US bans Europe from bidding on Iraq reconstruction

[Guest Cerebus]

Iraq Bids Ban Reopens Diplomatic Rift

 

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

 

BRUSSELS, Belgium - Across Europe, response was swift and angry Wednesday to the U.S. order barring firms based in important allied countries — opponents of the Iraq (news - web sites) war — from bidding on Iraqi reconstruction projects.

 

Russia suggested it would not restructure Iraq's debt. Canada threatened to stop sending aid to Baghdad. The European Union (news - web sites) said it would study whether global trade rules had been violated.

 

Germany, another leading opponent of the war, called the decision "unacceptable," and government spokesman Bela Anda said it went against "a spirit of looking to the future together and not to the past."

 

Critics said the policy could discourage countries from helping to rebuild Iraq and complicate American efforts to restructure Iraq's estimated $125 billion debt, much of it owed to France, Germany, Russia and other nations whose companies are excluded under the Pentagon (news - web sites) directive.

 

"Iraq's debt to the Russia Federation comes to $8 billion and as far as the Russian government's position on this, it is not planning any kind of a write-off of that debt," Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told reporters.

 

Last week, President Bush (news - web sites) named former Secretary of State James A. Baker III to be his personal envoy in seeking an international deal to lower and refinance foreign debt, which clouds Iraq's prospect for economic recovery.

 

The White House defended the new policy, saying countries wanting a share of the $18.6 billion in reconstruction contracts in the 2004 U.S. budget must participate militarily in the postwar effort.

 

"Prime contracts for reconstruction funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars should go to the Iraqi people and those countries who are working with the United States on the difficult task of helping to build a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said

 

He said companies from anti-war countries could compete for contracts being financed by a separate international fund that the White House estimates will be worth $13 billion. Also, the ban does not prevent companies from winning subcontracts.

 

French telecom giant Alcatel, for example, won a subcontract to carry out a third of the two-year deal awarded to Egyptian firm Orascom to build a mobile phone network in central Iraq.

 

Such prospects, however, did little to assuage international anger over the directive issued by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

 

Canada's deputy prime minister, John Manley, said the decision would make it "difficult for us to give further money for the reconstruction of Iraq." Canadian officials said the country has contributed $225 million thus far.

 

Paul Martin, who becomes Canada's prime minister Friday, said the Pentagon decision was "really very difficult to fathom" and that he would raise the issue with U.S. officials.

 

"We noted with astonishment today the reports, and we will be speaking about it with the American side," German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said after talks with his Russian counterpart, Igor Ivanov.

 

In Moscow, Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov said the directive "will hardly foster the mobilization of the international community" to rebuild Iraq, "more likely the opposite," according to the ITAR-Tass news agency.

 

"We suspect that in substance it contradicts the (international) principles for international tenders for public projects, although the United States in particular always calls for observing these principles," said Ludolf von Wartenberg, general manager of the Federation of German Industry.

 

In Brussels, Arancha Gonzalez, trade spokeswoman at the European Commission (news - web sites), said the EU was asking the United States "to provide us with information so we can see whether or not their commitments" under the World Trade Organization (news - web sites) "have been respected."

 

The Pentagon directive said restricting contract bids was necessary to protect essential security interests. WTO rules allow for exemptions based on national security.

 

"We would want to know in the specific circumstances whether or not this is related to national security," Gonzalez said. One contract is to equip the new Iraqi army and "why should it be excluded if it is purchasing T-shirts and socks?" she asked.

 

Despite the criticism, it was unclear how many major foreign companies were prepared to launch major reconstruction projects in Iraq as long as the security situation remains volatile.

 

Many international organizations, including the United Nations (news - web sites) and the international Red Cross, have withdrawn foreign staff from Iraq because of the violence.

 

On Monday, a South Korean company announced it would withdraw 60 workers restoring power lines in Iraq after gunmen killed two of its engineers working on a U.S.-funded project.

 

Several American contractors have been killed by Iraqi insurgents, and last month a Baghdad hotel used by Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root was rocketed. One U.S. contractor was injured.

 

Hochtief AG, a German construction giant, said it was not interested in projects in Iraq "as long as the situation remains so dangerous."

 

Nevertheless, critics said the policy was another example of Bush administration unilateralism that has alienated many longtime allies.

 

The senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, called the new policy a "totally gratuitous slap" that "does nothing to protect our security interests and everything to alienate countries we need with us in Iraq."

 

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean (news - web sites) cited the policy as an example of the Bush administration's "confrontation" approach "all over the world."

[Guest JMA]

Prediction: There will be lots of arguing and name-calling in this thread.

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

Prediction: A wireless phone network has minimal impact on terrorism across the globe.

[Lando Griffin 0]

Prediction: There will be lots of arguing and name-calling in this thread.

No there won't, douche!

 

I had to go there.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Prediction: Someone (i.e. me) will insult the French, and JMA will defend them.

 

Fuck France. Bunch of cowards.

[Guest JMA]

Prediction: Someone (i.e. me) will insult the French, and JMA will defend them.

 

Fuck France. Bunch of cowards.

Hah! You're wrong!

 

(doesn't defend France)

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm not going to defend the French but I think it's really stupid to ban them while not banning, say, Saudi Arabia?

[Guest JMA]

Bah. I despise Saudi Arabia.

 

Someone remind me why they're still allowed to exist.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Someone remind me why they're still allowed to exist.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Someone remind me why they're still allowed to exist.

Yep, I'd say that's a big reason.

[Guest Anglesault]

Someone remind me why they're still allowed to exist.

::runs around like chicken with head cut off::

 

Ohmygodohmygodohmygod.

 

 

JMA just said that a country has no right to exist. he yells at me any time I say that about the French

[Guest JMA]

Someone remind me why they're still allowed to exist.

::runs around like chicken with head cut off::

 

Ohmygodohmygodohmygod.

 

 

JMA just said that a country has no right to exist. he yells at me any time I say that about the French

France is a democracy. Jesus, Sault. I can't believe you'd actually compare the two.

[Guest Anglesault]

Aye. A useless one, but a democracy all the same.

 

And the Saudi's have an extremely important export.

 

We'd be more fucked if the Saudi Arabia fell off the map than if France did.

[Guest JMA]

Aye. A useless one, but a democracy all the same.

 

And the Saudi's have an extremely important export.

 

We'd be more fucked if the Saudi Arabia fell off the map than if France did.

ALL theocracies must be torn down; with force if needed.

[Guest Anglesault]

Not gonna argue that. I joke about the French, but in all honesty their general uselessness can be overlooked. Theocracies, on the other hand, are a mounting problem that needs to be dealt with.

 

 

But do we at least get sole property of the oil fields?

[Guest Cerebus]

The Saudis are up there with the Israelis, the PA, & the Lebanese as the worst manipulators of the Palestinian people on the Earth. I wish nothing but misfortune on that corrupt regime and won't shed a tear if/when their fucked up little kingdom blows up in their pompous faces.

[Vyce 0]

This decision seems equitable to me.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

It's a real good way to get people to jump on board to support us in Iraq.

[Guest MikeSC]

It's a real good way to get people to jump on board to support us in Iraq.

OK, let's keep one KEY fact in mind:

 

The money in question is OUR money. The U.S is paying for the rebuilding, so we have the right to say who has a shot at it.

 

Now, simple question:

 

If you get the same benefit opposing us as you do supporting us --- why would ANYBODY support us?

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

It's a real good way to get people to jump on board to support us in Iraq.

OK, let's keep one KEY fact in mind:

 

The money in question is OUR money. The U.S is paying for the rebuilding, so we have the right to say who has a shot at it.

 

Now, simple question:

 

If you get the same benefit opposing us as you do supporting us --- why would ANYBODY support us?

-=Mike

Which will lead to what, international bribery and such, in order to get a piece of the pie?

[Guest frowned]

If you get the same benefit opposing us as you do supporting us --- why would ANYBODY support us?

If your position is so weak that you have to resort to blackmail in order to garner support then I'm going to guess that maybe something might be awry.

 

They're supposed to support you because they agree with your ideals, not because they get something out of it financially.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Now, simple question:

 

If you get the same benefit opposing us as you do supporting us --- why would ANYBODY support us?

-=Mike

Pardon me, but I think Germany and, yes, even France is more likely to agree that Iraq should be a democracy than the aforementioned Saudi Arabia or other similar governments through that region.

[LaParkaMarka 0]

I understand why the US gov't would do this. What I don't get is why didn't they just keep the policy to themselves? Let a bunch of Germans bid for a contract, who cares. Just award it to whatever pro-US company you feel like awarding it to.

 

By announcing it to everyone, it becomes a big deal. Say nothing and maybe a couple of articles a few months down the road show up, which everyone promptly forgets about the next time a celebrity does something stupid.

 

Though, to be honest, I don't have a firm grasp of how the process works. If I'm blatantly wrong somewhere, feel free to shoot me.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I understand why the US gov't would do this.

I can understand, too. It's just they aren't locking out the countries that wouldn't want to see a free, liberated, democracy in Iraq, untainted of fascist or theocratic rule. Rather, they are simply locking out the countries that gave them a stink-eye at the UN.

 

This is backwards priorities and to me personally speaks that they're still more interested in the war than they are the reconstruction.

[Guest Sagrada3099]

I didnt even support the war, but the US is very much correct to be doing this.

 

I mean, if the motherfuckers didnt want to support us when we did invae Iraq, why do they want to support us now? So that they can suck some extra cash out of the teat of American efforts.

[Justice 0]

I'm mixed. I really doubt anything will really go to the Saudis (I'm guessing Poland and the other Eastern Bloc guys who supported us will be getting a big part of the contracts), though the fact that there's the chance does disturb me.

 

But to all who are bitching that those who got locked out aren't going to join now, well, fact is that the big three that we are thinking of at the moment (France, Germany, Russia), have pledge only a few donations to the new Iraqi government and have come out and said that they will definitely not be putting troops in the region as well. They aren't gonna jump on the band wagon any time soon guys, and if it takes contracts to make them jump then we don't want them. They had their chance, they didn't toss us any support, they shouldn't get a shot. This is a reward for those who pledged support to us when we asked, and if you shot us down then you really shouldn't bitch about it coming back in your face.

 

If your position is so weak that you have to resort to blackmail in order to garner support then I'm going to guess that maybe something might be awry.

 

It's not really blackmail when they actively tried ruining our international image in the UN by cockblocking us. I'd argue it's getting what was coming to them.

[Guest Cerebus]

I, personally, think that whether it is "right or wrong" should have no bearing. Let's face it, do we really want to foot the whole bill for Iraq? And does Bush, whehter its true or not, really want to look like he really did invade for the sake of a handful of American companies?

[Stephen Joseph 0]

We're footing the casualties...for a chance of making Iraq a better country.

 

That's enough reason right there. Whoever works gets paid...and I believe its difficult to argue the opposite (Whoever doesn't work gets paid). Breakdown of incentives there, which breaks down economics as a whole.

[Justice 0]

Personally, I'd prefer only countries with a decent amount of troops in the region being the only ones getting the contracts. That seems a bit more fair to me.

[Guest Cerebus]

Even the Neo-Con Radical Right Wing Facist Rag has come out against this...

 

A truly wise American administration would have opened the bidding to all comers, regardless of their opposition to the war -- as a way of buying those countries into the Iraq effort, building a little goodwill for the future, and demonstrating to the world a little magnanimity.

 

But instead of being smart, clever, or magnanimous, the Bush Administration has done a dumb thing. The announcement of a policy of discriminating against French, German, and Russian firms has made credible European charges of vindictive pettiness and general disregard for the opinion of even fellow liberal democracies.