Theft of Something Like It

So what is going on in Iraq? Why are we there? There is no way to truly know what goes on in Bush’s heart and mind behind the carefully scripted public utterances. However, as with any politician one must be careful to weigh actions more heavily than words. One must also not focus on one particular individual.

The anti-war chant ‘no blood for oil’ implies that the US invasion was to secure access and control over the second largest known reserve of the worlds most precious energy supply; oil. However, as with any slogan, it is simple. Bush apologists can seize on the cartoonish position and erect a strawman to hack away at. Bush didn’t just start filling tankers up with Iraqi oil therefore the oil connection is false. Let us review what has happened in Iraq to flesh out this particular debate.

Before laying out the evidence we should outline a moral truth. Imperialism and foreign exploitation of economic resources is wrong by definition. There are some super patriots who feel this is not the case. They feel that the US has the right to the entire globe and its resources - by force if necessary. I wont argue that, if you do not accept this truth then that is your decision.

We should start with the people behind the war; Cheney, Bush, Feith, Rumsfeld, Bolton, etc. Their lifelong ties to the oil industry are well documented. I do not wish to spend any space here delineating them again. The point is this; these people have long been keenly aware of oil, America’s dependence on it, and American access to oil reserves. In the private sector many lobbied to gain access to Iraqi oil. We should not underestimate the influence of this shared life experience among the war hawks.

Recently the UN has come under attack for corruption in the oil for food program. There was corruption and smuggling under the UN program. However, at the same time a much larger program of smuggling was occurring under the watch and approval of the United States government. The amount of money from this other program was far greater than the amount from the oil for food scandal. CNN reported on February 3, 2005 that “documents obtained by CNN reveal the United States knew about, and even condoned, embargo-breaking oil sales by Saddam Hussein's regime, and did so to shore up alliances with Iraq's neighbors… Estimates of how much revenue Iraq earned from these tolerated side sales of its oil to Jordan and Turkey, as well as to Syria and Egypt, range from $5.7 billion to $13.6 billion.

This illicit revenue far exceeds the estimates of what Saddam pocketed through illegal surcharges on his U.N.-approved oil exports and illegal kickbacks on subsequent Iraqi purchases of food, medicine, and supplies -- $1.7 billion to $4.4 billion -- during the maligned seven-year U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq.” The UN’s scandal has been discussed, derided, criticized, and used as grounds for reforming the UN. The US’s program of corruption has been noted, forgotten, and barely discussed.

And then came the war. We know very little about what happened or what the internal planning for the war entailed. However, through several FOIAs (Freedom of Information Acts) investigative journalist Greg Palast has obtained a 300 page prewar planning document on Iraqi oil. It specifically calls for privatizing Iraqi oil fields. That means selling them of to multinationals – i.e. handing control over to private ownership from outside countries. Probably as close to literally stealing oil from another country as the real world gets. One should recall that after the war only a specific few countries were going to be allowed into Iraq for reconstruction/privatization. The stated motivation of the reconstruction of Iraqi oil in this document was to shatter OPEC. Again, the plans were very specific. Invade, privatize oil, and undermine OPEC. There was no mention of democracy, spreading Western style democracy, etc. This is one specific account, but there are other instances that give clues about what motivated the war planners. For instance, looting and civil unrest was tolerated but select oil ministries were carefully guarded immediately following the fall of Baghdad.

That is not a complete picture, but it brings us to the war and the occupation itself. Immediately after seizing power Paul Bremer was placed in charge of Iraq. One of his first acts was to give 100 orders for privatizing Iraq. These are reviewed in detail elsewhere. Antonia Juhasz published an article on the “100 orders” in the LA Times August 5, 2004.
In part, he wrote, (I italicized direct quotes from the 100 orders to make the reading clearer)

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.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life — from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition [Iraq ] from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

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.

Allawi was involved in CIA orchestrated car bombings in Baghdad when Saddam Hussein was still around. Today, those are called acts of terror because they primarily target civilians. Continuing,

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%. The income tax rate is also capped at 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."

This is another crucial bit of information. The British appear to have been worried about the illegality of the invasion; I have discussed that matter elsewhere.

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.

The occupational authorities were careful to place people who favored their plans for privatization. For example, before the elections in spring of 2005 the Iraqi Finance minister told a small group of reporters that he favored giving Iraqi oil away to American corporations. The US briefly backed him for prime minister.

Their remains one final matter I would like to mention; corruption. Newsweek recently reported that many international agencies consider Iraq to be the new corruption capital of the world. Billions and Billions of dollars are literally unaccounted for in a series of corporate scandals. The money is supposed to be used for reconstruction. However according to a wide array of sources (if interested leave a comment and I will forward you some – and that goes for any of the facts I have mentioned here) the industries targeted for reconstruction are worse off than before the war; medicine, electricity, water, etc. Christian Aid recently reported that billions in oil revenues are unaccounted for in Iraq. They go on to remark that billions are transferred around with no oversight and end up missing.

On February 15, 2005 the LA Times reported, “Several key decisions by leaders in the early days of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq enabled contractors to bilk the authority out of billions in reconstruction funds, a witness told Democrats on Capitol Hill on Monday.” The day before Reuters reported, “The U.S. occupation authority in Iraq had a chaotic, "Wild West" approach to contracting which opened up the system to abuse and waste, a former employee from the authority said on Monday.” In other words billions were stolen because of Coalition policy and a lack of oversight. Engineers have a philosophy of design. If you do not design for something then you are designing for the expected result. So if you do not design for a backup system in the event of engine failure in an airplane then you are designing for an airplane accident in the event of engine trouble. The same principles should be applied here.
It should not take much thought to put these facts together. Corruption is rampant, billions are routinely ‘lost’ – stolen by profiteering corporations, and it is plausible to claim the coalition has designed the system to be this way (See the coalition authority decrees on privatization and giveaways.)

For some it is incredulous that George Bush gave a twist on his villain’s mustache and sauntered into Iraq filling up oil tankers with black gold. That would be incredible if it were true; it is a caricature of how the real world works. The deliberate lampoon carefully conceals the truth however. The system was designed to hand over control of Iraqi oil to American and western corporations – see Palast’s report or Bremer’s “100 laws.” Due to unexpected insecurity this has not gone as smoothly as planned, but it has still been successful. There is no oversight over contracts and money, money that is supposed to be repairing the damage from the American invasion. Billions are literally coming up missing, which is a nice way of saying billions are being stolen by profiteering corporations.

What to make of all this? For most Americans it is hard to comprehend some of the basic truths laid bare by the facts. Feelings of nationalism and pride corrupt basic conclusions. However, I ask any of them to put themselves through a simple thought experiment. Imagine a parallel scenario, but replace America with another nation. Choose, say Russia or something. Then review the facts I have touched on above and their implications.