never bothered to define in anything resembling specific terms. Since we don’t know exactly what the war on terror is, it isn’t possible to win it, except in the imagination of its Creator: George W. Bush. The president imagines the cause, imagines the enemy — why not simply get out of the region and he can imagine the casualties too!

*For the Second Law to apply to Bush’s brain, it would have to be, in technical terms, a ‘closed system’, in which no new positive thermal energy can enter…

Or something.  Swopa has Salam Pax’s constitution-blogging:

swopa:  Team Shiite opts for a short punt

Salam Pax: So nothing really. They just wanted to make sure the current Assembly is not dissolved. al-Hassani is having a press conference and he is talking about four outstanding issues. One of them is the issue of regions. [sic]

al-hassani is saying this is not to be called an extension because we do have a draft what’s going to be done are amendments only.

And it looks like the preamble has not been agreed upon yet!

"we had two choices either take an unfinished draft or apply for a new extension. We chose the unfinished draft".

OK, so now you know as much as most Iraqis know about what happened.

UPDATE:

Salam’s dad is back from the Assembly:

“everybody’s got a bloody nose”. That’s what he is telling me.
There are still two issues which are still open. The formation of regions is still very much debated. The Shia want this to be an issue decided within the region itself i.e. if Basra wants to become an autonomous region this is decided in Basra only the central federal government has no say. The other parties want this to be a national decision.

The other big issue is de-Baathification. The Shia parties want this tobe mentioned in the constitution. Allawi and the Sunnis don’t want this to be mentioned there.

I did see the draft, I wasn’t allowed to touch it tho :-) It looks like a hastily written document, not even good hand writing. It is hand written and with lots of things crossed out. Each page is signed by a memeber of the Shia coalition and a member of the Kurdish coalition.

There’s more….