13303: It’s about the Oil

David M. Boje, Ph.D. and co-organizer for www.PeaceAware.com

August 20, 2003

Before their election, Bush and Cheney said, “It’s not about the oil,” while they drafted plans for grabbing Iraqi oil. After the election Bush administration said, “It’s not about the oil,” and dozens in the White House revealed their deep ties to Big Oil. The Iraq war planners said, “It’s not about the oil,” and then launched a preemptive invasion into Iraq without finding any weapons of mass destruction. The Iraq invaders said, “It’s not about the oil,” and then secured the oil fields, while letting the museums be sacked.  Vice President Dick Cheney said, “It’s not about the oil,” and then Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton Company (where Cheney was CEO 1995-2000), was awarded a multimillion-dollar contract to oversee any fire fighting operations in Iraqi oil fields after any US-led invasion. [1] President Bush said, “It’s not about the oil,” and then he signed Executive Order 13303, and oil companies extracting and marketing Iraqi crude are above the law, beyond law suit or criminal prosecution. Now we know for sure, what is good for Halliburton, ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco is good for America.  What is good for oil corporations is anarchy. Executive Orders are end-runs around Congress and away from the scrutiny of the press (Rosen, 2003), a way to implement policy by fiat. Big Oil runs America, makes war, gathers in the spoils of war, and is immune from prosecution. What’s good for Big Oil is now good for America.

My friend Eearle writes:

I don't believe it's as much about oil as the reconstruction contractor's profits; i.e. Halliburton. Read an independent estimate of total cost of Iraq could reach $900B. Iraq, on a good day, doesn't produce nearly as much oil as the taxpayers are paying to rebuild Iraq. I've often wondered why Iraq should be asked to rebuild out of their own pocket what the US has destroyed, anyway. I notice that foreign contractors were prohibited from bidding, despite their lower costs due to proximity to Iraq. - Earle

Thanks Eearle, I think your input is hepful. Here is some more info on 13303.

Executive Order 13303 gives a get-out-of-jail-free card to oil companies (Rothchild, 2003). Representatives of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and Government Accountability Project (GAP) have urged Congress to  repeal EO 13303 because it places oil corporate behavior above the law. According to the May 28, 2003 Federal Register, Bush unilaterally declared a state of emergency and signed Executive Order 13303 on May 22 2003. It states:

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat…

Executive Order 13303 decrees that "any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void," with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and "all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein."

Executive Order 13303, claims to be essential to Iraqi reconstruction efforts. However, the result is to protect oil companies, giving virtual impunity for any activities undertaken relating to Iraqi oil.  No one can sue the oil companies pumping Iraqi oil, even for a just cause under the Alien Tort Claims Act. The order covers not only petroleum, but also its downstream products such as petrochemicals. For example, oil companies complicit in human rights violations or environmental damage are immune from lawsuits.

On March 21 2003, west of Basra, British troops help US soldiers secure oilfields from possible sabotage.

On May 9^th, 2003 U.S and U.K. laid out a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council, naming themselves as "occupying powers" with total control of the Iraq's oil revenues.

On August 15 and again on the 17th 2003, guerrillas blow up a vital oil pipeline in northern Iraq, halting exports to Turkey.

Bush Order Makes Corporate Anarchy Viable In Iraq
by Ruth Rosen • Saturday August 09, 2003 11:28 AM

AN EXECUTIVE ORDER can be a surreptitious way of making policy. It often makes an end-run around Congress and frequently escapes the media's attention as well. It is, in short, a way of making policy by fiat. Now, a potentially explosive executive order has just been discovered by SEEN, the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network. Signed on May 22, it appears to give U.S. oil companies in Iraq blanket immunity from lawsuits and criminal prosecution.

Rothchild (2003) puts it this way:

Leaving aside the legalese--you know, all those "thereofs" and "hereafters"--what we have here is a get-out-of-jail-free card for all of Bush's and Cheney's buddies in the oil industry. They can bribe officials, they can underpay their foreign workers, they can recklessly spill oil all over the lands and waters of Iraq--and still they will be untouchable by any arm of the law, at least that's how it reads to me.

Davidson (2003) reports,

In a report last month for the US Democratic legal think tank Government Accountability Project (GAP), the legal director, Tom Devine, said that in terms of legal liability, 13303 "cancels the concept of corporate accountability and abandons the rule of law . . . (It) is a blank check for corporate anarchy. Its sweeping, unqualified language places the industry above domestic and international law for anything related to commerce in Iraqi oil." …Section 1 (b) shields the value "of any nature whatsoever" if it is "related to" the "sale or marketing of . . . all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products" or "interests"… According to Devine: "Under the executive order there is no accountability to the taxpayers for taxpayer-supported spending by . . . firms with US contracts . . . It cancels liability for civil fraud in government contracts under the False Claims Act, the most effective anti-fraud statute. In short, the order is a blank check for pork-barrel spending."
 

Pyane (2003) During the initial assault on Baghdad, soldiers set up forward bases named Camp Shell and Camp Exxon. Those soldiers knew the score, even if the Pentagon's talking points dismissed any ties between Iraqi oil and their blood.

How it works. The Development Fund for Iraq, is run by World Bank and IMF and backed by the rigged rules of the World Trade Organization.  The U.S. Export-Import Bank (ExIm) handles the subcontracts for the Development Fund for Iraq, which means companies hired by Bechtel and Halliburton.

Girion (2003) reports:

"Let's say I work at a Madison Avenue firm that engages in false advertising" as part of a campaign to market gasoline that was made from Iraqi crude, Devine said. The way the executive order is drawn, it looks as if the ad agency "can lie to consumers as much as they want ... without any recourse by the Federal Trade Commission."

Devine added that if an oil-company employee working in Iraq was fired in retaliation for blowing the whistle on wrongdoing allegedly committed by his employer, the executive order could make it impossible for him to collect damages from the company.

Meanwhile, an operator of an oil tanker that had a major spill while hauling Iraqi crude could be immune from liability, thanks to the executive order, lawyers said.

"That oil was shipped out of Iraq and it's protected," Apple said. "The company that failed to ensure it was using up-to-date tankers is not going to be held accountable. ... There is nothing that anybody can do for any recourse."

References

Cox, Craig (2003). White House Executive Order Shields U.S. Oil Companies in Iraq Utne.com August 2003 Issue http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2003-08/articles/10735-1.html

 

Campaign for Labor Rights (2003). After the War: Outrageous Bush Executive Order on Iraq Oil Must Be Investigated http://www.campaignforlaborrights.org/index/aug03/5-1.htm

Davidson, Keith (2003). How many Americans will die for oil? August 4 2003. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/03/1059849273357.html

Earth Rights International (2003). Outrageous Bush Executive Order on Iraq Oil Must Be Investigated uploaded 01 Aug 2003 http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=7983&TagID=2

Executive Order 13303 http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-13412.pdf

Girion, Lisa (2003). Some view executive order about Iraqi oil as too broad. Los Angeles Times Aug 8 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/iraq/2001436502_iraqoil08.html or http://truthout.org/docs_03/080803C.shtml

Payne, Tom  (2003). Bush Gives Legal Immunity to Transnational Oil Corporations in Iraq http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/oil_corporations_iraq_immunity.html

Rosen Ruth (2003). Bush Order Makes Corporate Anarchy Viable In Iraq. August 9 http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/76507.php

Rothschild Matthew (2003). Get-out-of-Jail-Free Card for Oil Companies.  The Progressive August 8, 2003 http://www.progressive.org/webex03/wx080803.html

SEEN (2003). GROUPS DEMAND REPEAL OF BUSH IMMUNITY FOR U.S. OIL COMPANIES IN IRAQ. Press release http://www.seen.org/BushEO.shtml

 

SRIDHAR, V (2003). The oil order.  Volume 20 - Issue 17, August 16 - 29, 2003. http://www.flonnet.com/fl2017/stories/20030829001405300.htm