IRAQ: U.S., U.K., Spain Introduce Resolution On End To Sanctions;

The United States, United Kingdom and Spain today asked the U.N. Security Council to end sanctions on Iraq and give Washington and London control over Iraq's oil revenue to finance reconstruction, with international oversight. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte introduced an eight-page resolution outlining the plan -- which includes a limited, largely advisory role for the United Nations -- in a closed council meeting this morning.

U.S. diplomats said the proposal was not a "take it or leave it" offer. It does not mention U.N. weapons inspectors. Several council members said they need time to consider the text, which was given to some members yesterday. Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Sergei Lavrov said Moscow has "a long list" of questions (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Yahoo! News, May 9). More

American Colonial Intentions in Iraq Exposed by Halliburton's Secret Business Deals to control Iraqi Oil Installations

Dubai - Halliburton Co.'s controversial no-bid contract to work on Iraq's oil wells must be fully disclosed, an American Democratic lawmaker said, pointing to the Army's admission that the company has a far more lucrative role than originally believed. According to earlier announcements, American Vice President Dick Cheney's former company would fight oil fires in Iraq. However, latest revelations indicate that the contract also allows Halliburton to operate the oil fields for a time and distribute the petroleum, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said Tuesday. International media quoted Waxman as citing information he received from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which awarded the contract.
.
.
The US vice president who played a key role in waging an illegitimate war against Iraq to control its oil resources, vowed repeatedly that he has no role in Halliburton's operations or its government contracts. The Corps wrote Waxman last Friday that the contract included not only extinguishing fires but "operation of facilities and distribution of products."

"I do not mean to suggest that the Corps has intentionally misled anyone about the contract," Waxman wrote Tuesday to Corps commander Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers. "I am, however, concerned that the administration's reluctance to provide complete information about this and other Iraqi contracts has denied Congress and the public important information."

The lawmaker also said the Corps' proposal to replace the Halliburton contract with another long-term deal was at odds with administration statements that Iraq's oil belongs to the Iraqi people.

KBR was given the right to extinguish the oil fires under an existing, contingency contract. Carol Sanders, a spokeswoman for the Corps of Engineers, said officials were reviewing Waxman's letter but had no immediate response. According to media reports quoting Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall the company's announcement of the contract in March revealed the extent of the work.

The release said: "KBR's initial task involves hazard and operational assessment, extinguishing oil well fires, capping oil well blowouts, as well as responding to any oil spills. Following this task, KBR will perform emergency repair, as directed, to provide for the continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure."

Hall said KBR is assisting Iraq's oil ministry to get the oil system operating.

Waxman countered, "Only now, over five weeks after the contract was first disclosed, are members of Congress and the public learning that Halliburton may be asked to pump and distribute Iraqi oil under the contract." Waxman also has repeated the Corps' statement that the contract could be worth up to $7 billion for up to two years, but the Corps said that figure was a cap based on a worst-case scenario of oil well fires. In fact, few wells were burning during the war with Iraq and the Corps said that by early April, the company had been paid $50.3 million.

Secret Halliburton deal endangers U.S. credibility

After repeated assurances that the United States had no intention of handing control of Iraq's oil reserves to American companies, the news comes out that a no-bid contract granted to a company controlled by Halliburton -- Vice President Dick Cheney's old employer -- goes beyond emergency repair of Iraqi oil infrastructure to include running Iraq's oil business and distributing its products.

That contract had already been a cause of considerable controversy. Only Kellogg, Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary, had been invited to bid on it, and the contract did not become public until two weeks after it was signed in March. The true scope of the contract was not disclosed until May 2.

The contract was also awarded despite serious concerns about waste and fraud in previous KBR contracts with the Army, carried out while Cheney was Halliburton's CEO. One allegation in a General Accounting Office report in 1997 claimed KBR charged the Army more than $85 per sheet for plywood for building projects in Bosnia. A follow-up report in 2000 said KBR crews were being paid to clean offices as often as four times a day. The company received more than $2 billion for contract work in the Balkans.

It may be perfectly true, as the Army Corps of Engineers asserts, that KBR was the only company with the proper security clearances, equipment and expertise to put out oil fires in Iraq, although others in the industry dispute that claim. It may also be advisable to allow KBR to pump and distribute oil from the repaired oil fields until a competitive bidding procedure can be put in place.

The KBR contract may indeed have been the best way to handle an emergency that could have been critical to the war effort in Iraq. And Cheney's connections with the firm -- he still receives $180,000 a year in deferred compensation from Halliburton -- probably had no direct impact on its ability to win the Iraq oil contract. Yet, if all that is true, why award the contract in secret? Why not disclose the entire scope of the contract -- up to $7 billion over two years -- immediately? Why not explain to the American people why KBR was the best company to carry out the work, despite concerns about past performance and the appearance of a connection with the vice president?

The administration asks the people of both the United States and Iraq to trust that, when the dust of war settles, Iraq's oil wealth will belong to its people and will be used to rebuild the country's infrastructure and institutions. But to gain that trust, the administration must stop appearing to wield secrecy and favoritism in the award of contracts.Otherwise, the perception of colonial intentions will turn into resistance and resentment on both sides of the Atlantic. And that will scuttle whatever good was done by disposing the Saddam Hussein regime.

Earlier Reports

Halliburton gets $ 7 billion Reconstruction Contract in Iraq without tenders  WASHINGTON, 12 April 2003 — The ugly face of American politicians unholy nexus with big business is resurfacing in new forms. The Pentagon’s controversial decision to give an exclusive no-bid contract to a Halliburton Co. subsidiary for emergency oil-field services in Iraq could be worth as much as $7 billion over the next two years,. An interesting report by Mark Fineman in LA Times said that such large contracts should have been put out to open, competitive bidding. Halliburton is an energy company in which the senior US Defense officials have private interest. The revelation adds credibility to the argument that the US led war on Iraq is

more of a colonial and economic invasion for the sake of American oil companies controlled by the big business and politicians. Many American politicians including George Bush have just came out of the Enron controversy and other corporation scandals The L A Times report revealed that US Vice President Dick Cheney was Halliburton’s chief executive for five years before he resigned in August 2000 to be George W. Bush’s running mate. Halliburton and the Army Corps have both repeatedly denied any favoritism stemming from Cheney’s former role in the company. 24-Full Report