U.S. May Tap Oil for Iraqi Loans
The White House weighs a plan to pledge future revenue to finance postwar reconstruction. Critics question the effort's legitimacy.
By Warren Vieth
The Los Angeles Times
Friday 11 July 2003
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is considering a provocative idea to pledge some of Iraq's future oil and gas revenue to secure long-term reconstruction loans before a new Iraqi government is in place to sign off on the proposal.
The plan, endorsed by the Export-Import Bank of the United States and some of America's biggest companies, would help avert a looming cash crunch that has the potential to stall the postwar rebuilding effort. One U.S. official rated the proposal's prospects at 50-50.
But the plan is drawing fire from some administration officials, lawmakers, policy analysts and prominent Iraqis who say it would mortgage the Persian Gulf nation's most treasured resource, prevent future leaders from deciding how to spend their oil money and put U.S. taxpayers at risk.
"Iraqis believe their oil should not be touched by foreigners, that it should remain in the hands of the Iraqi government and that no one has a right to do anything before an elected government is in place," said Fadhil Chalabi, executive director of the Center for Global Energy Studies in London and a former Iraqi Oil Ministry official.
"As an economist, I believe in what they are proposing. You couldn't come up with a better formula," Chalabi said. "But Iraqi politics and the way they look at these things are not encouraging. It could create problems later on. Better to wait until a government is formed."
That may be too late, in the view of the plan's supporters. The Export-Import Bank and an industry coalition that includes Halliburton Co., Bechtel Group Inc. and other major companies that are interested in winning contracts in Iraq are warning that unless steps are taken soon to secure new funds, the reconstruction well could run dry.
"Common sense says get Iraq running. How do you get the country running? By using its own oil revenue 100% for the benefit of the Iraqi people," said Export-Import Bank Chairman Philip Merrill. "If you want to wait three or four years, be my guest. But that means the country is going to be running on the dole of the United States."
Many experts agree that Iraq is headed for a possible cash flow crisis as reconstruction costs escalate, initial funds are depleted and the resumption of oil exports is delayed due to damage caused by looting and sabotage.
But they part company over whether the U.S.-led occupation administration in Baghdad has the legal or moral authority to pledge future oil revenue as loan collateral before the issue can be debated by elected Iraqis.
"Unless a reconstituted Iraqi government or the U.N. Security Council authorizes the plan, it appears to violate international law," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles). "We do not have the right, without additional authority, to impose financial obligations on the future government of Iraq."
Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, has asked the Export-Import Bank, the Pentagon and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to disclose more information about the proposal and the role played by Halliburton and other companies in crafting it.
Opponents of the plan warn that if a future Iraqi government chose to stop making payments on the obligations, U.S. taxpayers could wind up holding the bag.
Jul 14, '03
Ok, so what should be done with the oil reserves? Isn't their oil reserves the method with which Iraq can begin to become a member of the international community? To foster growth of their country?
If you are starting a country from scratch (which basically a rebuild of Iraq is) which has rich oil fields, how else would you use them other than to supply your country with revenue?
What if the interim government, appointed by the Iraqi people, decided to sit on the oil fields, not sell any of it, and continue to starve the common Iraqi citizen and contribute to a nonexistant economy?
And who else should be in charge? Russia? Germany? Any Hussein loyalist? Or should they just be willy-nilly Iraqi's whom we hope isn't a Hussein loyalist? Because clearly, when left to its own devices, Iraq was a nation which supported terrorism, executed its own citizens en masse, invaded its smaller neighbor nations, starved its own citizens and supported a dangerous dictatorship.
Last edit by Susy K on Jul 14, '03