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
<>
How about we all just "shut up" about this?
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
Excellent idea - thank you.
I've been lurking here since yesterday, and djie, when I first read your question to Sondra I did not think it was disrespectful at all. You weren't criticizing her decision; you were simply trying to understand her point of view. And Sondra is obviously secure enough in her beliefs that she was comfortable explaining and defending them. Kudos to both of you for handling this in a very diplomatic manner!
I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussions here. Will jump into the fray when I feel I have something worthwhile to contribute.
Have a great weekend, everyone!
Bev
Hey Bev!
Welcome to the board!
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
Thanks for the welcome!
Bev :-)
Pages