Iraq: ``secure petro-democracy''

Future of Iraq being decided in Abu Dhabi

Curious how some Bush-used notions appear in a release from an Iraqi deputy prime minister at a recent US-run conference in the UAE:

A top Iraqi official called for partnerships with international companies to boost his country's oil industry on Sunday, saying Iraq's emergence as a ``secure petro-democracy" could quell rampant sectarian violence.

Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh, a Kurd, conceded disputes between local officials and the central government over who controls oil proceeds were one of many obstacles to making improvements. But he said he was hopeful that oil would be a ``unifying force for Iraqis rather than a resource to fight over.''

He spoke of Iraq emerging as a "secure petro-democracy" with the strength to put an end to the violence that threatens to tear the country apart.

"I don't underestimate the gravity of the situation in Iraq," Saleh said during a U.N.- and U.S.-sponsored Iraq donor conference in the Emirates capital of Abu Dhabi. "We are in a very critical situation." [emphasis added]

There are very curious things here. First, why does Iraq need to have a ``US-sponsored'' donor conference and be prodded quickly to sign over concessions over rights to its oil? As I have blogged before, Iraq should be in the driver seat, rather than give up control along with a great deal of its wealth to so-called PSAs, or production sharing agreements.

Also, the rhetorical positioning of oil-as-unifying-force seems to take right after President Bush, who said of Iraq's oil on June 12 that it is ``something that I view as a very positive part of Iraqi future'' and that Iraq ought to ``use the oil as a way to unite the country and ought to think about having a tangible fund for the people, so the people have faith in central government''.

It is difficult to know just what is going on here. Perhaps a clue appeared in the New York Times in a deeply-buried lead in a story about Vice President Cheney's waning influence (thanks, Jonathan):

For instance, Mr. Bush has turned to another Washington insider, James A. Baker III, who served Mr. Bush's father as secretary of state, for help as the co-chairman of an outside group developing options for dealing with Iraq. One group member said, ``You get the sense that the president now realizes, perhaps a little late, that he needs Baker to find him an exit door.''

Wow. They recognize the need for new ``options'' and an ``exit door''. Hardly seems like all this ``stay the course'' nonsense we've been hearing lately.

Here is a guess about what this means. The US, its puppets in Iraq who just happen to have a lot of influence in the oil sector, and the multinational oil companies are keen to get solid long-term contracts maximizing wealth extraction from the country, under the recognition that the political battle could be totally lost really soon. (Remember, Baker is the guy hired to work out Iraq's mountain of debt, but quickly turned to double-dealing evidently at Iraq's expense.) The assumption is that the oil will be pumping long after the current violence subsides, at which point the US can pull back and hope that the the constitution it imposed on Iraq will hold up to legal muster. Nothing is certain yet due to the resistance, so the troops have to stay in the meanwhile to at least hold the line of colonial control until the PSAs are the facts on the ground.