18 July 2008
Feeling buoyant about beating back Al-Qaeda in Iraq and reining in Iraqi militias in southern Iraq and Baghdad, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is now taking the initiative on the economic and diplomatic fronts. He wants to spur the much-delayed reconstruction efforts, including those in the oil sector, by moving the decision-making process from bureaucratic ministries to a new council with powers to award contracts. He also took a stand popular with almost every Iraqi that calls for a scheduled withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Although he declines to state a time frame for the requested withdrawal of troops, Iraqi officials say there are currently two proposals on the table, one aiming for 2010, the other for 2013. In an interview in Baghdad this week with Energy Intelligence Middle East Bureau Chief Ruba Husari, al-Maliki detailed the processes his government is applying to achieve its goals over the remaining 18 months of its term. The following is an unofficial translation of excerpts of that interview.
Q. The Iraqi government took several decisions to proceed with the development of Iraq’s oil resources and to invite international oil companies to help develop oil fields, but no contracts have been awarded to date. Why is that?
A. There is more than one reason for the delays but the most important one is the lack of security that has been prevailing until recently. The security situation was not conducive to our own companies, let alone international companies, playing a role in development. This also applies to companies in other sectors related to the reconstruction of Iraq. This was normal at a time when Al-Qaeda and those who supported it created a situation where no one could enter Iraq, which meant that we could not achieve our goals in the oil and non-oil sectors. But we see more interest now from foreign companies following successes by the government in enforcing security and stability. All those companies that hesitated to come are now competing for the different oil contracts. And although we are happy with the licensing round announced recently and the interest expressed by international oil companies in competing for those contracts, we have decided in the council of ministers [this week] that we need to speed up the process and reduce the complications of the contracting process.
Q. How will you do that?
A. We agreed to establish a higher council in charge of reconstruction [the National Council for Reconstruction and Development] to focus on strategic projects, and primarily in oil this will be headed by the prime minister and also include a deputy prime minister and several other ministers. I believe this will help us speed the award of contracts. We will avoid many of the complexities of awarding contracts by defining one type of contract that we think will serve the country best and invite companies to negotiate and compete directly for those contracts.
Q. How much was the absence of an oil and gas law a cause for delays in bringing in foreign companies to develop Iraq’s oil sector?
A. In my opinion, the lack of an oil and gas law was not a big obstacle. We have a problem developing the producing fields, and these do not require a new law. The old law could be the basis for awarding contracts. Even if we fail to reach agreement on the new oil and gas law, we would still revert to the old law to award contracts. But we hope to enact the new law because it gives better guarantees to [oil] companies as well as preserves our national interest.
Q. Where does the government stand on the issue of the legality of the oil contracts signed by the Kurdistan Regional Government?
A. The draft oil and gas law defined the mechanism for dealing with the contracts signed by the previous [Saddam
Hussein] regime as well as contracts signed by the Kurdish region up to the drafting of this law, which amount to about 10 contracts. Those contracts will have to be reviewed according to the law. As to the legality of those contracts signed after that, I’m sorry to say that they do not comply with the law or the constitution and they are still one of the issues we are trying to solve.
Q. There seems to be pressure from the US to push the oil and gas law through parliament. How do you explain that?
A. What I have noticed is that the big American oil companies are not competing as much as others despite what was said at the time about the US coming to Iraq for the oil. It’s the other companies from Asia, Europe and even Russia that are competing more. It’s natural for American companies to invest in Iraq and we welcome US investments essentially because the major companies have the best expertise, but also because we have a special relationship now and the US has made sacrifices for Iraq. We would like them to be present in the reconstruction process as they were present in the security field. That gives them a priority but not without securing the national interests of Iraq.
Q. You have requested a withdrawal of US forces according to an agreed schedule as part of the negotiations on the Status of Forces Agreement. What is the time line you are aiming at?
A. First of all, we want the idea of the withdrawal to be accepted by the Americans and it seems that it has been accepted.
Q. You mean it has been officially accepted?
A. It seems so. Initially both sides rejected the term “withdrawal” because it would have meant losing to the terrorists of Al-Qaeda and the militias. But today, after we beat Al-Qaeda and the outlaws, and the Iraqi security forces and police have developed their skills and security has been established — even though we are still facing a few challenges here and there — a scheduled withdrawal today means victory because troops withdraw after they have secured the country. The US forces did not come to Iraq to stay forever. This is unacceptable. Since the goals have been achieved, we can now talk about a time line and a scheduled withdrawal. It seems to me that this is accepted not just by the Democrats who have been saying that they intend to withdraw US forces from Iraq within 16 months, but also by those who are negotiating with us at the moment. The idea has been accepted. The word “evacuation” of troops was perhaps perceived as a bit harsh because it’s connected to former occupations, but the principle of a scheduled withdrawal is now accepted. I consider this a big achievement because it is a national Iraqi demand. Every Iraqi today would like to see [US] troops pulling out as soon as possible because they regained trust in the local security forces and in the government.
Q. What is the schedule the Iraqi government is considering?
A. Let’s not rush things. We have a time line in mind but there are several factors that have to be taken into consideration in the negotiations. We have to do our own assessments when we talk about the withdrawal and consider issues related to our preparedness and that of our security forces. We cannot take the issue emotionally and just ask for withdrawal of troops. We need to make sure that the terrorists of Al Qaeda will not come back and that the withdrawal of forces would not open the way for a return to the previously prevailing situation. This requires an objective assessment by our security and military experts to be able to assure us that every part of Iraq is under our total control and secured and that Al-Qaeda or other organizations cannot infiltrate back. Only then will we be able to state a time frame and say whether it’s one year, two years or even three years. But it will definitely not extend to a long period.
Q. Do you believe an agreement can be reached and approved by the Iraqi legislative council by December?
A. Frankly speaking, Iraqi public opinion and the political setup in Iraq are very sensitive about long-term agreements, especially when it has to do with a security agreement. But it has no problem with economic, political and commercial agreements, which we do sign bilaterally with a lot of countries. A security agreement that stipulates the presence of international forces on Iraqi territories for the long term is sensitive. That’s why the initial draft agreement that was presented by the Americans and that had a high ceiling was quickly rejected. It did not respect our national sovereignty. Sovereignty applies to people as well as to the land, air and waters. It was rejected because it had a permanent nature. We have since lowered that ceiling to something that is acceptable. No agreement that violates our sovereignty would ever be passed by the legislative council, and our constitution requires all international agreements and treaties to be approved by two-thirds of the 275-member parliament. The Americans now understand this because they have lived here long enough and know those sensitivities and that’s why the idea has become acceptable. I believe if we continue in that direction we will be able to convince the legislative council to endorse it if we made clear that the agreement includes a final withdrawal of US forces. Without stating that the withdrawal will put a definite end to the US military presence in a way or another, it will not be passed.
Q. Is December viable?
A. I am optimistic that we could reach an agreement that includes three documents by December or shortly after that. All the documents will be transparent and we will make them public because we do not believe in secret annexes and under-the-table agreements. We are discussing three documents now. The first one is a strategic framework agreement that will define the economic and other relations with the US. This agreement will serve Iraq’s interests because we will benefit from the US expertise and progress. There is almost an agreement about this one. The second is a short document that focuses on the movement of US forces, which implies that movement of troops is conducted according to what is decided by joint bodies that will authorize the movement of forces and coordinate it during their presence on our land. There is also agreement between us here. We called the third document an agreement of evacuation, but the term we used was not accepted, so now we call it a memorandum of withdrawal. It details how the initial withdrawal to agreed bases will take place, how the definite withdrawal will be organized and details about imports and exports by the US forces and other technical issues. This one is contingent on the acceptance of the idea of withdrawal. If this one is agreed, it will be easier to sign on the other agreements as one package and present it to the legislative council before the [December] date or shortly after.
Q. Iran, with which you have special relationships, has publicly said it is against any US military presence in Iraq. How do you reconcile between the US position and Iran’s?
A. Iran has the right to express its opinion based on the concerns it has vis-a-vis its relation with the US. What governs the position of the Iraqi government is the national interest, which no party should consider as a threat to its security or its interests.
Q. You have been aggressively conducting military operations in Basrah, Amarah and Sadr City. What’s next?
A. The successes we have achieved there carry more than one message. There is a message to the militias that they can no longer decide the fate of people, especially in Basrah. There was a message to Al-Qaeda that Iraq is not what they think and they will not be able to use it to establish their pretended Islamic state. And there was a message to some politicians who thought the government is about to collapse because it is weak, and they were surprised by how powerful the government is and how it is capable of standing up to the challenges. Even the coalition forces admitted that they require six to 12 months to plan a military operation like the one we conducted in Basrah or Sadr City, while it took us just four days to plan and a week to execute. The last messages are to the outside world that Iraq has become a healthy place again and it has a government that can impose its will, and to the coalition forces that we thank them for their presence and support for Iraq but we are now capable of managing our own business so they have an interest in normalizing the relationship with us.
Q. Have these operations ended?
A. The big operations have ended but there are still a few pockets where thieves and gangs are still capable of hitting and this requires intelligence work more than a military effort to put an end to it.
(Published in Energy Compass July 18, 2008)