Well, that's about as succinct a presentation of the problem as I've seen so far. What have we got? A recipie for war-lord imperalism:
1. Destroy/ravage/immiserate/traumatize a country through bombing, economic sancations, and chemical warfare....to soften it up and make it a "reconstruction" candidate and helpless to resist that reconstruction.
2. "Reconstruct and liberate" the country and pay for it by appropriating all the wealth and natural resources of the country, which you then sell off to those who are willing to bet that Iraq can be reconstructed into a vast labor camp ...with lots of oil.
3. Lather, rinse and repeat in any country that has desired resources or desperate labor pool.
4. Laugh all the way to the bank.
Reasons for optimisim include:
1. That the arrogance of the Bush junta will prevent their reaching an understanding with potential looting associates.
2. That the Iraqi people will resort to a scorched earth policy and guerrilla warfare to prevent this from happening. (See "War and Peace.")
3. 1 & 2.
4. That this development does not indicate a triumphant capitalism, but a capitalism in its death throes. An empire that is morally, socially, and economically bankrupt. Empires do die because something in human nature either revolts or cannot thrive in this kind of environment.
We, on the left, are not supposed to use Hitler analogies lightly and I do not think I do so. But in essence, war-lord capitalism reminds me a lot of Hitler's idea of turning Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union into a vast labor camp. Or, if you prefer a more poetic metaphor, the situation with Iraq is like a man raping a woman and then asking her to pay for her rehabilitation so that she can continue to be serially raped. De Sade created similar scenarios in "Justine" and the "120 Days of Sodom"...
Joanna
Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
(Thanks to Richard H. for making me aware of this important article, which every socialist should read; I have excerpted the important bits and slightly edited it - JB)
This coming October 23 to 24, the United States will be sitting down with rich creditor countries, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) during an international donors' conference on Iraq in Madrid. The IMF, the World Bank and the UN have estimated that Iraq will need US$36 billion for reconstruction within the next four years, in addition to $19 billion for other nonmilitary needs calculated by the American occupation regime. [note this is in addition to expenditure of the US armed forces on the war - JB]. With few options left, the US will be passing the hat. This meeting could be a turning point in the occupation because whether the hat goes back to the US full or not will determine whether the US can afford to stay. The decision of donor countries to cough up cash will depend, in turn, on whether this continues to be a unilateral or multilateral economic takeover of an occupied country. (...)
A few weeks after President George W Bush announced the end of "major hostilities" in Iraq, the US managed to pass UN Resolution 1483, which created the so-called UN Development Fund. Under this fund, all of Iraq's past and future oil revenues, as well as all the assets of the former Iraqi government located anywhere in the world, would be placed under the direct control of the US, as overseen by the IMF and the World Bank - two institutions in which the US has considerable voting power. The resolution passed the UN Security Council, because the US assured Russia, France and China that all contracts entered into by their firms under the UN Oil-for-Food program during the sanctions regime would be honored by the occupation authority and any subsequent interim government.
The development fund is intended to finance the rehabilitation of all that's been damaged by the war. The choice of corporations to undertake this reconstruction, however, has so far been a question reserved exclusively for the US. And since most contracts are negotiated on a cost-plus basis, the price of the "reconstruction" is all up to the chosen contractor. In other words, what will be paid to Kellogg, Brown and Root to repair Iraq's oil fields and machinery, for example, will be financed out of Iraqi oil revenues at a price determined by Kellogg, Brown and Root itself. (...) the fund will be used for lending money to US companies wishing to do business in Iraq. Few risk-averse private banks will willingly give money to any investor applying for a loan to open business in war-torn Iraq. But with the development fund, there'd be lots of money for the daring, adventurous, or simply bargain-hunting types.
And in Iraq, there'd be lots of bargains around. The US handpicked Iraq Governing Council's (GC) Finance Minister, Kamel al-Kelani, announced on September 21 that all of Iraq's assets and state-owned corporations, except the oil industry, will be sold off. As sweeteners, the buyers will be entitled to 100 percent ownership of their purchase, full repatriation of profits, and minimal taxation. Given Iraq's present condition, the items on the bidding block will come very cheap. But in a few more years, what was bought at dirt-cheap prices - using the Iraqis' oil revenues - could then be sold for a nice profit. (...) . The use of the Iraqis' money to finance the massive privatization scheme of their economy means that the Iraqis themselves will be paying US corporations to buy off their own assets from them.
But Iraq's oil, though definitely plentiful, is not enough (...) Worse news is that even the multinational oil giants are keeping their distance. (...) the US is considering converting Iraq's expected future oil revenues into marketable securities that could be sold at discounted rates in the present (...) The Bush administration had just given its richest taxpayers $1.8 trillion in tax cuts, but it cannot afford to spend $20 billion on the people it has just liberated. (...) The trade deficit is now hitting the perilous 5 percent mark and still rising; the budget gap has been a quick turnaround from previous years' promise of uninterrupted surpluses way into the future. At $5 billion a month, the monthly cost of occupying Iraq, excluding reconstruction, is already approaching that of Vietnam. (...)
Republicans are convinced that the US has no obligations to Iraqis whatsoever and that any US funds used in reconstructing Iraq should be treated as loans, not grants. Should this be approved, and chances are high that it will, Iraqis will in effect be borrowing money from the US in order for them to pay back the US corporations that will be rebuilding almost everything in their country (...) Using money borrowed from the US, Iraqis will need to pay the very same corporations that would have had no business in Iraq if there were no war. (...) Having calculated the cost of war and occupation, Yale University economist William Nordhaus warned long before the war, "If American taxpayers decline to pay the bills for ensuring the long term health of Iraq, America may leave behind mountains of rubble and mobs of angry people."
(...) the US is now turning to the United Nations, the rich creditor nations and IFIs for a fast buck. (...) In a draft UN resolution (...) the US (...) "calls upon member states and concerned organizations to help meet the needs of the Iraqi people by providing resources necessary for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq's economic infrastructure". The same resolution even asks the UN to finance Iraq's electoral process. (...) This war was waged in order to give the Iraqis the gift of democracy, Bush said before. With this resolution, the US is now asking others to pay for its present. (...)
In Madrid, the US will be trying to woo countries which opposed the invasion as well IFIs like the World Bank, which has been boasting of its role in financing the reconstruction of conflict areas such as Mozambique, Uganda, East Timor and Palestine - and reaping profits in the form of interest payments in the process. In passing the hat, the US only needs to convince these countries and institutions that what they will be putting in will be money well spent. (...) As of early October, the European Union was reported to be thinking of giving only a measly $250 million to the pot. This is not even 1 percent of the required total (...) Canada, for its part, is willing to share $200 million. Only Japan has been reported to be willing to give a relatively hefty sum of $5 billion, and Japanese officials have been very frank about their reason: their reliance on Middle East oil. Still, when you add all these together, it's still quite a trifling sum compared to the required $36 billion.
All that could change, however, with a simple assurance. "You have to offer them a piece of the cake," advised the French politician and former UN special representative to Kosovo Bernard Kouchner. With over $100 billion dollars or more at stake - said to be one of the most profitable building programs in decades, there will be a big cake to pass around. (...) the potential donors will only be signing checks in Madrid as long as their corporations are assured of getting [invitations to take part in the multi-billion dollar post-war reconstruction bonanza] during the slicing of the cake. (...) creditor nations will insist on a good bang for their buck. The meeting in Madrid will not be a charity ball. (...)
The Madrid meeting is an effort by the US to transfer the burden of Iraq from the Americans to, say, French, Japanese and German taxpayers. Borrowing from the IMF and the World Bank on behalf of the Iraqi people will pass the liability to future Iraqi generations, who will then be indebted to the IFIs and subjected to their conditions. For the burden they'll bear, others will be reaping the profits. (...) Whether the US would still consider it financially worthwhile to continue occupying Iraq thus depends on the following: how quickly Iraq's oil wells can rake in cash, the US taxpayers' willingness to part with their money, and the readiness of the donor countries to infuse funds. (...) But the possibility of getting billions from donors, in turn, appears to be solely dependent on whether the US will lock its firm grip on the business opportunities in Iraq, or relax it. The question before Madrid, then, is whether this will continue to be a unilateral corporate takeover or a multilateral one. (...) the question in Madrid will also be whether the world's taxpayers would be willing - in the face of the liberators' reluctance - to finance this multilateral corporate invasion. (...) the drive for money is now the only thing getting this occupation going. (...)
Herbert Docena is with Focus on the Global South, a research and advocacy organization based in Bangkok . He can be contacted at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ10Ak01.html
