France became the major source of Iraq's high-tech weaponry, in no small part to protect its financial stake in that country.[2] The Soviet Union was Iraq's largest weapon's supplier, while jockeying for influence in both capitals. Israel provided arms to Iran, hoping to bleed the combatants by prolonging the war. And at least ten nations sold arms to both of the warring sides.[3]
The list of countries engaging in despicable behavior, however, would be incomplete without the United States."
The site essentially argues that the US was involved in selling weapons (to both sides) due to its oil interests. It also says that the US provided Hussein with the chemical weapons that he used against Iran and later, his own people. In fact, it says we provided them regularly, even as we were at the UN renegating the Iraqis for using chemical weapons against Iran!
Many questions here: 1)Is there any other reason why the US was involved in helping both sides destroy each other than oil? I don't understand how selling weapons to BOTH SIDES helped anything or anyone, even a goal as amoral as oil. I can't understand the logic of the government in this case.
2)Is it undenyably true that the US government sold chemical weapons to Iraq? Why on earth would we do that? "Oil" doesn't seem like a reasonable explanation for doing something so disgusting.
3)Why would we sell chemical weapons to ANYONE? Aren't they illegal? ************************************************************ 11-07-04, 06:44 AM cyberlaol well no one has replied-perhaps I should be a sort of Devil's Advocate and start the ball rolling?? Big Grin
I have a theory that the U.S. does what it does for money and let's face it-2 unstable countries end up destroying each other to leave room for western countries to come in and promote the glories of democracy Roll Eyes ************************************************************ 11-07-04, 01:23 PM DorianGreyed Sarai, you have to remember that Saddam was a favored son, so to speak, of the US in the region; we liked him because he represented a democracy in an area that we felt didn't have one. He was also fighting Iran, who we wanted to punish for overthrowing the Shah, who we had spent billions to prop up. (Of course the Shah was a hereditary monarch, who we helped put back on the throne after his people revolted in the early 50s. But he was our hereditary monarch, much like the Sauds today, although I am not sure who is leading whom in today's arrangement.) Now, since we were helping Iraq, we had to be careful so as not to help them too much, lest things get out of balance, so we kept things somewhat even by helping Iran. This allowed the war to go on much longer, and made our presence in the area necessary, which is what we wanted in the first place. One big reason we needed to be there was to keep the Russians out, because if they got in, Communism would sweep the region, just as it did in Southeast Asia. If Communism takes hold in the Near East, pretty soon it will be in Florida, so we had to stop it.
Yes, we sold chemical weapons to Iraq, but that is OK because they said they would only use them on the Iranians, who don't count, because they a) revolted against the Shah, b) have a theocratic government, which is not right unless it is a Christian theocracy, and c) took US citizens hostage. The fact that Iraq used then chemical weapons on the Kurds is also OK because no one likes the Kurds anyway, no one wants them in their own country (cf. Jews and Palestinians), and they don't have their own country, so we don't have to worry about them. However, once Saddam decided that he could be more than just a tin-pot dictator, we had to tell the Kurds to rise up against him and that we would help them, thus getting rid of a menace with chemical weapons. (The fact that we didn't help them is of no matter. We are still the US, and we still keep our word.) You have to understand that there are two kinds of chemical weapons; good ones and bad ones. Good ones are the ones the US has and shares with friends, who can only use them if we feel it is OK. Bad ones are the ones that are used against our wishes. Only evil people have the bad weapons, and they must be stopped at all costs, lest war break out, and the use of the bad weapons spreads. Once possession or knowledge of production techniques of bad weapons spreads, then anyone could have them, and use them. That is why the US only shares them with people we can trust, otherwise, any groups with a cause could get them, and use them. We can't have that. Essentially, this has been the US foreign policy for over 50 years, and it seems to work well. I haven't noticed any problems, have you? ************************************************************ 11-07-04, 01:32 PM DorianGreyed I forgot to answer your last question. Yes, chemical weapons are illegal, but only the bad ones. Besides, chemical weapons are only illegal under the Geneva Convention and certain UN regulations. Those are not binding on the US unless convenient. ************************************************************ 11-08-04, 03:17 PM Sarai Mozart: I can't imagine that the sale of chemical weapons was significant enough in monetary terms to be worth breaking international law over. There had to have been a different motive.
Dorian: Your tongue-in-cheek writing is cute, but it doesn't really explain anything. ************************************************************ 11-08-04, 04:50 PM FredPuli Why would the US worry about breaking international law, Sarai? What sanctions do you suppose the rest of the world could possibly use against the US ? ************************************************************ 11-08-04, 05:00 PM Sarai True, Fred-
But there is a difference between going against the United Nations because it is wrong (as many Americans believe was the case in Iraq), and breaking an international law against which I can think of no moral or political argument. Even if we throw out international law all together, however, I still can't see a reasonable motive for having sold the chemical weapons to Iraq. It seems clearly immoral, especially considering the fact that we stood with the UN shoulder to shoulder when they were speaking out against Iraq for using such weapons. There must have been some motive (or else somehow the information about our having sold the weapons is skewed). What was it? ************************************************************ 11-08-04, 07:41 PM AMoore
quote:Originally posted by FredPuli: Why would the US worry about breaking international law, Sarai? What sanctions do you suppose the rest of the world could possibly use against the US ?
The EU effectively used the threat of trade sanctions to modify Bush's position on subsidies for US steel producers not long ago. Sometimes you've actually had to apply the sanctions. Usually, they've been effective.
Alan Moore ************************************************************ 11-08-04, 09:11 PM DorianGreyed "Dorian: Your tongue-in-cheek writing is cute, but it doesn't really explain anything." - Sarai
We disagree. Just because it is humorous doesn't mean that it doesn't represent our policies, and it did answer your questions. ************************************************************ 11-08-04, 09:24 PM CincyOnTheRoad We've all heard that Middle Easterners hate us because we're free...they hate our freedoms. I do agree, there is some truth to that in some cases.
But look at the Iran-Iraq War. We sold weapons to Iraq overtly, and to Iran covertly (not to mention the F-4s and F-14s that they had left over from the days of the Shah). To the average Muslim on the street in the Middle East, the US was playing both sides like pawns. There were millions made in weapons sales, and hundreds of thousands of Muslims dying on each side of the trenches. Of course, our foreign policies never add fuel to the fire, though. Roll Eyes ************************************************************ 11-09-04, 12:18 AM FredPuli " Middle Easterners hate us because we are free" What does that mean, Cincy? That people hate the United States because it has free elections and democracy and they haven't? If that's what it means , and Americans believe it, then the rest of us can despair of the US ever understanding either terrorism or that region.
What 'logic' is it that any 'Middle Easterner' should want Americans dead because they can choose their leader and he can't ? It would make more sense for him to start an uprising, kill his leaders and install a government that is chosen by the people, wouldn't it? ************************************************************ 11-09-04, 11:15 AM Sarai Dorian, I didn't realize we disagreed. I honestly thought you were joking. What I heard from your answer was basically that we sold chemical weapons to Iraq for no reason at all (according to your post, "we" don't care about Kurds and therefore it makes sense to you that "we" wouldn't mind being responsible for their terrible death, and "we" sold nerve gas to the Iraqis to use against Iranians for what goal.. laughs?). I can't see any logic behind that, so I thought you were joking. I didn't think it very funny (hence my curt reply), but I didn't realize that you seriously believe that.
In addition, you wrote that we only sell weapons to people we trust (your "good guys" argument). To me, this makes even less sense. What possible reason did we have, even in the 1980s, to trust Saddam Hussein? We may have thought him relatively harmless, but it isn't as if he were ever a major ally. So again, I thought you were joking. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
We do disagree, apparently. I tend to think that human nature is good and rational - when we commit crimes and act immorally, we twist logic around until we make something that is really irrational sound rational, thus justifying our own actions to ourselves. I can understand the actions of many great villains throughout history (without agreeing with them), but I can't understand the actions of the US government based on your answer. Your understanding of our government doesn't seem to have any logic - not even a twisted logic. It doesn't even sound like an action that was done in our own selfish interests. How did we benefit from selling these weapons to the Iraqis? As I understand your argument, we didn't benefit particularly, but we didn't care, because we were angry with Iranian leadership, and didn't care about the Kurds. It was just for kicks, or something.
It seems that you understand our government as it has existed for "the past 50 years" to be completely insane? ************************************************************ 11-09-04, 01:57 PM DorianGreyed You make some jumps in reasoning there, Sarai. Just because you do not see that getting back at Iran was a goal, you say that the US didn't acheive any goals by selling chemical weapons to Iraq. I pointed out that a) we 'got back' at Iran, a concept very important to many Americans, and b) we could then justify our presence in the area by saying we were needed to stabilize the area. You dismiss those, and claim that, since my explaination does not show the US to be logical, I don't make sense. Don't blame the reporter for a story about a disaster. Further, you take my comments on US foreign policy and extend it to mean all of the government. "It seems that you understand our government as it has existed for "the past 50 years" to be completely insane?" Not only did I state that I was talking about foreign policy, but foreign policy was all that I discussed. I make no claims to be Jonathon Swift, but it is the job of the reader to understand as well as the writer to explain, regardless of the medium used to explain. You seem to expect there to be logic in US foreign policy, logic from a policy that chose Mihailovich over Tito, chose the French over Ho Chi Minh, chose Chiang Kai-shek over Mao, chose the Shah over his people, chose various dictators in South America over the will of the citizenry, freed all the jailed Mafia figures in Italy during WWII, allowed another Mafia figure who we deported to Italy to serve a liason to the locals and put him in a position to run the black market there(selling US goods stolen from the US Army's warehouses), and wanted to put a chemical in Castro's cigars to make his beard fall out, thus emasculating him, because we preferred the corrupt Batista instead. If you expect to find logic in any of that, it is no wonder that you have so many questions. ************************************************************ 11-09-04, 01:58 PM Sarai Does anyone know how much money was made from the sale of chemical weapons to Iraq?
Was the US the only country that sold them to Iraq?
EDIT: Dorian- it looks like we posted at the same time. I posted this before I saw your response. I'll reply to yours in a bit, when I have the chance. Smile ************************************************************ 11-09-04, 02:18 PM Sarai
quote:Further, you take my comments on US foreign policy and extend it to mean all of the government. "It seems that you understand our government as it has existed for "the past 50 years" to be completely insane?"
Okay, so then you understand our foreign policy makers (who happen to have been leaders in our government) for the past 50 years to be completely insane. Smile
quote:You seem to expect there to be logic in US foreign policy, logic from a policy that chose Mihailovich over Tito, chose the French over Ho Chi Minh, chose Chiang Kai-shek over Mao, chose the Shah over his people, chose various dictators in South America over the will of the citizenry, freed all the jailed Mafia figures in Italy during WWII, allowed another Mafia figure _who we deported to Italy_ to serve a liason to the locals and put him in a position to run the black market there(selling US goods stolen from the US Army's warehouses), and wanted to put a chemical in Castro's cigars to make his beard fall out, thus emasculating him, because we preferred the corrupt Batista instead. If you expect to find logic in any of that, it is no wonder that you have so many questions.
It appears, then, that you believe that our government makes many of its foreign policy decisions with no logic or thought whatsoever (eenie meenie minee moe?...).
Well, in my book you wouldn't make a very good history teacher (Q. Why did the Romans fight Carthage, teacher? A. Oh, no reason, they just felt like it), but I guess the "catch a tiger by his toe" theory is as valid a hypothesis as any. Big Grin
quote:I pointed out that a) we 'got back' at Iran, a concept very important to many Americans, and b) we could then justify our presence in the area by saying we were needed to stabilize the area.
Now HERE is a real possibility that we can actually discuss. This one has potential as a real answer, and makes sense as a possible answer to the idea of selling conventional weapons to Iraq, and to selling them to both sides during the war. I don't understand why chemical weapons would be necessary to accomplish these goals, however. ************************************************************ 11-09-04, 03:44 PM clarebear Sarai
One reason we sold arms to Iran was in exchange for our hostages.
Don't you remember the Iran- Contra Scandal? While it may not have been right, Reagan did what he thought he needed to do.
It is possible that chemical weapons have been exchanged for the same reason. ************************************************************ 11-09-04, 04:07 PM DorianGreyed Contrary to current thinking, it is not always the teacher's fault if the student fails to learn. Carthago delenda est. ************************************************************ 11-09-04, 04:56 PM Sarai Clarebare- Great point. And of course, that goes a long way toward explaining the sale of weapons to both sides. Since we sold chemical weapons to Iraq, not Iran, however, chemical weapons don't appear to have any relation to the Iran-Contra affair. Hmm. ************************************************************ 11-09-04, 05:05 PM Sarai Kwll, if you're out there, I'd like to hear your input as a person who understands military strategy. Why do you think the US sold chemical weapons to Iraq? ************************************************************ 11-09-04, 09:26 PM AMoore
quote:Originally posted by Sarai: Kwll, if you're out there, I'd like to hear your input as a person who understands military strategy. Why do you think the US sold chemical weapons to Iraq?
Probably for the same reason that the man who said "All terrorists everywhere are the enemy" is now protecting the Mujahideen-e-khalq.
Public pronouncements to the contrary, any examination of US foreign policy for the last couple of centuries will show that morality of any sort plays an insignificant role in the formulation or execution of policy. Even law is commonly disregarded. So far as I know, the US is not unique in this regard, of course...
Alan Moore ************************************************************ 11-10-04, 03:31 AM FredPuli Sarai the word is not 'insane'. The word is 'expedient' or 'pragmatic', depending. The U.S. is no different from any other country. All countries try to arrange matters to their own best advantage. If that means backing one crook or dictator one minute and abandoning him the next or playing two sides against one another so be it.It may look insane if it is judged as though it were of private matters or private morals, in that most of us, in our private lives, neither think nor behave that way. We are not talking either of private morals or private honour here though, just naked self interest of the nation (clothed as best it can be ).
Of course, some countries are much better at this game than others. You may not think that the US is very good at it and some, we may assume, would say it is, but that's another question. ************************************************************ 11-10-04, 11:14 AM Sarai Fred and Alan - Thanks for your responses. I recognize perfectly well that nations work for their own advantage and try to do what is expedient. I also recognize that morality is not the top priority in the minds of foreign policy makers in many corners of the world, unfortunately. Very unfortunately, actually.
The purpose of my question was to understand the *logic* behind selling chemical weapons. I still don't understand how this was in our best interests or even expedient. It just doesn't make any sense. That's why I responded to Dorian's response by saying his explanation made our government sound insane - because I still can't see any real logic behind the decision. Dorian's explanation doesn't strike me as expedient or pragmatic, which is why I still don't feel my question has been answered.
I think this is where Dorian and I had our misunderstanding. By looking for a reason, I'm not necessarily looking for a reason to believe we were right. While I would love to hear a justification, I don't expect one. Our history, like that of many countries, is full of unjustifiable acts. I do expect to hear a reason, however. Just as I don't think dropping the Atom Bomb on Japan was justified, but I do believe that there was a reason behind the decision. It wasn't just for fun, and it wasn't just to "get back" at the Japanese. Was Truman right? Not in my opinion - he was terribly wrong. But he did have his reasons.
So in this case, what is the reason? How can selling chemical weapons to any sketchy ally be expedient or in our best interests? ************************************************************ 11-10-04, 01:19 PM FredPuli For the reasons given by DG, Sarai. After all, Saddam was not going to use the weapons against the USA, was he ? There is nothing special about chemical weaponry in these circumstances. He did not have any means of delivering chemical weapons beyond local engagement ************************************************************ 12-20-04, 08:07 AM Kwll Sarai, I will take a stab at answering your questions but but is not one that I find justifiable if my conclusions are correct. In the first place I could not find a credible site that stated that the US did actually sell chemical weapons to Iraq. Yes, this is illegal and should not have been done if it had been done. Since there are a number of sites that do claim this for the sake of argument I will treat the question as though it did happen.
1)Is there any other reason why the US was involved in helping both sides destroy each other than oil? I don't understand how selling weapons to BOTH SIDES helped anything or anyone, even a goal as amoral as oil. I can't understand the logic of the government in this case.
On this one the US stopped selling weapons to Iran once the Ayatollah took power from a "national policy" stance. Iraq was then armed from the US to thwart a threat from Iran becoming a fundamentalist power in the region. Certainly from a strategic level the US had to worry about IRan becoming a threat to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and eventually Israel. Any threat to the oil supply is seen as a threat to America's interests. Many people have it wrong when they flippantly say "its about oil" however. Sure it is about oil in a sense but not that it is theft of oil or any other such nonsense but is from an economic security standpoint. Without a strong economy, a strong military cannot last. At any rate the US sold weapons to Iran but from a different department sub-level. Some subordinates during Iran-Contra thought this would be a good way to make money for another insurgency that was not authorized at higher levels. Because some did this it does not imply that it was national policy. The items sold were TOW missiles (anti tank) and HAWK missiles (anti-air)both of which are defensive weapons. If the strategy was to produce a stalemate where Iran could be rendered impotent then so much the better. If Iraq would grind to a stalemate this would also imply "stability". This represents a "win" for the US.
2)Is it undeniably true that the US government sold chemical weapons to Iraq? Why on earth would we do that? "Oil" doesn't seem like a reasonable explanation for doing something so disgusting.
Don't know if it is true. I have seen some reports that Biological agents were sold as well but don't know what is credible. During the war Iran appeared as though it was gaining the upper hand. From a purely tactical point of view chemical weapons could grind down an offensive to a stop. If this was done and was the reason it is clearly illegal and immoral.
3)Why would we sell chemical weapons to ANYONE? Aren't they illegal?
See my answer to #2. ************************************************************ 12-20-04, 10:11 AM DorianGreyed "Many people have it wrong when they flippantly say "its about oil" however. Sure it is about oil in a sense but not that it is theft of oil or any other such nonsense but is from an economic security standpoint." - Kwll
You have to love this. It's like the teacher who won't give you credit for the right answers on a test because you didn't show your work, ignoring the fact that all your answers were somehow correct. It is about oil. If one wants to argue the definition of what "is" is, one should feel free; I didn't buy that line when I first heard it, and don't now. Most of the people that I have talked to understand the reasons why it is about oil, and don't bother to explain about economic stability. We also don't explain about how the internal combustion works, but that doesn't mean that we don't understand the concept. The fact that US companies will be behind the scenes when all the smoke clears is just a bonus, albeit one we expected.
"Is it undenyably true that the US government sold chemical weapons to Iraq? Why on earth would we do that? "Oil" doesn't seem like a reasonable explanation for doing something so disgusting." - Sarai
"...I could not find a credible site that stated that the US did actually sell chemical weapons to Iraq." - Kwll
I Googled the following: "chemical weapons" + Iraq + "US sold". Below are quotes from some of the sources that showed up.
"Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs Ð which oversees American exports policy Ð reveal that the US, under the successiveÊadministrationsÊof Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr,ÊsoldÊmaterialsÊincluding anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis,ÊwhichÊ damagesÊmajorÊorgans,Êand clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. "TheÊSenateÊcommittee'sÊrep orts on ÒUS Chemical and BiologicalÊWarfare-Related Dual-UseÊExportsÊtoÊIraqÓ, undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date andÊdestinationÊofÊallÊUS exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches ofÊbacillusÊanthracisÊÐÊtheÊmicro-organismÊthatÊcauses anthrax Ð were shipped to the IraqiÊMinistryÊofÊHigher Education,ÊalongÊwithÊtwo batchesÊofÊtheÊbacterium clostridiumÊbotulinum,Êthe agentÊthatÊcausesÊdeadly botulism poisoning.
One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at theÊUniversityÊofÊBasrahÊin November 1989; the Department ofÊMicrobiologyÊatÊBaghdad UniversityÊinÊJuneÊ1985;Êthe Ministry of Health in April 1985 andÊOfficers'ÊCity,ÊaÊmilitary complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986." - sundayherald.com
"According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:
* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.
* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance." US Companies Sold Iraq Billions Of NBC Weapons Materials By William Blum The Progressive Magazine http://www.progressive.org April 1998 Issue 3-26-2 - indybay.org/news
"US officials authorized American companies (like Dow Jones) to sell Iraq compounds that were known tobe used to produce Anthrax." - Princeton.edu
------------------------------------------- Below are finding from other searches.
BURYING UNCOMFORTABLE NEWS ON IRAQ
by Michael Griffin Media Studies Macalester College, St. Paul, Minnesota
POSTED OCTOBER 31, 2002 --
In early September, British newspapers, including the Sunday Herald of Glasgow, printed information from reports by the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, which oversees American exports policy, and from U.S. Department of Defense documents that confirmed U.S. and British sales of chemical and biological weapons agents to Iraq during the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr. These U.S. Government records reveal that the U.S. sold materials, including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs, and botulism (among other biological agents) right up until March of 1992, after the end of the Gulf War. - cursor.org
(This is the Senate Report that all the above refer to. Below taken from the report.)
In October 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which has Senate oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act (EAA), held an Inquiry into the U.S. export policy to Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf War. During that hearing it was learned that UN inspectors identified many U.S.- manufactured items exported pursuant to licenses issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce that were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs.
FINDINGS:
2. Iraq had an offensive biological weapons program with:
multiple research production facilities; evidence of weaponization experimentation; and, a history of reported but unconfirmed use. 3. The United States provided the Government of Iraq with "dual use" licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological, and missile-system programs, including:[8]
chemical warfare agent precursors; chemical warfare agent production facility plans and technical drawings (provided as pesticide production facility plans); chemical warhead filling equipment; biological warfare related materials; missile fabrication equipment; and, missile-system guidance equipment
[8] See "United States Export Policy Toward Iraq Prior to Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait," Senate Report 102-996, Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, 102d Congress, Second Session (October 27, 1992). ************************************************************ 12-21-04, 07:55 AM Kwll DG, thankyou so much for clarifying the role of oil in the Middle East. I don't know how I could have possibly missed the evidence since I've been wasting my time looking for lower oil rates per barrel and lower prices at the pump that have recently hit their highest prices ever. I must have been wrong in looking at a recent increase in oil company profit margins that haven't manifested. At least OPEC has little to gain from any of this.
I would also like to thank you for retraining me on the application of Google. I am sure Sarai being the experienced Answerpoolian that she is would have never thought of doing that whilst looking for "credible" evidence and I must admit that I was only looking for concrete evidence not allusion. But you certainly helped my efforts. I never would have thought that dual use equipment was the same thing as supplying actual chemical weapons, or that precursors couldn't be used for pesticides and the like. Must really not be a difference between weaponized versions and other versions then.
But that's ok, I simply responded to this thread because Sarai asked what I thought and I wanted to fulfill a commitment. You are more than welcome to rebuke, rebut, and respond to this comment in any way you like because I will not again. I am grateful that you have shown me the error of my ways and that only one point of view is sufficient in here. Also since you so obviously have all the answers yours should be the one that prevails. My apologies to all those whose time I have wasted but I shall not waste anymore of it for me nor for you. This will be my last post and you may retire my account. Read what you want into this as I am sure you will, I just see little value in continuing. I bear none ill will nor malice and hope all of you continue to have a prosperous life in this season of goodwill.
"Chaos promises endless possibilities yet returns endless uniformity at the basest plane." ************************************************************ 12-21-04, 10:05 AM newnickname
quote:...not that it is theft of oil or any other such nonsense...
Actually, it came pretty close to being theft - although not of oil, which was obviously a special case. In the immediate aftermath of 'Major Combat Operations' in Iraq, before the insurgency got under way, Paul Bremer opened up Iraq for foriegn investment, with hardly any restriction:
“…[Paul Bremer] flung open the country’s borders to absolutely unrestricted imports: no tariffs, no duties, no inspections, no taxes. Iraq, Bremer declared two weeks after he arrived, was “open for business.” One month later, Bremer unveiled the centerpiece of his reforms. Before the invasion, Iraq’s non-oil-related economy had been dominated by 200 state-owned companies, which produced everything from cement to paper to washing machines. In June, Bremer flew to an economic summit in Jordan and announced that these firms would be privatized immediately. “Getting inefficient state enterprises into private hands,” he said, “is essential for Iraq’s economic recovery.” It would be the largest state liquidation sale since the collapse of the Soviet Union. But Bremer’s economic engineering had only just begun. In September, to entice foreign investors to come to Iraq, he enacted a radical set of laws unprecedented in their generosity to multinational corporations. There was Order 37, which lowered Iraq’s corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to a flat 15 percent. There was Order 39, which allowed foreign companies to own 100 percent of Iraqi assets outside of the natural-resource sector. Even better, investors could take 100 percent of the profits they made in Iraq out of the country; they would not be required to reinvest and they would not be taxed. Under Order 39, they could sign leases and contracts that would last for forty years…"
The problem was that Bremer had no legal authority to do this:
"When Paul Bremer shredded Iraq’s Baathist constitution and replaced it with what The Economist greeted approvingly as “the wish list of foreign investors,” there was one small detail he failed to mention: It was all completely illegal. The CPA [Coalition Provisional Authority] derived its legal authority from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483, passed in May 2003, which recognized the United States and Britain as Iraq’s legitimate occupiers. It was this resolution that empowered Bremer to unilaterally make laws in Iraq. But the resolution also stated that the U.S. and Britain must “comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907.” Both conventions were born as an attempt to curtail the unfortunate historical tendency among occupying powers to rewrite the rules so that they can economically strip the nations they control. With this in mind, the conventions stipulate that an occupier must abide by a country’s existing laws unless “absolutely prevented” from doing so. They also state that an occupier does not own the “public buildings, real estate, forests and agricultural assets” of the country it is occupying but is rather their “administrator” and custodian, keeping them secure until sovereignty is reestablished. This was the true threat to the Year Zero plan [i.e. the plan for a radically Friedmanite economy in Iraq]: since America didn’t own Iraq’s assets, it could not legally sell them, which meant that after the occupation ended, an Iraqi government could come to power and decide that it wanted to keep the state companies in public hands, or, as is the norm in the Gulf region, to bar foreign firms from owning 100 percent of national assets. If that happened, investments made under Bremer’s rules could be expropriated, leaving firms with no recourse because their investments had violated international law from the outset. By November, trade lawyers started to advise their corporate clients not to go into Iraq just yet, that it would be better to wait until after the transition. Insurance companies were so spooked that not a single one of the big firms would insure investors for “political risk,” that high-stakes area of insurance law that protects companies against foreign governments turning nationalist or socialist and expropriating their investments."www.harpers.org It wasn't that the Bush administration didn't want to steal Iraq's assets; it's just that they couldn't fence the goods. ************************************************************ 12-21-04, 08:43 PM AMoore
quote:Originally posted by newnickname: - snip -
It wasn't that the Bush administration didn't want to steal Iraq's assets; it's just that they couldn't fence the goods.
Well put. You need to add the word "yet" however. They're still trying.
Alan Moore ************************************************************ 12-21-04, 08:51 PM Sarai Kwll- thanks for your response. I'm sorry to hear that you've decided to leave AP, but I understand it - if at some point you change your mind, you are always welcome! I've learned a lot from you over the years. Take care and have a very merry Christmas. ************************************************************ 12-21-04, 10:25 PM jusork Retire your account?? But what if you have a question?
I'm always sad to see people leave. Frown I didn't really know you, but I agree with Sarai's you're always welcome here.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 2241 | Location: In between | Registered: 06-03-02
