Doc's Talk: Iraq should pay war reparations to Iran from joint oil field profits

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Iraq should pay war reparations to Iran from joint oil field profits

TEHRAN, Jan. 3 (MNA) - Former deputy oil minister Mohammad Nejad-Hosseinian says Iran should develop the oil fields it shares with Iraq as a way to obtain reparations for the damage inflicted on Iran by Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

In three to four years, when Iraq starts producing oil from these joint oil fields, its oil production will increase by 1.5 million barrels per day, and the migration of Iran’s oil to Iraq would be a great loss for the Islamic Republic, he added. Nejad-Hosseinian, who is currently the secretary general of the Asian Parliamentary Assembly, made the remarks in an interview with the Tehran Times and the Mehr News Agency conducted on Wednesday.

Following is the text of the interview with Nejad-Hosseinian:

Q: After Iraq awarded development contracts to a number of international companies for the development of its oil fields, you warned Iranian officials about the possibility that Iranian oil from the joint oil fields will migrate to Iraq. How many joint oil fields are there and is there an estimate of the amount of oil reserves in those fields?

A: So far around 20 oil and gas fields have been identified on the borders of Iran and Iraq, and most of those fields are joint fields between the two countries. There is no precise estimate of the amount of oil reserves in those fields but they are certainly among Iran’s largest.

Q: What measures should Iranian officials take to prevent the migration of Iranian oil from the joint oil fields to Iraq?

A: I think it is necessary for both countries to start operating the joint oil fields simultaneously. But even this measure will not resolve the issue entirely.

When there is more than one operator for a joint oil field, each one attempts to produce the maximum amount of oil and gas within its own geographical scope in the shortest possible period. Under such circumstances, the main focus is on maximizing production while less attention is paid to properly maintaining the oil field and optimizing production.

Such a policy would damage the entire field, to the detriment of the interests of both countries.

Q: What should be done to prevent such a situation and to prevent the migration of Iranian oil to Iraq?

A: Well, the option that seems most feasible is the joint development of such fields. In other words, the development and exploitation of the field should be done through an integrated system. This means that a contractor is put in charge of development of the entire joint field while optimal exploitation of the joint oil field is carried out by a joint organization. Finally, the income accrued should be paid to each party.

Q: Do you really think the idea is practical?

A: Iranian officials should negotiate with their Iraqi counterparts in order to convince them that this policy is in (both countries’) best interests.

I think Baghdad should be reminded of the fact that it is not possible that the current situation will continue. The Tehran-Baghdad disputes on the range of the joint oil fields and the related border disputes could endanger the security of the region.

Iraq knows that security is the main prerequisite for the operations of foreign companies.

Security concerns would deter most foreign contractors from operating in a risky environment. In my opinion, if Tehran and Baghdad could reach an agreement in that regard, Iraq could ask any winning bidder to extend its operations to the entire joint field. Any extra costs borne by the operating contractor should be paid by Iraq as part of the war reparations for the Iran-Iraq war.

After the commencement of the operation of the joint fields, the outstanding reparations for the war should be paid in proportion to the amount of oil production.

Q: But Iraq has not accepted the fact that it is liable to pay reparations to Iran.

A: The issue of war reparations is one of the important issues in Tehran-Baghdad relations that seems to have been forgotten for no specific reason. Based on international law, Iraq is obligated to compensate Iran for war damages incurred during Saddam’s war against Iran.

Some officials who were opposed to Saddam currently hold various posts, from the presidency to the lower ranks. When Saddam was in power, these people visited Iran and repeatedly condemned Iraq’s invasion of Iran.

There is also ample evidence and documents to condemn Iraq’s invasion of Iran. If the Iranian government fails to seek reparations for the war now, then it will have far less success in achieving anything in the future.

Thus, I think the time is ripe for convincing the Iraqis to agree to a deal to adopt the policy of integrated development of such oil fields jointly for ensuring the maintenance of the fields. This policy… will serve to enhance the security of the borders on the one hand and on the other hand will help Iraq compensate Iran for the war damages.

Q: How can this idea be actualized?

A: As I mentioned, it is not too difficult to implement. If Tehran and Baghdad reach an agreement in that regard, Iraq could ask those who won the bids for the oil fields to extend the area of their operations to the entire joint oil and gas field. Iran’s share in the joint oil field development would be paid as part of the reparations for the war damages.

With the start of operations in the oil field, a percentage of the oil produced should be delivered to Iran for the outstanding war reparations in addition to Iran’s legal share in the partnership.

Q: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently issued an order calling for an estimate to be made of the amount of damages Allied Forces inflicted on Iran in World War II. Shouldn’t seeking war reparations from Iraq be more of a priority now?

A: I think it is a priority since there was an estimated amount of damage inflicted on Iran during the war. Moreover, Iraq is blessed with an abundance of God-given natural resources. Therefore, compensating Iran for the war should not be that much of a problem for the country’s economy. Thus, I hope that seeking war reparations from Iraq will be placed on the agenda of Iranian officials.

MH/HG

END

MNA
http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=1010114

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk