The Spoils of War: Who'll get the Lion's Share? (Merged)

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Britain and the USA are already squabbling over who gets the lucrative contracts over re-building Iraq after demolishing it. The first signs of tension over the rebuilding and running of post-war Iraq have emerged with the award of a $4.8m to an American firm (£3m) contract to manage the captured port of Umm Qasr.

Although the Yanks are clearly the fore-runners in the rush for gold, but what are the chances of Britain getting a few scraps from the table? I know that the UK has been promised some piece of the pie, but will it be worthwhile, and does anybody have any more idea on what we can expect?

Britain and US at odds over port rebuilding project

2

Handbags at dawn: Blair gets publicly slapped down by his man

ROUTLEDGE: DUBYA IN A SLAPDOWN TO OUR PM

His [Blair’s] mission was aborted before his plane got to Washington. Colin Powell, the relatively sane Secretary of State, had pooh-poohed the notion of anything but a US military regime in Iraq.

In his words, the USA will have “dominating control”, presumably with the aid of Iraqi stooges who fancy replacing Saddam Hussein with their own form of mastery.

A “retired” US general is already being groomed as the next Viceroy of Baghdad.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12783823&method=full&siteid=50143

3

This is partly the reason why I opened the thread discussing the future carve up of Iraqi resources:

http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97995

I’m pretty sure that Blair will have been trying to get a few scraps from the US table, but definitely the Americans will take the lion’s share.

4

Its gonna be General Jay who is going to decide who gets what in Baghdad after the Yankees have their Viceroy in Baghdad. He is at present cobbling up his team in Qatar and then give audience to different people interested in spoils of war in Kuwait later this week.

5

The company that has received the $4.8m (£3m) contract, the private Stevedoring Services of America (SSA), apparently "has business interests at 150 sites around the world, including Vietnam, India, Chile and Panama. Its president, Jon Hemingway, has made political donations to Republican candidates."

But no big surprise there, i suppose.

6

Man who would be ‘king’ of Iraq, Oliver Morgan, The Observer, 30 March 2003

[Jay Garner] appears to share their strong pro-Israeli views. He has been involved in formulating their more controversial defence policies, including the US national missile defence system that has done much to undermine the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty. The company he now works for is a missile specialist and makes money from systems deployed in Israel and by coalition forces in Iraq.

US arms trader to run Iraq, Oliver Morgan
The Observer, 30 March 2003

Garner’s business background is causing serious concerns at the United Nations and among aid agencies, who are already opposed to US administration of Iraq if it comes outside UN authority, and who say appointment of an American linked to the arms trade is the ‘worst case scenario’ for running the country after the war.

Garner is president of Virginia-based SY Coleman, a subsidiary of defence electronics group L-3 Communications, which provides technical services and advice on the Patriot missile system being used in Iraq. Patriot was made famous in the 1991 Gulf war when it was used to protect Israeli and Saudi targets from attack by Saddam Hussein’s Scud missiles. Garner was involved in the system’s deployment in Israel.

7

**These links have provoked unease among companies outside the US, which believe that the Americans want to carve up reconstruction contracts among themselves, regardless of any UN role. A subsidiary of Cheney's old company, Halliburton, has recently secured a deal to put out oil well fires. Halliburton, and Bechtel, another company with strong Republican links, were on a US-only shortlist for a major $900m reconstruction contract that will be overseen by Garner's office.

After strong lobbying from UK companies, the DTI agency Trade Partners UK managed to get a British secondee into Garners office, and Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt lobbied the US government to include the British.

But contractors say ORHA is not responding to requests for contact. 'We have worries about this,' said one. 'There is a huge row going on behind the scenes about Halliburton and Bechtel winning deals, and we can't talk to the people on the ground.' **

Garner's links with Israel aside, one of the main concerns of the British is that having supported the 'war on terror', when it comes to dividing the spoils, US will carve up the choice cuts for themselves. Obviously with the UK having jeapordised it's ties with Europe to the point where they are probably irreperable, they wopuld like to have seen some of the cash windfall come their way. I wonder if it will be a substantial amount - not that we've suffered much from terrorism over here, other than from the American-sponsored Irish in the past.

8

Looks like the plans for Iraqi Oil are quite well advanced:

Read the small print: the US wants to privatise Iraq’s oil

9

The markets are rallying with the prospect of a hopefully imminent American conquest of Baghdad. It will be interesting to see which companies react most favourably to the news. (oh yes, don’t forget, evil Saddam, freedom for Iraqis etc.)

Wall St Poised for Rally as Troops Enter Baghdad

LONDON (Reuters) - Wall Street was set to soar at the opening on Monday, with aluminum producer Alcoa (NYSE:AA - news) in focus, amid perceptions that the U.S.-led war against Iraq (news - web sites) is entering its final phase after troops entered central Baghdad.

“The market is going to go higher. The first hour should see very heavy volume with elation over the progress that’s been made with regard to Baghdad,” said Steve Previs, a U.S. share trader at Jefferies International in London.

U.S. forces burst into the heart of Baghdad on Monday and entered two palace complexes of President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), although they said the operation was an armored raid not intended to hold territory.

U.S. equity index futures indicated the Dow Jones industrial average (^DJI - news) would open about 220 points higher, while the Nasdaq Composite index (^IXIC - news) was also set to surge.

Among individual stocks Alcoa (AA.F), the world’s largest aluminum producer, was trading up 7.6 percent in Frankfurt at 19.95 euros ($21.12) from a New York close of $20.04 after it reported lower profits that beat analysts’

10

A remarkably frank account about the importance to developed economies of invading Iraq, smashing it then re-building it along with ensuring the oil supply. A brighter economic prospect certainly seems ensured for America, and I would expect Britain as well. Let’s see where the markets are in a year’s time.

Cheaper Oil to boost Developed Economies

April 12, 2003

World Economy

By Lea Paterson, Economics Editor

COULD the events of the past few days prove to be the tipping point for the global economy? Policy-makers have high hopes that a new period of prosperity will be ushered in.
Over the past five years, financial crisis in emerging markets, the dot-com bust, US recession and September 11 have left the global economy in a critical condition. Victory in the war on Saddam Hussein could be an economic elixir.

It is certainly the case that world economic prospects are considerably brighter today than a week ago. The unexpected speed with which the conflict in Iraq has moved into its final stages has had positive knock-on effects on financial markets around the world.

Share prices in Britain are 100 points above where they were last Friday and more than 600 points above their level in the days immediately before the war. Most important of all, the oil price has dropped $10 a barrel since the start of military action, and was trading in London yesterday at about $24 a barrel.

Once it is clear when and how Iraqi oil will be released on the market, the crude cost could fall further. Oil at between $20 and $22 a barrel seems like a realistic possibility by summer.

**The most obvious winners from a lower oil price are the economies of the developed world, with energy-dependent businesses among those with the most to gain. Cheaper oil means cheaper energy prices, which means lower costs for business and fatter profit margins. That, in turn, means bigger dividends for shareholders, a better outlook for the jobs market and a boost for growth.

Not every economy will welcome a weaker oil price. Developing countries dependent on oil for export revenues, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, are among those that will take a hit. There is, of course, one oil-dependent developing country that will prosper: Iraq will reap rich rewards from the removal of post-1991 economic sanctions. **

Cheaper oil is one reason why stock markets are much cheerier than they were in March. The likely improvement in consumer confidence and business investment are two others.

The long build-up to war had begun to erode the optimism of even the most bullish consumers in the world: the Americans. The unexpectedly rapid progress of the coalition forces is almost certain to boost the consumer feelgood factor, especially in the US and Britain. That can only augur well for those industries whose profits depend upon consumer goodwill — particularly retail and property.

Business confidence also fell victim to the geopolitical uncertainties of the past six months. Economists hope that now the political fog is lifting, business confidence — and, crucially, business investment — will begin to return. **Companies that are feeling particularly upbeat about the future include those US and British engineering, construction and water firms that hope to play a role in the reconstruction of Iraq. Are there any captains of industry feeling more miserable this week than last? Possibly, but only those French and German companies who fear being squeezed out of lucrative US contracts by rivals in “new Europe”. **

Victory in the war with Saddam is no panacea. There are still plenty of imbalances to be addressed in the global economy, and a short-term “Baghdad bounce” in the stock markets is no guarantee of a longer-term recovery. Among the areas to watch are the gaping US trade deficit, which could yet conspire to bring down the dollar, and the deep-rooted economic problems of Germany. In the Far East, the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) is threatening to curtail what had been a promising improvement.

Despite these risks, the events of the past week will go some way towards restoring the industrialised world to financial health. The battle for the global economic recovery is not yet over. But it does, at last, appear to be nearing its conclusion.

11

A poodle can never take what belongs to it's handler, unless of course a bout of rabies initiates the poodle to attack the master.

As Blair is the poodle, he can stick to chewing the bones!

12

Iraq bidder’s apartheid past, Conal Walsh and Oliver Morgan
The Observer, 6 April 2003

Fluor Corporation, the US building firm tipped to land a massive reconstruction deal in postwar Iraq, is facing a multibillion-dollar lawsuit claiming that it exploited and brutalised black workers in apartheid-era South Africa.

Lawyers acting for thousands of victims of the racist regime are to file a detailed suit in the US this week, which includes the claim that Fluor hired security guards dressed in Ku Klux Klan robes to attack unarmed workers protesting against poor pay and conditions.

The action comes at an awkward time for Fluor, one of five firms controversially invited by the US government to bid for a $600 million contract to rebuild Iraqi roads and public buildings. John Ngcebetsha, a lawyer for former employees, said: ‘This company has a long history of human rights violations in South Africa. It cares nothing about the societies in which it works and its involvement in Iraq would be disastrous.’

Fluor denies all the allegations. Meanwhile, it has emerged that Jay Garner, the retired US general who will oversee Iraqi reconstruction, is facing legal action over his activities while president of a defence company, SY Technology (now SY Coleman).

Lawyers acting for rival DESE Research claim Garner lent his weight to senior officials at the Space and Missile Defence Command, where he previously worked, to deny DESE a research contract on a system for attacking enemy satellites. DESE’s lawyer, Howell Riggs, also claims that Garner received a ‘payoff’ from successors at the defence command in the form of another lucrative contract. That deal was later cancelled.

Riggs said: ‘We are investigating Garner’s role in the denial of a contract to DESE in September 2001 and whether he has engaged in a conspiracy to deny DESE work. We expect to file a suit against him and SY Technology or its successor soon.’

No one at SY Coleman was available for comment.

13

Corporate American greed has no limits…

Halliburton says Iraq contract less than reported 7 billion dollars

14

How does a company that fufills a contract for emergency work during armed hostilities qualify as "Corporate American Greed"? The high figure in the article is a 7% profit. Should a French or Russian company get the important job of putting out fires and repairing equipment? Sorry, but to the victor goes the spoils. Or to put it another way Au vainqueur va les récompenses.

15

Seminole

It wouldn't be such a big issue if Cheney had nothing to do with this company.

The damned company has been given the contract without a tender.

So much for Democracy. (American style)

16

More evidence that the smashing and re-constructing of Iraq is going to be a jackpot bonanza for the US of A. Looks like good times ahead for Americans but what Britain will get out of it remains unclear.

Bomb before you buy

*What is being planned in Iraq is not reconstruction but robbery *

Naomi Klein
Monday April 14, 2003
The Guardian

On April 6, deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz spelled it out: there will be no role for the UN in setting up an interim government in Iraq. The US-run regime will last at least six months, “probably longer than that”. And by the time the Iraqi people have a say in choosing a government, the key economic decisions about their country’s future will have been made by their occupiers. “There has to be an effective administration from day one,” Wolfowitz said. “People need water and food and medicine, and the sewers have to work, the electricity has to work. And that’s coalition responsibility.”
**The process of how they will get all this infrastructure to work is usually called “reconstruction”. But American plans for Iraq’s future economy go well beyond that. Rather than rebuilding, the country is being treated as a blank slate on which the most ideological Washington neo-liberals can design their dream economy: fully privatised, foreign-owned and open for business. **

*The $4.8m management contract for the port in Umm Qasr has already gone to a US company, Stevedoring Services, and there are similar deals for airport administration on the auction block. The United States Agency for International Development has invited US multinationals to bid on everything from rebuilding roads and bridges to distributing textbooks. The length of time these contracts will last is left unspecified. How long before they meld into long-term contracts for water services, transit systems, roads, schools and phones? When does reconstruction turn into privatisation in disguise? *

Republican congressman Darrel Issa has introduced a bill that would require the defence department to build a CDMA cellphone system in postwar Iraq in order to benefit “US patent holders”. As Farhad Manjoo noted in the internet magazine Salon, CDMA is the system used in the US, not in Europe, and was developed by Qualcomm, one of Issa’s most generous donors.

**Then there’s oil. The Bush administration knows it can’t talk openly about selling Iraq’s oil resources to ExxonMobil and Shell. It leaves that to people like Fadhil Chalabi, a former Iraqi petroleum minister and executive director of the Center for Global Energy Studies. “We need to have a huge amount of money coming into the country. The only way is to partially privatise the industry,” Chalabi says. **

He is part of a group of Iraqi exiles that has been advising the state department on how to implement privatisation in such a way that it isn’t seen to be coming from the US. Helpfully, the group held a conference in London on April 6 and called on Iraq to open itself up to oil multinationals shortly after the war. The Bush administration has shown its gratitude by promising that there will plenty of posts for Iraqi exiles in the interim government.

**Some argue that it’s too simplistic to say this war is about oil. They’re right. It’s about oil, water, roads, trains, phones, ports and drugs. And if this process isn’t halted, “free Iraq” will be the most sold country on earth. **

It’s no surprise that so many multinationals are lunging for Iraq’s untapped market. It’s not just that the reconstruction will be worth as much as $100bn; it’s also that “free trade” by less violent means hasn’t been going that well lately. More and more developing countries are rejecting privatisation, while the Free Trade Area of the Americas, Bush’s top trade priority, is wildly unpopular across Latin America. World Trade Organisation talks on intellectual property, agriculture and services have all got bogged down amid accusations that the US and Europe have yet to make good on past promises.

So what is a recessionary, growth-addicted superpower to do? How about upgrading from Free Trade Lite, which wrestles market access through backroom bullying at the WTO, to Free Trade Supercharged, which seizes new markets on the battlefields of pre-emptive wars? **After all, negotiations with sovereign countries can be hard. Far easier to just tear up the country, occupy it, then rebuild it the way you want. Bush hasn’t abandoned free trade, as some have claimed, he just has a new doctrine: “Bomb before you buy”. **

It goes much further than one unlucky country. Investors are openly predicting that once privatisation takes root in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will all be forced to compete by privatising their oil. “In Iran, it would just catch like wildfire,” S Rob Sobhani, an energy consultant, told the Wall Street Journal. Pretty soon, the US may have bombed its way into a whole new free trade zone.

So far, the press debate over the reconstruction of Iraq has focused on fair play: it is “exceptionally maladroit”, in the words of the European Union’s commissioner for external relations, Chris Patten, for the US to keep all the juicy contracts for itself. It has to learn to share: Exxon should invite France’s TotalFinaElf to the most lucrative oil fields; Bechtel should give Britain’s Thames Water a shot at the sewer contracts.

But while Patten may find US unilateralism galling, and Tony Blair may be calling for UN oversight, on this matter it’s beside the point. Who cares which multinationals get the best deals in Iraq’s pre-democracy, post-Saddam liquidation sale? What does it matter if the privatising is done unilaterally by the US, or multilaterally by the US, Europe, Russia and China?

**Entirely absent from this debate are the Iraqi people, who might - who knows? - want to hold on to a few of their assets. Iraq will be owed massive reparations after the bombing stops, but in the absence of any kind of democratic process, what is being planned is not reparations, reconstruction or rehabilitation. It is robbery: mass theft disguised as charity; privatisation without representation. **

A people, starved and sickened by sanctions, then pulverised by war, is going to emerge from this trauma to find that their country had been sold out from under them. They will also discover that their new-found “freedom” - for which so many of their loved ones perished - comes pre-shackled by irreversible economic decisions that were made in boardrooms while the bombs were still falling. They will then be told to vote for their new leaders, and welcomed to the wonderful world of democracy.

17

Bomb before you buy…

The US’s true plan, exploitation not reconstruction…

Bomb before you buy

What is being planned in Iraq is not reconstruction
but robbery

Naomi Klein
Monday April 14, 2003
The Guardian

On April 6, deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz
spelled it out: there will be no role for the UN in
setting up an interim government in Iraq. The US-run
regime will last at least six months, “probably longer
than that”. And by the time the Iraqi people have a
say in choosing a government, the key economic
decisions about their country’s future will have been
made by their occupiers. “There has to be an effective
administration from day one,” Wolfowitz said. “People
need water and food and medicine, and the sewers have
to work, the electricity has to work. And that’s
coalition responsibility.”

The process of how they will get all this
infrastructure to work is usually called
“reconstruction”. But American plans for Iraq’s future
economy go well beyond that. Rather than rebuilding,
the country is being treated as a blank slate on which
the most ideological Washington neo-liberals can
design their dream economy: fully privatised,
foreign-owned and open for business.

The $4.8m management contract for the port in Umm Qasr
has already gone to a US company, Stevedoring
Services, and there are similar deals for airport
administration on the auction block. The United States
Agency for International Development has invited US
multinationals to bid on everything from rebuilding
roads and bridges to distributing textbooks. The
length of time these contracts will last is left
unspecified. How long before they meld into long-term
contracts for water services, transit systems, roads,
schools and phones? When does reconstruction turn into
privatisation in disguise?

Republican congressman Darrel Issa has introduced a
bill that would require the defence department to
build a CDMA cellphone system in postwar Iraq in order
to benefit “US patent holders”. As Farhad Manjoo noted
in the internet magazine Salon, CDMA is the system
used in the US, not in Europe, and was developed by
Qualcomm, one of Issa’s most generous donors.

Then there’s oil. The Bush administration knows it
can’t talk openly about selling Iraq’s oil resources
to ExxonMobil and Shell. It leaves that to people like
Fadhil Chalabi, a former Iraqi petroleum minister and
executive director of the Center for Global Energy
Studies. “We need to have a huge amount of money
coming into the country. The only way is to partially
privatise the industry,” Chalabi says.

He is part of a group of Iraqi exiles that has been
advising the state department on how to implement
privatisation in such a way that it isn’t seen to be
coming from the US. Helpfully, the group held a
conference in London on April 6 and called on Iraq to
open itself up to oil multinationals shortly after the
war. The Bush administration has shown its gratitude
by promising that there will plenty of posts for Iraqi
exiles in the interim government.

Some argue that it’s too simplistic to say this war is
about oil. They’re right. It’s about oil, water,
roads, trains, phones, ports and drugs. And if this
process isn’t halted, “free Iraq” will be the most
sold country on earth.

It’s no surprise that so many multinationals are
lunging for Iraq’s untapped market. It’s not just that
the reconstruction will be worth as much as $100bn;
it’s also that “free trade” by less violent means
hasn’t been going that well lately. More and more
developing countries are rejecting privatisation,
while the Free Trade Area of the Americas, Bush’s top
trade priority, is wildly unpopular across Latin
America. World Trade Organisation talks on
intellectual property, agriculture and services have
all got bogged down amid accusations that the US and
Europe have yet to make good on past promises.

So what is a recessionary, growth-addicted superpower
to do? How about upgrading from Free Trade Lite, which
wrestles market access through backroom bullying at
the WTO, to Free Trade Supercharged, which seizes new
markets on the battlefields of pre-emptive wars? After
all, negotiations with sovereign countries can be
hard. Far easier to just tear up the country, occupy
it, then rebuild it the way you want. Bush hasn’t
abandoned free trade, as some have claimed, he just
has a new doctrine: “Bomb before you buy”.

It goes much further than one unlucky country.
Investors are openly predicting that once
privatisation takes root in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia
and Kuwait will all be forced to compete by
privatising their oil. “In Iran, it would just catch
like wildfire,” S Rob Sobhani, an energy consultant,
told the Wall Street Journal. Pretty soon, the US may
have bombed its way into a whole new free trade zone.

So far, the press debate over the reconstruction of
Iraq has focused on fair play: it is “exceptionally
maladroit”, in the words of the European Union’s
commissioner for external relations, Chris Patten, for
the US to keep all the juicy contracts for itself. It
has to learn to share: Exxon should invite France’s
TotalFinaElf to the most lucrative oil fields; Bechtel
should give Britain’s Thames Water a shot at the sewer
contracts.

But while Patten may find US unilateralism galling,
and Tony Blair may be calling for UN oversight, on
this matter it’s beside the point. Who cares which
multinationals get the best deals in Iraq’s
pre-democracy, post-Saddam liquidation sale? What does
it matter if the privatising is done unilaterally by
the US, or multilaterally by the US, Europe, Russia
and China?

Entirely absent from this debate are the Iraqi people,
who might - who knows? - want to hold on to a few of
their assets. Iraq will be owed massive reparations
after the bombing stops, but in the absence of any
kind of democratic process, what is being planned is
not reparations, reconstruction or rehabilitation. It
is robbery: mass theft disguised as charity;
privatisation without representation.

A people, starved and sickened by sanctions, then
pulverised by war, is going to emerge from this trauma
to find that their country had been sold out from
under them. They will also discover that their
new-found “freedom” - for which so many of their loved
ones perished - comes pre-shackled by irreversible
economic decisions that were made in boardrooms while
the bombs were still falling. They will then be told
to vote for their new leaders, and welcomed to the
wonderful world of democracy.

· Naomi Klein’s latest book is Fences and Windows
(Flamingo). A version of this article first appeared
in the Nation

18

thats nothing new, people in the construction/bridge industry like myself have read about this..huge contracts are being awarded..I’m cashing these thobe wearers in. woo woo

http://enr.construction.com/news/bizlabor/archives/030411.asp

http://enr.construction.com/news/bizLabor/archives/030414.asp

19

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Seminole:
Sorry, but to the victor goes the spoils.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you for confirming America's colonialist-like ambitions in occupied Iraq. :)

20

Maybe some more emphasis needs to be put on the economic importance of this war by the American media? This would allay any doubts that the war is being fought for their interests.