Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ZNet | Iraq | Looting Iraq by Executive Order
ZNet (Left - Progressive website) ^ | October 25, 2003 | Stephen James Kerr

Posted on 10/27/2003 4:28:13 AM PST by Cboldt

ZNet | Iraq

Looting Iraq by Executive Order

by Stephen Kerr; October 25, 2003

George W. Bush is a thief.

On May 22, 2003 President Bush issued Executive Order 13303, Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq. This order invoked the National Emergency Act to effectively seize Iraqi oil and oil revenues, ostensibly to ensure they are spent on Iraqi reconstruction.

But thats not the way this Order has been used, or the funds spent.

I hereby orderany attachment, judgement, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following: a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products reads the kernel of Bushs decree.

EO 13303 has a singular purpose, now made transparent by recent events protecting US crony capitalists. It holds The Development Fund for Iraq and US oil corporations above the law by rendering any claim or lawsuit brought against them to be null and void. Whoever controls the Fund can do anything they want with the money, such as put it in their pocket.

The Development Fund for Iraq was created by UN Resolution 1483 on May 22, the same day as Bush issued his Executive Order.  The Fund replaced the UN controlled Oil for Food Programme which used 95% of Iraqi oil revenues to purchase food and medicine, while 5% went to pay war reparations to Kuwait. The programme barely kept Iraqis from starving during the US and UK backed UN sanctions. The new Fund is under the control of the US puppet Iraqi government the Coalition Provisional Authority, headed by Paul Bremer, who answers to George Bush. The Funds money is not even kept in Iraq, but in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, though the Fund is on the books of the Iraqi Central Bank.

On May 28 2003 $1 billion dollars of assets were transferred to the Fund from the Oil for Food Programme. About $5 billion has gone to the fund so far.  That money has been looted. According to a report by Christian Aid in the UK, over $4 billion is missing.

What money that is accounted for now lines the pockets of Halliburton.

On October 17th, and the US Army Corps of Engineers reported that to date $600 million from the Development Fund has been paid out to Halliburton for importing gasoline into Iraq. This is a direct violation of Resolution 1483, which demands that the fund shall be used in a transparent manner to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people.

Its also the modern equivalent of shipping coal to Newcastle.

No doubt, Iraqis need gasoline. But Iraq is sitting on half the oil in the Middle East. In what can only be described as a crime, UN sanctions and two Anglo-American wars have rendered Iraq a net importer of oil. This disaster for Iraqis and foreign policy embarrassment for the United States is merely another profit making opportunity in Iraqi reconstruction, for Halliburton which has inflated its prices accordingly.

Halliburton charges $1.59 per gallon for gasoline imported from Turkey into Iraq, whereas the going market rate in the Persian Gulf is 76 cents per gallon, plus about 25 cents for transport according to US Congressmen Henry Waxman and John Dingell, who have written to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to complain. The Congressmen also contacted Iraqs state owned oil company, which confirmed it paid between 90 and 98 cents per gallon for imported gasoline.

But charging market rates for Persian Gulf gasoline would not be good for Halliburton, which adds from 2% to 7% to the price for itself. 2% of 96 cents is 1.92 cents a gallon for Halliburton. 7% of $1.59 is 8.11 cents per gallon for Halliburton.  The profit must be added to the cost of the gasoline, as Halliburtons contract is cost plus profit; the profit to be calculated depending on performance.

Executive Order 13303 protects Halliburtons war profiteering, as intended, by perverting the language and spirit of UN Security Council Resolution 1483, intended to protect Iraqs assets. Heres how.

In ending sanctions against Iraq, UN 1483 established the Development Fund, determining that all proceeds from such sales (of Iraqi petroleum) shall be deposited into the Development Fund for Iraq as per section 20. But Iraq is the worlds largest debtor, with total claims against it at US$383 billion. At 1200% of GDP, this makes Iraq 12 times more indebted than Argentina, according to Toronto based Probe International. With this fact in mind, Section 15 of UN 1483 calls upon the Paris Club of Creditors to seek a solution to Iraqs sovereign debt problems.

Section 22 of UN 1483 is written to protect the Development Fund against the potential claims of Iraqs international creditors, in order to allow the proceeds from Iraqs oil production to be used for reconstruction. Setting aside the merits of the plan, (Iraq is a net oil importer) a reading of the language in section 22 sets out terms remarkably similar to Presidential Executive Order 13303, with some crucial differences.

From UN 1483 section 22: Noting the relevance of the establishment of an internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq and the desirability of prompt completion of the restructuring of Iraqs debt as referred to in para 15, (The Security Council) further decides that until December 31, 2007petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas originating in Iraq shall be immune, until title passes to the original purchaser, from legal proceedings against them and not be subject to any form of attachment, garnishment or execution

UN 1483 section 22 also confers upon the Development Fund for Iraq privileges and immunities equivalent to those enjoyed by the United Nations, with one crucial exception. the above privileges and immunities shall not apply with respect to any legal proceeding in which recourse to such proceeds is necessary to satisfy liability for damages assessed in connection with an ecological accident, including an oil spill  The intent is clearly to protect Iraqs oil revenues from seizure against its debts to allow for reconstruction to take place, with a nod to preserving whats left of Iraqs war ruined ecology.

But the powers conferred to the Fund under the Resolution are being abused by the President of the United States and his puppet government in Iraq to protect profiteering US corporations tied to the Bush White House.

Unlike the UN Resolution, EO 13303 contains no exception holding the Development Fund or US corporations accountable for ecological catastrophes in the Iraqi oil industry, and those occur daily, as often as the pipelines are blown up. Rather the Order confers upon US oil corporations blanket protections greater than those granted to the Development Fund under UN 1438. The Order is a licence to pollute, profit and pillage.

In addition to protecting all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein from lawsuits, EO 13303 goes much further. It protects all proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever (emphasis mine) arising from or related to the sale and marketing, of those petroleum products. Further, 13303 protects interests therein, in which any foreign country or any national has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons. Section 3, a) and b) defines a person as either an individual or a corporation.

Thus corporate profits, all proceeds and activities of any nature whatsoever of US oil corporations in Iraq are protected from the US Courts.

EO 13303 also protects the Development Fund for Iraq from any penalties which a court might apply, such as a lien or a garnishment, unless licensed or authorized pursuant to this order presumably by the President of the United States.

Bush has transformed powers intended to protect the worlds poorest country from the predations of its creditors into a blunt legal instrument protecting a top Republican campaign contributor in which his Vice President Dick Cheney is heavily invested. There are another 4 billion skeletons in this closet, but Washington and its Iraqi satrapy are working overtime make sure we never get to open that door.  

The Development Fund for Iraq is supposed to be monitored by something called The International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB) composed of representatives of the UN Secretary General, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the IMF, and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, as per UN Resolution 1483. But this body does not yet exist, because the American government wants an auditor shaped like a paper tiger. Paul Bremer is fighting potential board members for the right of the American occupation government to vet IAMB audits of the Development Fund.

Stephen James Kerr is an investigative journalist in Toronto, and the co-host of Newspeak on CIUT 89.5 FM www.ciut.fm . He may be contacted at stephen.kerr@sympatico.ca .

 



TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: halliburton; iraq; rebuildingiraq
Author's opinions only. ZNet is an "interesting" site for liberal commentary.

The article appeared in the Cyberia maillist (which is suppoed to address legal issues related to the internet, so this article was off topic), and I found it so outrageous, I just had to share the pain.

1 posted on 10/27/2003 4:28:13 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Paul Bremer had a few words to day about this on TV.
2 posted on 10/27/2003 4:31:28 AM PST by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
Good to read that Bremer had some words about this. Mr. Kerr's article is so full of distortions, I didn't bother to research or clarify the EO in question.

One sad thing is that the sort of tripe spewed by Mr. Kerr is taken as representing truth and reality, bu a significant fraction of the population. Even when the facts are laid out, some poeple prefer being angry over being informed. I suppose that is part of the reason why Dean is doing so well with his candidacy.

3 posted on 10/27/2003 4:43:55 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
ZNet is an "interesting" site for liberal commentary.

Pfft. Joe Lieberman is a liberal - ZNet is for full-blown communists.

4 posted on 10/27/2003 5:01:58 AM PST by general_re ("I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
From a quick look at their web site, these folks are IndyMedia fruitcakes. Dean supporter types, who think even he is "to the right".
5 posted on 10/27/2003 5:02:48 AM PST by FreedomPoster (this space intentionally blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: general_re
I tend to dismiss labeling and categorizing (liberal, progressive, conservative, neocon, Republican, RINO, etc.) because doing so tends to take a discussion down the road of label definition, which is not substantive.

That being said, I agree that Joe Lieberman would probably disagree with the article. That is, he is not as "hard core" as Mr. Kerr.

6 posted on 10/27/2003 5:06:43 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
I didn't read much of the site, just glanced around. I had the same impression you did, the site represents some extreme points of view.
7 posted on 10/27/2003 5:08:45 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Well, I've never been allergic to calling a spade a spade, but if you insist - ZNet's contributors and readers may not all be full-blown communists, but they certainly inhabit the looney left ;)
8 posted on 10/27/2003 5:18:54 AM PST by general_re ("I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Present company excepted, of course ;)
9 posted on 10/27/2003 5:23:37 AM PST by general_re ("I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: general_re
LOL. I don't object to calling 'em commies. I don't really object to labels either, just using the opportunity to get on my soap box. Discussions about labels sometimes run for hundreds of posts here, and eventually add nothing of use (See recent California election threads for example). 'Tis better to discuss issues directly.
10 posted on 10/27/2003 5:34:36 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Oh, well, if that's your standard, I'm not surprised you feel that way. The Cali-recall threads would have been immensely more civilized if both sides had simply agreed to pistols at dawn or some such ;)
11 posted on 10/27/2003 5:40:23 AM PST by general_re ("I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson