The Blog | Michael O’Hanlon: Oil, Sunnis, and the Iraqi Constitution | The Huffington Post
Although what the draft text says, exactly, is somewhat unclear, I have big concerns about one reported issue in Iraq’s constitution — how oil revenue is to be distributed.
Oil accounts for 98% of Iraq’s export earnings. When foreign aid starts to dry up in a few years, it will be Iraq’s only real source of hard currency.
According to press reports about the draft, and somewhat ambiguous language in the draft constitution itself, the Kurds and Shia have agreed that revenue from existing oil wells is to be shared nationally, but earnings from new wells will accrue to whichever regional government develops the well in question.
This is a big problem. For one thing, it invites gamesmanship. An old well can be modernized and redefined as new. Even if the Kurds and Shia are fair-minded about it, someday all wells in Iraq will be "new" relative to a 2005 starting point. At that time, what will be the economic basis of the Iraqi state? Even more to the point, what will be the economic basis of any Sunni Arab rump state?
I was wondering about this issue yesterday as I cruised the internets looking for the warblogger spin on the Iraqi draft constitution. Instaglenn was puffing this post on normblog which quotes an email from Brendan O’Leary (listed here as "constitutional advisor to the Kurdistan Government, presently in Iraq") mostly concentrating on how the Kurds fared in the draft. However, O’Leary includes this bit:
Kurdistan has achieved its ‘red lines’ in the negotiations. The KRG [Kurdistan Regional Government] retains its full domestic legal autonomy; the legal competences of the federal government are narrowly circumscribed, and less than those in the Transitional Administrative Law; and in a clash between regional and federal law in an arena of regional competence, regional law is supreme. The Peshmerga will be the internal security/regional guard of Kurdistan; and the KRG will be able to block the deployment of the Iraqi army within Kurdistan. Natural resources that are currently exploited are a joint competence with joint revenues; unexploited/new natural resources belong to the regions. Art. 58 of the TAL (reversing Saddam’s ‘Arabization’) will be implemented, and there will be a referendum on Kirkuk and the disputed territories by 2007. The future constitutional amendment process requires the consent of the Kurdistan National Assembly if a change affects its powers.
Considering the well-known fact that the majority of Sunni Arabs live in a relatively resourceless area, as well as the known degraded state of both the Rumaylah and Kirkuk oilfields, coupled with the expectation that vast, unexplored fields ( According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Iraq contains 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the third largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia and Canada), concentrated overwhelmingly (65 percent or more) in southern Iraq. Estimates of Iraq’s oil reserves and resources vary widely, however, given that only about 10 percent of the country has been explored.) are the real future of Iraq’s oil wealth, it seems clear that the Sunnis have been dealt out of all but a pittance of the anticipated billions to be realized from Iraqi oil.
As O’Hanlon says, “Realizing how badly their interests are being protected, Sunni Arabs — already the core of the insurgency — will likely step up their resistance. At a minimum they will probably “veto” the constitution in the October referendum.
Iraq’s international friends need to pressure the Kurds and Shia to change this provision, or to clarify that new wells will be treated the same as the old ones.”
Other than this question, the spin from the warbloggers seems to be focused on keeping their anti-Muslim, Holy War allies from freaking out over the Iranian nature of the role of Islam inserted into the draft. The AP helpfully mistranslated the clause upon which all their democratic hopes hang, substituting “No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam” for the more ominous, but accurate translation ” No law may be legislated that contravenes the essential verities of Islamic law.” As Juan Cole points out: “The TAL and earlier drafts said that law may not contravene the verities of Islam. By specifying ISLAMIC LAW– ahkam al-Islam– this text enshrines the shariah or Islamic canon law quite explicitly in the constitution and would allow religious jurists to question secular legislation.” Look for even more warblogger heads to explode when they finally notice this.
Here’s one secular Shiite Iraqi woman’s take on the new constitution: "This is the future of the new Iraqi government – it will be in the hands of the clerics," said Dr. Raja Kuzai, a secular Shiite member of the Assembly. "I wanted Iraqi women to be free, to be able to talk freely and to able to move around."
"I am not going to stay here," said Dr. Kuzai, an obstetrician and women’s leader who met President Bush in the White House in November 2003.