What WTO accord says on Iraq contract dispute (Free Trade)

Reuters News Service ^ | 12.11.03 | Reuters

[ask]

What WTO accord says on Iraq contract dispute

GENEVA, Dec 11 (Reuters) - The United States' decision to bar Iraq war opponents like France, Germany and Russia from $18.6 billion in U.S. reconstruction projects has refuelled bitter trans-Atlantic tensions over the conflict.

Washington says it is entitled to take the action despite trade agreements, signed by the United States and many of its critics, that were designed to ensure governments opened up state contracts to international competition.

The United States, France and Germany are among some 25 state signatories to the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on Government Procurement, which came into force on January 1, 1996. Russia is not a member of the WTO.

The accord sets out to make government procurement more transparent so that it does not protect domestic products or suppliers, or discriminate against foreign competitors.

The preamble to the agreement states that government procurement:

"...should not be prepared, adopted or applied to foreign or domestic products and services and to foreign or domestic suppliers so as to afford protection to domestic products or services or domestic suppliers and should not discriminate among foreign products or services or among foreign suppliers."

Governments have to set an appeal process by which aggrieved bidders can challenge procurement decisions and obtain redress in the event these decisions break the accord.

The WTO can also be asked to set up panels to investigate alleged violations.

But there are circumstances under which signatory countries can set aside the WTO agreement. They are:

-- When it considers it "necessary for the protection of its essential security interests relating to the procurement of arms, ammunition or war materials, or to procurement indispensable for national security or for national defence purposes".

-- When it is "necessary to protect public morals, order or safety, human, animal or plant life or health or intellectual property; or relating to the products or services of handicapped persons, of philanthropic institutions or of prison labour".

[Mo1]

Got a question

After WWII .. did we ask those who fought against us to make money offf of contracts?

[bobjam]

The final say on what a treaty says and means rests with the Supreme Court. To it alone does the Constitution delegate the power to interpret treaties.

[gunnedah]

Those two circumstances certainly fit the bill. Especially from the security standpoint. I dont think we can ever trust France or Germany again and we should have never trusted Russia if in fact we did.

[ask]

New trade war looms over Iraqi contracts



Europe and the US faced the prospects of a new trade war last night after Washington excluded companies from most EU countries, including Ireland, from bidding for contracts to rebuild Iraq because they had not supported the war against Saddam Hussein. From Denis Staunton, in Brussels and Conor O'Clery, in New Hampshire

The European Commission said it was examining the contracts to determine if the US move is in breach of World Trade Organisation rules on public procurement.

"As a first measure the European Commission will be requesting all necessary information from the US authorities concerned on the grounds for these limitations," the Commission said in a statement.

Citing "the essential security interests of the United States", the US Deputy Defence Secretary, Mr Paul Wolfowitz, announced in a directive that just 63 countries, including the US and Iraq, would be allowed to bid for the 26 contracts worth €15.2 billion.

Contractors from six EU member-states - Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Britain - will be allowed to bid for contracts covering the rebuilding of electricity, communications and water systems, public buildings, roads and rail links, airports, other public works and security and justice.

Seven of the 10 new member-states that will join the EU next year are on the list, along with the three candidate countries of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.

Other countries eligible to bid for the contracts include Jordan, Egypt, South Korea, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Tonga and the Marshall Islands.

The White House spokesman, Mr Scott McClellan, said the policy had been personally approved by President Bush, and was appropriate and reasonable.

"Prime contracts for reconstruction funded by US taxpayer dollars should go to the Iraqi people and those countries who are working with the United States on the difficult task of helping to build a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq," said Mr McClellan. He said the US could be willing to open the contracts to countries that did not join the war if they assisted "coalition efforts" in other ways.

Germany and France reacted angrily to the move, which France suggested was illegal and Germany described as unacceptable.

"We noted with astonishment today the reports, and we will be speaking about it with the American side," the German Foreign Minister, Mr Joschka Fischer, said after talks with his Russian counterpart, Mr Igor Ivanov.

The decision also drew criticism from Canada, which is not on the list of eligible bidders, and from Mr Bush's Democratic opponents in the US.

"I can't think of anything more dumber, more insulting and more inciting," said Democratic senator Mr John Kerry when asked about the decision during a Democratic candidates' debate in New Hampshire.

[July 4th]

Yes, assuming the accord applies, it appears the exceptions do as well.

[ask]

Supreme Court,I don't trust, Supreme Court gos by U.N=international law now

[Right Wing Professor]

No problem. Does anyone dispute the rebuiding of Iraq is essential for national security? And besides, the prcurement is surely by the coalition administration of Iraq. Is Iraq a WTO signatory?

[Jackson Brown]

As I see it, those countries (like France) that promised Saddam that they would stop the US were co-conspirators with Saddam and deserve NOTHING.

I'd love to see a hearing where the complicity of France and the others was presented in a concentrated and powerful way.

Now, the only possible practical reason I can see to MAYBE let them back in is for them to forgive Iraqi debt...period.

The forgiveness of the debt should come first, not after they are allowed to bid on contracts. Actually -- IMO -- the debt was with Saddam and should be voided.

[antiRepublicrat]

Since the whole treaty seems to be about favoring domestic suppliers, I don't see how it could apply since that most definitely is not what we're doing.

[rushisright]

Too true!

Besides, we have not yet thrown out our Constitution and allowed the United Nations to take over our Country! The day we do will be the 2nd worst day in American History. (The 1st worst day will be when those of us that remain and believe in the Constitution go to war to regain our nation's sovereignty!)

Let them all cry like babies, as long as we don't give in.

[witnesstothefall]

Screw the WTO. And let's bomb France!

[ask]

11 December 2003
English crowds out local voices, says Kofi Annan

UN secretary general Kofi Annan opened the World Summit on the Information Society yesterday and criticised the English language's dominatation the Internet.

"There is a content divide. Much of the information on the Web is not relevant to the real needs of people," said Annan. "Nearly 70 per cent of sites are in English Ð at times crowding out local voices and needs."

More than 10,000 delegates from 150 countries were in Geneva for the first day of the summit yesterday. They included 50 heads of state.

They are meeting to address the problem of the so-called 'digital divide' Ð the technology gap between rich and poor nations.

But key issues, such as a commitment from developed countries to fund technology projects in the South, and the problem of who should run the Internet, have already been put on hold until the next meeting in 2005 due to internal squabbling.

[voicereason]

UN secretary general Kofi Annan opened the World Summit on the Information Society yesterday and criticised the English language's dominatation the Internet.

I'm blaming Gore for not being at least bilingual. Let's not forget that he did invent the darn thing. Trust a liberal to screw it up. :-)

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

The final say on what a treaty says and means rests with the Supreme Court. To it alone does the Constitution delegate the power to interpret treaties.

Well, kiss this deal goodbye.

[jaykay]

"the debt was with Saddam and should be voided."

Yes, let them collect from Saddam. And no contracts, they did enough contracting in Iraq when Saddam was in power, including breaking the sanctions of the UN that they claim to support so much.

[Clint Lippo]

I love the President's response to the statement that the restrictions might violate international law. He said," International law? I'd better call my lawyer."

[tet68]

more dumber

Tells me all I need to know.

If ketchup man is agin it , it must be right.

[endthematrix]

"I can't think of anything more dumber, more insulting and more inciting," said Democratic senator Mr John Kerry when asked about the decision during a Democratic candidates' debate in New Hampshire.

More inciting? To do what? FART?