|
US contract ban for France, Germany, Canada, etc in Iraq
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NYCTrancefan |
[ Countries set to be excluded from billion-dollar reconstruction contracts in Iraq have questioned the logic of a formal ban being imposed by the US. Old US allies stand to lose contracts because they opposed the US-led war. France said it was studying the ban's legality and Canada, a substantial donor, said it would be hard to justify giving further funds for rebuilding. The German Government said that such a ban was "unacceptable" and could not be defended on the grounds of security. The 26 prime contracts are worth $18.6bn and cover areas such as oil, power, communications, water, housing and public works centres. US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said in a policy document revealed on Tuesday that the contracts were being restricted in order to protect America's "essential security interests". Prime contracts would, he said, be limited to companies from "the United States, Iraq, coalition partners and force-contributing nations".
The French foreign ministry announced on Wednesday that it was studying the ban to see if it was in line with international competition law. In Canada, Deputy Prime Minister John Manley suggested that such a ban would make it difficult for his country to give further money for Iraqi rebuilding. "To exclude Canadians just because they are Canadians would be unacceptable if they accept funds from Canadian taxpayers for the reconstruction of Iraq," he said. According to a spokesman for Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Canada has to date contributed more than $190m to the reconstruction effort.
A spokesman for the German Government said that if reports of the ban were confirmed, it would be "unacceptable". Mr Wolfowitz said he hoped that excluded firms would press their governments to join the post-war effort. "Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international co-operation in Iraq and future efforts," he wrote in a notice on the website www.rebuilding-iraq.net.
The US ban will appease countries such as Britain, Italy and Spain, which provided troops to Iraq but whose companies were excluded from the first round of deals that went to US firms. The biggest contractor in Iraq is Bechtel, the American construction firm that has an estimated $1bn contract to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. The other major US contractor is Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), a subsidiary of the oilfield services company Halliburton.]
-While these nations may be outraged for being excluded from the large contracts (not the subcontracting however) I don't understand why they should be allowed to or do they want to take part in profiteering from an illegal war as they and most of the world view it:rolleyes: I feel that the logic is pretty clear keep out French, German, Russian companies etc. Countries such as France and Germany made no financial commitment @ the Madrid Donor Conference recently, its ironic to now to hear these nations speak of illegality of contract handouts under WTO and such they succeeded rightfully on steel, but I do not see the role of the WTO in Iraqi reconstruction, its reaching out just a little. The fact is the U.S undertook a wholly unpopular campaign in Iraq and had little overall support, nations that stuck with the U.S should be given preference, that is the nature of things. Just my opinion though. Maybe others have a more poignant opinion on this subject. |
|
|
| surferfb |
| My problem with this ban is that it could hurt the Iraqi people. What if a German company is the best in the world at say, fixing water lines, but they can't help the Iraqis because our government is holding grudges. Thats why I don't believe their should be a formal ban. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by surferfb
My problem with this ban is that it could hurt the Iraqi people. What if a German company is the best in the world at say, fixing water lines, but they can't help the Iraqis because our government is holding grudges. Thats why I don't believe their should be a formal ban. |
See Occrider's comments, as well as my own in the other thread. I agree with your point and hopefully if some of the companies that win contracts feel the same way, they will sub-contract out the work to said companies. I see nothing wrong with the way this is being dealt with. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
[Countries set to be excluded from billion-dollar reconstruction contracts in Iraq have questioned the logic of a formal ban being imposed by the US. Old US allies stand to lose contracts because they opposed the US-led war. France said it was studying the ban's legality and Canada, a substantial donor, said it would be hard to justify giving further funds for rebuilding. The German Government said that such a ban was "unacceptable" and could not be defended on the grounds of security. The 26 prime contracts are worth $18.6bn and cover areas such as oil, power, communications, water, housing and public works centres. US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said in a policy document revealed on Tuesday that the contracts were being restricted in order to protect America's "essential security interests". Prime contracts would, he said, be limited to companies from "the United States, Iraq, coalition partners and force-contributing nations". |
Well, looks like the US has gotten itself another colony. Now, if the reason for the war was truly to liberate the poor Iraqi people and to move the vile dictator who could kill millions of americans within an hour's notice from power, then why isn't the reconstruction of the country being upheld in a manner where the people of Iraq will be able to choose which company gives out best offers? Hmm, is it because the US and UK want the Iraqi oil fields for themselves? Noo, it can't be that. This war was fought for the freedom of Iraqi citizens after all, now wasn't it? Go new age imperialism!
| quote: | | Mr Wolfowitz said he hoped that excluded firms would press their governments to join the post-war effort. "Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international co-operation in Iraq and future efforts," he wrote in a notice on the website www.rebuilding-iraq.net. |
Yup, that's definitely it! What could bring the european nations closer to the us again than forbidding their companies to do buisness? I guess WTO and free trade aren't such good things after all. Funny how americans praise those organizations when they're draining money from the poor third world countries.
| quote: | | The US ban will appease countries such as Britain, Italy and Spain, which provided troops to Iraq but whose companies were excluded from the first round of deals that went to US firms. The biggest contractor in Iraq is Bechtel, the American construction firm that has an estimated $1bn contract to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. The other major US contractor is Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), a subsidiary of the oilfield services company Halliburton.] |
Now as far as Bechtel goes, I know first hand that they're a bunch of corrupt lowlives. They paid some corrupt croatian officials to sign a contract with them to dig some tunnels for a future Zagreb-Rijeka highway. Their offer was very expensive, and they didn't do a damn thing in like 2 years. Then when the socialist democrat government came to power, they broke the contract, and hat to pay Bechtel a huge sum of money for it. After they did that, the work was over in less than a year and for a fraction of the cost.
| quote: | | -While these nations may be outraged for being excluded from the large contracts (not the subcontracting however) I don't understand why they should be allowed to or do they want to take part in profiteering from an illegal war as they and most of the world view it:rolleyes: I feel that the logic is pretty clear keep out French, German, Russian companies etc. Countries such as France and Germany made no financial commitment @ the Madrid Donor Conference recently, its ironic to now to hear these nations speak of illegality of contract handouts under WTO and such they succeeded rightfully on steel, but I do not see the role of the WTO in Iraqi reconstruction, its reaching out just a little. The fact is the U.S undertook a wholly unpopular campaign in Iraq and had little overall support, nations that stuck with the U.S should be given preference, that is the nature of things. Just my opinion though. Maybe others have a more poignant opinion on this subject. |
Those countries that didn't participate in the war should be offered to sign contracts simply because the occupation of Iraq should not turn into the colonization of that country. Allowing contracts to the US firms only (because, aside from the Brits, the other countries are marginal in this venture) is basically turning Iraq into a country dependant on the US against the will of it's citizens. It's substituting a domestic dictatorship of one man into a foreign dictatorship of one country. Not much of a liberation if you ask me.
Another reason is that this war was pointless, at least from the aspect of the original "reasons" that led to it. Where are the WMD's? They were the cause of this war, remember? Well, there aren't any. Even the american government admits that now. What that means is that the evidence for the war was forged, and the only reason for the war was occupation of a country with rich oil fields. Now, funny how many governments refused to take part in it. And how are they rewarded for refusing to start an occupational war? By forbidding their companies to enter the market of that country. And who's prohibiting them to do so? The greatest proponent of the free trade in the world, the glorious and all mighty US.
I must mention here that it's interesting how the american judicial system is completely ignoring the fact that the president and his office deliberately lied to the nation, caused thousands of deaths and drove the nation in a war for their greedy corporate interests. Well, I guess they got used to it already.
Anyway, there's also another reason which is currently obviously not concerning the US government nor its people, and that is the total alienation of the european countries and people. A huge majority of the european population was against this war, even in those countries that took part in it. Such agressive actions that the US is taking are basically creating an opposing block of countries inside the EU, and worldwide for that matter. France and Germany are already talking about a unification of their two countries, something that would probably not be considered if they both weren't so blatantly attacked by the US. The basic mood of an average citizen here is that the american government is a greedy imperialist power which is trying to dominate the world by any means possible. And I don't think it's far from the truth. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
I see your point of view DrugTito but this is how I view things on this particular subject matter, as stated by a State Department official "The $18 billion is US taxpayers' money," he said. "We’re spending it on those who have already contributed to Iraq. They contributed blood and treasure to liberate Iraq."
Countries that did not send troops or support the war are eligible for sub-contracting work in Iraq. US officials, however, are encouraging prime contractors to hire Iraqi firms.
I believe fair is fair if France, Germany and Russia were satisfied with the Hussein regime then maybe the Iraqi people should now speak on such a subject of contracts, but when U.S. financial investment can serve to benefit France, Germany or Russia on such an issue, I as a taxpayer cannot say that it is acceptable. These nations knew this decision was coming and after all isn't the Bush administration fulfilling the role of greedy neo-conservatives as they have so often been accused. |
|
|
| Nadi |
To me its rediculous that the U.S gets to choose who does what, just because we supplied most of the bombs and troops doesnt mean its our country to do what we please with. Bidding should be open to all countries, and the contracts should be awarded by either the iraqi's or the u.n
Maybe I should tell my friends to change there signs from "No War for Oil" to "No War for Big Reconstruction Contracts or Oil" |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Sure, except that the U.S. pays for those contracts. It's not like they're just asking companies to step up and do pro-bono work--if that were the case then sure, why not just open the whole place up to the lowest bidder. Fact of the matter is that U.S. taxpayers are funding the contracts and therefore should have every say so about where they're money goes, and to whom. It seems that some people don't understand how this process actually works.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| imokruok |
The French did billions in business during the Saddam dictatorship, some of which was illegal under UN sanctions. The didn't want to ante up troops for the war. But now they want a slice of the pie. It seems that none of these nations believe that there should be consequences for their actions, which directly and indirectly hindered allies efforts at liberating a nation from a leader who executed hundreds of thousands of his own people.
It's not as though the US is not being fair about the matter. Spain, Italy, Australia, Japan - they all helped, and they are eligible. France, Germany, Russia, you have made your beds. Don't come and sleep in ours. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Sure, except that the U.S. pays for those contracts. It's not like they're just asking companies to step up and do pro-bono work--if that were the case then sure, why not just open the whole place up to the lowest bidder. Fact of the matter is that U.S. taxpayers are funding the contracts and therefore should have every say so about where they're money goes, and to whom. It seems that some people don't understand how this process actually works.:rolleyes: |
The US also thought it "should have every say" in going to war with Iraq.
Now look at the theyve caused. Im glad there is a resistance in Iraq... let the occupation end and give these Iraqi's the wealth they were diprived of for 30 years during Husseins rule. Not the Americans and CO. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
The US also thought it "should have every say" in going to war with Iraq.
Now look at the theyve caused. Im glad there is a resistance in Iraq... let the occupation end and give these Iraqi's the wealth they were diprived of for 30 years during Husseins rule. Not the Americans and CO. |
wow man, do you honestly believe what you have just said?
thats pure ideologically blinded fanatacisim.:(
The point here is that the US Occupation Government is the government of Iraq, no one else, hence for the time being they and they alone get to decide what's in the best interest of the Iraqis.
I recall Bush tried a few months ago to get the UN to rally up some funds and increase support to rebuild Iraq. Had the UN done this, it probably would have been more able to exert control over where its funds go, and who would be eligible to provide services, further it would have made a UN occupation much more likely than a US one... but guess what the UN doesn't want to occupy Iraq, so the US can't just give it to them. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
wow man, do you honestly believe what you have just said?
thats pure ideologically blinded fanatacisim.:(
The point here is that the US Occupation Government is the government of Iraq, no one else, hence for the time being they and they alone get to decide what's in the best interest of the Iraqis.
I recall Bush tried a few months ago to get the UN to rally up some funds and increase support to rebuild Iraq. Had the UN done this, it probably would have been more able to exert control over where its funds go, and who would be eligible to provide services, further it would have made a UN occupation much more likely than a US one... but guess what the UN doesn't want to occupy Iraq, so the US can't just give it to them. |
tell me this.. why cant the US include everyone? Why do they have to make the decisions...sure they are the occupiers, but that still doesnt mean its OK to act like one in this day and age. |
|
|
|
|
