When was the last time you saw a Lithuanian company building a school near you?
When was the last time you saw Peruvian worker’s collective construct a concrete phallus in your local sculpture garden?
WTF is your point?
Are you saying that the contracts should go to Iraqi firms because they aren’t capable of doing them? No, that can’t be because you also say that everything in Iraq was built by Iraqis, and that the firms that built them are still capable of doing those jobs. Pick a position, willya?
Iraqi firms are eligible to bid and compete. Are they likely to get one of the 26 contracts? No, because these 26 contracts are huge, and I doubt any one Iraqi company is up to things as big as rebuilding the whole damn power grid. Will they get subcontracts? Of course. If you have some evidence that they are in fact being discriminated against, please provide it. At present all you’ve given us are smug assertions and bizzare reasoning.
Sweet gravy, man, did you bother to actually read the article you link to? It’s not about Iraqi firms at all, but about European firms, some of which are worried, and some of which are not. Fair enough, and time may tell us. But did you notice this?
Hmmm… sounds like there might be a built-in advantage for Iraqi companies.
Oh, like, you mean, like American factory workers employed by the French firm Michelin?
And do you understand the concept of irony? I don’t, but I understand the concept as it is often misundertood, and it’s pretty “ironic” that your response to my criticism of equating the actions of some French people with the actions all French people involved pretty much doing that.
Er, what? That’s not what cost effectiveness means.
Well, I find that dubious, but we’ll let that slide and address your points.
**
Responsible for them, no. Bound by them, yes.
I have never in my life done anything to harm Australia, but were I to go there, they demand I get a Visa, whereas if I were a Kiwi, they’d let me in without one. I don’t really see that as a sinister thing.
My point about opening a business in Europe was similar; the whole point of the EU common market is to make it easier for companies in one EU country to do business in another, for individual workers to move back and forth, for companies from 2 countries to do joint ventures, etc. By extension, that puts an American or Japanese businessman at a competitive disadvantage.
I’m actually going to think about this for a day or so and come back to it, because I think there are some serious philosophical questions involved. It probably should be another thread, actually. My tentative response is that while we all might wish to live in world without obligations or connections to a larger body, we don’t, and we need to be realistic about that. We’re not living in Theoretical Libertarian Land, we’re living on Earth.
furt, what they mean by companies already in Iraq are companies like Halliburton and Bechtel. One of the principal complaints has been that the quick turnarounds favor American companies that have gone in during the occupation. Everyone else, including any Iraqis looking for work, have to go for what the article says they have to go for: the crumbs.
And my point, as you well know, as far as the bridge example, is that Bechtel, an American company, can work anywhere in the world. No Iraqi company that I know of can export its infrastructure services elsewhere. But just because they don’t have global experience doesn’t mean they can’t build a bridge. Asking said hypothetical company to compete against Bechtel is asking them to do the impossible, though.
It’s kind of like when New Jersey decided to build the Meadowlands complex. They favored New Jersey banks, even though those banks had never floated a loan for quite that size, and the New York banks had plenty of experience doing so. But the Jersey banks did it, and in the process gained valuable experience in putting together large loan packages. Now obviously if this had been put out to bid on an “equal” basis, the New York banks would have probably gotten the business. But the Jersey government wanted to get a little extra kick of economic development for the state out of it, and they did.
If Iraq had an actual sovereign government, then where possible they would likely do something similar when putting together large projects to get their local people the experience, and so develop their own local capabilities. Under this scheme, it ain’t gonna happen.
If that reasoning is bizarre to you, so be it. Happens all the time though, in real life, so I can’t see that it’s that bizarre.
How can you find it dubious when it is necessarily true?
Yes, but they aren’t doing that to punish you by proxy of the sin of non-Aussieness. I still don’t see what this has to do with acting to PUNISH someone by dint of their mere nationality.
But, for the record, I think barriers to trade are bad too, for exactly the same reason, though certianly not quite as bad given that there is rarely any serious and coherent moral assertion being made to justify the practice.
But responsibility is exactly what is being alleged. We are going to punish “the French” because “they” didn’t send troops or money or support our effort in Iraq. But “the French” didn’t make that decision. The French government did. Many French people supported that government. But some did not.
But not a single U.S. based firm sent troops or money either. In fact, with this decision, a U.S. firm that opposed the war could be given a contract while a French firm that supported it would be summarily denied on the basis of nationality (even, as I’ve been noting, if the majority of its workforce is based in America!). While I doubt there are any American firms that did so, that’s the basic principle being put forward. And it’s a stupid principle, even if it wasn’t a little unseemly to be treating the rebuilding of Iraq as a spoils of war system (in reality, I very much doubt that firms that take on these jobs are going to be making much profit from it directly: it’s the on-the-ground connection and influence that they can establish in post war Iraq that is important)
Actually there have been reports of Iraqi companies complaining that it was pretty much impossible for them to get any business and that what little business there was could only be had by paying kickbacks and payoffs. I remember well a page about this and I believe it was in the BBC site but I cannot find it now as I cannot think of any keywords which will not yield hundreds of pages.
At any rate, I think rebuilding the infrastructure is going to be a pretty fruitless task because the invasion has destabilised Iraq and effectively put it in a state of war: war against the occupation forces and civil war. Trying to rebuild a country in these conditions is going to be pretty difficult and not very effective.
I don’t see why? The war is pretty low level stuff. Israel puts up with a simliar level of attacks on its territory and has a troubled, but modern economy.
I think the situation the US has created is not “Israel on the Euphrates” but more like “Palestine on the Euphrates” except that Palestine is better in that the Iraqis are more heterogenous and will more likely fall into fighting each other in a civil war. Time will tell. So far the rosy promises and expectations of the Bush Administration have all been proven wrong. I find laughable the idea that some rigged elections is going to solve everything.
Just shows that Bush is still good in misleading other politicians and partisan people. The question is: why did the defenders of the administration assume the explanation yesterday was good enough? Or that putting Canada and Germany in the “enemies” column is a sound diplomatic move?
The sad thing is that had the US not excluded every country but the “coalition of the willing” that many Iraqi debts would have been pardoned. Even a partial debt pardon would have greatly benefited Iraq.
Lets imagine Russia had pardoned 2 Billion… other countries a few billion each. That would have maybe cut Iraq’s debts (guessing) $15-20 billion ?
Now if bids were open to all with only a slight bias to US companies how much would have gone to French/Russian and German companies ? Maybe $6-8 billion at most ? The other $10-12 safely sent into Haliburton and friends coffers. So (estimate) $6 billion could have become a total of $26 billion "gain" for Iraq... ? Need I mention that more competition from abroad would mean better use of the money in Iraq ?
Seems clearly that rebuilding Iraq and helping Iraqis took second place to squabbling and pettiness. Plus further reluctance of anyone helping out Iraq. These means more US casualties... longer rebuilding time and certainly less donations to help Iraq. All of which means the US would have spent less money in the long term.... talk about shooting your own foot.
Is ideological compliance to the US something that must be bought ? Does the US need allies so badly they must tease 'em with billionaire contracts ?
What evidence do you have that this is the case? France, Germany, and Russia have not previously offered to forgive ANY debt. Nor have they been willing to contribute to reconstruction.
It amazes me that you guys are so willing to cut these countries slack, but when your own country retaliates against such obnoxious behaviour, suddenly it’s the U.S.'s fault.
France and Germany are bullies. Look at how they are treating other countries in the EU. They violated their own deficit ceilings they expect other countries to abide by. They make all sorts of pig-headed unilateral decisions. They probably violated UN sanctions against Iraq. France and Germany and Russia were largely responsible for arming Saddam in the first place (NOT the U.S.). The second U.N. resolution the U.S. was trying to get was torpedoed by France acting unilaterally and waving a threat of a veto. Yet these countries get a pass from you guys, and the Americans can do nothing right. I find this attitude baffling.
Sam Stone, let’s get something clear here.
France has contributed generously to the effort in Afghanistan.
That was the front in the war on terrorism until Bush fell into the trap Osama laid for him, and indiscriminately lashed out at another Arab/Islamic government, or more properly put, used the cover of 9/11 to advance his predetermined agenda.
This war hasn’t made us, the French, the Germans, or anyone else safer. Each decision this Administration has made has only made it worse.
France is doing what it’s supposed to do, which is to act in its own interest. If we did the same, we’d be 87 billion richer and still have hundreds of soldiers who would still be alive and thousands more that weren’t maimed and, finally, we’d have something incalculable, that was lost on September 12, 2002, the day Bush started to push for this war: our unity against the true terrorists.
All of this is one person’s fault and one person only: Bush. He made the decisions, and the rest of the world has been trying since then to figure a way to limit the damage. Everything that has happened from that day to this has been a massive effort to contain Bush and keep his recklessness, ignorance, and incompetence from destroying a half a century of slowly built up international law against unilateral, aggressive war. Bush, in the meantime, has been pushing his agenda, which is to dismantle this half century of hard work, just as hard. You’ll understand if the rest of the world doesn’t want to see us all thrown back into the lawlessness that allowed the first half of the twentieth century to unfold in the way that it did.
There’s nothing baffling at all about what’s happening. I understand it completely, and so does most of the rest of the world. If we have our way, we’ll get a President on January 20, 2004 who fully understands this disaster as well, and does his level best to fix it.
In another thread I was going to specifically state that Iraqis are NOT like Palestinians. That you think they could be worse is ridiculous. Palestinians have been living in limbo for decades. The population has been radicalized by endless propaganda. Suicide bombers are treated as heros. It is dysfunctional. It has very little homegrown science, art, architecture, or much of an economy to speak of.
Iraqis have a country. They have a long, distinguished history of science, art, and literature. They have built as good an economy as can be expected in a dictatorship. They are highly educated. They are not radicalized to anywhere near the degree that Palestinians are.
The Palestinians were more radicalized. The US invasion has radicalized the Iraqis. The Palestinians have more cohesion as a people than the Iraqis. Iraq was a colonial construct and the Kurds would declare independence tomorrow if they could. So you are right. The comparison is ridiculous because the Iraqis are more ready for civil war than the palestinians.
pantom, you asked about set asides for Iraqi companies and whether they would actually get any work out of this. As a matter of policy and practice they will and already do.
Including Iraqi firms in the reconstruction process makes them an active stakeholder in the rebuilding of their country. Besides helping the Iraqis generate the income to rebuild their country, it enables the Iraqi people to assume more responsibility for their country’s economic and infrastructure development. This leads to a sense of ownership and pride in the reconstruction process and provides long-term stability to the political and economic transformation in Iraq, making it a model for other countries to follow and sending a clear message to the people of the Middle East and beyond that freedom and democracy are the best paths for the future.
-Memo from Paul Wolfowitz
Source: http://www.usembassy.lt/pas/hyperfile/eur302.htm
List of Iraqi Contracts awarded as of Nov 13.
Contractor Origin Scope of work
Iraqi Firm Iraq Al Hillah camps/office services
Iraqi firm Iraq Al Hillan & Ad Diwaniyah STP, Al Hillah
Iraqi firm Iraq Assess Taji Power Plant
Iraqi firm Iraq Baghdad Airport car park
Iraqi firm Iraq Baghdad Airport construction. Temporary labor services.
Iraqi firm Iraq Basra Airport perimeter fencing. Rehabilitation of clinics, Arbil
Iraqi firm Iraq Design services, Saba Nissan Waste Plant
Iraqi firm Iraq Emergency bridge demolition
Iraqi firm Iraq General Electric repairs, Baghdad Airport
Iraqi firm Iraq General engineering services
Iraqi firm Iraq Install & provide internet service at Mosul office
Iraqi firm Iraq Lighting, fencing at new port
Iraqi firm Iraq Lighting/fencing at old port of Umm Qasr
Iraqi firm Iraq Mosul office refurbishment
Iraqi firm Iraq Piling, cleaning, Saba Nissan Baghdad Power Plant
Iraqi firm Iraq Reconstruction of Al Mat Bridge
Iraqi firm Iraq Reconstruction of Khazir and Tikrit Bridges
Iraqi firm Iraq Rehabilitation of clinics - Kirkuk
Iraqi firm Iraq Repair compressors at Umm Qasr
Iraqi firm Iraq Repair of schools
3 Iraqi firms Iraq Repair of schools - Al Diwaniyah
4 Iraqi firms Iraq Repair of schools - Al Hillah
5 Iraqi firms Iraq Repair of schools - Al Kut
6 Iraqi firms Iraq Repair of school - Al Qurnah
3 Iraqi firms Iraq Repair of schools - An Najaf
Iraqi firm Iraq Repair of schools - Arbil
7 Iraqi firms Iraq Repair of schools & offices - Baghdad
21 Iraqi firms Iraq Repair of schools - Basra
Iraqi firm Iraq Repair of schools - Dahoul
Iraqi firm Iraq Repair of schools - Karbala
6 Iraqi firms Iraq Repair of schools - Kirkuk
3 Iraqi firms Iraq Repair of schools and clinics - Mosul
7 Iraqi firms Iraq Repair of schools - Nassiriyah
Iraqi firm Iraq Runway striping/painting
Iraqi firm Iraq Rustimaniyah Sewage Plant cleanup
Iraqi firm Iraq Survey of Saba Nissan Water Treatment Plant tanks
Iraqi firm Iraq Sweet Water Canal reservoir dredging
Iraqi firm Iraq Transformer Repair Daura Power Station
Iraqi firm Iraq Umm Qasr administration A/C repair
Iraqi firm Iraq Umm Qasr kone elevator
Iraqi firm Iraq Umm Qasr labor & equipment
