by Nicholas James Von Pless, http://news.bbc.co.uk
Posted in on Wednesday, Feb 23
David Frum, a speechwriter for President Bush, said that “an American-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein - and the replacement of the radical Baathist dictatorship with a new government more closely aligned with the United States would put America more wholly in charge of the region than any power since the Ottomans, or maybe even the Romans. (1)” Why did America want to control a region so strategically placed in the world, and in the Middle East? Was it business? Was it money? Many critics will speculate that economic interests were in the foreground, and that terrorist and Weapons of Mass Destruction were the curtains behind a grand scheme. Now that we know there were no WMDs, and now that the CIA has officially acknowledged that all nuclear programs in Iraq ended in 1991, what should we believe? Should we believe that Halliburton was given no-bid contracts to liberate the people of Iraq? Should we believe that gas is expensive to buy because it’s so scarse in Iraq, when at the same time, all oil companies announced record profits? This year, American company BP announced a $24 billion profit, which is the biggest profit in American corporate history (2). It’s fair to say that money was on the minds of Washington’s finest.
“Many companies around the world were preparing to do business with Iraq in anticipation of a lifting of sanctions. But the U.S. and the U.K. had been bombing northern and southern Iraq since 1991. So it was very unlikely that we would be in any kind of position to gain significant contracts in any post-sanctions Iraq. And those sanctions were going to be lifted soon, Saddam would still be in place, and we would get no financial benefit,” said Karen Kwiatkowski, former Pentagon Lieutenant Colonel (3). Yes, and now we even see talk of tourism in Iraq, increased business transactions, and more money in the pockets of the rich, with no benefit to America’s working class.
Even before the speculation of WMDs, Paul O’Neill, a former Bush cabinet member, made the claim that Bush just wanted to take over Iraq, but didn’t have a reason yet. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it," said O'Neill. "The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this.’ (4) ”.
Paul Bremer, chairman of the Coalition Provisional Authority and US overseer of post-war Iraq even imposed changes to Iraq’s former economy. These included the widespread privatization of public enterprises, which—combined with allowing for 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi companies—renders key sectors of the Iraqi economy prime targets of burgeoning American corporations, the imposition of a 15% flat tax, which primarily benefits the wealthy and places a disproportionate burden on the poor, the virtual elimination of import tariffs, resulting in a flood of foreign goods into the country; since smaller Iraqi companies—weakened by over a dozen years of sanctions—are unable to compete, hundreds of factories have recently shut down, adding to already-severe unemployment, 100% repatriation of profits, which severely limits reinvestment in the Iraqi economy, a lowering of the minimum wage, increasing already widespread poverty, and leases on contracts for as long as 40 years, making it impossible for even a truly sovereign government to legally make alternative arrangements (5). However, they chose to keep a part of Iraqi law – a ban on public sector unions. It has even been reported that U.S. occupation forces have even violently broken up peaceful protests by trade unions.
There’s also the claim that the United States only invaded Iraq for oil. While this might not be the sole reason, it’s a fair assumption to make. While the United States does not solely depend on the Middle East for petroleum, Iraq has the world’s second-most quanitity of oil reserves, and borders three of the world’s five biggest oil companies. If America had the control of these areas, they would always have an advantage in any future oil crises, cashing in on the biggest profits. Secondly, in 2000, Iraq was one of the first OPEC countries to switch from an American dollar standard to a Euro standard. What does this mean? Well, if an oil drum costs $1.00, but then makes a switch to a Euro price of one [Euro], and one Euro only converts to 82 cents, then America is paying 18 more cents per oil drum than they used to under the American standard. If America is buying millions of oil drums, well then, we can see where an interest would lie for American invasión of Iraq. In addition, contracts for resonctruction have only been given to contractors from countries that supported the invasion from the start. Moreover, Iraqi companies have been exluded from bidding, so that only American companies are given the green light to control telecommunications and obtain lucrative contracts.
Money. Yes, that’s what was on the minds of our top officials and greedy businessmen that fit quite nicely in the President’s pockets. That’s why there are no-bid contracts and huge, American-built oil lines, power lines, and expensive hotels. None of this is helping Iraq either. While the American contractors and companies rake in the profits, Baghdad only enjoys 3-9 hours of electricity per day, and the gasoline is a watered-down juice, that barely gets one from point A to point B.
This is not liberation.
(1)Nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/index.htm
(2)pacificviews.org/archives/000637.html
(3)guardian.co.uk/oil/store/0,11319,1402310,00.html
(4)pacificviews.org/archives/000464.html#000464
(5)fpif.org/papers/0410milglob.html
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://neovox.cortland.edu/mt/mt-tb.cgi/114