Modern day pillage

[Supreme_Warlord]

Spoils of war

US plans to sell off Iraqi businesses are simply the modern equivalent of pillage, says Brian Whitaker

Monday October 13, 2003

For centuries, pillage by invading armies was a normal part of warfare: a way in which to reward badly-paid or unpaid troops for risking their lives in battle.

Nowadays, at least in more civilised countries, we do not let armies rampage for booty. We leave the pillaging to men in suits, and we don't call it pillaging any more. We call it economic development.

Today, the men in suits are gathering at Olympia, in London, for a two-day conference and exhibition entitled Doing Business in Iraq. Protesters will be gathering outside.

The event, which is sponsored by the US-Iraq business council, is one of a series being held in different parts of the world over the coming 12 months (another will take place in Moscow in December), culminating in a grand spoils of war exhibition in Baghdad towards the end of next year.

According to the organisers, speakers at the London conference will include several US government officials as well as a representative from Trade Partners UK, the British government's export promotion department.

This fits in neatly with plans announced in June by Paul Bremer, the head of Iraq's provisional authority, to sell off the country's state-owned industries (excluding, for the time being, oil, gas and minerals) and turn it into a US-style capitalist wonderland.

Last month, Mr Bremer issued CPA order number 39, giving foreign investors unrestricted rights to establish businesses in Iraq and/or buy up Iraqi companies.

The order also allows foreign investors to repatriate profits, dividends, interest and royalties immediately and in full. In other words, they can make a fast buck if they want to, without putting anything back.

While few would disagree that Iraq's industry needs modernisation and restructuring, two questions arise: has Mr Bremer the legal powers to do this, and is he going about it in the right way?

He has already acknowledged that his plans will create large-scale unemployment, at least in the short term. His earlier decision to disband the Iraqi army exacerbated the country's fragile security situation by leaving several hundred thousand disgruntled ex-soldiers with nothing better to do than cause trouble.

That is now widely regarded as a major blunder, and Mr Bremer now seems intent on repeating the exercise with the civilian population. According to the UN, the current level of unemployment in Iraq is around 50-60%: the last thing the country needs is more job losses.

Mr Bremer shows little interest in drawing lessons from the problems caused by economic "shock therapy" reforms in the former Soviet Union, and in Iraq - with the added factor of military occupation - this can only fuel hostility towards the US.

His order number 39 is also, almost certainly, illegal. The Hague regulations of 1907 spell out the obligations of an occupying power under international law.

Article 43 says that, when occupying forces take over a country, they must "ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country".

This means that Mr Bremer is not allowed to change Iraq's existing laws, including those that govern investment, unless it is "absolutely" essential to do so.

Article 55 says that an occupying power is only the "administrator and usufructuary" of state property. "It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct," it adds.

Mr Bremer, therefore, appears to have no right to sell off nationalised industries.

In the House of Lords last week, Baroness Williams of Crosby tried to ascertain the British government's view of Mr Bremer's approach. She asked whether the government "regard current policies in Iraq to be consistent with the legal advice the prime minister received from the attorney general".

She received the unilluminating reply that "it has been the practice of successive governments not to publish advice from the attorney general".

Fortunately, however, we already have a good idea of what the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, thinks about the matter. A memo that he wrote to the prime minister, Tony Blair, on March 26, a week after the invasion of Iraq began, was leaked to the press some time ago.

"My view," the attorney general wrote, "is that a further security council resolution is needed to authorise imposing reform and restructuring of Iraq and its government.

"In the absence of a further resolution, the UK (and US) would be bound by the provisions of international law governing belligerent occupation, notably the fourth Geneva gonvention and the 1907 Hague regulations."

He went on to note that the Hague regulations impose an obligation to respect the laws in force in the occupied territory "unless absolutely prevented".

"Thus, while some changes to the legislative and administrative structures of Iraq may be permissible if they are necessary for security or public order reasons, or in order to further humanitarian objectives," he said, "more wide-ranging reforms of governmental and administrative structures would not be lawful."

The restrictions imposed by the Hague regulations, as the attorney general suggested, can only be over-ridden by a UN security council resolution.

Interestingly, the preamble of Mr Bremer's Order No 39 claims just such backing. It states that the order is "consistent" with security council resolution 1483, approved last May, which lifted sanctions against Iraq.

But although the resolution talks vaguely (in paragraph 8e) about "promoting economic reconstruction and the conditions for sustainable development", there is nothing in it that can sensibly be construed as giving Mr Bremer permission to make sweeping changes to the investment law. Indeed, paragraph five calls upon "all concerned to comply fully" with the Hague Regulations.

The legality - or otherwise - of Mr Bremer's order is unlikely to trouble the Bush administration, although future US administrations may have to grapple with the consequences arising from it.

The prevailing view in Washington was set out with astonishing bluntness four years ago by John Bolton, now chief hawk at the state department, when he said: "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law, even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so - because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the US."

Whether the British government, which tends to be more squeamish about such matters, agrees with this is still unclear, though the presence of its official from Trade Partners UK at the investment conference in London suggests that it does.

The US, however, has made no bones about its intentions, regardless of what the Hague regulations say, to make as many structural changes as possible in Iraq while it has the chance.

Its hope, of course, is that these will have gone too far to be undone once a proper Iraqi government takes over. On the other hand, the changes may go so far that a future Iraqi government feels obliged to overturn them in order to establish its popular credentials.

In that case, the invasion - with its phoney goals of removing Saddam Hussein and disarming him of weapons that he didn't possess - may be just a prelude to the real battle for Iraq yet to come.

Link to original

[theski]

Article wrote:

In that case, the invasion - with its phoney goals of removing Saddam Hussein and disarming him of weapons that he didn't possess - may be just a prelude to the real battle for Iraq yet to come

*There is no built in bias here*

[Supreme_Warlord]

Article wrote:

In that case, the invasion - with its phoney goals of removing Saddam Hussein and disarming him of weapons that he didn't possess - may be just a prelude to the real battle for Iraq yet to come

*There is no built in bias here*

Care to rebut the article instead of whining?

[Admiral Valdemar]

The Guardian is as biased as they come, but that's not to say the article is similar in outlook.

[theski]

Supreme_Warlord Wrote:

Care to rebut the article instead of whining?

Actually I was refering to the fact that the article is news.. His little tripe at the end ,is his personal bias and has no place in the article

[El Moose Monstero]

The Guardian is as biased as they come, but that's not to say the article is similar in outlook.

The Sun? Any of the tabloids really... although the Guardian is a tad more subtle with it's bias...

[phongn]

I would be careful about trusting the Guardian without some sort of confirmation from another source. That said, you should do better than scream "The Guardian sucks! " if you want to rebut it.

[Joe]

The Guardian is the closest thing on the left to Fox News.

[phongn]

I should also note that not all of the Hague Conventions of 1907 were ratified by the United States. The article in question does not tell which of the Conventions the articles belong to. The ones the US did ratify are listed by the ICRC

EDIT: After a bit of further research, Convention IV was indeed ratified on 27 November 1909.

[Supreme_Warlord]

The Guardian is the closest thing on the left to Fox News.

That it may be, but would you like to take a shot at rebutting the article?

[Joe]

The Guardian is the closest thing on the left to Fox News.

That it may be, but would you like to take a shot at rebutting the article?

I will say that I don't see what's so horrific about selling off state-owned inudstries to private interests (they tend to run companies better), but I won't try a full-out rebuttal.

[Supreme_Warlord]

The Guardian is the closest thing on the left to Fox News.

That it may be, but would you like to take a shot at rebutting the article?

I will say that I don't see what's so horrific about selling off state-owned inudstries to private interests (they tend to run companies better) ...

That may well be the case, but isnt't that decision the right of an elected Iraqi government to make?

[phongn]

This may well be a violation of Convention IV Article 43, though if the new government decides to change the law (whenever the new government is implemented), then foreign companies move in - there's no violation of the law. Otherwise it is a violation.

However, I am somewhat disturbed by the article's assertion that the UN has the power (via UNSCR) to dictate that we may move ahead even if Convention IV is violated.

[phongn]

That may well be the case, but isnt't that decision the right of an elected Iraqi government to make?

Not neccessarily. It is the right of an Iraqi government full stop, but not one of occupying power. Frankly, if we put a complete puppet government in and had them rubber-stamp an order to allow private industry to move it, it'd be legal.

At least that's my interpretation of the relevant article.

[Supreme_Warlord]

That may well be the case, but isnt't that decision the right of an elected Iraqi government to make?

Not neccessarily. It is the right of an Iraqi government full stop, but not one of occupying power. Frankly, if we put a complete puppet government in ...

But isn't that exactly what the Iraqi Governing Council is?

The Americans should either hold complete authority as an occupying power (subject to international conventions) or institute free and fair democratic elections at the earliest opportunity so that an Iraqi government can get on with the job of rebuilding the country the best way it sees fit.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

But isn't that exactly what the Iraqi Governing Council is?

The Americans should either hold complete authority as an occupying power (subject to international conventions) or institute free and fair democratic elections at the earliest opportunity so that an Iraqi government can get on with the job of rebuilding the country the best way it sees fit.

Why? We occupied the country, we'll do what we want with it. Americans died to conquer the Mesopotamian valley and "at the earliest opportunity" surely might sound nice, but I think "when we decide that they're ready for it" is much perferable. Regardless of the reasons for the war we're there now, we paid a price to take it, and it was fairly won in combat. That's that.

Now, as for this issue:

Privatization of the Iraqi industry--which is what we're doing here--is utterly necessary for Iraq to have a capitalist and modern economy like any functional state of the West. The Guardian is basically pleading that we keep Iraq socialist. Well, fuck, what else do you expect from a socialist rag?

I may note that Russia engaged in a different privatization scheme than this which had different aims. Their goal was IIRC to simply privatize as quickly as possible. One example of this was how they dumped state-owned enterprises off to Russians as fast as they could, creating instant monopolies, but passed huge restrictions on foreign ownership and tariffs. This also temporarily made unemployed seem less severe in Russia--in Poland it was nearly twice as high for a time--as the state owned monopolies continued humming away for a while, just with new, private owners.

The successful eastern european governments however privatized in such a way as to foster competition, allowed outside owners, etc. This initially created huge unemployment (rather stunning levels, actually) and a near collapse as the monopolies were broken up, but afterwards their economies shot back up. The Russian economy, however, and those of most of the other f-USSR states, have still not fully recovered from their method of privatization. This method we are engaging in will certainly cause massive unemployment and will for a time cause major disruptions in Iraq, but is much preferable to an immediate but centralized (IE non-disruptive) privatization under Iraqi control, let alone no privatization at all. It's the difference between Poland or the Czech Republic and Russia or the Ukraine.

[SirNitram]

Nothing wrong in theory with selling off the industries, though I can see pontential for abuse. In short, keep your eyes open but don't light the fucking bonfires over this.

As for 'We conquered it, we'll do as we damn well please', that sets an unpleasant precedent. Besides, I thought Americans despised making empires.

[Darth Wong]

We occupied the country, we'll do what we want with it.

Ah yes, I forgot that this was a war of liberation, not conquest.

[Stuart Mackey]

But isn't that exactly what the Iraqi Governing Council is?

The Americans should either hold complete authority as an occupying power (subject to international conventions) or institute free and fair democratic elections at the earliest opportunity so that an Iraqi government can get on with the job of rebuilding the country the best way it sees fit.

Why? We occupied the country, we'll do what we want with it. Americans died to conquer the Mesopotamian valley and "at the earliest opportunity" surely might sound nice, but I think "when we decide that they're ready for it" is much perferable. Regardless of the reasons for the war we're there now, we paid a price to take it, and it was fairly won in combat. That's that.

The American west rides again. So when is America going to annex its new provence/s?

Now, as for this issue:

Privatization of the Iraqi industry--which is what we're doing here--is utterly necessary for Iraq to have a capitalist and modern economy like any functional state of the West. The Guardian is basically pleading that we keep Iraq socialist. Well, fuck, what else do you expect from a socialist rag?

After your diatribe above, Marina, I often wonder at what point you stopped thinking for yourself and blindly followed someones propaganda instead.
So what if Iraq was socialist thats their choice, not America's.

As to the Gaurdians leanings, so what? and moreover do you even know what the Gaurdians leanings are in the British context?

[Stuart Mackey]

Spoils of war would be right. This follows American practice in africa with the 'African Growth and Oppertunity Act'. American corporations get unfttered acces to a nationbut not vice versa.

[Patrick Degan]

Ever the Apologist, aren't you, Duchess?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ever the Apologist, aren't you, Duchess?

There is nothing to apologize for in the exercise of power.

[Darth Wong]

Ever the Apologist, aren't you, Duchess?

There is nothing to apologize for in the exercise of power.

You know, that line sounds more erudite than "we've got the nukes, we've got the guns, everybody else in the world can go fuck themselves", but the meaning is pretty much identical.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ever the Apologist, aren't you, Duchess?

There is nothing to apologize for in the exercise of power.

I'll actually just quote my own quote here, being excessively vain:

...of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can. And it is not as if we were the first to make this law, or to act upon it when made: we found it existing before us, and shall leave it to exist for ever after us; all we do is to make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power as we have, would do the same as we do.

- The Melian Dialogue of Thucydides.

It's just as true today, you know, as it was then--for nothing about the nature of humanity has changed; and nothing will ever change, to make it untrue, short it be a change so great that it makes something that is inhuman. We can make no greater apologies for war or for love than we can for breathing.

[Gil Hamilton]

There is nothing to apologize for in the exercise of power.

Say you are walking along the street one day. Suddenly, I jump out of a convenient alley, and by virtue of being much stronger than you and also by the element of suprise, I knock your ass down and take your purse. Then I disappear back down where I came from and you never see or hear from me again. I just exercised power over you, by virtue of my superior strength and suprise, physically assaulted you, and then robbed you. I didn't get caught. Does that mean I have nothing to apologise for?