Home > 2008 Speeches

Floor Remarks: The Same Iraq Treaty 78 Years Later
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)
House of Representatives
July 9, 2008

Mr. Speaker,

The reports out of Iraq these days make 2008 sound an awful lot like 1930.  That’s when the British strong armed a so-called treaty to take control of Iraq’s oil wealth. And it remained that way for decades until the people in the Middle East nationalized their oil wealth to end outside control.  But western oil interests and the Neocons have wanted it back ever since.

War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may have said that invading Iraq had nothing to do with oil.  But the announcement that western oil companies would get what they have lusted for says otherwise. And editorial cartoonist Rob Tornoe of Politicker-dot-com summed up the world view the other day in the cartoon displayed behind me. He spoke truth to power with one compelling image. 

It says all at once that this entire war - its tragic casualties and immense cost – was all about oil. 

As so many suspected all along. Secretary of State Rice tries to claim that the government played no role whatsoever in securing sweetheart oil deals for Iraqi sweet crude oil. But the New York Times reported in a front page story:  “A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies...”

The immense oil reserves underneath Iraq are the world’s second largest, and western oil companies want them. Just as they did 78 years ago. And like 1930, they plan to permanently occupy Iraq. To remove any doubt from the minds of the American people, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record the entire Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930. 

Let’s look at Article 5.  It says that maintaining order inside Iraq is the responsibility of the Iraqi government. But then it immediately says that Iraq recognizes and accepts Britain’s role inside Iraq and grants Britain the right to build air bases, and maintain military forces inside Iraq. This is exactly what the President and this Administration has been saying all along. The president has made clear he wants the US to stay in Iraq permanently. In 1930, they didn’t call it an occupation, they called it a treaty.  And they are doing it all over again.

Here’s another example.  The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930 treaty addresses immunity for British forces, and unlimited rights to bases and troop movements.  And this Administration is doing the exact same thing. People like Jonathan Schwartz on the web site Democrats-dot-com, Internet sites like After Downing Street and newspapers like the Independent have all examined the 1930 document and compared it to current proposals. They conclude the date is different and it is now the U.S. instead of the British Empire.

Seventy-eight years later, the west is again trying to assume control of the Middle East, under the guise of protecting them from themselves. In 2003, Donald Rumsfeld addressed US troops in Baghdad and said: "... unlike many armies in the world, you came not to conquer, not to occupy, but to liberate."

In 1917, British General Stanley Maude addressed Iraqis in Baghdad and said: "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors, but as liberators." The only thing new this Administration added was that our soldiers would be greeted by flowers. We know that was not true, just as we know the entire basis for the US-led invasion of Iraq was not true.

And when the Prime Minister of Iraq says as he did the other day that he wants a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, the President says no, he wants Americans in Iraq indefinitely.

The calendar may say 2008 but this Administration is acting like it is 1930. And a journalist has summed it up in a cartoon. If we ignore the lessons of history we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history. Thank you.

Read the full text of the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930 >