We're just disagreeing on whether the terms were "fair" to the Iraqi people. As I read them, in context, they don't seem "unfair" to me if the purpose was to attract business, when the Iraqi people apparently couldn't do the business themselves. Looks like major incentives to attract international business.
Is it "fair" at the expense of the Iraqi people?
Let's take a look:
"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.
So if you read this, we come in and dispose of the current dictator, and don't allow Iraqi's a first opportunity at their own state owned enterprises but instead allow foreign investors to either outbid them or beat them to it. And they get it tax free.
Is this fair to the Iraqis?
Are we saying there isn't any construction companies in Iraq or construction workers?
"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.
You think we are going to place people in these minitries who aren't going to protect our interests? We've talked about this before and here's it is in black and white.
"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.
We are allowing foreign companies not be immune to Iraqi laws?
And you are comparing this with foreign investment in the USA?
"Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.
So we allowed foreign companies to come in and take over 50% of the banking in Iraq rather than keep the banks and the revenue from loans int eh hand sof the Iraqis?
"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."
"To further embed a U.S. corporate economy in Iraq, the Iraq Constitution contained provisions that approve the Bremer Orders."
Would we do this in the USA? would we ever allow this? How is this fair BB? we just allowed thousands of Iraqi owned business to get undercut.
Interim Prime Minister "Allawi called for all undeveloped oil and gas fields to be turned over to private international oil companies. This, at a time when only seventeen of Iraq's eighty known oil fields have been developed. Article 109 of the Iraq Constitution re-enforces this goal stating that the federal government only administers existing oil and gas fields."
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/483/151/
This is the most despicable of all, Allawi, who is obviously not on the side of his own people just gave 63 oil fields to foreign companies. That's Iraq's oil that was given away. Would you call that fair?
The more and more i read this the worse it is.
this is plain exploitation.
