Posted on 11/08/2003 5:44:35 PM PST by anguish
Those are a few suggestions for slogans that could help unify the growing movement against the occupation of Iraq. So far, activist debates have focused on whether the demand should be for a complete withdrawal of troops, or for the United States to cede power to the United Nations.
But the "Troops Out" debate overlooks an important fact. If every last soldier pulled out of the Gulf tomorrow and a sovereign government came to power, Iraq would still be occupied: by laws written in the interest of another country, by foreign corporations controlling its essential services, by 70 percent unemployment sparked by public sector layoffs.
Any movement serious about Iraqi self-determination must call not only for an end to Iraq's military occupation, but to its economic colonization as well. That means reversing the shock therapy reforms that US occupation chief Paul Bremer has fraudulently passed off as "reconstruction" and canceling all privatization contracts flowing from these reforms.
How can such an ambitious goal be achieved? Easy: by showing that Bremer's reforms were illegal to begin with. They clearly violate the international convention governing the behavior of occupying forces, the Hague Regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, both ratified by the United States), as well as the US Army's own code of war.
The Hague Regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." The Coalition Provisional Authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful defiance. Iraq's Constitution outlaws the privatization of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet two months ago, the CPA overturned them unilaterally.
On September 19, Bremer enacted the now-infamous Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatized; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100 percent ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100 percent of their profits out of Iraq. The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream."
Order 39 violated the Hague Regulations in other ways as well. The convention states that occupying powers "shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct."
Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines "usufruct" (possibly the ugliest word in the English language) as an arrangement that grants one party the right to use and derive benefit from another's property "without altering the substance of the thing." Put more simply, if you are a housesitter, you can eat the food in the fridge, but you can't sell the house and turn it into condos. And yet that is just what Bremer is doing: What could more substantially alter "the substance" of a public asset than to turn it into a private one?
In case the CPA was still unclear on this detail, the US Army's Law of Land Warfare states that "the occupant does not have the right of sale or unqualified use of [nonmilitary] property." This is pretty straightforward: Bombing something does not give you the right to sell it. There is every indication that the CPA is well aware of the lawlessness of its privatization scheme. In a leaked memo written on March 26, British Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith warned Prime Minister Tony Blair that "the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorized by international law."
So far, most of the controversy surrounding Iraq's reconstruction has focused on the waste and corruption in the awarding of contracts. This badly misses the scope of the violation: Even if the selloff of Iraq were conducted with full transparency and open bidding, it would still be illegal for the simple reason that Iraq is not America's to sell.
The Security Council's recognition of the United States and Britain's occupation authority provides no legal cover. The UN resolution passed in May specifically required the occupying powers to "comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907."
According to a growing number of international legal experts, this means that if the next Iraqi government decides it doesn't want to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Bechtel or Halliburton, it will have powerful legal grounds to renationalize assets that were privatized under CPA edicts. Juliet Blanch, global head of energy and international arbitration for the huge international law firm Norton Rose, says that because Bremer's reforms directly contradict Iraq's Constitution, they are "in breach of international law and are likely not enforceable." Blanch argues that the CPA "has no authority or ability to sign those [privatization] contracts" and that a sovereign Iraqi government would have "quite a serious argument for renationalization without paying compensation." Firms facing this type of expropriation would, according to Blanch, have "no legal remedy."
The only way out for the Administration is to make sure that Iraq's next government is anything but sovereign. It must be pliant enough to ratify the CPA's illegal laws, which will then be celebrated as the happy marriage of free markets and free people. Once that happens, it will be too late: The contracts will be locked in, the deals done and the occupation of Iraq permanent.
Which is why antiwar forces must use this fast-closing window to demand that the next Iraqi government be free from the shackles of these reforms. It's too late to stop the war, but it's not too late to deny Iraq's invaders the myriad economic prizes they went to war to collect in the first place.
It's not too late to cancel the contracts and ditch the deals.
Nope, the author's linguistically clueless. The food in the fridge is part of the personal property which you're looking after. Since new fridge food doesn't appear during your tenure, it's not yours to eat. "Usufruct" means the right to things created during the term of your possession - the equivalent analogy here would be that if you're housesitting, you're entitled to eat any apples off the tree in the back yard which grow while you're there.
He wrote a number of travelogues, including my favorite, The Flying Carpet.
He was lost at sea around 1939 crossing the Pacific in a Chinese junk.
Only after I reflect on him, do I recall the Vice-President's evil scheme to enrich himself and his privileged cronies via the Halliburton Corp.
Oh yeah, and ensure world domination by dead white males...
Yes, that's one of the things I loved about Lotus Notes.
It really helped me keep my grudges and antipathies organized and searchable.
You answered your own question. It's understood.
Under what laws? Barbra Streisand or Hillary laws?
I guess this means we have to kill everyone who doesn't have a photograph of Saddam Hussein prominently displayed, and we must continue running torture chambers so no opponent of his regime remains unpunished.
I mean, golly, it's just the respectful thing to do, right?
For all the rhetoric - and the writer is surely able - nothing is said about whether the terms of the contracts are reasonable. It is just assumed that the contracts are bad because they were negotiated with American corporations.
I believe that the International oil industry has always relied on the expertise of companies like Bechtel and Halliburton to deal with tricky design and deployment issues surrounding oilfield equipment, especially in those difficult cases where it may have been attacked or destroyed. I'm not familiar with Halliburton, but I know Bechtel has about the best reputation in the world for the design and engineering of huge projects, the more difficult and grandiose the better.
I'm prepared to be proven wrong if the truth is otherwise, but I'd be surprised if Iraqis have much in the way of native expertise in these fields. I'm not saying they're intrinsically incapable, but this sort of thing requires experience only the Bechtels of the world have.
As a humble servant to the readers of Free Republic, let me translate this dreck.
If every last soldier pulled out of the Gulf tomorrow and a sovereign government came to power, Iraq would still be occupied: by laws written in the interest of another country, by foreign corporations controlling its essential services, by 70 percent unemployment sparked by public sector layoffs.
The US Supreme Court's Sandra Day O'Connor has told audiences that the US courts should no longer look to the US Constitution, but as a "member of the global community" should look to foreign nations as their guide in deciding law. Furthermore, the world demands that the US adhere to a suicidal policy of following the Kyoto Agreements. The US should also place herself under the tyrannical edicts of the Internation Criminal Courts and the United Nations. When it comes to Iraq though, Naomi Kline wants soveriegnty and self-determinism made by whoever can grab power first. When it comes to recognizing the soveriegnty of a stable government like the US, such a nation does not deserve, nor should be allowed to remain sovereign or determine her own self interests. IOW Tyrants should be allowed to prosper, republics should be made servile to the interests of global politicians and bureaucrats.
Any movement serious about Iraqi self-determination must call not only for an end to Iraq's military occupation, but to its economic colonization as well.
The $87 Billion the US has set aside for improving the situation in Iraq should go to free-healthcare, more UN programs, gay sex education, environmentalism, needle programs, fighting the "War on Poverty", etc. anywhere but in Iraq. Iraqis should sit and pound sand.
That means reversing the shock therapy reforms that US occupation chief Paul Bremer has fraudulently passed off as "reconstruction" and canceling all privatization contracts flowing from these reforms.
Supplying fresh water, stable electricity, constructing and staffing schools, hospitals and social service centers are considered "fraudulent" activities and should only be conducted by government and, judginby the previous statment, should not be taking place in Iraq. Of course the US military is not a arm of the government - this writer thinks that the US military is a private business.
The Hague Regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country."
Naomi wants the "occupying power" to rebuild and staff the rape rooms, torture chambers, the feudal system and to reinstall Ba'thist part members to their place of prominence and lordship. The people should not be allowed to enjoy any freedoms, or conveniences of a modern economy.
Iraq's Constitution outlaws the privatization of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms.
So the people, who are enjoying 70% unemployment are going to wake up one day and magically see the "State" rebuild and operate the non-existant infrastructure? Naomi is a dunce, the only reason so many things in the world are kept under control of the State has absolutely nothing to do with efficiency and economy, it has to do with patronage and mercantilism. Socialism is a temporary luxury, but if things need to be built and maintained, the only way it can really be done efficiently and relatively inexpensively is to make accountable people who have measurable and noble objectives responsible for it - i.e. The Free Market. This lunacy that foreigners can't enjoy private property rights in Iraq are stating that they want to see such nations and people stay in the Dark Ages. It takes foreign capital and resources to be invested in a land that has neither capital or resources (except oil, but still it needs to be extracted, refined and distributed). Again, it appears that "The Nation" prefers to keep Iraqis enslaved and impoverished.
...decreed that foreign firms can retain 100 percent ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100 percent of their profits out of Iraq....
This is where the Left shows their utter hatred for honestly earned profits and their profoundly disturbing sense of entitlement to gain off of other people's efforts and risk. Those who invest in risk should be able to expect a return on their investment. Naomi feels that people should not be able to invest and improve themselves. If they do, naomi is there to demand handouts, graft and corruption. The comment that firms can move 100% of their profits out of Iraq deliberately deletes the fact that these profits are realized after fees and taxes. If an investor cannot be guarenteed that they can move their money out of an investment or out of a country, then that investor will think twice about placing any capital into such an environment, for doing so is essentially throwing the money away, and why invest if there is no expectation of gain?
The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream."
And yet "The Nation" complains. The communists are in agony.
The convention states that occupying powers "shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct."
What if these "public buildings"are in rubble? What if these "forests" are ablaze? What if the sewers and water systems aren't functional? What if the schools and hospitals never existed? Naomi is typical of the Lunatic Left that prefers to see people sit cold, stupid, sick, naked and hungry in the dark rather than enjoy private involvment in restoring and creating ex nihilo civilization and modernity. Apparently "Bob" is good and his intentions are noble only if he collects a government paycheck. If Bob were to collect a paycheck from a non-government source, then every thought and intent is evil, and evil only. If Bob were to sit on his ass and collect a government salary, then all is well and Naomi will be blushing with pride. Since Bob is out sweating it off laying pipe but is doing so because some corporate honcho directs him to, then Bob is making things worse for the entire planet. Only government employees can feed their family. Private individuals are exploiting the poor whenever they make even one dollar.
So far, most of the controversy surrounding Iraq's reconstruction has focused on the waste and corruption in the awarding of contracts.
Talk about hypocrisy. The so-called controversy is trumped up by traitors and seditionists like Naomi. It is conjured up, lied about, twisted and repeated over and over again by Naomi's fellow travelers. Naomi is screaming shrill rhetoric and then complains about the noise. This badly misses the scope of the violation: Even if the selloff of Iraq were conducted with full transparency and open bidding, it would still be illegal for the simple reason that Iraq is not America's to sell.
Earth to Naomi. Granting $87 Billion dollars to Iraq is not selling Iraq. Spilling American blood to free people from a madman is not selling Iraq. Removing an evil dictator and eliminating weapons of mass destruction while dismantling citadels of terrorism and horror is not selling Iraq. Building infrastrucure where none has ever existed is not selling Iraq. Building and staffing schools and hospitals is not selling Iraq. Trying to make iraq a commercially viable nation that eventually will be no longer dependant on regular airdrops of billions of dollars and international aid is not selling Iraq
The UN resolution passed in May specifically required the occupying powers to "comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907."
Let me get this straight. When Saddam Hussein was gassing, raping, torturing and murdering tens of thousands of people, many living total lives of misery and despair; when Saddam was building weapons to threaten his neighbors, financing international terrorism, and conspiring to wipe out the nation of Israel and to bring incredible harm to the West, the UN passed resolution after resolution to cease and desist, but sat on their hands and did nothing while the entire Middle East was being intimidated by a madman who already invaded a neighbor and confiscated the assets, private and public of a nation called Kuwait. Naomi yearns for a return to such days, and praises the UN for talking about the problem but never really interested in resolving the problem. The United States steps in and saves the world from this madman. Now Naomi is pissed off and demands that the Savior and Preserver of Freedom and Liberty must bow down to the tyrannical United nations and follow some outdated, century old set of laws made by lunatics and cowards of old Europe.
That is the face of true evil, folks. Naomi is one of their many spokes-mouths of misery and despair. These people need to be exposed as the demons and hellcats they are.
A few minutes ago, I got this e-mail from Judith Long, the Letters Editor...
Subject: Re: [LETT] Please ask Ms. Klein to re-readYou will see a short exchange on this matter in the next issue of The Nation.
We shall see what we shall see...
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.