In the wake of its occupation of Iraq in 2003, the U.S administration avoided mentioning the issue of oil. Having refrained from referring to its interests in Iraq's petroleum, it focused mainly on the issues of the weapons of mass destruction, the links to terrorism, and spreading democracy in the Middle East. Why then should one invoke the 2003 war and the Iraqi oil now? The answer lies in the recent nomination of former U.S ambassador in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad for the membership of the Board of Directors of the Norwegian company DNO, which operates in Iraqi Kurdistan. This nomination to DNO's Board of Directors is to be pushed forward by the Ras Al Khaimah Petroleum Company, after the latter completed its purchase of a 30 percent stake in DNO. The Ras Al Khaimah Petroleum Company is a joint stock company founded in 2005, and Khalilzad is a member of its Board of Directors. It is known that Khalilzad is not the only U.S diplomat to join oil companies operating in Iraqi Kurdistan, following his retirement from the U.S government, as he was preceded by Ambassador Peter Galbraith, who worked as a consultant for DNO while he was also an adviser to the Kurdistan Regional Government, and in that capacity, he participated in the drafting of the controversial Iraqi Constitution of 2005. What does it mean when U.S diplomats assume important positions in oil companies operating in Iraq, after their retirement from their official posts? At best, and according to American standards themselves, this is a flagrant violation of the principle of the conflict of interest, as it implies the possibility of their involvement in promoting private interests in their capacity as diplomats. In addition, this also confirms the fears of the Iraqi public opinion that the occupation forces are attempting to seize Iraq's oil resources. Nonetheless, we do not believe, as many think, that these nominations are among the causes of the war, nor do we believe that oil smuggling was an underlying motivation behind the war, or that years of failure by Iraqi and U.S officials to procure and install the necessary equipment to measure the quantities of oil exported from the South, and which led to oil smuggling, are a factor of this war. These all are relatively marginal issues, if we take into account the importance of Iraq's oil at the level of the international petroleum industry. But what is the oil-related factor that can justify the war for Washington? Here, we can only make assumptions after considering the policies in place, due to the blanket of silence surrounding this issue, imposed by the relevant authorities. The wide and rapid utilization of the oil-producing fields, according to the agreements signed in 2009 - if the plan in place is executed by 2017 - will lead to the production of more than 11 million barrels of crude oil per day. In my belief, this plan is the main oil-related goal [of the war]. Of course, it is very important for Iraq to develop its fields at maximum capacity. It is also natural and important for Iraq, after years of wars and of international blockade, and after what happened in Iraq in general and the ruin that beleaguered its oil industry, to cooperate with international oil companies, given the urgent need to obtain the needed technologies, modern management practices and the necessary funding. Why then does this goal conflict with Iraqi interests, and why take it to be a purely American objective? The twelve agreements signed in 2009 will bring Iraq to the doors of a difficult experience. In truth, there is no professional personnel to monitor the companies' operations and no adequate infrastructure in place to accommodate this large number of international companies, in light of the fragility of public institutions (the demonstrations over power cuts in Basra and the provinces are but a vivid example of this). Moreover, the authorities do not have a clear vision for a future development strategy. So the question that arises here is about how will hundreds of billions of dollars of oil revenues be utilized, in the absence of a clear socio-economic strategy of the Council for Reconstruction, and of necessary laws and legislations? We must assume here that we are facing nothing short of an advanced case of looting and theft of Iraqi financial resources, on a much wider scale that the one currently seen, as this involves the massive excepted increase of oil revenues, from 70 billion dollars to 200 billion dollars annually. Where does the U.S interest lie in increasing Iraqi oil production then? There is a hypothesis being promoted in the Western industrial countries about ‘peak oil', in which the Middle Eastern countries will soon no longer be able to meet the increasing global demand for oil. This requires a dramatic increase in Iraqi oil production, in order to compensate for any possible shortages. This particular issue is the most important ‘rational' American expectation regarding the issue of the Iraqi oil. As for the interests of Iraq, the prominent Iraqi oil expert Ramzi Salman called, in a recent press interview conducted with him, for the adoption of an alternative experimental policy in collaboration with the international oil companies. According to this policy, the fields would be first developed in a limited fashion, and then the experiment would be expanded gradually in light of what is being achieved, which allows it to be handled without damaging the interests of the country. Herein lies the crux of the matter, in the sense that proper oversight of the companies operating in the country, in accordance with the contracts and agreements signed, should not be sacrificed. In other words, the call is for a pilot program of openness in what regards increasing production capacity, and collaborating with international companies. *. Mr Khadduri is an energy expert
