RSSInteresting look at the Corporitization of Iraq
Dec 19
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=9408
This article has lots and lots of interesting tidbits of information on what’s going on in Iraq. It’s suprising this isn’t getting more media coverage.
The interesting points include:
- US upholding Saddams laws banning Unions
- banning of “civil disobedience”
- allowing 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi companies
Looks like the Iraqi people won’t be benefiting from this “new economy” at all, and that the US is getting it’s ideal money-making scenario: a country where they can impose any law they want to the detriment of the workers and the benefits of the US corporations.
Dec 26, 2003 @ 13:30:56
Interesting article, but I’m afraid I have a few beefs with your three main points.
- US upholding Saddam’s laws banning unions.
The law in question in a 1987 law disallowing unions in state-owned enterprises. The US and Canada have similar laws, including section 13(5) of the Canada Post Act, which prevented postal carriers from unionizing. The article refers to port workers at the state-owned Umm Qasr port. I would assume the port is state-owned because it is so fundamental to Iraqi trade, and shutting it down would halt the Iraqi economy. I am not a huge fan of laws like this, in the US, Iraq, or Canada, but they’re fairly common and nothing new.
- Banning of “civil disobedience”
I don’t think you meant to be intentionally misleading, but the decree prohibits civil *disorder*, rioting or damage to property. It does not prohibit civil disobedience, a phrase we generally associate with out first amendment rights. Laws against disorder and riots are common in the US, and I would assume most modern nations. The article cites this decree because some worry that people could try to paint unionizing with the “civil disorder” brush, but it’s a minor point in the article, and certainly has nothing to do with revoking the right to free speech and expression.
- allowing 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi companies
This is allowed in the US and Canada, and there is no reason to disallow it in Iraq. Furthermore, the Umm Qasr corportaion discussed in the article is not owned by SSA, it’s *managed* by SSA. It’s owned by the country of Iraq. SSA doesn’t get to keep the profits, Iraq does. Also, Umm Qasr is a port, and as such is less important as a source of income and more important as a means by which to enable trade, and to support Iraq’s other industries.
The article raises two valid concerns:
1) SSA has a cozy relationship with the White House, and other countries do not think the contract was awarded fairly. That is certainly a valid concern.
2) Because the port is a state-owned enterprise, workers will have a harder time acquiring labor protections. This is valid as well, but I would argue that a) it is critical that the ports be state-owned until the economy is stabilized, b) the no-strike laws don’t apply to the 99% of Iraqi industry that is/will be private, and c) there is no evidence, or even the suggestion that these workers are being mistreated.
Anyhow, the article has some good points, but they’re not the points that you illustrate, and besides the awarding of the contract to SSA, I don’t think there is anything really wrong with this picture.
Dec 27, 2003 @ 18:55:59
I agree with all of the facts you present in your comment. However, I think a little analysis of the facts is required here.
First of all, I would like to point out that throughout your comment you mention that “… this is also true in the US/Canada…” I have a big problem with this and is a major cause of the problems currently faced in Iraq. This whole US effort has been marred by not knowing enough about Iraq and it’s people. This is evident in almost all aspects of US foreign relations. These policy-makers always assume the rest of the world is just like the US and all want the same things. Some areas of the world actually want religiously-based governments. Some areas believe fundamentally different things about the positions of men and women. Do I agree with these things? No. But I’m also not delusional or conceited enough to think we should go and change them to be like us. It still suprises me that Bush thought the US army would be “greeted as liberators.” A little investigation would have uncovered the fact that these people have been taught for decades that the US is the most evil country in the world. Just because they were under a dictator doesn’t mean they didn’t belive the things taught to them by their parents and teachers.
This leads me to the following: just because the US and Canada allow 100% foreign ownership of companies and disallow unions in several cases doesn’t mean this is good for Iraq.
Whether unions are still useful in North America is debated a lot. However, a country like Iraq is the exact place where a union would be most useful. This is a people that has felt powerless for a long time, and having the power to stand up for themselves would probably be a very good thing.
Iraq is a country that was raped by a dictator for decades. Even if you thought that the US had completely good intentions and was trying to do the best thing for the people of Iraq, how do you think the Iraqi people feel about the “Coalition” letting foreign countries come in and own (and therefore own all profit from) companies? I sure wouldn’t feel good about it.
In general, the US is again forgetting about the one part of the problem that could most help them meet their goals: the Iraqi people. It’s much easier to coax a friend to help you rather than someone you’ve bullied and stolen their lunch money.
Just try to put yourself in their shoes. At the height of the cold war, pretend that Russia successfully invaded the US. Do you think the US population would accept them as liberators or feel good about Russia allowing foreign countries to come in and reap 100% of the profits from companies? (of course someone will point out the differences in the situation, but still, TRY it)…