Enemy Within: US Chamber: Speak Very Softly

US Chamber of Commerce ^ | January 2002 | A. John Rasdan

[LSUfan]

Sometimes, silence is golden. Silence should be the American policy as Iran takes the first steps toward becoming a member of the World Trade Organization. Next month, when the WTO reviews Iran’s request to have its membership application considered, the Bush Administration should not raise any objections. Considering our history of conflict with Iran, keeping mum on its WTO application might appear, on first thought, to be an unnatural reaction. But having Iran join the WTO waiting list is in the best interests of the United States, the global community, and Iran.

How does the U.S. benefit from Iran’s WTO application process? WTO status for Iran would require widespread economic reforms in that country. The Iranian government would have to open its books for review, pass new foreign investment laws, eliminate many protective subsidies and tariffs, and enact policies that protect the intellectual property of U.S. software, videos and books that today are pirated for sale on the streets of Tehran.

[LSUfan]

At a time AFTER 9-11, US business interests have lobbied on behalf of the world's most active state sponsor of Islamofascist terrorism, as demonstrated by this repulsive article published by the US Chamber of Commerce.

Note that the author makes NO MENTION of Iran's involvement in terrorism and NO MENTION of Iran's nuclear program. He only mentions questionable economic benefits to US business if Iran is allowed to become a member of the WTO.

At a time when we needed to be convincing other nations to quit doing business with this huge threat to our national security, the US Chamber of Commerce was helping Iran...

[Dazedcat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/519688.stm

http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

It's just business as usual. The second article is very telling, and very very alarming. Well I think it is anyway.

[Dane]

This is 4 years old, anything more current?

[jackbenimble]

The US Chamber of Commerce puts profits for its members above all else. Most of its members are multinational corporations who own no loyalty to the United States. Look at their disgusting position on our borders! It is unfortunate that the Senate is their bought and paid for sock puppet.

[Dane]

Also this is before the nut ahmednijad got into power so you posting this is disingenuous, IMO.

[LSUfan]

Here is another:

http://www.iranmania.com/news/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=7335&NewsKind=Business+%26+Economy&ArchiveNews=Yes

[tet68]

How does the U.S. benefit from Iran’s WTO application process? WTO status for Iran would require widespread economic reforms in that country. The Iranian government would have to open its books for review, pass new foreign investment laws, eliminate many protective subsidies and tariffs, and enact policies that protect the intellectual property of U.S. software, videos and books that today are pirated for sale on the streets of Tehran.


It would HAVE to do these things? WHY?

[Dane]

Yeah so, that article is even older and from a suspect source.

Like I said do you have anything more current?

[LSUfan]

Total bullcrap. Iran has been sponsoring terrorism and working on nuclear weapons for DECADES. I was in the Marine Corps in October 1983 when Iranian-backed Hezbollah killed 241 of my brothers, so don't bring any crap here about Iran only being bad or a worry after their new president was elected. Ahmednijad has NO authority over foreign policy, the military or the nuclear program. Khameini does and he has been in power since before the US Chamber came out in support of Iran...and they did all of this AFTER 9-11!!!

You should be careful not to post on topics which you are ignorant of...

[LSUfan]

Try this one on for size:

http://www.washingtonlife.com/backissues/archives/02apr/norooz.htm

[Dane]

You should be careful not to post on topics which you are ignorant of...

I don't post 4 year old articles as today's news.

[mthom]

Check th C of C website. They have not amended their position. My opinion is they would think that now more than ever it would be important to bring iran into the "global community".

[Dane]

Check th C of C website. They have not amended their position. My opinion is they would think that now more than ever it would be important to bring iran into the "global community"

Well it hasn't worked, the US has had sanctions against Iran since the hostage crisis.

And BTW this article is from one member of the C of C and nowhere does it say it is the official position of the C of C.

[mthom]

lol What an apologist you are. In one breath you endorse their position and in the next you deny it is their position. The member you speak of is the iran specialist of the CoC. Along with that the fact that there is no dissenting view posted on their site it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that this is the CoC position.

[balch3]

Businessmen are not necessarily conservative. The only true conservatives are social conservatives.

[WatchingInAmazement]

Don't be concerned. Some are here to defend the Chamber of Commerce because it pushes amnesty, er, guest workers. The chamber gets their marching orders from Grover Norquist/the white house.

[LSUfan]

Okay. How about this:

The US Chamber of Commerce established a coalition to oppose "unilateral US sanctions." It's called USA Engage. http://www.usaengage.org/

Guess what: the US has unilateral sanctions against the countries on our State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism, most notably Iran.

And don't tell me that lifting sanctions against terrorist sponsors is not the policy of the US Chamber of Commerce. Here is a speech by their CEO in which he mentions lifting sanctions "on countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Iran, and others"

http://www.uschamber.com/press/speeches/2002/020226tjd_conoco.htm

[mthom]

Ouch. Good find. Yep the CoC is clearly and obviously a member of the "Global Free Market Utopia" post-nationalist, perhaps unintentionally traitorous, dreamers club.

[LSUfan]

Here's a 2005 letter from USA Engage opposing US sanctions against Iran...THIS IS 2005 PEOPLE!!!

http://www.usaengage.org/literature/2005/HIRC%20HR%20282%20markup.html

[humint]

Here's a 2005 letter from USA Engage opposing US sanctions against Iran...THIS IS 2005 PEOPLE!!!

USA ENGAGE: Dear Representative Ros-Lehtinen, --- I am writing on behalf of USA*Engage, a coalition sponsored by the National Foreign Trade Council representing over 670 small and large businesses, agricultural exporters, and trade associations, to urge you to oppose H.R. 282,

HR 282 has 333 Cosponsors. There are 435 members. That’s nearly 77% support. This is a hugely bipartisan issue.

HR 282 --- SEC. 303. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING DESIGNATION OF DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Initial Designation- It is the sense of Congress that, not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President should designate at least one democratic opposition organization as eligible to receive assistance under section 302.

(b) Notification Requirement- Not later than 15 days before designating a democratic opposition organization as eligible to receive assistance under section 302, the President shall notify the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate of the proposed designation. If the President determines that such is appropriate, such notification may be in classified form.

U.S. OPPOSITION TO IRAN’S ADDMITANCE INTO THE WTO

HUMINT: I don’t believe Iran will join the WTO no matter what the U.S. does. Iran's economic policies are designed to isolate Iranians from foreign influence and maintain financial authority over those that are not particularly intimidated by the ideological authority of the Iranian regime. If Iran were to join the WTO and begin instituting policies in line with globalization, it will in effect, empower the Iranian people. Factions would rise not wiling to mimic the regime and begin funneling their resources into the regimes opponents. That sort of challenge would shatter the regime. The imprisonment of students, professors and journalists whose only crime is to ask for political reforms is an indication of the fragility of this regime. That’s why it is prudent to support Iranian opposition groups to facilitate Iran’s transition to democracy. Outside of Iran, on the sanctions front, this is what I believe the U.S. should be working on…

In combination, individual national strategic petroleum reserves represent an international strategic reserve but this has yet to be legislated in a way that could logically insulate energy markets from erratic petroleum exporting nations like Iran. An announcement from President Bush to release our reserves adjusts energy prices and is an informal precedent in times of crisis however I am thinking more along the lines of a long term treaty. His announcement might drop prices in the short run but I don’t think it’s enough of a policy to take the world into an age of energy security, if there is a possibility of such an age.

An appropriately worded treaty between energy importers could define a procedure to follow if a single nation attempts to trigger a global economic meltdown by withholding resources. The defined a series of decisive steps would be taken by the interested parties that may include a policy of regime change. Another might be to create an international strategic petroleum reserve. Without it, energy importers are unduly influenced by the likes of Iran. I believe resource rich nations have an obligation to supply resources at a pace the global economy can adjust to without crashing. If Iran wants to pull its oil off the market, fine, but in phases that the global economy can adjust to. If not, then the Iranian government is in effect threatening the quality of life of literally billions of people. That kind of behavior is totally unacceptable… and consequences should come from the countries impacted by such behavior.

For example Japan. Japan is a great example of a nation who is destroying international energy security by signing contracts to develop Iranian oil fields. They will in effect be feeding ours and their most destabilizing force. Here’s the scenario:

1. Japan develops Iranian petro-fields
2. Iran makes petro-money strengthening its hand
3. Energy industry becomes more dependant on Iran
4. Iran threatens annihilation of a neighbor
5. International community reacts with outrage, threatens consequences
6. Consequences lead to pessimistic speculations for energy supply shooting petro-costs through the roof
7. Iran either follows through on threats or backs down after terrorizing their target and the free-world
8. All the while oppressing Iranians who want to join, not terrorize the world
9. Iran repeats these steps until the planet is as unstable as they are

If Japan and others had some contractual guarantee not to feed the beast through some sort of treaty, the world community could face down the terror threat. Without broad energy solidarity with energy importers, energy security is a pipe dream, because it’s a fungible commodity we all have to have to maintain our quality of life.