Dutch demand 'Iraq abuse' probe

Well, if you did not understand my French, or did not believe me - here is the CNN version of the Dutch torture in Iraq story:

Dutch demand 'Iraq abuse' probe - CNN.com: "Dutch demand 'Iraq abuse' probe
POSTED: 1339 GMT (2139 HKT), November 17, 2006

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (Reuters) -- A report that Dutch military intelligence abused prisoners in Iraq in 2003 prompted calls on Friday for an investigation, as opposition politicians alleged a government cover-up just days before a general election.

Leading Dutch daily Volkskrant said intelligence officers had abused dozens of prisoners by hosing them with water to keep them awake, exposing them to bright light and blasting them with loud noises during heavy-handed interrogations.

A defense ministry spokesman said the reports were being investigated. He expected the government to make a statement later in the day.

'If these facts are true, they are shocking,' Christian Democrat Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende told reporters as he entered his office for the regular Friday cabinet meeting.

Balkenende supported the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and sent Dutch troops to the country in 2003. He withdrew the troops two years later as violence escalated and opposition parties -- which had supported the initial engagement -- grew skeptical.

Although there was originally a broad political consensus in favor of involvement in Iraq, the abuse reports could prove damagingo Balkenende -- leading his Labour rivals in opinion polls just five days before a general election on November 22.

"There is a smell of a cover-up coming off this," Labour leader Wouter Bos was quoted as telling Dutch radio.

Femke Halsema, leader of the opposition Green Left, told Dutch television: "We take it very, very seriously. We can probably all remember the situation in Abu Ghraib.

"If this has indeed been hushed up since 2003, then we must look into what happened."

Since photographs of prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq first emerged, scandals have also erupted in Britain and Germany over the behavior of their troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Who knew?

The alleged mistreatment took place in November 2003 in the Al Muthanna province in southern Iraq where about 1,300 Dutch troops were stationed, Volkskrant said.

"Things took place which don't comply with the rules," the newspaper quoted Defense Ministry spokesman Joop Veen as saying, adding he did not know whether Defense Minister Henk Kamp was made aware of what happened. "It was a long time ago and you can't remember everything," he added.

Dutch soldiers are currently involved in a NATO peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, and this year agreed to send further troops to the area after a protracted parliamentary debate.

Despite a well-equipped military and a tradition of punching above their weight on the international stage, the Dutch have been nervous of risky military engagements since the Srebrenica massacre in 1995.

Lightly-armed Dutch U.N. soldiers, lacking international air support, were forced to yield the Srebrenica enclave to Bosnian Serb forces, who then killed up to 8,000 Muslims who had sought protection from the Dutch troops.

Copyright 2006 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed."

.....

Dutch Iraq torture scandal in 2003: Is it going on in Afghanistan?

De Volkskrant, Dutch national daily, had a scoop today: Nederlanders martelden Irakezen. ("Dutch tortured Iraqis").
It happened in November 2003, during the 1,5 year Dutch pacification mission in the Southern Iraqi province of Al-Muthanna. Although the Dutch general Command in The Hague was alerted by the Military Police (marechaussée), it did not inform the miltary court, as it should have.
The description of the torturing methods ressembles awfully the Abu Ghreib practices that happened at the same time.

• Was the Dutch Defence Minister Henk Kamp informed?
• Is the Dutch Military Intelligence (MIVD) continuing those practices in Afghanistan?
  

The then Commander-in-Chief, Lieutenant-Admiral Kroon, retired, indirectly confirmed the facts.

As the coming 22 November Dutch Parliamentary elections are heating up the political climate in the country, a proposed parliamentary debate (Monday), if it takes place, will be dominated by the need for the Government parties CDA (Christian Democrat) and VVD (Conservative Liberal) to limit the damage to their election results.

The Balkenende Government got in 2002 and in 2005 a faltering parliamentary green light for its military support to the American-British interventions in respectively Iraq and Afghanistan, by declaring its position as "political, not military" support and as an UN-conform pacification-reconstruction mission.

It becomes clear now, that, from the beginning, both missions were also meant as a (stealthy) delivery of unconditional human and material reinforcements to the US (and the UK).

The Dutch MIVD torturing of Iraqis happened in a "Coalition Provisional Authority" facility in As-Samara, capital of the province Al Muthanna. The CPA was the American-led provisional Government of occupied Iraq at that time. It ended in 2004. It was utterly corrupt and its books are still under scrutiny.

A possible line of defence for the Dutch Government and its defence minister, is saying that they were not responsible for what the British, who led that CPA facility, did or commanded. That, however, would contradict many statements of the same Government, that the Dutch troops were exclusively governed by the Dutch rules of engagement. Rules that explicitly confirm the Geneva Agreements and make any transgression punishable.

The Dutch Governments' position is the more lamentable, while the same British, in contrast to the Americans, actively pursue in justice their soldiers and officers who have been engaged in torturing or indiscriminate killings. Several severe condemnations of British troops are already definitive.

And in Afghanistan?

Since 2004, a mistery-clouded Dutch commando-engagement is going on at the side of the American Enduring Freedom operation in South-East Afghanistan. After the Bush proposals on the legalisation of torturing, and their partial acceptance by Congress, there is no more doubt that those practices have been going on (and still are) in that region.

• Is Dutch Military Intelligence still engaged in it?

It is more than probable. The Dutch commando units, even after the takeover by NATO, are being advised by an embedded American officer and are roaming around in the neighbourhood of the Dutch "reconstruction" mission at Tarin Kowt in Uruzgan.

Several witnesses confirm, that they are terrorizing the population and provoking engagements with "Taliban". In doing so, they minimize any chance of effective "reconstruction" in the region. It is an outright example of sabotage and American stubbornness.

The Afghan Government of Karzai itself, has objected to those practices. To no avail.

As we said earlier, NATO has become nothing more than an US frontshop for hiring mercenaries to do the dirty work.

Now, there is a clear-cut choice for the Dutch parliament: Either to go overtly along with the Bush-Cheney style terror, or to opt out, as the Poles, the Spanish and the Italians did before, and seek an European platform for military intervention on a civilised basis, and in the interests of collective European security.

[An earlier version in Dutch and Netherlands-oriented, appeared in De Lage Landen and in In Europa Thuis, this version is cross-posted from At Home in Europe]

Iraq: Coalition of the Drilling (2)

(republished on Oct. 31, because of site problem)

Continued from Iraq: Coalition of the Drilling (1)

Joshua Holland on Alternet:

During the 12-year sanction period, the Big Four [Oil Companies, HR] were forced to sit on the sidelines while the government of Saddam Hussein cut deals with the Chinese, French, Russians and others (despite the sanctions, the United States ultimately received 37 percent of Iraq's oil during that period, according to the independent committee that investigated the oil-for-food program, but almost all of it arrived through foreign firms).

The German weekly Der Spiegel published (October 7, 2004) that list of "profiteers" of the Oil-for-Food programme. It is a list, probably forged by the CPA, where the (biggest) American profiteers are left out or made anonymous, so as to incriminate exclusively other countries (like France) and, of course, the UN itself. Here it is:As you may see, even in this heavily "edited" document, by far the biggest player is a an American (made anonymous).

Cheney's energy Task Force (2001), where it all started...
Back to the oil companies and the year 2001:

In February of 2001, just weeks after Bush was sworn in, the same energy executives that had been lobbying for Saddam's ouster gathered at the White House to participate in Dick Cheney's now infamous Energy Task Force. Although Cheney would go all the way to the Supreme Court to keep what happened at those meetings a secret, we do know a few things, thanks to documents obtained by the conservative legal group JudicialWatch. As Mark Levine wrote in The Nation($$):

… a map of Iraq and an accompanying list of "Iraq oil foreign suitors" were the center of discussion. The map erased all features of the country save the location of its main oil deposits, divided into nine exploration blocks. The accompanying list of suitors revealed that dozens of companies from 30 countries -- but not the United States -- were either in discussions over or in direct negotiations for rights to some of the best remaining oilfields on earth.

Levine wrote, "It's not hard to surmise how the participants in these meetings felt about this situation."

I have indeed seen that map when it was published, in 2004. When I find it, I'll publish it here again.

Secret memo: Security = Oil
Joshua Holland digged up one of the few evidences, that there is really a strong link between the "energy strategy" and the national security strategy:

According to the New Yorker, at the same time, a top-secret National Security Council memo directed NSC staff to "cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered melding two seemingly unrelated areas of policy."
The administration's national security team was to join "the review of operational policies towards rogue states such as Iraq and actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields."

The PSA's: Handing over sovereignty to the Big Four
New to us, but explaining, why the US invest so much into a long-term military occupation of the country, are the conditions of the new big contracts, that are secretly set up in Baghdad between the Big 4 and the American "advisers" who control the Iraq oil ministry:

But the execs from Big Oil didn't just want access to Iraq's oil; they wanted access on terms that would be inconceivable unless negotiated at the barrel of a gun. Specifically, they wanted an Iraqi government that would enter into production service agreements (PSAs) for the extraction of Iraq's oil.

What are PSAs?

PSAs, developed in the 1960s, are a tool of today's kinder, gentler neocolonialism; they allow countries to retain technical ownership over energy reserves but, in actuality, lock in multinationals' control and extremely high profit margins -- up to 13 times oil companies' minimum target, according to an analysis by the British-based oil watchdog Platform (PDF).

As Greg Muttit, an analyst with the group, notes:

Such contracts are often used in countries with small or difficult oilfields, or where high-risk exploration is required. They are not generally used in countries like Iraq, where there are large fields which are already known and which are cheap to extract. For example, they are not used in Iran, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, all of which maintain state control of oil.

In fact, Muttit adds, of the seven leading oil producing countries, only Russia has entered into PSAs, and those were signed during its own economic "shock therapy" in the early 1990s. A number of Iraq's oil-rich neighbors have constitutions that specifically prohibit foreign control over their energy reserves.

And the Russians are struggling now, as in the case of Shell's exploitation of the Sakhalin Reserves, to get rid of them.

PSAs often have long terms -- up to 40 years -- and contain "stabilization clauses" that protect them from future legislative changes. As Muttit points out, future governments "could be constrained in their ability to pass new laws or policies." That means, for example, that if a future elected Iraqi government "wanted to pass a human rights law, or wanted to introduce a minimum wage [and it] affected the company's profits, either the law would not apply to the company's operations or the government would have to compensate the company for any reduction in profits." It's Sovereignty Lite.

If all this is true - why are Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq struggling so hard against one another for their share of future oil revenues? There will not be much left to share. The more so, as the US insist that Iraq continues to pay enormous sums to Kowait out of its oil revenues to compensate for the 1991 occupation and (Gulf-) war costs. A big part of that money also flows (indirectly) to the USA. The competition between three different Iraqi partners, of course suits enormously the American oil negotiators, who may choose in the end as a preferred partner that one of the three, who offers them most concessions on Iraqi control and Iraqi profit from the oil extraction.
Confirmed by this little peep into the negotiations:

The [PSA-, hr] deals are so onerous that they govern only 12 percent of the world's oil reserves, according to the International Energy Agency. Nonetheless, PSAs would become the Future of Iraq Project's recommendation for the fledgling Iraqi government.
According to the Financial Times, "many in the group" fought for the contract structure; a Kurdish delegate told the FT, "everybody keeps coming back to PSAs."

The harsh way in which, recently, Iraqi PM Maliki is being treated by the US, may point to a deep disagreement between the US and his govenment in this issue. That would mean, that the now dominating mainstream-Shiite majority is causing difficulties for the contracts that are being negotiated.

But it is difficult, to see what alternatives there are in Iraq, that might offer better conditions on a permanent (stability) basis to the big oil companies.

Perhaps, the Kurds could negotiate the inclusion of Kikuk and the Northern oil fields into a semi-independent Kurdish state, as their price for submitting to American PSA's. To them, it would be a win-win situation, for they have no oil revenues at all, up to now.

But, if this happens against the opposition of Sunni and Shiite Iraqis, which is very likely, and aginst the Turkish interests, which is for sure, - how could that oil be exported, then, either to the south, or to the (North-) West?

Less probable is a great "renversement des alliances", that could occur, if moderated Sunnis would trade their submission to PSAs with the US for a restauration of their role of dominating elite in Iraq. Allawi (himself a "secular" Shiite) could be an ideal vehicle for such a scenario. But it would need some sort of "coup" against Iraqi "democracy", that would be difficult to sell to the American public.

So, finally, we think, that within some months, the definitive deal will be concluded with the Shiites. The actual bickering, over the heads of the suffering Iraqis, is used to "soften" Maliki and his parties.

In a third post on this subject, more about the conditions for the oil negotations in Iraq, as prepared by the US.

Iraq: Coalition of the Drilling (1)

(Republished on Oct. 31, because of site problems)

At first, we had the Coalition of the Willing (US-satellite states helping militarily in Iraq),
soon joined by the Coalition of the Billing (best known: Cheney's KBR-branch of Halliburton, who charge up to 60% of the price of services for consulting, security and other "overhead).

In Afghanistan, the Coalition of the Willing, transforms into the Coalition of the Killing, as they are killing blindly some dozens of 'Taliban' every week in Southern Afghanistan: Farmers, their wives and children, hit by Apache-helicopter launched cluster bombs.

But all this was only a foreplay to the Coalition of the Drilling's coming out from behind the screens. (I owe this pun to a commenter on Joshua Holland's post on AlterNet, see below).

The Coalition of the Drilling are the four big Oil Companies, formerly known as "The Seven Sisters", for mergers reduced their number from seven to four. But they are not alone: A swarm of subsidiary, servicing business, such as Oil Services Company Halliburton , were present at Vice President Dick Cheney's conference table, when he developed the infamous new energy legislation (2001/2002) for the US, in secret meetings, the details of which he consistently refuses to share with the US Congress.

After all, it has taken a long time, after the 2003 invasion, before the genuine objectives of the Iraq invasion show up in a way, so as nobody can deny them any more. Why? Some facts.

Somewhere, somehow, at the start of the post-invasion aera, somewhat has gone very wrong.

The original scenario was not an occupation of the country, but the instauration of Achmad Chalabi as "liberator" and interim president, while an American, Pentagon-appointed representative (...) was to initiate, province by province and region by region (and tribe after tribe, clan after clan), a local cleansing of Saddamists. Loyalty of the traditional chiefs, could be bought, was the idea.
Meanwhile, Chalabi was to initiate a great "reform" of the economy, to be legitimized through a referendum or a sort of loja jirga of clan chiefs. (It is only at the insistance of Ajatollah Sistani, that Bush accepted general free elections in the beginning of 2004).

Parts of that scenario, oddly enough, continued to occur, while Bremer (State Department) acted as Governor on behalf of the US as occupying power. An odd incident, was the Iraqi who acted for some days as Mayor of Bagdad. He had been appointed by Chalabi and the Pentagon before the invasion, and presumably, he had not understood, that the programme had been changed. Chalabi himself, also had to adapt to the new rules, and he did so with his well-known flexibility, betting on two or more horses at the same time (his Pentagon friends, the oil ministry, his Shiite - and his Iran connections).
The Pentagon imposes its own original scenario
What the Pentagon did, was ... denying the intentions of its president and supreme commander (but, maybe, that commander wasn't unhappy with it). It effectively isolated Bremer and his Provisional Governing Council. It just followed the scenario that had been decided before.
At first, in Bagdad, only the oil ministry was occupied (and the oil infrastructure in the country) - not the ministry of the interior (essential, if the "course" had been "democratization"), neither that of Education (idem), and least of all the ministry of Culture (so that a big part of the historical treasures in the Museums has been looted and/or destroyed). Even the Ministry of Defense in Baghdad was not really taken over, which would have been logical if the US really had been worried over "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
Barely some weeks after the occupation of Baghdad, Rumsfeld announced, that the American Army was to establish huge military bases in the country, replacing the ones in Saudi-Arabia.
That was not merely an announcement, but it told what was already going on.
A huge US military base in a former Saddam Hussein palace complex near the Baghdad Airport was constructed, including all sorts of facilities, clearly built to last for many years.

But what about the Iraqi Oil?
Officially, the US has always maintained, that "the oil revenues belong to the Iraqi people". At a moment of inattention, however, Wolfowitz (then undersecretay at the Pentagon) told Congress, that "oil was going to pay for all the costs of war and occupation". This moment of inattention was a moment of truth: During it's one year reign, the "Coalition Provisional Authority" (CPA) indeed used practically all (dwindling) oil revenues of Iraq for paying costs of occupation, security and American contractors. When the Allawi government took over, there was nothing left.

Meanwhile, at the Doha meeting of the WTA, the then Iraqi minister of economy stunned the audience, telling them, that his government was pusuing a Pinochet-like policy of complete denationalization, stimulating foreign investment, in other words a sudden and total free market policy. Like Wolfowitz, he spoke too early and too bluntly.

Hindered by the sabotage acts on the installations and pipelines, impeded also by the incompetence of Halliburton "reparations" and "upgrading", now, at last, the "great prize" of the Bush policy in Iraq is showing up.
It is told in:

AlterNet: Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil ( by Joshua Holland)

Iraq's oil sector remains largely undeveloped. Former Iraqi Oil Minister Issam Chalabi (no relation to the neocons' favorite exile, Ahmed Chalabi) told the Associated Press that "Iraq has more oil fields that have been discovered, but not developed, than any other country in the world." British-based analyst Mohammad Al-Gallani told the Canadian Press that of 526 prospective drilling sites, just 125 have been opened.

But the real gem -- what one oil consultant called the "Holy Grail" of the industry -- lies in Iraq's vast western desert. It's one of the last "virgin" fields on the planet, and it has the potential to catapult Iraq to No. 1 in the world in oil reserves. Sparsely populated, the western fields are less prone to sabotage than the country's current centers of production in the north, near Kirkuk, and in the south near Basra. The Nation's Aram Roston predicts Iraq's western desert will yield "untold riches."

Iraq also may have large natural gas deposits that so far remain virtually unexplored. [...]

But even "untold riches" don't tell the whole story. Depending on how Iraq's petroleum law shakes out, the country's enormous reserves could break the back of OPEC, a wet dream in Western capitals for three decades. James Paul predicted that "even before Iraq had reached its full production potential of 8 million barrels or more per day, the companies would gain huge leverage over the international oil system. OPEC would be weakened by the withdrawal of one of its key producers from the OPEC quota system." Depending on how things shape up in the next few months, Western oil companies could end up controlling the country's output levels, or the government, heavily influenced by the United States, could even pull out of the cartel entirely.

Both independent analysts and officials within Iraq's Oil Ministry anticipate that when all is said and done, the big winners in Iraq will be the Big Four -- the American firms Exxon-Mobile and Chevron, the British BP-Amoco and Royal Dutch-Shell -- that dominate the world oil market. Ibrahim Mohammed, an industry consultant with close contacts in the Iraqi Oil Ministry, told the Associated Press that there's a universal belief among ministry staff that the major U.S. companies will win the lion's share of contracts. "The feeling is that the new government is going to be influenced by the United States," he said.

How they are going to do so, and what kind of contracts they will have, is told in the second part of this article.