Bush Administration and Congressional
Democrats
Push for Iraq to Open its Oil Fields to Foreign Oil Companies
Amy Goodman interviews Antonia
Juhasz
Democracy Now, Wednesday, June
6th, 2007
My next guest has written extensively
about the economic side of the US occupation of Iraq. Antonia
Juhasz is a Tarbell Fellow at Oil Change International. She is
the author of the book, "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World,
One Economy at a Time," which has just come out in paperback.
0. Antonia Juhasz, is an author and activist.
Her articles have appeared in The New York Times, The Cambridge
University Review of International Relations Journal, and the
LA Times. She is the author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading
the World, One Economy at a Time", now out in paperback.
0.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Iraq. As the
Iraqi parliament moves closer to a final vote on a controversial
oil law, local opposition is growing. This week, oil workers in
southern Iraq announced a strike to oppose the law and demand
better wages. More than 600 workers are taking part, affecting
two major pipelines. The workers want to be a part of the negotiation
process from which they've been excluded. Critics say the law
will expose Iraq's oil to major privatization and foreign takeover.
My next guest has written extensively
about the economic side of the US occupation of Iraq. Antonia
Juhasz is a Tarbell Fellow at Oil Change International. She is
the author of the book, The Bush Agenda: Invading the World,
One Economy at a Time, which has just come out in paperback.
Welcome to Democracy Now!
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Thanks
for having me.
AMY GOODMAN: First, talk about this strike,
Antonia.
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, the strike is critical.
It's been a long time building. There had been some negotiations
between the strike leaders and Prime Minister al-Maliki. There
are a number of demands, basic working conditions, wages, as you
say, but also a seat at the table and opposition to the attempt
to turn over Iraq's oil to foreign oil corporations and the --
as more knowledge has been brought to Iraq, it's been very difficult
for Iraqis to even learn what this oil law was about, just like
it's been difficult here. As more information has spread, the
opposition has spread, as well, and now the workers have taken
the situation into their own hands and struck.
AMY GOODMAN: And what is this US-backed
proposal?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: It's a Bush administration,
US corporate, very simple attempt to figure out: if you're going
to wage a war for oil, how do you get the oil. Does Exxon come
in on a tank with a flag and stick it in the ground, or do you
have a more careful process? The careful process is very simply:
write a law, get a new Iraqi government in place, have the Iraqis
pass the law, and then turn the oil over to US oil corporations.
The Bush administration designed the law.
Last January, President Bush announced that it was a benchmark
for passage by the Iraqi government. It was the same day that
he announced the surge. And in the language of the administration,
the surge was meant to provide the political space so that the
Iraqis could discuss the oil law and other benchmarks. The Democrats
then adopted this language of the benchmarks and said in the supplemental
war spending bill, again, that the Iraqis have to pass this benchmark.
And it very simply turns Iraq from a nationalized oil system,
essentially closed to US oil corporations, to a privatized system
in which potentially two-thirds of all of Iraq's oil could be
owned by foreign oil companies, and they can control the production
with as long as thirty-year contracts.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, what about the news
coming out of Iraq that Raed Jarrar has reported on, talking about
the significance of the vote for the US to get out of Iraq by
the parliament?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: It's very significant.
The United Nations mandate for the US occupation of Iraq gives
ultimate authority to the Iraqi parliament and the Iraqi cabinet
to determine if the occupation can continue. So, theoretically,
if the Iraqi parliament, joined by the cabinet -- and that's critical
-- say that the occupation cannot continue, theoretically it would
have to end. That stands in vast opposition to the plans of the
Bush administration and now, apparently, the plans of the Democratic
leadership, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: Couldn't it give Bush an
out?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: It could give Bush an
out, if he wanted an out. I don't think he wants an out.
AMY GOODMAN: Because?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, I think there's
many ways in which the war is not going all bad for the President
and for the administration. The only thing that's truly going
bad is the instability. But what has worked is a government in
place that is more amenable to US interests than the last ten
years of the Hussein regime, a government in place that is willing
to negotiate in a dramatic fashion on the nature of Iraq's oil
regime, and being on the precipice of a transfer of Iraq, a fundamental
transfer, in its oil policy. We have US oil corporations engaging
daily in negotiations with the Iraqi oil ministry, waiting on
the sidelines. If the law passes, US corporations have the potential
to own a true bonanza of oil and, if the US military stays, protection
to get in and get it. Now --
AMY GOODMAN: Which companies, in particular?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Chevron, Exxon, Conoco,
BP, Shell, Marathon.
AMY GOODMAN: Are all now working intensively
with the oil ministry.
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Yeah, they absolutely
are, and have been from the beginning.
AMY GOODMAN: And if they don't pass this
law?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: If they don't pass the
law, it's a big strike at the heart of the agenda. I would say
that the game wouldn't be over, and the fact that the administration
is talking publicly about this Korea policy, the idea that the
United States would maintain some sort of military presence similar
to the US presence, quote/unquote, "keeping the peace between
South and North Korea," that's a permanent military engagement,
which could last as long as fifty years. The thirty-year contracts,
the length, the extended length of the occupation, leads me to
believe that this is the idea that the administration wants to
pursue.
AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think of
this comparison?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: It's incredibly disturbing.
First of all, the conditions are completely dissimilar, except
for the desire of the United States to maintain a presence and
to use the misunderstanding, I think, of the American public as
to the role of the US military in Korea, to say, "Well, we've
created peace for fifty years in one situation. We can create
peace for fifty years in this other situation. Oh, and by the
way, our military will be really well situated to move forward
across the region to spread peace across the Middle East, where,
oh, by the way, there also happens to be two-thirds of the world's
remaining oil." It's a terrifying proposition.
AMY GOODMAN: Antonia Juhasz, right now,
looking at Iraq -- we talk about President Bush -- what about
the Democrats? We have a Democrat-controlled House and Senate.
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Yeah, in the afterword
to The Bush Agenda, which I just finished writing in February,
I was extremely excited at the move of the Democrats to take over
the House and the Senate, and I was particularly excited in terms
of the mandate that the American public had given them on the
war, ending the war. That mandate brought a lot of excitement,
as well, from the American public, which, as I tour around the
country, as I tour around the world, I have seen that energy slowly,
slowly, slowly dissipate, as people watch the Democrats play politics
with the lives of US soldiers, with the lives of Iraqis, with
the hope of the American public. That energy has just dissipated,
and the Democrats have proven that it's all about politics in
the end, that it's all about their, I think, misinterpretation
of what's going to get them the 2008 presidential election. I
think they're wrong on their calculation.
AMY GOODMAN: What's the calculation?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: The American public is
afraid of just a quick end to the war, that they need to seem
more reasonable, and I think that that's why the Democrats picked
up the -- and the Democratic leadership -- picked up the benchmark
language -- we'll make the Iraqis do some work; if they don't
do the work, then maybe we'll end the occupation -- although that
language changed in the final supplemental. And instead of saying,
"If the Iraqis don't pass the benchmarks, then we'll end
the occupation," the language changed to, "If the Iraqis
don't pass the benchmarks, we'll cut off reconstruction funds,"
which is obscene in itself. But that the American public doesn't
want them to end the war right away and that they need to seem
more reasonable and they need to wait out the war and blame it
on the Republicans, and that's how they're going to win the 2008
presidential election.
I think what that calculation is going
to do is going to cause them -- maybe not at the end of the day,
if we're sitting in a booth and the choice is between Hillary
Clinton and Newt Gingrich, that most Democrats or most of the
public won't choose Hillary Clinton, but rather that all of that
energy, that legwork, that activism, that spirit that got them
the House and the Senate is going to be gone.
AMY GOODMAN: Where does trade fit into
the story of war?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: The Democratic leadership
is also playing a fast and quick with an agenda that also got
the Democrats into the House and the Senate, which was a mandate
to not focus on the advancement of rights of the largest multinational
corporations in the world by expanding a free hand for them through
a free trade agenda, but rather to focus on fair trade, the interests
of small business, local communities, local development. The Democratic
leadership has been doing private deal-making with the administration,
making deals to pass trade agreements with Peru, with Colombia,
with Panama, and potentially allowing the administration a hand
to move forward with fast-track, a negotiating mechanism which
puts all of the power into the administration and takes it all
away from the Congress.
AMY GOODMAN: We are talking as the G8
is meeting and the mass protests are taking place outside. In
fact, at the end of the afterword to the paperback of The Bush
Agenda, you talk about what is the hope.
ANTONIA JUHASZ: The situation with the
G8 has been both very exciting and very disturbing, of course,
because the violence has been so extreme against the people organizing
to protest. But the fact that that energy is still there, that
resistance is still there, and also the dialogue has changed fundamentally
in the meeting in the G8. It's now focused on how to get the United
States in line with climate chaos, adjusting climate chaos, how
to thwart US attempts to build the missile defense plan. And the
power of the administration is clearly, clearly waning. I mean,
there's not much left of the original administration at this point,
between Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and Libby, and they're all getting
knocked off -- excuse me, they're losing their positions one by
one. And that is the success of the resistance of our movements.
Our movements have had a tremendous fundamental
shift -- forced a fundamental shift in the debate, in the well
of support, which has completely dried up for this administration,
and we have successfully linked with global struggles, with global
people around the world, to demonstrate that while our government
may be following this imperial agenda, the people of the United
States do not share that agenda and are working with people around
the world to stop it. And the G8 meeting is a wonderful example
of that taking place right now.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you
very much, Antonia Juhasz, for joining us. Antonia Juhasz is an
author and activist. Her articles have appeared in the New
York Times, the Cambridge University Review of International
Relations Journal, the Los Angeles Times. The paperback
of her book has just come out, The Bush Agenda: Invading the
World, One Economy at a Time. She'll be speaking tonight in
New York at 7:00 at All Souls Church up on Lexington.
Amy
Goodman page
Oil
watch
Home Page