The oil sanctions imposed by Western powers and the United Nations have formed a staple part of the policies of the major powers to punish certain Middle Eastern nations in the past three decades. And whenever they failed to obtain consensus at the UN Security Council for such sanctions, European governments and the United States imposed their own measures, such as the case with the sanctions enforced against Syria today. These sanctions raise important questions: Who is being punished more? The rulers who have millions and even billions of dollars stashed in offshore accounts (sometimes in the banks of the same countries imposing the sanctions)? Is it the helpless people who live under totalitarian governments and rely on the state's institutions to obtain their basic needs (electricity, water, and fuel) which are disrupted by the sanctions? Or is it the oil industry where billions of dollars are invested? What have those sanctions achieved exactly? Were they able to remove a regime or topple a ruler? The answer is no. Instead, they only undermine a regime and prepare a climate to eliminate it, or help partition a country by introducing suitable conditions to back one side against another. More importantly, oil-related sanctions imposed on many countries in the region have often led to the emergence of local and international criminal groups that take advantage of the exceptional situation. Such groups benefit from the opportunity arising from a given oil-producing country being forced to seek out new markets. These groups attempt to purchase oil at very large discounts, which translates into major losses for producing countries, and huge profits for the criminal groups which usually consist of politicians who are supposed to be targeted by the sanctions, and politicians from countries that oppose the sanctions and which import the banned oil. Meanwhile, brokers in the market work on behalf of both sides. Many examples exist of such practices, in Libya, Iraq, and Iran. What is the occasion of writing about oil-related sanctions now? Well, there are sanctions that continue to be imposed on Iran (because of its nuclear program) and Syria (because of the civil war). But more pertinently, European Union foreign ministers have recently taken the initiative to lift the sanctions on oil exports from Syrian oil fields controlled by the opposition, in order to use the revenues to finance humanitarian aid. This is a very strange decision indeed. It is either based on ignorance of the facts, or its purpose is to introduce new facts on the ground. To be sure, the decision, which was approved by ministers from 27 countries, reverses the ban on oil exports from areas controlled by the opposition, ostensibly to help channel aid to the beleaguered civilians there. The decision covers the import of Syrian oil and oil products, supplying the Syrian oil sector with equipment, and allowing foreign investment in the fields controlled by the Syrian opposition. This is the first time that oil sanctions on a country are lifted in tandem with the implicit recognition of ownership by multi-factional rebels of oil fields, rather than the legitimate government. If we assume that the aim is to support the rebels, and this must be the objective of the European Union, then the problem can be summed up with the following question: Which party will the Europeans deal with? Indeed, control over the fields in the eastern regions in Syria is shared among the Kurdish parties (which control the Rumeilan field), the Free Syrian Army (controlling the fields between eastern Al-Mayadin and Abu Kamal), al-Nusra Front and its Islamist allies (controlling the fields between western Al-Mayadain and al-Raqqa), and the clans and locals (who control other fields). Of course, there are other questions. For instance, how will oil be collected from the various, scattered fields? Will the opposition forces be able to collect and export hundreds of thousands of oil barrels per day? How will they be exported? To be sure, Syrian export pipelines extend to western Syria and the coast, an area controlled by the government forces. One alternative is exporting oil through tanker convoys to Turkish refineries. But it is very likely that government jets would bomb these convoys, leading to scores of victims and environmental disasters. Furthermore, what refinery can rely on supplies of unknown quality and quantity, or uncertain times of delivery? One possible refinery for Syrian opposition oil exports may be Tüpraş Batman in Turkey. There are also other confusing questions with no answers. Reports on social media sites and Youtube from Deir al-Zour show the primitive means being used to produce oil, with fires raging in oil wells, and explosions targeting pipelines to steal oil from them. Meanwhile, other reports reveal that a major dispute is taking place among the armed groups over control of the fields, including mercenary groups. These groups are attempting to collect small quantities of oil to distribute them among the locals to meet their electricity and heating needs. But there are fears that the European move might exacerbate the dispute among the militias, which might now scramble to control the wells for the purpose of exporting their oil. Observers estimate that the opposition forces, in the event they manage to achieve regular operations, are able to produce around 100,000 barrels per day, and export about 30,000 barrels, at a price of $80 per barrel – $20 less than international prices. This means earning $60-70 million a month, or more than $2 million per day. Observers add that the rebels are already producing around 30,000 barrels per day, which they sell locally at a price of $7 to $30 per barrel, bringing in monthly revenues of over $20 million. But how will these revenues be managed? Will armed groups hand them over to humanitarian organizations? Experience from civil conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq clearly shows that warlords are always keen on maximizing the amount of money they can put their hands on. It is therefore unlikely that militias and mercenaries will turn into benevolent humanitarian groups overnight. And what about al-Nusra Front, which publically declared its affiliation to al-Qaeda? Are the European countries prepared to turn a blind eye while the radical group makes millions of dollars from oil sales? One final question: Was the manner in which oil-related sanctions were lifted on Syria by the European countries, which are riddled with financial crises, a way for these countries to shirk their responsibilities vis-à-vis the humanitarian crisis in Syria? In that case, they are using a risky option that is fraught with trouble and obstacles. * Mr. Khadduri is a consultant for MEES Oil & Gas (MeesEnergy)
