As I recall, there were a number of reasons. When this issue was discussed under Paul Bremmer's Provisional Coalition Authority last year in connection with a series of decrees governing the deregulation of the economy and foreign trade, it was decided to "shelve" the issue of privatizing the Iraq National Oil Company for political reasons, ie. it would reinforce the perception of the Iraqi masses that the US invaded to get its hands on the country's oil. There was also of course the military issue, securing the oilfields against sabotage by insurgents. There was an intertwined economic and diplomatic one: the US oil companies also wanted to develop the fields in conjunction with French, Russian, and other oil companies, who already had concessions in Iraq and knew the terrain, but this awaited a diplomatic solution to the differences between these countries and the US, which in turn revolved around forgiveness of Iraq's foreign debt. And finally there were the legal niceties: various international legal conventions forbade an occupying power from fundamentally altering the economic landscape and plundering the nation's resources. So it was decided to wait until elections were held, a new Iraqi government installed, a constitution drafted, and the country stablized for foreign investment.
So I think it's more appropriate to say the multinationals are against privatizing Iraqi oil - for now.
MG
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 11:42 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Cambodia and Unions
I don't see why you say the oil companies were against privatizing Iraqi oil<
I was only citing what Palast said.
-- Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
