The question is not about saction lifting but it's all a game between the American coalition and the French. Americans want sactions lifted without giving any contracts to the other nations in Iraq while French wants sactions lifted on the condition that they should be involved in Iraq's reconstruction. This is why French keep insisting for the role of UN.
Hence, the people who are supportive of the American position will go for AYE and vice versa.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by khan_sahib: *
The question is not about saction lifting but it's all a game between the American coalition and the French. Americans want sactions lifted without giving any contracts to the other nations in Iraq while French wants sactions lifted on the condition that they should be involved in Iraq's reconstruction. This is why French keep insisting for the role of UN.
Hence, the people who are supportive of the American position will go for AYE and vice versa.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe Kahn_sahib,
Best thing would be if the Iraqi's (or interim Iraqi government) chose who obtains those contracts the old capitalistic way....
Specially sinse we in the U.S. liberated them. Would be a test of U.S. character.
And by whomever offers the best bid and benefits, such as investing in communities as well as employing and educating Iraqi workers, managers and CEO's. Should also have the monetary funds and experience to back investment in Iraqi infrastucture and reconstruction bonds.
Economies are pretty global today. Iraq could chose a French, U.S., German, Russian or Asian company but investors into those companies would probobly be worldwide, even 401s or retirement plan investments...under the guise of global growth funds, and the like.
Probobly doesn't really matter that much who obtains reconstruction contracts. The companies that do will have to willing to make and risk huge investments.
AvgAmericanGirl, America choose the Iraqi interim government and in return they award the contracts. It should be obvious who they will choose.
FYI, oil exploration contract has been awarded to Halliburton and construction contract to Bechtel. surprise surprise, there has been no Iraqi representative government in Iraq yet.
I am not against lifting sanctions and in fact have been against them because they are ineffective and ONLY cause sufferings to the people and not to the elite.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by khan_sahib: *
AvgAmericanGirl, America choose the Iraqi interim government and in return they award the contracts. It should be obvious who they will choose.
FYI, oil exploration contract has been awarded to Halliburton and construction contract to Bechtel. surprise surprise, there has been no Iraqi representative government in Iraq yet.
I am not against lifting sanctions and in fact have been against them because they are ineffective and ONLY cause sufferings to the people and not to the elite.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe khan_sahib,
Lets watch and see what happens in Iraq before we condemn. Still early. Gona take time for Iraq to adjust.
Even if American companies get contracts, doesn't mean that just because they are American, they will be bad for Iraqi's.
There are well qualified and wealthy enough companies in the U.S. that are able to invest millions of dollars in reconstructing Iraq. I would think that these companies will create good jobs for Iraqi's. I believe that investing in Iraq reconstuction includes investing in the Iraqi community.
In fact it better include investing in Iraqi communities. If not, U.S. loses any idea of making any kind of peace in the mid-east.
I don't think its logical to believe that reconstuction contracts in Iraq will only benefit the U.S. even if majority of contracts are given to American Companies.
American Companies have foreign investors, just as Foreign Companies have American investors.
I don't believe there is a conspiracy to suck up the resources of Iraq and then leave Iraq to the sharks.
this is the least we can do. we have seen the outcome in Afghanistan and now we can hope that it turns out to be better for Iraqis.
A bit of background first on Rahul Mahajan - he was born in Philadelphia, has been campaigning against the sanctions on Iraq for longer than i remember. When i first joined the “movement”, he was already a known activist in North America.
His previous articles can be accessed here. Best part about his writings, IMO, is that they are always balanced - he argues with the facts, not with his biases. For the record - he is not Muslim or Arab, (originally he might be from India, but not certain about that). More importantly - he writes great stuff.
Don’t Lift The Sanctions Yet, Rahul Mahajan
9 May 2003
Essentially, what Rahul Mahajan is arguing is that it is appropriate to harm the Iraqi people through sanctions if the purpose of the sanctions is to oppose US designs for Iraq but it was not appropriate to harm the Iraqi people through sanctions if the purpose was to oppose Saddam.
Sorry. You can't have it both ways.
All this shows is that the previously anti-sanctions crowd are more interested in opposing US policies and actions than they are concerned about the Iraqi people.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by myvoice: *
**All this shows is that the previously anti-sanctions crowd are more interested in opposing US policies and actions than they are concerned about the Iraqi people.
[/QUOTE]
*
Sorry, but that is so not true.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Sorry, but that is so not true.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Some people here are "representative" of US govt's opinion. They'll change their belief as soon as there is a word about it from Govt.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
*
Sorry, but that is so not true.
[/QUOTE]
Nadia:
I knew you’d say that but just examine closely the article you have linked to.
Rahul Mahajan states as follows:
** “The United States has moved to consolidate control over Iraq.” **
** “The Bush administration wants to set up permanent military bases in Iraq, making it the main Middle East staging area for U.S. "force projection." “**
** “All of these things can be obtained through the U.S. military presence and the creation of what will essentially be an Iraqi puppet government.” **
So, Mr. Mahajan points out that the continuation of sanctions can foil or, at least, make more difficult what he perceives as the US objectives. He says,
** “Existing U.N. resolutions require Security Council approval for Iraqi oil sales and for disbursement of oil money to pay for other goods. Other countries may be leery of buying Iraqi oil without some clear understanding that what they're doing is legal, so the United States cannot simply declare those resolutions void by fiat, the way it declared war on Iraq.” **
Yet, he fully realizes the harm that continuing the sanctions means for the Iraqi people.
He says, ** ““In the long run, the sanctions must be lifted because they impose a highly inefficient foreign control of the Iraqi economy, causing the collapse of local economic activity and requiring money that should be spent internally to be spent on foreign corporations.” **
But, in the short run, he makes clear that sanctions should remain in place to keep the US from being the arbiter as to how Iraqi wealth should be spent.
** “in the short run, there is no compelling reason to lift them in the absence of a legitimate Iraqi government that has the right to make choices about how Iraq's oil wealth is to be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people, not for U.S. corporate boondoggles and plans for military-based political domination.”” **
Noticeably absent from this analysis is any consideration of the health and well being of the Iraqi people. In other words, harm to the Iraqi people and the Iraqi economy is just fine so long as it thwarts US objectives in the region.
You can try to paint the motives of the formerly anti-sanctions crowd (now pro-sanctions in a large measure) any way you want. No matter how you slice it though, the impact of their stance is nothing less than a 180 degree reversal of their arguments and positions before. It was all well and good to ease the pain of the Iraqi people and subject them to the continuing tyranny of Saddam the butcher as long as the US was on the pro-sanctions side. All of a sudden, the pain of the Iraqi people and what was called genocide on a daily basis becomes acceptable for just a little longer as long as the US objectives in the region are thwarted.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
.....
Noticeably absent from this analysis is any consideration of the health and well being of the Iraqi people. ....
[/QUOTE]
Just curious, when did you learn that sanctions are hurting Iraqi people's health and well being?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
Just curious, when did you learn that sanctions are hurting Iraqi people's health and well being?
[/QUOTE]
Oh...I've known that for quite some time. I'll even confess that for a good period of time that I knew that, I also believed as Madelaine Halfbright did that the price was worth paying.
It just fascinates me to no end though that many of the very people who who criticized Halfbright so violently now are pro-sanctions and have adopted her argument almost verbatim: i.e. any pain the Iraqi people will feel from continued sanctions is worth it if it stops the US from achieving its perceived objective.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by myvoice: *
**All of a sudden, the pain of the Iraqi people and what was called genocide on a daily basis becomes acceptable for just a little longer as long as the US objectives in the region are thwarted.*
[/QUOTE]
With all due respect, MV, that is utterly inaccurate. If i did not know you on Gupshup, i would feel personally offended by the above statement (but i don't) for the simple reason that the thought of using this issue simply as political thrusts against an American government, repels me on a personal scale. It's not as simple as that, i am sorry, nor is it capable of being reduced to this reductionist, over-simplified conclusion.
Mahajan acknowledged the ambiguity of his position in his first three statements (After five years spent working to end the sanctions on Iraq, I find myself in an odd position. I'm opposed to the current U.S. plans to end the sanctions. The new situation is fascinating).
His stance is based, quite simply, upon facts - which he has stated as follows:
[quote]
The draft resolution being currently circulated would give the United States very open, explicit control over Iraq's oil industry and the money derived therefrom. Then, instead of being forced to disburse USAID funds to corporations like Bechtel that are closely tied to current and past administration figures in closed bidding processes with no foreign corporations allowed, the United States will be able to use Iraq's money to pay off mostly American corporations. ...] Iraq should not have to pay for its own reconstruction, especially since for years to come its oil revenues will be barely enough to meet the basic needs of its people.
[/quote]
Infact no where in his article does he state that sanctions should not be lifted for the reason that the US govt. is in favour of this stance.
i have often queried, on this Forum, issues related to the lifting of sanctions, to which i have not as of yet received any satisfactory or confidence-inspiring answers. What happens to the New York-based escrow account ? What happens to the 'oil-for-food' programme - is that phased out? If so, what system or programme replaces that? How is Iraq's civil service (doctors, teachers, etc.) paid (previously some of the revenues from Iraq's illegal smuggling used to go towards their wages) - how are they paid? How do the millions of Iraqis, who depend upon monthly food rations under the 'oil-for-food' programme, survive? What happens to Iraq's 1991 debts ? For how long will Iraq be paying for that, from revenues that instead should go towards rebuilding its dilapidated infrastructures ?
IMHO it is extremely simplistic to brush off stated concerns as the product of anti-Americanism. Dig a little deeper, and sometimes (albeit not always), there is usually more than meets the eye.
Nadia:
Whether you are offended or not, the very quotation you have cited in your above post provides further support for the argument I have made.
You quote, "The draft resolution being currently circulated would give the United States very open, explicit control over Iraq's oil industry and the money derived therefrom. Then, instead of being forced to disburse USAID funds to corporations like Bechtel that are closely tied to current and past administration figures in closed bidding processes with no foreign corporations allowed, the United States will be able to use Iraq's money to pay off mostly American corporations. ...] Iraq should not have to pay for its own reconstruction, especially since for years to come its oil revenues will be barely enough to meet the basic needs of its people."
Where, oh where is the health and well being of the Iraqi people being considered in the above quote? It doesn't even seem to matter that the Iraqi people would get food, medicine, building materials, water, etc. if sanctions end. The WHOLE argument is that sanctions should remain in place because America and American corporations might benefit from there termination. No other justification is advanced.
You say I am inaccurate but point to anything in the article showing that this guy's opposition to lifting sanctions is based upon the Iraqi people getting the relief they need and/or the Iraqi economy getting better because of sanctions.
QUESTION: Why are the hardships that he acknowledges will occur from continuation of sanctions worth it?
ANSWER: In his opinion, because America will not get what he thinks America wants.
Before you get overly offended, I did not say that this is your personal belief. I said that it is the belief of much of the formerly anti-sanctions crowd...this author included.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by myvoice: *
**It doesn't even seem to matter that the Iraqi people would get food, medicine, building materials, water, etc. if sanctions end. *
[/QUOTE]
This seems to imply that medicines will fall from the sky, if only the sanctions would be officially lifted at the Council. i am sorry, what happened to all the queries i had listed in my previous reply?
Twelve years of genocide can never be magically reversed by a piece of paper that ends the embargo...not for as long as Iraq will still be paying, subsequent to one decade, for 'Gulf War' reparations or if its New York-based UN escrow account is still maintained at the ultimate expense of the reconstruction of its infrastructures.
It will take generations for the consequences of the embargo to be ameliorated, not least because Iraq's middle class is decimated and the economy suffered through periods of massive inflation. Lifting sanctions would absolutely be a step in the right direction (IMO), but unless it is accompanied by other measures taken simultaneously (vis-a-vis restoring control of Iraq's revenues in the hands of a temporary UN department until a proper Iraqi authority is elected, as well as all the other steps outlined in my last reply), then the people of Iraq will continue to suffer as they have for the past decade and more.
So you did believe “price was worth” 
:kaboom: myvoice