Illegalities of the Iraq handover
Find a Conversation
| Sun, 08-08-2004 - 3:37pm |
Illegal orders give the U.S. a lock on Iraq's economy.
By Antonia Juhasz
Antonia Juhasz is a project director at the
International Forum on Globalization in San Francisco
and a Foreign Policy in Focus scholar.
August 5, 2004
Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June
28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still
in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to
control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul
Bremer III remain to control the economy.
These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the
now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition
Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush
administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping
advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S.
economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any,
benefits to the Iraqi people.
Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation
would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day
in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the
orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi — a 30-year exile
with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.
Further, the interim constitution of Iraq, written by
the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies
the orders by making them virtually impossible to
overturn.
A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates
the economic imprint left by the Bush administration:
Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's
200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign
ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national
treatment" — which means no preferences for local over
foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free
remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5)
40-year ownership licenses.
Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in
the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations
— Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up
Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of
their money home. They cannot be required to hire
Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi
economy. They can take out their investments at any
time and in any amount.
Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of
the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and
inspector generals in every government ministry, with
five-year terms and with sweeping authority over
contracts, programs, employees and regulations.
Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including
private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's
laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an
environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn
to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be
brought to U.S. courts.
Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to
50% of Iraqi banks.
Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a
high of 40% to a flat 15%.
Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all
tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees
and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving
Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of
cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local
producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared
to meet the challenge of their mammoth global
competitors.
Clearly, the Bremer orders fundamentally altered
Iraq's existing laws. For this reason, they are also
illegal. Transformation of an occupied country's laws
violates the Hague regulations of 1907 (ratified by
the United States) and the U.S. Army's Law of Land
Warfare. Indeed, in a leaked memo, the British
attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned Prime
Minister Tony Blair that "major structural economic
reforms would not be authorized by international law."
With few reconstruction projects underway and with
Bremer's rules favoring U.S. corporations, there has
been little opportunity for Iraqis to go back to work,
leaving nearly 2 million unemployed 1 1/2 years after
the invasion and, many believe, greatly fueling the
resistance.
The Bremer orders are immoral and illegal and must be
repealed to allow Iraqis to govern their own economic
and political future.

Pages
Funny.....Here I was having a respectful exchange with Sondra and ín come 2 posters telling me how I am "darn
You coulda fooled me.
To the 2 other ladies thank you for trying to defend me. Becuase I didnt want to have this discussion in open I did email djie. You were rite that I do not have to defend myself to anyone, it is no one's busienss why I made the decision. I do not try to question why people choose their line of work, even though many do not make sense to me.
Last thing I will say: Me taking this job has no sin connected to it. Halliburton did not start the war, nor will they end it. While they do not hire any Iraqis, it is not a sin to do so. They are not involved with killing Iraqi's so again no sin. I believe soon enough this will change, therefore, I am part of something that will in the future do good for Iraq. If you can find and prove to me that the work they do is a sin, please forward it.
If you like to believe they are criminals or whatever feel free. Everyone has their own perceptions. I do not do soemthing without fully knowing what it is about.
Yes they are accusations, just like i can accuse you of being a murderer doesn't make it so. Exactly what are the U.S. goals now? Is it oil??? But I thought this war was not about oil. It would be suspicous but Halliburton is located in many countries, not just Iraq. Is Halliburton profiting from the deaths of Iraqis? Is Halliburton the muscleman behind the war and not Bush? Is Halliburton the reason we went to war? What is it that you know that you are not telling the rest of us?
Very true, and many people in the armed services are there becuase they signed up for free college(self-interests), not a war. just one of the side effects.. by the way we all are going to die it is not by choice that is just a fact that you can't change. If I die it is ok becuase I try not to have regrets. I just hope I can survive the flight over, that is my only concern. I have a good life and a great family. What else do I have to prove but that?
No you did not come out and ask me, instead you were insinuating i was doing something wrong. So you were forcing me to justify by your words. I know it is hard to accept that there are people who just do not sit around and complain how bad the world is. There is more good in this world than bad, and that is something you will just have to accept. :-)
Someone trusted us and I for one am appalled at your response to that trust.
We now discover that the received e-mail was meant to stop this whole exchange. That's not the way it was portrayed to the rest of us - how very sneaky of you two - gotta give you credit for that much.
So come on, put up or shut up - you like openness? Open up, actually it would be better on this one if you just shut up - or do you even have that ability?
Pages