Comments on: On Sovereignty

By: Giles

Giles — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 18:40:06 +0000

Good job the antiwar crowd are admitting that the WMD issue was a strawman.

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 10:13:46 +0000

I still cant see what the “scandal” is. Ok its not democratically elected but neither is any other government in the region and they make long term contracts. Good job we didn’t bother invading them in order to install a democratic regime, then.

By: Giles

Giles — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 22:55:13 +0000

Its a 2 year contract. http://www.chinadaily.com.con/en/doc/2003-10/08/content_269892.htm

By: gILES

gILES — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 22:52:50 +0000

http://www.iraqprocurement.com/docs/new87.htm -telcoms licences have been sold off in Iraq – so long term low value licences are for sale.

By: a different chris

a different chris — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 22:20:53 +0000

I don’t have a link either but I have the same understanding as Mr. McManus. I don’t know why I should have a link, though, being objectively pro-Saddam or whatever the latest label is. Instead I would have thought that Giles would have been able to back up his snottiness with some real information. Because if he doesn’t have that kind of important knowledge to hand, well I think the holier-than-thou bit may be a stretch, no?

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 22:07:06 +0000

Wow, maybe I should go for links to confirm this, but my impression is no, the interim go’vt does not have the right to enter into long-term contracts. Specifically forbidden. Sistani earlier this year called out 30k demonstrators in Basra and 100k in Baghdad when the CPA and IGC were stalling and screwing around about the elections. Sistani wanted them immediately, or he would call jihad, and bring out a million to march on the Green Zone. Bush blinked. The UN and Brahimi were brought in, and a compromise was reached. Elections would be put off til January, and the interim government after the June 30th transition could make no long term laws, committments, or contracts. This is my understanding.

By: Jim Harrison

Jim Harrison — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:24:44 +0000

I’m sure the administration orginally expected to sell off Iraqi national property in line with its ideological preferences and in order to reward its supporters. If the provisional government resists privatization, it will only be more evidence that the Reublicans have been obliged to cut their losses. By the way, I’m amused by the predictable appeal to the sancity of contracts in this case. As if this piece of piety weren’t always trotted out to explain why it won’t be feasible to let the people of a country decide what they want.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:38:16 +0000

“And if it does, then given that it is not a democratically elected government, but one appointed by two countries (the US and the UK) with substantial economic interests in Iraq, is this not something of a scandal?” no more a scandal than every other dictatorship around the world. Saddam was the king of all modern dictators, and spent all of Iraq’s money poorly. In fact, he spent more than Iraq had, and now the country is saddled by debt (Yet the international community cannot seem to agree that this debt is of the “odious” variety). Worry about a scandal with the new Iraqi gov’t after it happens, but try to use different standards than that which were applied to Saddam, ok.

By: roger

roger — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:40:14 +0000

It seems to me that there are two questions here. One is the question of contracts. I don’t see how Allawi’s government could function for a minute if it didn’t have the power to make contracts. How, for instance, could it hire people? The second is changing laws that govern the economic system. In particular, those laws that put petroleum in the hands of the state. If Allawi changed that law, it would have to be in such a manner that oil traders were convinced that it was changed for good—otherwise, their contracts, which are always forward loaded, will be legally challenge-able, or even invalid, when it comes to making good on them. Given the Ba’athist background of much of the current government, I think there is much less chance of privatization on this scale happening now. Outside of the exile community, Bremer made few converts to his economic program for Iraq.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:21:06 +0000

If the interim appointed government is interested in legitimising future Iraqi sovereignty and eventually easing the country into stability then presumably they will have an interested in not making long-term disposals of assets And if it isn’t …? See, this is exactly the sort of thing that nobody should be asked to take on trust, particularly since the las-but-one candidate for running this thing was a convicted fraudster.

By: wrongun

wrongun — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:53:04 +0000

dsquared: “No, I’m suggesting that this interim, temporary government, appointed by foreign powers, should have its ability to make long-term disposals of the assets of Iraq severely curtailed.” If the interim appointed government is interested in legitimising future Iraqi sovereignty and eventually easing the country into stability then presumably they will have an interested in not making long-term disposals of assets. Especially not haliburton-esque questionably favourable disposals. Additionally, who could curtail the interim government’s power of economic disposal (other than the interim government itself) in a way that didn’t serve to further undermine its fragile traces of independence and its hope of founding legitimate sovereignty.

By: Giles

Giles — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:26:18 +0000

I still cant see what the “scandal” is. Ok its not democratically elected but neither is any other government in the region and they make long term contracts. Its been appointed by the UN so I dont see why its rights should differ any more than the powers of say the Kosovo government – which is able to make long term contracts and has to in order to function. Again, nothing unusual or scandalous about that. And besides – looking beyond your own policitcal gains – it would be scandalous if the Iraqi people had to wait another 9 months to get foreign investment and a job just because of the objections of some radicals in a far way country. But I think you’re mainly refereing to the questtion of oil contracts and I susepct that neither the buyers nor the sellers are going to be keen to sign anything long term untill they known who the next goverment is – the sellers because they may find themselves with thier backs to the wall if its a bad bargain and the buyers becuse they know that if the next government rips up an bad contract, their rescourse against it are limited – legally, because of existing debt, and popularly because of the limited mandate. So I think its a bit of a non problem.

By: hmmmm

hmmmm — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:16:02 +0000

“I’d be very grateful if any readers who know more about Iraq than me could shed some light on this one.” Well, I know more about Iraq than I know about you, but no light can I shed.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:13:21 +0000

No, I’m suggesting that this interim, temporary government, appointed by foreign powers, should have its ability to make long-term disposals of the assets of Iraq severely curtailed.

By: Giles

Giles — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:34:53 +0000

of course they have the power to make contracts – they wouldn’t be able to function otherwise. So what is the “scandal”? That the Iraqi’s have a government with the power to “function” as opposed to sit there an do nothing? Are you implying that its a scandal that the interm government is actually soveriegn and so blows your earlier posts out of the water? NB The telecomuncations licneses were issued about 9 months ago.