'Former Finance Minister Ali Allawi told the US CBS network that about $1.2bn had been allocated for new weapons.

About $400m was spent on outdated equipment and the rest stolen, he said.

Mr Allawi said the UK and US had done little to recover the money or catch the suspects, who were "running around the world".

"We have not been given any serious, official support from either the United States or the UK or any of the surrounding Arab countries," he said.

"The only explanation I can come up with is that too many people in positions of power and authority in the new Iraq have been, in one way or another, found with their hands inside the cookie jar.

"And if they are brought to trial, it will cast a very disparaging light on those people who had supported them and brought them to this position of power and authority."..

...Iraqi investigators are currently looking into more than 1,000 corruption cases involving more than $7bn.' Iraqi officials 'stole millions'

There was oil-for-food, and now guns-for-nothing:

'About the last thing the United States ought to be doing in Iraq is funneling weapons into black-market weapons bazaars, as sectarian militias arm themselves for civil war. Yet that is just what Washington may have been doing for the past several years, thanks to an inexplicable decision that standard Pentagon regulations for registering weapons transfers did not apply to the Iraq war.

Of more than 500,000 weapons turned over to the Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior since the American invasion — including rocket-propelled grenade launchers, assault rifles, machine guns and sniper rifles — the serial numbers of only 12,128 were properly recorded. Some 370,000 of these weapons, some of which are undoubtedly being used to kill American troops, were paid for by United States taxpayers, under the Orwellian-titled Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.' www.nytimes.com

'Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.

And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen’s supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.

The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea it was in the final legislation.' New York Times

In contrast...

'More than 2,000 companies that did business with the United Nations now-defunct Iraqi “oil-for-food” programme were involved in bribes and kickbacks that allowed Saddam Hussein's sanctions-bound regime to divert nearly $2 billion, said the Chairman of the panel probing abuse of the programme.

“What stands out is not only individual instances of corruption but the politicization of the process”, said Paul Volcker, in a special briefing to United Nations Member States, just hours after the release of the fifth and final report of the Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC).

The report documents Hussein’s extensive manipulation of the $64 billion programme, which was launched by the United Nations in 1996 to allow Iraq to sell oil to buy food, medicine and other humanitarian goods. The report also notes that the initiative’s “gatekeepers” -– the Secretariat, the Security Council and United Nations contractors, failed “most grievously” in their responsibilities to monitor the programme’s integrity'
www.un.org (2005)

'Q: Mr. Secretary-General, when you first asked Mr. Volcker to take on this assignment, did you ever imagine that it would expose so much of the vulnerability of the United Nations and your own position?

SG: We wanted to get to the truth, and felt that we should do whatever it takes to get to the truth. We had expected it to take a much shorter period, but it took longer than we thought. And now the report is out, the final report is out and he is briefing the Member States.' Secretary-General's press conference, New York, 27 October 2005

'...At the State Department, a policy-development initiative called "The Future of Iraq" was undertaken which would accomplish this. The date was April, 2002, almost a full year before the invasion. The "Oil and Energy Working Group" provided the cover. Iraq, it said in its final report:, "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war...the country should establish a conducive business environment to attract investment in oil and gas resources."

"Capture" would take the form of "investment," and the vehicle for doing so would be the "production sharing agreement." In exchange for investing in development costs, oil companies would "share" in the subsequent production. What would happen, though, if the companies' investments were only minimal, but their shares of the production were disproportionately, obscenely large?

That's the way it will work out. Production sharing agreements (PSA's) are in place covering 75% of the undeveloped Iraqi fields, and the oil companies, soon to sign the contracts, will earn as much 162% on their "investments." The "foreign suitors" are not quite so foreign now: the players on the inside tracks are Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, BP-Amoco and Royal Dutch-Shell.

The use of PSA's, instead of alternative methods of financing infrastructure, however, will cost the Iraqi people hundreds of billions of dollars in just the first few years of the "investment" program.

PSA's are favored by the oil companies because the term "production sharing agreement" is a euphemism for legalized theft. PSA's were not adopted voluntarily by the Iraqis, however: their use was specified by the U.S. State Department and institutionalized by Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority...'

The Surreal Politics of Premeditated War

The real oil scandal?

'Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Iraq Study Group report lays out Iraq's importance to its region, the U.S. and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be commercialized and opened to foreign firms.

The report makes visible to everyone the elephant in the room: that we are fighting, killing and dying in a war for oil. It states in plain language that the U.S. government should use every tool at its disposal to ensure that American oil interests and those of its corporations are met.' www.latimes.com

'This law has been discussed behind closed doors for much of the past year. Secret drafts have been viewed and commented on by the US government, but have not been released to the Iraqi public - and not even to all members of parliament. If the law is pushed through in these circumstances, the political process will be further discredited even further. Talk of a moderate cross-sectarian front appears designed to ease the passage of the law and the sellout to oil corporations.

The US, the IMF and their allies are using fear to pursue their agenda of privatising and selling off Iraq's oil resources. The effect of this law will be to marginalise Iraq's oil industry and undermine the nationalisation measures undertaken between 1972 and 1975. It is designed as a reversal of Law Number 80 of December 1961 that recovered most of Iraq's oil from a foreign cartel. Iraq paid dearly for that courageous move: the then prime minister, General Qasim, was murdered 13 months later in a Ba'athist-led coup that was supported by many of those who are part of the current ruling alliance - the US included. Nevertheless, the national oil policy was not reversed then, and its reversal under US occupation will never be accepted by Iraqis.' Iraqis will never accept this sellout to the oil corporations

Are we at a point yet where most would accept that the enormity of Bush's launching an invasion (which has seen a million people killed, and billions of dollars scooped up by war profiteers) to seize Iraq's oil far outweighs the backhanders and profit-skimming of the 'oil-for-food' scandal?

'The former U.S. occupation chief in Iraq on Tuesday defended the way he haphazardly doled out billions of dollars in Iraqi funds after the U.S. invasion...

...Bremer, who was head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, said, "I arrived in Baghdad at a time when much of the city was burning. Looting was still widespread. My responsibilities were to kickstart the economy."

He emphasized that the money belonged to Iraqis and came from the U.N.-run oil-for-food program and from seized Iraqi assets.

The special inspector general for Iraq, Stuart Bowen, reported in January 2005 that $8.8 billion in the Iraqi funds could not be accounted for. Waxman said the total amount shipped to Iraq was $12 billion.' apnews.myway.com

'A proposed new Iraqi oil and gas law began circulating last week among that country's top government leaders and was quickly leaked to various Internet sites - before it has even been presented to the Iraqi parliament.

Under the proposed law, Iraq's immense oil reserves would not simply be opened to foreign oil exploration, as many had expected. Amazingly, executives from those companies would actually be given seats on a new Federal Oil and Gas Council that would control all of Iraq's reserves.

In other words, Chevron, ExxonMobil, British Petroleum and the other Western oil giants could end up on the board of directors of the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, while Iraq's own national oil company would become just another competitor...

...While the politicians in Washington and Baghdad bicker to carve up the real prize, and just what share Big Oil will get, more Iraqi civilians and American soldiers die each each day - for freedom, we're told. ' Oily Truth Emerges in Iraq

[QUOTE]Originally posted by newnickname:
.

In other words, Chevron, ExxonMobil, British Petroleum and the other Western oil giants could end up on the board of directors of the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, while Iraq's own national oil company would become just another competitor...

'
QUOTE]


This would be great news. Because these are the companies that have the technology to get the oil reserves out of the ground and get it out as fast as technology allows. These are the companies that are best set up for world refining & distribution. I certainly hope this becomes a reality.

Iraqis aren't capable of drilling for oil and refining it, or of learning about or buying in the technology?

This is about grabbing the spoils of an illegal and unecessary war.

'...critics, including Iraqi oil professionals, engineers and technicians in the unions, are instead advocating for technical service contracts, meaning a company would come in and offer services such as building a refinery, laying a pipeline, or offering consultancy services, get their fees and then leave.

"It is a much more equitable relationship because the control of production, development of oil will stay with the Iraqi state," said Jasiewicz.

"That is the model that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait generally operate. There's no other country in the Middle East with the kind of oil reserves that Iraq has that would consider signing a production-sharing agreement," she said. "It's a form of privatization and that's why those countries haven't signed these because it's not in their interests."' New Iraqi Oil Law Seen as Cover for Privatization

In Saudi, Kuwait and Iran the technoloy and expertise is bought in on a contract basis. The puppet government in Iraq however, is signing away Iraqis' rights. It's not "great news", unless you're an imperialist.

'Chatterjee reports, "Officials blame the four-year delay in repairing the relatively simple system on 'security problems'. Others point to the failed efforts of the two US companies hired to repair the southern oil fields and fix the two terminals and the meters: Halliburton of Houston, Texas, and Parsons of Pasadena, California.

He reports, "Rumors are rife among suspicious Iraqis about the failure to measure the oil flow. A May 2006 study of oil production and export figures by Platt's Oilgram News, an industry magazine, showed that up to $3 billion a year is unaccounted for.

"Iraqi oil is regularly smuggled out of the country in many different ways," an oil merchant in Amman told The Nation magazine last month, Chatterjee says.

"Emir al-Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, is spending all his time in Basra selling oil as if it were his own. People there call him Uday al-Hakim, meaning he is behaving the same way Uday Saddam Hussein was acting.

The smuggling and black market operations bear striking parallels to Saddam Hussein's tactics for circumventing the UN embargo. Saddam was accused of selling some $5.7 billion worth of petroleum products on the black market over the six years of the Oil-for-Food program, while United Nations inspectors turned a blind eye. Today, his successors stand accused of similar abuses, Chatterjee reports.'

Corruption, Shoddy Work and Mismanagement Cripple Iraq Reconstruction

'On Thursday, May 24, the US Congress voted to continue the war in Iraq. The members called it "supporting the troops." I call it stealing Iraq's oil - the second largest reserves in the world. The "benchmark," or goal, the Bush administration has been working on furiously since the US invaded Iraq is privatization of Iraq's oil. Now they have Congress blackmailing the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people: no privatization of Iraqi oil, no reconstruction funds.

This threat could not be clearer. If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold US reconstruction funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed there. The privatization law, written by American oil company consultants hired by the Bush administration, would leave control with the Iraq National Oil Company for only 17 of the 80 known oil fields. The remainder (two-thirds) of known oil fields, and all yet undiscovered ones, would be up for grabs by the private oil companies of the world (but guess how many would go to United States firms - given to them by the compliant Iraqi government.)

No other nation in the Middle East has privatized its oil. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iran give only limited usage contracts to international oil companies for one or two years. The $12 billion dollar "Support the Troops" legislation passed by Congress requires Iraq, in order to get reconstruction funds from the United States, to privatize its oil resources and put them up for long term (20- to 30-year) contracts.

What does this "Support the Troops" legislation mean for the United States military? Supporting our troops has nothing to do with this bill, other than keeping them there for another 30 years to protect US oil interests. It means that every military service member will need Arabic language training. It means that every soldier and Marine would spend most of his or her career in Iraq. It means that the fourteen permanent bases will get new Taco Bells and Burger Kings! Why? Because the US military will be protecting the US corporate oilfields leased to US companies by the compliant Iraqi government. Our troops will be the guardians of US corporate interests in Iraq for the life of the contracts - for the next thirty years.

With the Bush administration's "Support the Troops" bill and its benchmarks, primarily Benchmark No. 1, we finally have the reason for the US invasion of Iraq: to get easily accessible, cheap, high-grade Iraq oil for US corporations...' Benchmark No. 1: Privatizing Iraq's Oil for US Companies

Based on Iraqi publications, this is how Saddam worked it:

Iraq was brought under severe sanctions that were considered overly harmful to the people and had little influence over Saddam.

I believe it was Clinton who proposed the Oil-for-Food program to set up a program where a limited amount of oil may be sold to pay for food and medical supplies for the people. The reality is that the program created a sort of "seller's rights" program, and since Saddam was the head of state (and the only seller), he was able to sell the rights to trade oil and keep the money for himself. He was also able to set the price arbitrarily.

Because he had the power (and the blessing of the UN) to sell the rights, nations all over the world were willing to come to him for oil at a bargain price, and Saddam was willing to sell at a highly discounted rate in trade for a kickback.

That's how he got rich, and his own oil industry suffered because of the decreased profitability.

(Completely independent of this situation was the fact that the UN border stations were manned by people from all over the world, and most of them could be bribed. According to Georges Sada, one of Saddam's advisors, the UN sanctions were very nearly powerless in keeping Iraq from trading. In my own experience as a sailor, we know that ships regularly ran our blockade by steaming in Iranian territorial waters were we weren't allowed.)

This is one of the reasons for the price of gas going up so much in the last 6 years. Saddam's oil held crude oil prices artificially low in the world marketplace until 2003.

'A backlog of whistleblower lawsuits against military contractors has been swelling and festering since the early days of the so-called war on terror.

According to critics, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has blocked the progress of these lawsuits to spare the Bush administration a major political black eye should the truth about ongoing war profiteering be revealed, a charge the DOJ denies...' Logjam of War Contractor Fraud Suits

'...it is no coincidence that news of negotiations over the "security" agreement comes with news on June 19 that the occupied Iraqi government is getting ready to sign contracts with ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron and Total to assist in developing Iraq's vast oil fields, holding the world's third-largest reserves. Although the contracts are simply for services, not long-term production agreements, the contracts give the major oil companies a foot in the door.

That they are no-bid contracts given to these Western firms over Russian, Chinese and Indian competitors is exceptional and clearly a matter of an occupied government responding to pressure from the occupier...' Controlling Iraqi oil