It’s clearly about $$$$$$$ but is it Terrorism?
Kurdistan Regional Government opens a new oil pipeline.
Definitions of terrorism abound and the concept is not well defined; one man’s freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Many submit that terrorism is a highly politicized term used to describe the behavior of oppositional forces and includes diverse practices that range from kidnappings to bombings. What about misappropriating (stealing) oil, can that be terrorism?
In the current struggle taking place in Iraq, most of the focus is on the advances and atrocities of ISIS, and discussions abound on what should be done. Clearly terrorism is taking place as the Sunni forces displace the Shiite government institutions. During the recent ISIS advance, the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) opened a new oil pipeline in May. This is allowing the KRG to export oil through Turkey, bypassing the central Iraqi network. While the government in Baghdad disputes Kurdistan’s right to sell oil directly, the regional administration is selling oil at international prices and depositing the proceeds in a Turkish bank.
As the three factions in Iraq strengthen their divisions and fortify their positions the debate continues, what should be done, what can be done, who should do it? The op-ed piece Vice President Biden co-authored back in 2006 has resurfaced as a possible course of action. Biden proposed to “establish three largely autonomous regions with a viable central government in Baghdad. The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central government would control border defense, foreign affairs and oil revenues.” Even in this proposal, the oil revenues remain a national not regional asset.
The northern Kurdish enclave of Iraq has long aspired for independence and opening this new pipeline has strengthened their position. In recent months Kurdish Peshmerga troops have outperformed Iraqi soldiers against Islamist militants and have succeeded in cementing their control of land and oil reserves around the resource-rich city of Kirkuk. At least one cargo of Kurdish crude was delivered to the United States in May to an unidentified buyer, and four other cargoes of Kurdish crude have been delivered this year in Israel.
The Washington Post reports that while Iraq’s constitution actually does allow for power to be devolved to regions, Maliki blocked a number of Kurdish and Sunni attempts at regionalism and eventually allowed his central government to become dominated by Shiite Islamists. The end result can be seen today, in effect, the country is de-facto partitioned. As The Post’s Liz Sly tweeted recently, “Iraq is basically falling apart. No other way to put it.”
When diplomacy fails, terrorism steps in. The Sunni opted for force and the Kurds selected a monetary approach to embolden their autonomy. It’s easy to agree that the actions taken by ISIS are terrorist in nature but why not the actions of the Kurdish Regional Government? The KRG is essentially implementing Rule 3 of Mesquita and Smith’s The Dictator’s Handbook in taking control of the flow of revenue. In dealing with the ISIS situation the US has sent a cadre of military advisors but what have we done regarding the siphoning off of the oil? It would be simple to declare that the theft of oil is not terrorism and ignore the situation. Terrorism or not, the issue is being contested in the US courts. As the most recent tanker full of KRP oil declared her 96-hour notice of arrival to the US, a legal battle ensured. The case is Ministry of Oil of the Republic of Iraq v. Ministry of Natural Resources of Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, No. 3:14-cv-00249.
In this complaint, the Iraqi oil ministry claimed that the KRG “illegally misappropriated” the tanker’s $100 Million cargo and secured a warrant from the court to seize the oil if it is brought ashore in Texas. The KRG maintains that it legally shipped and sold the oil currently held aboard the United Kalavrvta, 60 miles off the coast of Galveston, Texas. Its lawyers also argue in the letter that the U.S. court has no jurisdiction over what is essentially an Iraqi constitutional issue.
On 28 July 2014 a federal court ordered U.S. marshals to seize the cargo of the tanker, the United Kalavrvta, if the crude oil is brought ashore. The oil is claimed by both Baghdad and the Kurdistan regional government, nominally part of Iraq but locked in an uneasy embrace, especially when it comes to who benefits from oil revenues. In less than 24 hours later, federal magistrate Nancy K. Johnson said that because the tanker was some 60 miles offshore, and outside territorial waters, the order she issued late for U.S. Marshals to seize the cargo could not be enforced.
Should the US get involved in this dispute between Iraq’s central government and the autonomous region of Kurdistan or should this be resolved in Iraq? For most the dispute over the ownership of the oil doesn’t seem like terrorism or a matter for U.S. courts. The US could (1) do nothing, like how we’re dealing with the actions of ISIS; (2) we could seize and sell the oil and give the profits to the Iraqi central government; or (3) hold the proceeds as leverage to bring the groups to the bargaining table. I vote for option 3 — the US should attempt to bring the three factions together to work on an improved government structure for Iraq as proposed back in 2006 by Vice President Biden that provides more autonomy for the regional governments.
