From my POV, even the
perception of a sell-off and war profiteering
validates to more people than before that the US invasion of Iraq was not about
WMD, not about making the Middle East safe for democracy, not about the humanitarian
reasons to oppose a ruthless dictator, or even to protect Israel, but to
provide new markets for American economy,
reinvigorating the lagging manufacturing industry, including among many things,
John Deere tractors, generators, PVC pipe, electrical supplies, huge defense weaponry
reorders, tires, batteries, high tech battle gear, bottled water, duct tape
(!), cell phones and their hosts, hospital supplies, and last but not least,
frozen chickens and other US farm products.
Galloping Corporate Colonialism,
Batman! That’s what the Oregonian editorial called it, a giant national flea-market (see below). You
cannot truthfully call it a “new” Marshall Plan if the Iraqis are not
participating and rebuilding their own society and commercial prospects, or
even if contracts go to Jordanians, for example. You can brag all you want to about boys and girls back in
school and the work that NGOs have been doing under extreme hardship, but the Bush2
excessive cronyism, blatantly
advertised most recently by the new firm, New Bridge Strategies and others long established, mocks what
nation building is, if all we do is simply resupply and rebuild what we
destroyed and then decamp before the political fires burn too close to the
presidential election (what’s good for “bidness” is good for the old “red(states),
white and blue” of electoral politics.
By not allowing other nations to participate from the beginning and even
now, Bush2 exposes the US to much more than allegations of corporate greed.
Excerpt: “No doubt this will attract a rush of
opportunists and at least a near-term
infusion of cash that the Bush administration is having trouble
getting from foreign governments. It is far less certain, though, that this is
good policy either for Iraq or the United States.
Foreign control of basic industries -- transportation,
telecommunications, banking and financial services, electrical power, oil and
gas -- would threaten governmental independence, their very sovereignty, many
nations believe. These subjects also produce a politically volatile blend of concerns about national pride
and national security.
The United States isn't an exception. It restricts foreign
ownership of U.S. airlines and radio stations. France has a 20 percent
limitation on direct foreign investment for the mobile-communications sector.
Poland, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia and others have installed ownership
limits to make sure that decision-making for key industries isn't controlled in
foreign boardrooms or by other nations' politicians.
… Bremer's decision sets up the United States
government for another political black eye. It also sets
up the foreign investors to be on the wrong end of a future Iraqi government's
decision to take back control of companies in key industries.
It's not that Iraq would be best served by discouraging
foreign investment or continued nationalization of key industries. That approach has not served Iraqis
well, either. Nor has it been
especially successful elsewhere. It's
simply that this is a choice that an
independent state should make for itself. The United States should not
pre-empt it. (end of excerpts. My apologies to those of you who have seen
this from me already.)
War profiteering worked better in previous colonial ages with
different attitudes, before satellite television in remote villages and the
internet linking everyone in real time, but no more. Where was I reading earlier today that even among those
Iraqis who recognize and profess that the US is there trying to help them, that
the exaggerated promises and claims exploit the worst in human nature. At least when Kissinger secretly worked
to open up China under Nixon, the object may have been trade and balancing
political alliances, but we did not go to war to do it. – KWC
Harry Pollard:
<<Real people love the free market, and so they should.>>
Der Spiegel:
<<All of this affects chicken farmer Mohammed Hussein. In March, the 39-
year-old still employed a work force of about 70 people. Now only
four men pass the time of day in his shut-down slaughterhouse, where
hundreds of thousands of chickens were once processed. Hussein says
he has nothing against the market economy, but that he cannot hope to
compete against foreigners. He says that today it costs about a
thousand dollars to produce a ton of chicken meat in Iraq, while
frozen imported chicken from overseas can be had for only $480. "I
always believed that the only victims in this business were the
chickens," complains the poultry baron, "but now it's my turn
to be
slaughtered.">>
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4937.htm
Slaves of the
Foreigners
By BERNHARD ZAND
Der Spiegel 09-Oct-2003 (German news magazine)
By radically opening up the Iraqi economy, America wants to attract
international corporations to the banks of the Tigris. Iraqis are
concerned that their country is being sold out.
The early onset of darkness makes walking home from his office a
dangerous undertaking, but the Iraqi fall also brings the prospect of
excitement into Feisal al-Chudeiri's daily routine. The duck hunt
begins in the meadows along the Tigris in late October, and in
November al-Chudeiri and his friends plan to hunt buzzards in the
desert. The 38-year-old millionaire from Baghdad is not worried about
his personal future.
His family, one of the oldest in the land of two rivers, has seen the
Ottomans, the British and Saddam Hussein come and go. Since 1772, the
family has traded in dates, tea and spices, and in 1881 it founded
the first steamship company on the Euphrates River. "Things don't
throw us off track that easily," says the junior head of the Karady
Group, "but I doubt that this applies to the rest of the Iraqis."
Four sheets of paper
bearing the sober heading "Law on the Regulation
of Foreign Investment" sit on Chudeiri's desk. "The Americans have
already made quite a few mistakes in Iraq," he says gloomily, "but
this law is their biggest mistake so far. It has the effect of
dynamite."
Minister of Finance Kamil al-Kilani has promised that the law, only
recently put into force by US Administrator Paul Bremer, will
liberate Iraq from a planned economy, open the country to the global
market, bring technology to the Tigris, and create jobs.
In truth, the package of reforms promises foreign interests virtually
unlimited access to the country's most profitable industries.
Beginning next year, foreign nationals will be able to acquire full
ownership of local firms, and even a few banks, and it will be
possible to siphon off profits to other countries without
restrictions. Hundreds of former state-owned business will be open to
privatization, leaving only the oil and gas industry under government
control. Scrutiny of potential investors to assess their reliability
and capabilities, an absolute necessity during such changes to a
system, will not be required.
Foreign companies are
permitted to establish factories and local
subsidiaries, the taxes they pay are capped at 15 percent, and a 5
percent duty is charged on imports. In fact, they will not be liable
for payment of any taxes or duties until the end of the year. The
British business publication, The Economist, praised the new law for
fulfilling the "wish list of international investors," and called
Bremer's creation a "capitalist dream."
Iraqis, however, are incensed at what they fear is a sell-off of
their country. Powerful interest groups, previously at odds over the
country's future course, suddenly find themselves joining forces in a
common front opposing the economic reforms.
Foreign capital is welcome, concedes moderate Sheikh Sadr al-Din al-
Qubanji of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, but he
is also concerned about Iraq's loss of control over investors.
Radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr demands that the law be
repealed, "otherwise we will act."
The guidelines could
eliminate thousands of jobs, warns the Communist
Party of Iraq, a point with which capitalists like Walid Hafis, 51,
who owns one of the country's largest import and export companies,
wholeheartedly agree. Hafis warns that Iraqis could become "guest
workers in their own country," and "slaves of the foreigners."
It is already apparent that those who stand to benefit most from the
new regulations will be major American firms, corporations such as
oil industry outfitter Halliburton and construction conglomerate
Bechtel. These are firms that have already been awarded lucrative
contracts, in some cases without competitive bidding, because of
their close relationships with the Republicans currently in power in
Washington.
The obscure practices involved in the awarding of huge contracts have
also angered the Europeans, which explains their lukewarm reception
of Bremer's "great vision." The US administrator had asked for a
remake of the Marshall Plan, which America used to further the
reconstruction of a destroyed Europe after World War II. However,
there has been little international interest to date in helping what
is still a US-controlled Iraq get back on its feet.
Bremer has complained
that commitments so far have barely amounted to
1.5 billion dollars, while claiming that reconstruction will cost
between 50 and 75 billion. In contrast, the New York Times commented
that other countries' skepticism of the Bush administration's conduct
is not surprising: "The administration's practice of awarding
contracts to its friends as if they were gifts will only delay Iraq's
recovery, and with possibly catastrophic consequences."
Since early June, hand-picked businessmen such as Chudeiri and Hafis
had hurried to weekly economic meetings with Bremer in the former
Saddam Palace, and had even presented their own proposals for a more
gradual transition from the Baathists' planned economy to a liberal
system with Western characteristics. Models were discussed from the
European post-war years and from other Gulf states, where local
partners must hold at least a 51-percent share in all joint ventures.
But their efforts were in vain. The new law, says Hafis, came as a
shock to Baghdad's business elite. His fellow businessmen are worried
about the prospect of being flooded with funds flowing from Kuwait
and Saudi Arabia, and possibly even Israeli capital.
According to one
European diplomat in Baghdad, these concerns are
exaggerated. In his view, the security situation remains so
precarious that even expatriate Iraqis hesitate to invest in their
home country. Instead, he believes that trade in cheap imported goods
will continue to flourish, to the detriment of the Iraqi private
economy.
All of this affects chicken farmer Mohammed Hussein. In March, the 39-
year-old still employed a work force of about 70 people. Now only
four men pass the time of day in his shut-down slaughterhouse, where
hundreds of thousands of chickens were once processed. Hussein says
he has nothing against the market economy, but that he cannot hope to
compete against foreigners. He says that today it costs about a
thousand dollars to produce a ton of chicken meat in Iraq, while
frozen imported chicken from overseas can be had for only $480. "I
always believed that the only victims in this business were the
chickens," complains the poultry baron, "but now it's my turn to be
slaughtered."
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
