Iraq Oil Law

Taken from Avaaz:

Amidst rising bloodshed, President Bush has told the Iraqi Parliament they have till the 31st of May to pass a flawed oil law that could give multinational companies unprecedented control of Iraq's oil fields. But some Iraqi leaders are daring to resist - and they need our help.

Two weeks from now, members of the Iraqi Parliament -- including Sunni, Kurdish and Shia leaders -- are planning to read Avaaz's petition of solidarity from the floor of Parliament. They say this statement of global support for Iraqi sovereignty will strengthen the resolve of their colleagues to face down Bush and big oil companies by opposing this law. So sign the petition today--let's make 100,000 voices heard in Iraq's Parliament before they vote:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/iraq_oil_law/?cl=9680928

Our simple message: we support Iraq's sovereign right to its own oil. Revenue from oil should be distributed fairly to the Iraqi people. And the Iraqi national parliament should decide this without foreign influence.

Oil accounts for 70% of Iraq's national income. The proposed oil law would give multinational companies broad control of those revenues for three decades -- a deal more generous than any in the Middle East. In most countries, oil corporations perform services under contracts with governments. In Iraq, foreign companies would sit on the national council that gives out the contracts.

Here's how the head of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, Hassan Jum'a Awwad, put it:

"Iraq is passing through the most difficult of times, because all and sundry are hounding it and covet a share of its riches. Everyone knows that the oil law does not serve the Iraqi people, and that it serves Bush, his supporters and the foreign companies at their expense."

It's a rare sign of hope to see Iraqis coming together on anything, but this law is bad enough to unite almost everyone. Iraqis are asking for our help. Let's tell them the world supports their right to set their own future. Sign on and help us reach 100,000 voices before they present the petition to the Parliament:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/iraq_oil_law/?cl=9680928

In peace, Ricken, Graziela, Paul and the Avaaz Team

US A Threat to Free Speech in Iraq

Just a week ago, Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called on his followers to halt attacks on government forces as the security situation threatened to spiral out of control. That Iran was a crucial player in prompting al-Sadr to announce a ceasefire was, typically, a mere sideshow to the events in Iraq as witnessed through the prism of US hegemony. Al-Sadr has been seen as a vital bulwark to growing corporate control of Iraq's sovereignty for many people in Iraq. It is in this context, that we must view reporting of al-Sadr and any attacks that are made on his supporters. The final removal of al-Sadr as a serious voice of opposition in the region, will finally pave the way for a corporate takeover of Iraq and the completion of the neoconservative mission and thus enable the Iraq oil law to become binding. As one analyst from the Revenue Watch Institute, a group that advises policy-makers in the US and Iraq on the oil law, has said:

"Together with fair local elections, a resolution to Iraq's oil law conflict is the key to unlocking Iraq's development potential."

'Development potential' that would, as we know, benefit foreign oil corporations. Therefore, the neutralisation of al-Sadr's support is crucial to the establishment of a oil law that is in the interests of US corporate power.

Consequently, it comes as little surprise to learn of the latest action taken by US forces in the region. Tomorrow, al-Sadr had planned to march with 1 million Iraqis against the US presence within Iraq. The march would have given a very clear message to the forces of the empire. Let Iraqis govern themselves and allow them to put their interests above those of the global markets. This was, however, clearly intolerable for the forces of corporatism in Iraq. Consequently, US forces made their mark in Sadr city and sent a very clear warning: Iraq is under our authority. To reinforce this message, the US army launched airstrikes within Sadr city killing at least nine people (referred to as 'criminals' by the US army). Furthermore, due to intense fighting between Iraqis and US forces, at least 20 people were killed and 52 wounded, including women and children. There is little doubt why the US decided to act at this point, particularly when al-Sadr had been encouraging supporters to observe a ceasefire. A ceasefire, incidentally, that has done more to curb violence in Iraq than the so-called 'surge'

As a consequence of this action in Sadr city, al-Sadr has decided to call off the planned protest to mark five years of occupation. The reason for calling off the protest? According to al-Sadr himself:

"I call those beloved Iraqi people who wish to demonstrate against the occupation to postpone their march, out of my fear for them and my concern to spare their blood."

The US forces had achieved what they had hoped for. By indulging in shock tactics to frighten the supporters of al-Sadr, they have successfully frightened him into calling off a legitimate protest march against the ongoing occupation of Iraq. And yet, protests are a very potent symbol of a successful democracy, a democracy we were led to believe the neoconservatives were keen to spread. Instead what we are seeing is the suppression of voices that seek to threaten US hegemony in the region. Quite simply, it is US style corporatism or it is nothing. Anything that sits outsides the boundaries set by the occupying power is a threat to security and must be dealt with severely, regardless of civilian casualties. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who sought to curtail freedoms and ban the right to protest. It would appear that this alternative is no better. Unless, of course, you continue to see the world through the prism of US corporatism.

BP and Shell Eager to Get Their Hands on Iraqi Oil

From Scenta:

BP has been holding meetings with Iraqi oil officials as it speeds up plans to re-enter one of the biggest but politically most controversial oil provinces in the world, five years after the toppling of Saddam Hussein by the British and US military.

The move comes as BP is drawing fire for abandoning any pursuit of green credentials. Environmental groups accuse the new chief executive, Tony Hayward, of "recarbonising" a once enlightened oil group.

BP said it was "possible" some of its executives might meet the Iraqi oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, today at a Royal Institute of International Affairs conference in London, sponsored by BP, Shell and other western oil majors.

A spokesman for BP, which will report annual profits of about $18bn, confirmed managers met Iraqi oil officials last week in Jordan and talked about providing technical assistance.

Iraq has more than 115bn barrels of recoverable reserves, an attraction for oil groups at a time when easily recoverable reserves are becoming more difficult to secure.

BP was last night playing down any likelihood of an imminent move into Iraq. "It is a country of interest to us but we are waiting for political and security stability to return before we will take anything further," a spokesman said.

The group has already undertaken technical studies on the Rumeila oilfield for the new government of Iraq. It is gearing up for further involvement following the drafting of a new oil law in Iraq. The chief executive of Shell, Jeroen van der Veer, also admitted last week that his company was looking closely at re-entering Iraq.

Yes, Shell and BP are poised to get their grubby little hands on Iraq's oil, courtesy of the proposed Iraq Oil Law. And they said the war was about oil. Pish.

Iraq War Blogswarm - The War on Women in Iraq

On March 12th 2004, George and Laura Bush gave a press conference regarding "Efforts to Globally Promote Women's Human Rights" at the White House. President Bush used this opportunity to comment upon the rights of women across the globe and, particularly, in the Middle East. During the press conference, President Bush said the following about the position of women in post-Saddam Iraq:

Iraq has a different history, and yet a different set of challenges. Only one year ago -- only one year after being liberated from an incredibly ruthless person and a ruthless regime, Iraqi women are playing an essential part in rebuilding the nation. They're part of the future of the country.

Every woman in Iraq is better off because the rape rooms and torture chambers of Saddam Hussein are forever closed. He is a barbaric person. He violated people in such a brutal way that some never thought that the spirit of Iraq could arise again. We never felt that way here in this administration. We felt that people innately love freedom and if just given a chance, if given an opportunity, they will rise to the challenge.

Three women now serve on the Iraqi Governing Council -- you just heard me praise one. The historic document that was written recently guarantees the basic rights of all Iraqis, men and women, including freedoms of worship, expression and association. The document protects unions and political parties and outlaws discrimination based on gender, ethnic class and religion. It's an amazing document that's been written.


Certainly, no-one would deny the brutality of Saddam's regime and its scant regard for the most basic human rights. However, there still remains the question of gender equality in Iraq and Bush's claims about the improvement and the protections that have been put in place for women in Iraq. Before examining the present situation for women in Iraq, it is worth examining the situation of women in Iraq before the invasion.

Life Before Invasion

In 1970, the Iraqi government enacted the Iraqi Provisional Constitution which formally guaranteed equal rights to women and enshrined the rights to vote, own property and run for political office (unless indicated via hyperlinks, all information comes from Human Rights Watch). Women in Iraq had, in actual fact, been the envy of women across the Middle East thanks to the rights that were protected by the constitution. Furthermore, unlike many Arab neighbours, the government passed a compulsory education law mandating that both sexes attend school through the primary level. Laws were also passed that ensured the protection of women within the workplace and guaranteed maternity rights as well as alterations to the divorce proceedings. When Saddam came to power in 1979, many of these laws were consolidated. In 1980, women attained the right to run for office and, in 1986, Iraq became of the first countries to ratify the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Furthermore, as a result of the national literacy campaign, approximately 75% of Iraqi women were literate, a figure favourable compared to other staes in the region. However, these improvements in gender equality diminished shortly after the first Gulf war.

After Saddam's defeat at the hands of the first Bush government, and with his grip on power weakening, attempts were made to consolidate power by seeking to attract the support of Islamic groups within the country. This courting of traditional Islamic groups within Iraq subsequently saw a marked decline in women's rights within Iraq. Many of the advancements that were made after the Iraqi Provisional Constitution, were rolled back. After massive legislative changes affecting the rights of women, the UN reported that an estimated 4,000 women and girls had been the victims of "honor killings" and, due to legislation passed in 1990, men were immune from prosecution for such killings. So, after initial progressive measures by the Ba'ath party, the situation did indeed begin to deteriorate. But has the situation really improved in Iraq after the invasion by 'coalition forces' in 2003?

Two Steps Back

The first opportunity that the 'coalition' had to distance the 'new' Iraq from the final years of the Saddam regime, was the introduction of a new constitution. This constitution was hailed as a breakthrough for equality across Iraqi society. Sadly, like much of the advances that the coalition claimed, this was nothing more than a fraud. When the constituion was hanging by a thread in 2005, the American government chose to back down over their opposition to an Islamic state and supported a group of relious conservatives who sought to destroy the talks unless Islam was the primary source of law. The American government, through it's ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, proposed that Islam be named a primary source and supported a wording which would give clerics authority in civil matters such as divorce, marriage and inheritance. As a result of these developments, "dozens of women gathered in central Baghdad to protest against what the organiser, Yanar Mohammad, feared would be a 'fascist, nationalist and Islamist' constitution. 'We are fighting to avoid becoming second class citizens,' she said'. The constitution effectively imposed religious restrictions on women's rights and individual rights, which gave the document a decidedly conservative bent on personal and social matters. Despite it's high ideals for the people of Iraq, the American government had failed the Iraqi women who longed for a progressive Iraqi society. In fact, life has become increasingly dangerous for women in Iraq.

Women Burnt to Death

Peter Beaumont, of The Observer, recently exposed the reality of life in Iraq for the majority of women:

Iraqis do not like to talk about it much, but there is an understanding of what is going on these days. If a young woman is abducted and murdered without a ransom demand, she has been kidnapped to be raped. Even those raped and released are not necessarily safe: the response of some families to finding that a woman has been raped has been to kill her.

Iraq's women are living with a fear that is increasing in line with the numbers dying violently every month. They die for being a member of the wrong sect and for helping their fellow women. They die for doing jobs that the militants have decreed that they cannot do: for working in hospitals and ministries and universities. They are murdered, too, because they are the softest targets for Iraq's criminal gangs.

Iraq's women live in terror of speaking their opinions; of going out to work; or defying the strict new prohibitions on dress and behaviour applied across Iraq by Islamist militants, both Sunni and Shia. They live in fear of their husbands, too, as women's rights have been undermined by the country's postwar constitution that has taken power from the family courts and given it to clerics.

He adds:

After a month-long investigation, The Observer has established that in almost every major area of human rights, women are being seriously discriminated against, in some cases seeing their conditions return to those of females in the Middle Ages. In areas such as the Shia militia stronghold of Sadr City in east Baghdad, women have been beaten for not wearing socks. Even the headscarf and juba - the ankle-length, flared coat that buttons to the collar - are not enough for the zealots. Some women have been threatened with death unless they wear the full abbaya, the black, all-encompassing veil.

Similar reports are emerging from Mosul, where it is Sunni extremists who are laying down the law, and Kirkuk. Women from Karbala, Hilla, Basra and Nassariyah have all told The Observer similar stories. Of the insidious spread of militia and religious party control - and how members of those same groups are, paradoxically, increasingly responsible for the rape and murder of women outside their sects and communities.

There have also been reports of women being burnt to death as punishment for adultery or other offences relating to marriage. From The Guardian:

They lie in the Sulaimaniyah hospital morgue in Iraqi Kurdistan, set out on white-tiled slabs. A few have been shot or strangled, some beaten to death, but most have been burned. One girl, a lock of hair falling across her half-closed eyes, could almost be on the point of falling asleep. Burns have stretched the skin on another young woman's face into a fixed look of surprise.
These women are not casualties of battle. In fact, the cause of death is generally recorded as "accidental", although their bodies often lie unclaimed by their families.

"It is getting worse, especially the burnings," says Khanim Rahim Latif, the manager of Asuda, an Iraqi organisation based in Kurdistan that works to combat violence against women. "Just here in Sulaimaniyah, there were 400 cases of the burning of women last year." Lack of electricity means that every house has a plentiful supply of oil, and she accepts that some cases may be accidents. But the nature and scale of the injuries suggest that most were deliberate, she says, handing me the morgue photographs of one young woman after another. Many of the bodies bear the unmistakable signs of having been subjected to intense heat.

"In many cases the woman is accused of adultery, or of a relationship before she is married, or the marriage is not sanctioned by the family," Khanim says. Her husband, brother or another relative will kill her to restore their "honour". "If he is poor the man might be arrested; if he is important, he won't be. And in most cases, it is hidden. The body might be dumped miles away and when it is found the family says, 'We don't have a daughter.'" In other cases, disputes over such murders are resolved between families or tribes by the payment of a forfeit, or the gift of another woman. "The authorities say such agreements are necessary for social stability, to prevent revenge killings," says Khanim.

In October the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (Unami) expressed serious concern over the rising incidence of so-called honour crimes in Iraqi Kurdistan, confirming that 255 women had been killed in just the first six months of 2007, three-quarters of them by burning. An earlier Unami report cited 366 burns cases in Dohuk in 2006, up from 289 the year before, although most were not fatal. In Irbil, the emergency management centre had reported 576 burns cases since 2003, resulting in 358 deaths.

In fact, since the invasion in 2003, honour killings have increased year upon year.

Iraqi Women Feel Threatened

Women for Women recently published their report entitled 'Stronger Women, Stronger Nations: 2008 Iraq Report'. Their survey of women in Iraq produced some interesting results:

Hope for the Future

• 85.0% of respondents described the situation in Iraq as bad or very bad, and 88.8% expressed a great deal of concern that they or someone living in their households would become a victim of violence.
• Only 26.9% of respondents expressed optimism for the future, saying they thought the overall situation would get better in the year ahead. While there continue to be pockets of optimism throughout the country, and the overall situation may be on a slow ascent, the situation remains volatile, and the long-term sustainability of any improvements still remains to be seen.

Security
• 71.2% of respondents said they do not feel protected by U.S./U.K. soldiers and 65.3% of
respondents said that, overall, the presence of U.S./U.K. security forces in Iraq is
making security in the country worse.
• 67.9% of respondents stated that their ability to walk down the street as they please has gotten worse since the U.S. invasion.

Violence Against Women
• 63.9% of respondents stated that violence against women is increasing. When asked why,
respondents most commonly said that there is less respect for women’s rights than before,
that women are thought of as possessions, and that the economy has gotten worse.

Economy and Infrastructure
• 68.3% of respondents describe the availability of jobs as bad and 70.5% said that their families are unable to earn enough money to pay for daily necessities.

Social Services
• 76.2% of respondents said that girls in their families are not allowed to attend school, and 56.7% said that girls’ ability to attend school has gotten worse since the U.S. invasion.

Political Participation
• 70.2% of respondents thought that the citizens of Iraq have not been given a chance to contribute their input on the future of Iraq, and 52.0% did not know if Iraqis had the right to participate in the political process.
• 43.6% of respondents did not think that the circumstances of women were being considered by those making decisions about Iraq’s future. However, in the Central Iraq cities of Fallujah, Samarra and Rawa, the number jumps to 75.1% of respondents saying they did not think women’s circumstances were being considered.
• 72.7% of respondents said that in the future there should be one unified Iraq with a central government in Baghdad, and 88.6% of women thought that the separation of people along ethnic/religious/sectarian lines was a bad thing. However, only 32.3% of respondents thought there would in fact be one unified Iraq with a central government in Baghdad in five years. This is another indication that women do not feel as though their opinions are being considered in decisions about their country’s future.


Compare this to the recent poll conducted by the BBC. Despite the above statistics, a poll recently conducted by the BBC (alongside other media outlets) proudly proclaimed that Poll suggests Iraqis 'optimistic'. The evidence for this perceived optimism? According to the poll, 62% of those polled claimed that security in the local area is good. This contrasts starkly with the findings of the report published by Women for Women. And yet, in the run-up to the anniversary of the disastrous invasion, the BBC sees fit to put a positive spin on the situation in Iraq. This should really come as no surprise given the situation the BBC has found itself in post-Hutton. The government has clearly put the BBC back in its place and the organisation is playing the role of government propagandist.

Government Complicit in Abuses

The Iraqi government, alongside coalition forces, has also played a massive role in endangering women in Iraq. Prime Minister al-Maliki’s response to one twenty year old woman’s allegations of rape by Iraqi Special Forces, underlines the lack of respect shown for women in this new Iraq. After initially calling for an investigation into the allegations, Maliki’s government reversed its position, labelling the woman a liar and wanted criminal and stating it would instead “reward” the officers involved. Maliki accused the woman of fabricating the rape in order to undermine the ‘security sweep’ in Baghdad. He then released her name (which gave away her religious identity - Sunni), which had profound implications for her given that the Iraqi police force is dominated by Shiites. In behaving in such an irresponsible manner, Maliki showed that this new government was not concerned with women’s rights and that, although the ‘rape rooms’ no longer officially existed, sexual assault was still part of the make-up of Iraq. So much so, that a US State Department assessment conducted during 2005 and 2006, found that brutality was “rampant in Iraq's police force, with abuses including the rape of female prisoners”. The report added:

“…female detainees are often sexually assaulted. According to the documents, the commander of a detention centre in the Karkh neighborhood of the capital raped a woman who was an alleged insurgent in August. That same month, two lieutenants tortured and raped two other female detainees.”

[article here: http://tiny.cc/Z4yzA – source is subscription only but referred to here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/09/le.01.html]

And yet, Bush claims that women in Iraq are better off than ever before. Can you see the difference?

A Better Iraq?

So, here we are, five years on from the illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. An invasion that was supposed to bring greater freedom and a new sense of equality for women in Iraq and what have we now? A situation far more dangerous than people previously imagined. Women are being persecuted and murdered as a matter of course. In a country where women were equal partners in Iraqi society, now they are treated as second class citizens. Over 60% of Iraqi women feel that violence against them is increasing and, with increasing numbers of women burnt to death or victims of honour killing, it is not hard to see why. It is hard to see how anyone can seriously claim that women are better off in Iraq after the invasion of 2003. Clearly they are not. And they are not alone in Iraq. Homosexual men and women have also seen increased persecution in Iraq since the fall of Saddam.

The United Nations has recently taken the opportunity to remind the Iraqi government and the United States of their obligations regarding the persecution of women in Iraq. In particular, the report points out the rise in women being burnt to death as well as the increase in female circumcision, particularly in areas of Kurdistan. After five years of occupation, it seems hard to believe that such practices are continuing when promises of increased gender equlaity were being made in the run-up to the invasion.

There is no doubt that women in Iraq have seen a massive assault on their liberty and freedom over the last five years. Violence and oppression have become regular features of their continued struggle in Iraq. There are many other disturbing consequences of the illegal invasion in 2003, the Iraq Oil Law to name but one, but there is a real danger that the plight of women in Iraq will be forgotten in amongst the propaganda from the 'coalition'. They may talk of the massive improvements for women in Iraq, the reality is quite different.

For more information see the following:

MADRE - Sister organisation to The Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq

Act Together - A group of UK-based Iraqi and non-Iraqi women. Formed in 2000 to campaign against the economic sanctions on Iraq and, since late 2001, also campaigned against the US/US invasion of Iraq. Focus is on the occupation and the support of independent grassroots women’s initiatives in Iraq.

WAFDI - The Women's Alliance for a Democratic Iraq - an international non-partisan and not-for-profit women's rights organization.

Read other Blogswarm posts on the anniversary of the Iraq War via March 19 Iraq War Blogswarm

Iraqi Government Refuses Recognition of Unions

Like father like son:

Iraq's Oil Ministry has directed all its agencies and departments not to deal with the country's oil unions.

The unions and Iraq's government, especially the prime minister and oil minister, have been at odds for months now over working conditions and the draft oil law.

The unions went on strike in early June and are threatening to stop production and exports again if demands are not met. The unions claim the oil law, if approved by Parliament, will give foreign oil companies too much access to the oil. The unions enjoy enormous support, especially in the south of Iraq.

"The Minister has directed the prohibition of cooperation with any member of any union in any of the committees organized under the name of the Union as these unions do not enjoy any legal status to work inside the government sector," Laith Abd Al Hussein AL Shahir, the ministry's general director, wrote in a July 18 letter obtained by UPI.

Saddam Hussein outlawed worker organizing in the public sector; subsequent U.S. occupying powers and now the Iraqi government do not recognize the workers' rights to organize.

Truly, they are adopting American style democracy to its fullest degree.

Iraqi Cabinet Agrees Draft Oil Law

From Al Jazeera:

Iraq's cabinet has agreed a draft law which would regulate how the country's oil wealth would be shared between its ethnic and sectarian communities.

The law, which will now be sent to the parliament for approval, will also set out terms regulating how foreign oil firms will be able to operate in Iraq.

As the Independent on Sunday reported, the law proposes handing over exploration and production contracts for up to 32 years - far longer than most deals between companies and governments. With the US linking it's backing of the Iraqi government with this new law, there is no doubt it will be rushed through parliament and Bush will get what he wanted from the start: OIL.

Foreign Policy in the Middle East

Two stories that really sum up the reality of the Bush axis' foreign policy. First came this story in The Guardian:

Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by American spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, according to diplomatic sources in Vienna.

Despite the rhetoric from the White House, there is a lack of credible intelligence on Iran. Back in August last year, a congressional report found:

"significant gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the various areas of concern about Iran" and said "policymakers will need high-quality intelligence to assess Iranian intentions to prepare for any new round of negotiations".

Sounds a little familiar don't you think? There is little intelligence to support the need for any military intervention, but that won't stop the neo-cons in the US. Despite the consequences of such action in Iran, there are those that still suffer from incurable blood lust. The lessons of Iraq will not be learnt because, as the past few years have proven, those in power have little understanding of the history of the region. Every time the US cranks up the pressure on Iran, the Iranian people stiffen their resolve. Any attack on Iran would result in the people rallying around the regime, not turning against it. Diplomacy is the key, not threats of more blood shed.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, it has become clear that oil really was the primary concern of the 'coalition of the willing':

Baghdad is under pressure from Britain and the US to pass an oil law which would hand long-term control of Iraq's energy assets to foreign multinationals, according to campaigners.

Yes, as suspected, the West are desperate to get their hands on oil revenues. But it gets worse:

Iraqi trades unions have called for the country's oil reserves - the second-largest in the world - to be kept in public hands. But a leaked draft of the oil law, seen by The Observer, would see the government sign away the right to exploit its untapped fields in so-called exploration contracts, which could then be extended for more than 30 years.

For more than 30 years. And there was me thinking it was all about freedom and democracy. As long as Iraqi freedom doesn't extend to the freedom to utilise their resources in a way that benefits Iraqis. How can the pro-war left fail to see what is right in front of their noses? Removing a vicious dictator was always second to maximising profits in an increasingly competitive energy market. And if this deal is done (can anyone believe that it will not be agreed?), will Bush once more stand in front of a banner declaring:

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Iraq Oil Law

I was going to post on this myself but well, as RickB at Ten Percent already has, I can't be arsed. Go read his account and find out more yourself.

'The Condition of the Woman is Getting Worse in Iraq'

According to Houzan Mahmoud who is a leading figure in the Organization for Women’s Freedom in Iraq. Mahmoud is a co-founder of the Iraq Freedom Congress, a group which offers an alternative to the occupation, against the resistance and against the 'political Islamism of the puppet government.' She goes on to claim that US troops do not protect them, but:

'They simply destroyed the infrastructures of the country, rape women in prisons and stay in barracks or travel around in huge military convoys, terrified of the attacks of the Resistance which take place all day, every day.'

She even claims that 'we were better off under Saddam'. Under the current conditions, Mahmoud claims that a woman cannot walk around without a veil, otherwise she can be summarily beheaded by the resistance. Seems to me that the very people Bu$h/Blair claimed we were there to help, are suffering as a result of this gross breach of international law. Even Zeyad at Healing Iraq has now officially denounced the invasion claiming that: 'The guilt is too much for me to handle'. But what do Bu$h/Blair care? They were only in it for the oil after all.

Further information: The Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI)

The Colombian Chainsaw Massacre

Initially established in Panama in 1946, it was kicked out of that country in 1984 under the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty. Former Panamanian President, Jorge Illueca, stated that the School of the Americas was the “biggest base for destabilization in Latin America.” The SOA, frequently dubbed the “School of Assassins,” has left a trail of blood and suffering in every country where its graduates have returned.

The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), located at Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia, is the Defense Department's principal Spanish-language training facility for Latin American military and law-enforcement personnel (though some civilians attend as well). It is the successor to the School of the Americas (SOA), a facility established in 1946 and legally closed in 2001. The WHINSEC is located in the same building, and offers many of the same courses, as the school it replaces-

-he was forcibly taken out of his house by a mixed group of soldiers and paramilitaries, along with three of this brothers and other peasants from the village. They were led to the estate of a drug trafficker which at the time housed the Army's center of operations. They were all dismembered with a chainsaw by Army Major Alirio Antonio Urueña, a graduate of the School of the Americas.-

SOA/WHINSEC trains more Colombian military than any other nationality, when it transmogrified into WHINSEC it was much like the business owner who declares bankruptcy then reopens the next day in the same premises with a new name, but no ones buying, it's SOA.

SOA provided an essential component of Plan Colombia a scam started by Clinton, ostensibly it provided aid to combat drug growing and trading, most of its money went into military and police, it was the war on drugs writ large now mutated into the war on terror. Now it's time to mention that three letter word that makes so many things fall into place- Oil.

''Colombia's petroleum production today rivals Kuwait's on the eve of the Gulf War. The United States imports more oil from Colombia and its neighbors Venezuela and Ecuador than from all Persian Gulf countries combined."

Thus we are back to the old great game, any country with resources the Empire needs becomes a client state, they collude with right wing politician's (those damn lefties might want to share the oil profits) and any number of covers are used to hide the money sent to back the states forces of repression to maintain the flow of product. In this case the war on drugs was the initial cover, now the war on terror is a catch all justification for imperial interference.

Another target in this war against Washington's bogeyman are the revolutionary forces in Colombia (FARC/ELN). Indeed, statements made back in the fall of 2001 by the US Ambassador to Colombia and various State Department spokespeople compared the guerrilla forces in Colombia to Bin Laden and the Al-Queda network and called for "appropriate" armed intervention. The FARC-ELN have been fighting the oligarchy in Colombia for over thirty years. Along with a few other now-defunct revolutionary groups, they tried armed insurgency for several years and then, in an attempt to bring peace along with justice, lay down their arms and formed political parties. After winning many local elections and several seats in the Colombian legislature, they found themselves being killed off one by one in the early 1990s by the Colombian military and paramilitary forces aligned with the government and the oil/coffee/drug cartels it represents. So, the remaining forces returned to armed struggle. Since that return, the war has intensified, as has US involvement. In 1999 Plan Colombia began--a multi-billion dollar US strategy that includes aerial spraying of coca and poppy crops (along with whatever and whoever happens to be in the surrounding areas), more military aid, increased involvement of the CIA and its fronts, and the presence of US advisors and commandos. Since September 11th, the aid provided by Plan Colombia is being supplemented by additional counterterrorism funds.

This increased US involvement has brought more environmental destruction of the countryside, greater repression of labor and social justice activists including murder by paramilitaries, the displacement of tens of thousands of Colombian citizens because of aerial spraying and fighting between revolutionary forces (FARC/ELN) and the military and paramilitaries aligned with the government, and the deaths of thousands of mostly poor Colombians. Why? Once again, to establish, expand and maintain US markets and domination in the region, and to exploit Colombia's resources and plentiful cheap labor. Indeed, in the opening paragraphs of Plan Colombia, it states that very clearly: "The plan also involves the implementation of measures that would serve to encourage foreign investment and further promote trade expansion. These include the completion of the necessary steps to comply with existing Uruguay Round agreements, especially those dealing with customs valuation, intellectual property protection, and investment measures, as well as implementing business facilitation measures proposed in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) negotiations." Also, once again, that resource that defines most of the US's wars, comes into the picture: oil. In fact, according to Americas.org,-

And the motor that drives the brutalisation of personnel to implement the strategies is the SOA-

Walk into the marble-floored and track-lit headquarters of Colombia's national antinarcotics police and the generosity of that aid, as well as the incestuous relationship between Washington and Colombia's military machine, are suddenly evident. Outside the door of Commanding Gen. Gustavo Socha's office, mounted on a tripod, is an oversize photo of a grinning George W. Bush celebrating his election. Next to it is a full-color promotional illustration of a US-made Black Hawk attack helicopter. In the general's waiting room, visitors are attended to by a young, uniformed press officer, a polished graduate of the recently renamed School of the Americas, run by the US Army. Also present is an equally young security officer just returned from an intelligence training course at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas.

In case there's any doubt about the level of American involvement here, the office adjoining General Socha's is occupied by a craggy, Clint Eastwood clone in civilian clothes, a former US Army colonel. A veteran trainer at the School of the Americas, the ex-colonel now works with the State Department's Narcotics Affairs Section and is deployed as full-time adviser to General Socha.-

So just what can you learn as a student at the SOA? SOA watch has a fine collection of the manuals here.

Some highlights include:-

-counterintelligence agents could use fear, payment of bounties for enemy dead, beatings, false imprisonment, executions and the use of truth serum,
On several occasions it uses the words "neutralization" or "neutralizing," which was commonly used at the time as a euphemism for execution or destruction, a Pentagon official said.
CI (counter intelligence) targets for neutralizing. The CI targets can include personalities, installations, organizations, documents and materials ... the personality targets prove to be valuable sources of intelligence. Some examples of these targets are governmental officials, political leaders, and members of the infrastructure."-

Maybe time to take a break for a nice refreshing Coke:-

After the leader of their union was shot down at their plant gate in late 1996, Edgar Pa?z and his co-workers at the Coca-Cola bottling factory in Carepa, Colombia, tried for more than four years to get their government to take action against the responsible parties. Instead, some of the workers themselves wound up behind bars, while the murderers went free.
The level of violence against Colombian unionists is staggering: In 2000, assassinations took the lives of 153 of the nation's trade-union leaders. In 2001, the figure had reached 143 by the end of November. According to H?ctor Fajardo, general secretary of the United Confederation of Workers (CUT), Colombia's largest union federation, 3,800 trade unionists have been assassinated in Colombia since 1986. In the year 2000, three out of every five trade unionists killed in the world were Colombian, according to a recent report by the United Steelworkers. -

This reminds me of Iraq, because in the neo-con dreamworld constitution that Paul Bremer implemented for Bushco where corporations were given free reign, flat tax, zero regulation and no profit caps on exports, the only thing that remained regulated, in fact tighter than under Saddam was- trade unions. Clearly a picture of the true vision that the empire promulgates is emerging here, unregulated capitalist tyranny backed by torture and death, in other words a war of terror to establish it's rule. And Coke? Sugary shit that rots your teeth, the world needs clean water not the polluted waste from coke plants. It takes much more than 1 liter of water to produce 1 liter of bottled coke, so its production is a motor for environmental degradation and creating a scarcity of the one essential for all life. Of course that's no bad thing to a budding entrepreneur, constant demand meets shrinking supply =profit baby! We cannot afford the unregulated brutal capitalism of the empire, but... America is bankrupt and China owns most of the debt, the Americas are electing leftist govts. and Bushco's brutality has caused the scales to fall more quickly from more people's eyes than ever before. Did someone say tipping point?