Tickets are on sale now via War on Want - click here to book online >>
Crash pad accommodation is available in London for the night of 19 May, for those attending the Shell AGM on the 20th (see below or here). Proxy Shell shares are also available for those who want to go inside the AGM. Email us on handsoffiraqioil@gmail.com or phone 0845 458 2564.
On May 1st, a day of international solidarity with workers and communities in struggle, Trade unions leaders throughout Iraq representing thousands of workers affirmed their demand for an immediate withdrawal of all occupation forces, mercenaries and foreign so-called 'advisors' from their country.
They also called for an end to the meddling of International Financial Institutions such as the IMF and world bank and for full trade union freedom and recognition, free from state control.
One of four demands directly refers to foreign oil companies:
'We demand that the US government and others immediately cease lobbying for the oil law, which would fracture the country and hand control over our oil to multinational companies like Exxon, BP and Shell. We demand that all oil companies be prevented fromentering into any long-term agreement concerning oil while Iraq remains occupied. We demand that the Iraqi government tear up the current draft of the oil law, and begin to develop a legitimate oil policy based on full and genuine consultation with the Iraqi people. Only after all occupation forces are gone should a long term plan for the development of our oil resources be adopted.'
Shareholders got a piratical welcome today at London's Excel centre when they arrived for BP's annual general meeting...
A band of corporate pirates were there to point the way to the meeting and distribute shareholder briefings on BP's activities in Iraq.
They branded as 'blatant piracy' BP's attempts to turn war and occupation in Iraq into a business opportunity - by securing control of Iraq's vast oil reserves.
This has included BP funding lobby groups to push an oil privatisation law which would see Iraq lose billions of dollars of oil revenue.
Meanwhile, activist shareholders went into the meeting to question new BP CEO Tony Hayward over Iraq (full report below).
As 'corporate pirates' gave out shareholder briefings under the banner of 'BP in Iraq - Blatant Piracy' outside, a number of be-suited HOIO activists were present at the BP AGM inside.
The activists asked the board probing questions on the company's alleged corporate social responsibility in pursuing privatisation contracts in occupied Iraq.
Greg Muttitt of Platform asked BP Chairman Peter Sutherland whether BP were concerned about the prospects of repeating history with its disastrous contracts and presence in Iraq in 1925.
BP signed contracts 80 years ago in Iraq when it was occupied under a League of Nations mandate and ruled by a British-installed monarch King Faisal. The concession contracts signed under such conditions were incredibly unpopular and were eventually renegotiated with BP ending up being effectively expelled from the country. The historical parallels to today's Iraq are striking, pointed out Muttitt. By re-entering Iraq in order to sign long-term contracts when the country is occupied, would BP be risking not only its investments and assets but also its reputation by being associated with the spoils of such a deeply unpopular war?
Peter Sutherland replied that Muttitt's question was not factually correct - perhaps Sutherland needs to re-read both British imperial and his own company's history - and stressed that the company has no personnel on the ground and 'has provided assistance, not to make a political impact'.
He continued to say that, 'The future structure of assistance and our stance is clear - to support the Iraqi government in a hydrocarbon agenda. Any community must benefit from our investment and all investments will be set against the criteria of long-term mutual advantage. We will not exploit short-term weakness for long-term gain'.
Greg Muttitt reminded Peter Sutherland that perhaps he should speak to his Exploration and Production Manager for the Middle East Steve Peacock who appeared to contradict the impression of a 'Hands Off' attitude by BP. Peacock recently stated in an interview with Reuters that BP had a long-term agenda and interest in Iraq beyond the signing of Technical Service Contracts.
Sutherland continued to say, 'We have behaved entirely properly and responsibly.'
'No decision has been taken with regards to exploitation or hydrocarbons in Iraq - there has been no decision, agreement of commitment taken with regards to Iraq'.
'Grace Kelly', an ally of HOIO asked the following question on Environmental and Human rights.
'If BP is truly a human rights company, committed to moving 'beyond petroleum' how can long-term investment in a core hydrocarbons-based business, locking in climate-change inducing emissions for generations, be compatible with moving 'Beyond Petroleum'? Is it responsible to make long-term investments in the hydrocarbons of Iraq - of which there is a reserves to production ratio of 173 years and which will mortgage the Iraqi economy to its oil, and not alternative forms of energy and economic development such as solar and hydro-electric power? Please justify how this agenda coheres with one of moral responsibility and environmental responsibility, to the children of Iraq and our children everywhere?'
Sutherland replied that he had 'always wanted to answer a question from Grace Kelly' before re-iterating that BP was committed to human rights and environmental responsibility and that it had undertaken no decision regarding a long-term presence in Iraq.
Post-event, Tony Haywood, BP CEO, refused to answer questions from media however Press officer Robert Wine fielded inquiries.
Wine upheld the company line of there being no decision or plan for BP's agenda in the country, despite the glaring contradictions in such a line, given the company has paid lobbyists to focus on a particular outcome beneficial to BP - long-term reserve-booking contracts, Production Sharing Agreements, and has had held meetings with Iraqi government officials advancing this agenda over the past four years.
A reporter also reminded Robert Wine of this, and that at the Iraq Petroleum 2007 conference in Dubai last year, John Heavyside, business manager for BP in Iraq, revealed the company's goal of securing Production Sharing Agreements in Iraq. He had said: "We want to take risks and get incentivised to perform better; service contracts don't really allow us to do that. It's what we all want, all the international companies here. Production-sharing agreements offer a win-win situation. They are equitable and offer lucrative returns and benefits to both the state and investing companies."
When repeatedly asked to justify how there can be 'no plan or decision' with regards to BP's intentions given the potential business there, the press officer continued to pass the buck by saying that there were no plans and that 'It's up to the Iraqis to decide, they will decide, it’s their decision as to what happens'. Which was not the question. Reminded that should a quote or position be sought from the Iraqi side, an Iraqi government representative would be approached, and that the line of questioning was in relation to BP's plans - not those of the Iraqi government, the Press team could offer no more than 'It's up to the Iraqis' to decide.
When asked which Private Military Security companies BP could be using in Iraq in order to protect assets and staff, the interviewer was bizarrely told to 'stop being so childish'. When pressed as to why a perfectly reasonable question concerning the mitigation of risk and protection of operations would be perceived as childish, the officer replied, 'That's like asking us what catering or cleaning company we're going to use'.
Does BP know the qualitative and strategic difference between a catering company and a security company?
The press office continued, 'How can we give you detail of something that doesn't yet exist'.
When challenged on how BP can claim not to be a political company, when its executives sit on numerous energy security related committees advising government, Robert Wine replied,
'We simply offer our opinion'. Probed further about how the point of sitting on advisory and policy-forming boards is to not just offer opinion but influence and decision-making, he replied:
'We are part of committees given that we seek to have influence which benefits the company - and that's normal, there's nothing sinister in that, that's how the world works'.
So is BP acting in the 'Iraq's best interests', 'British interests' or its own?
UK Hands Off Iraqi Oil Protest at BP AGM
www.handsoffiraqioil.org
BP in Iraq - 'Blatant Piracy'
Take action at British Petroleum's annual general meeting on Thursday April 17th at London's Excel Centre...
Please come dressed 'piratical' it you can, to reflect BP's 'plunderous' agenda towards Iraq..
Excel Centre
One Western Gateway
Royal Victoria Dock
LondonE16 1XL
9.30am on Thursday April 17th
Who? British Petroleum, one of the oldest and largest oil companies inthe world, featured in the Ftse top 5 and looking to access longterm control over Iraqi oil reserves.
Hands Off Iraqi Oil - an international coalition of anti-war, human rights, environment and development groups, and you!
What? BP is currently angling for 'Production Sharing Agreements' in Iraq.
These are 30 year contracts that would grant the company a controlling stake some of the world’s largest oilfields. BP is currently negotiating a Technical Service contract for Rumaila, Iraq’s largest producing oilfield, and expects to sign by the summer – the company is aiming to use this as a stepping stone to a long-term contract; and is pressing in the negotiations for a right to extend the contract once a legal regime is in place – in the form of an Oil Law, which the USA has been heavily pressurising the Iraqi government to pass.
War Zone, Comfort Zone
Despite Iraq being a war zone, it is a comfort zone for BP. The last reserves-controlling contract BP had in Iraq was in 1925 and was schedueled to last 75 years. The contract was signed when Iraq was occupied by Britain, and ruled by the British-installed King Faisal. Ordinary Iraqis had no say in the economic and political decisions being made above their heads. The historical parallells to the present are stark.
The company's core business is the exploration, booking, processing, and selling of hydrocarbons. Last year BP announced a 50% investment in the Sunrise Oil sands field in Canada - a move which showed that far from the company being ready to move 'Beyond Petroleum' it maintains a commitment to oil, despite the controversial environmental and physical challenges of getting it out of the ground.
Iraq has the third largest proven reserves on the planet and a reserves to production ratio of 173 years - almost triple that of Saudi Arabia.
With extraction costs at approx $1.50 per barrel, Iraq is where BP's hopes its future profits and reserves prize truely lies.
Economic Occupation
A longterm move on Iraq represents the theft of Iraq’s future, depriving the Iraqi people of any choice of how their heavily oil dependent economy will be developed, or diversified for a generation. Iraqis would also lose billions in lost revenues.
The people of Iraq are overwhelmingly opposed both to the military occupation of their country, and privatisation of their resources, which BP's agenda in Iraq represents.
Oil for blood
BP routinely uses mercenary armies in conflict zones, such as Colombia, often with severe consequences for human rights. Commonly, such forces do not stop at physically protecting oil facilities, but proactively attack anyone seen as challenging the company’s interests – whether local community leaders or trade unionists. The prospect of applying such an approach to Iraq represents a frightening addition to the violence in the country.
Breaking Up Iraq
The actions of the occupying powers in Iraq since 2003 have fostered sectarian parties, militias and agendas of breaking up Iraq into sectarian fiefdoms.
The Oil Law will compound this sectarianism by putting sectarian politicians at the heart of decision-making, and giving breakaway regions the right to sign oil contracts independent of the national interest.
Iraqis resisting oil privatisation and the fragmentation of their country will find themselves facing 1) US/UK occupation forces 2) sectarian Iraqi forces and 3) private mercenary armies (Mostly British and US companies).
If BP succeeds in gaining long-term control of Iraqi reserves and production, the company will have central responsibility for both inflaming and consolidating sectarian conflict, and for the human rights violations which will occur as a result of the use of force to push through such an unpopular and unjust agenda.
Whose 'energy security'?
Should BP profit from war and occupation? Should BP re-charge its' own 'energy security' of reserves at the expense of the relentless insecurity of the Iraqi people?
If you think not, let us know and come and join us!.....
NO BLOOD FOR OIL, END THE OCCUPATION NOW
For more details see: www.handsoffiraqioil.org
A spy working for corporate espionage firm C2i International infiltrated London Hands Off Iraqi Oil and climate change campaigners Plane Stupid.
Plane Stupid outed Toby Kendall whose alias was 'Ken Tobias' last Monday, describing him as 'More Austin Powers than 007' Their investigation and 'sting' operation was covered in The Times, Evening Standard, Guardian and Mail On Sunday
More 4 as well as The Independent covered the HOIO infiltration aspect of the story and their 5min piece has footage from the HOIO London piratical tour
London Hands Off Iraqi Oil released a news statement - displayed on http://www.indymedia.org.uk/
So just which corporations would be interested in groups campaigning against the privatisation of Iraqi oil?......
Verso,
War on Terror, Inc.
Corporate Profiteering from the Politics of Fear
(ISBN 9781844671236, Hardback, £16.99)
by Solomon Hughes
SOLOMON HUGHES WILL BE JOINED BY:
Ruth Tanner
Corporations and Conflict campaigner, War on Want
Ewa Jasiewicz
Tuesday 15th April
7pm
Khalili Lecture Theatre, SOASAll Welcome
This lecture is free and there is no need to book
For further information please contact clara@verso.co.uk
STOP THE ATTACKS - END THE OCCUPATION - NO BLOOD FOR OIL
Emergency Picket
Wednesday 2 April
2-4pm, Downing Street
Protest against Iraqi, US and British military occupation action
Hundreds are dead, public infrastructure has been destroyed, and electricity and water supplies cut. Thousands are at risk due to food scarcity and a lack of access to medical services. The Iraqi government, US and UK attacks on the South of Iraq and Baghdad have compounded the existing humanitarian crisis in the occupied country.
This protest calls for an immediate end to Iraqi government, US and UK military hostilities.
The picket is called by Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation and supported by Stop the War Coalition, Naftana (UK Support Committee for the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions) and Hands Off Iraqi Oil.
See Naftana statement on the reasons for the current assult on oil-rich Basra: 'Basra Assault Confirms Presence of British forces a Threat to Political and Trade Union Rights in Iraq', www.basraoilunion.org
