Countries excluded from Iraq's reconstruction hit back

Dreamer128 · 12-11-2003, 04:54 AM

(EuroNews.net)

Washington has defended its decision to ban companies from countries who opposed the Iraq war from bidding for reconstruction projects. The move has re-ignited bitter trans-Atlantic tensions. The projects in Iraq are worth $18.6 billion. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said it was natural they would be awarded to US allies.

"We are talking about US taxpayer dollars here and I think it is appropriate and reasonable to expect that the Iraqi people and those countries who have been working with the United States and contributing forces to the efforts in Iraq would be the ones that would be eligible for the prime contracts," he said.

Germany, which for more than a century built much of modern Iraq, said it was stunned.

Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said: "From our side, all I can say is that we noted the reports today with astonishment and we will be speaking about it with the American side."

France and the European Commission say they will investigate whether the US is breaking international trade rules.

The US cited national security concerns for its decision but some analysts say the real reason is to punish the opponents of the war.

Cerek the Barbaric · 12-11-2003, 09:09 AM

The "real reason" these countries are being excluded is because the bulk of the reconstruction costs will be provided by the American taxpayers....so I believe it is only right that the contracts go to those who supported America.

Since France, Germany, Russia, and the other countries were strongly opposed to the war, there is no reason to seek their help in reversing the results of the war. I respect their right to oppose the U.S. actions in Iraq, but they shouldn't expect to be rewarded for this stance by the U.S. nor to reap the benefits offered by a war they were against.

Dreamer128 · 12-11-2003, 09:15 AM

Possibly. Though it would be benefit the Iraqi economy more if the contracts were to go to Iraqi firms. There are alot of Iraqi bussinesses that are quite well equiped to help rebuild the country. But they only seem to get the small contracts. Maybe we are missing out on a golden opportunity to battle local unemployement in Iraq, and assist in the recovery of their economy.

Thoran · 12-11-2003, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dreamer128:
Possibly. Though it would be benefit the Iraqi economy more if the contracts were to go to Iraqi firms. There are alot of Iraqi bussinesses that are quite well equiped to help rebuild the country. But they only seem to get the small contracts. Maybe we are missing out on a golden opportunity to battle local unemployement in Iraq, and assist in the recovery of their economy.

I certainly hope this is the case... I seem to recall reading that Iraqi's were part of the "ok to bid" group. I HOPE that thier firms are given every chance to successfully bid on contract they're equipped to handle, after all... put people to work and they don't have time for terrorism and other leisure activities. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Timber Loftis · 12-11-2003, 11:33 AM

Today's NY Times:
_________________________
December 11, 2003
DIPLOMACY
Bush Seeks Help of Allies Barred From Iraq Deals
By DAVID E. SANGER and DOUGLAS JEHL

ASHINGTON, Dec. 10 — President Bush found himself in the awkward position on Wednesday of calling the leaders of France, Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq's debts, just a day after the Pentagon said it was excluding those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects.

White House officials were fuming about the timing and the tone of the Pentagon's directive, even while conceding that they had approved the Pentagon policy of limiting contracts to 63 countries that have given the United States political or military aid in Iraq.

Many countries excluded from the list, including close allies like Canada, reacted angrily on Wednesday to the Pentagon action. They were incensed, in part, by the Pentagon's explanation in a memorandum that the restrictions were required "for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

The Russian defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, when asked about the Pentagon decision, responded by ruling out any debt write-off for Iraq.

The Canadian deputy prime minister, John Manley, suggested crisply that "it would be difficult" to add to the $190 million already given for reconstruction in Iraq.

White House officials said Mr. Bush and his aides had been surprised by both the timing and the blunt wording of the Pentagon's declaration. But they said the White House had signed off on the policy, after a committee of deputies from a number of departments and the National Security Council agreed that the most lucrative contracts must be reserved for political or military supporters.

Those officials apparently did not realize that the memorandum, signed by Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, would appear on a Defense Department Web site hours before Mr. Bush was scheduled to ask world leaders to receive James A. Baker III, the former treasury secretary and secretary of state, who is heading up the effort to wipe out Iraq's debt. Mr. Baker met with the president on Wednesday.

Several of Mr. Bush's aides said they feared that the memorandum would undercut White House efforts to repair relations with allies who had opposed the invasion of Iraq.

White House officials declined to say how Mr. Bush explained the Pentagon policy to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, President Jacques Chirac of France and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany. France and Russia were two of the largest creditors of Saddam Hussein's government. But officials hinted, by the end of the day, that Mr. Baker might be able to show flexibility to countries that write down Iraqi debt.

"I can't imagine that if you are asking to do stuff for Iraq that this is going to help," a senior State Department official said late Wednesday.

A senior administration official described Mr. Bush as "distinctly unhappy" about dealing with foreign leaders who had just learned of their exclusion from the contracts.

Under the Pentagon rules, only companies whose countries are on the American list of "coalition nations" are eligible to compete for the prime contracts, though they could act as subcontractors. The result is that the Solomon Islands, Uganda and Samoa may compete for the contracts, but China, whose premier just left the White House with promises of an expanded trade relationship, is excluded, along with Israel.

Several of Mr. Bush's aides wondered why the administration had not simply adopted a policy of giving preference to prime contracts to members of the coalition, without barring any countries outright.

"What we did was toss away our leverage," one senior American diplomat said. "We could have put together a policy that said, `The more you help, the more contracts you may be able to gain.' " Instead, the official said, "we found a new way to alienate them."

A senior official at the State Department was asked during an internal meeting on Wednesday how he expected the move to affect the responses of Russia, France and Germany to the American request. He responded, "Go ask Jim Baker," according another senior official, who said of Mr. Baker, "He's the one who's going to be carrying the water, and he's going to be the one who finds out."

In public, however, the White House defended the approach. Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said "the United States and coalition countries, as well as others that are contributing forces to the efforts there, and the Iraqi people themselves are the ones that have been helping and sacrificing to build a free and prosperous nation for the Iraqi people."

He said contracts stemming from aid to Iraq pledged by donor nations in Madrid last month would be open to broad international competition.

Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said Wednesday that while the bidding restriction applied to prime contracts, "there are very few restrictions on subcontractors."

He also said the World Bank and International Monetary Fund "may have different, or their own, rules for how they contract."

When the committee was drafting the policy, officials said, there was some discussion about whether it would be wise to declare that excluding noncoalition members was in the security interests of the United States. As a matter of trade law, countries are often allowed to limit trade with other nations on national security grounds.

"The intent was to give us the legal cover to make the decision," one official said.

But the phrase angered officials of other nations because it seemed to suggest they were a security risk.

Moreover, the United States Trade Representative's office said on Wednesday that contracts with the occupation authority "are not covered by international trade procurement obligations because the C.P.A. is not an entity subject to these obligations."

"Accordingly, there is no need to invoke the `essential security' exception to our trade obligations," the office added.

That raised the question of why Mr. Wolfowitz included the phrase.

The Pentagon was already recasting the policy on Wednesday.

"Nobody had the intent of being punitive when this was being developed," said Larry Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"This is not a fixed, closed list," he said. "This is meant to be forward looking and potentially expansive."

pritchke · 12-11-2003, 12:15 PM

This decision is just a way for Bush and his cronies to get back at countries who were not for the War in Iraq.

Personally I am OK with this decision because it gives a reason for my country to not give any more of the aid money that it said it would give. Which would amount to almost $300 million or more in the next year. This money could than go back to the tax payers here or go to something else. If Bush does not want to have fair and equal bids with world companies than fine but don't expect aid money for rebuilding purposes to come from other countries. If he wishes to go it alone than let the US tax payer pay more for Iraq than they already are, a few billion more is nothing. I am sure they will love him for it. Russia should not forgive Iraq's debt. If Bush is so concerned about it then ask him to pay off the debt.

This is another bad move by Bush based on petty diplomacy, but could be good for tax payers world wide except it will cost the US tax payers more in the long run as countries withhold aid, and forgiving the debt of Iraq that they will now have to pay out of their pockets. Congratulations Mr. Bush, it should make CEO's of companies in countries who supported the war happy but its the tax payers in those countries who will have to foot more of the bill.

[ 12-11-2003, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

pritchke · 12-11-2003, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
The "real reason" these countries are being excluded is because the bulk of the reconstruction costs will be provided by the American taxpayers....so I believe it is only right that the contracts go to those who supported America.

Since France, Germany, Russia, and the other countries were strongly opposed to the war, there is no reason to seek their help in reversing the results of the war. I respect their right to oppose the U.S. actions in Iraq, but they shouldn't expect to be rewarded for this stance by the U.S. nor to reap the benefits offered by a war they were against.

You do realize that it is not so black and white as this. Countries like Russia and France now can say that Iraq must pay all of their debt. Since Iraq is not a poor country (oil) it will get its money who do you think will have to foot any bill that means less oil money for the US. What is several billion more correct? What about countries who are offering aid money. They can now say "no more aid money, let the US and allied countries foot all the bill." The only people benefiting will be the Iraqi people, who have nothing else to lose either way, and people at the top of companies in allied countries including the US. The real tax payers in the US like you will now end up paying more of the bill, while the filthy rich fill their already fat pockets. At least that is the way I see it.

[ 12-11-2003, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Djinn Raffo · 12-11-2003, 01:41 PM

This is one of the stupider statments i have heard from the Bush Administration.

Why make the announcement? A better diplomatic move would have been to rig it so that bids from 'banned' countries were simply not selected. Oh right: Bush administration acts in arrogance and out of spite. Coming out with this statement makes it harder for others to come on board in the future.

What about multinational companies? I read that Schlumberger can't bid on any contracts because it is 'French'. But its primary listing is New York Stock Exchange, its Headquarters is in New York, it does a third of its business in North America, has thousands of American employees and huge numbers of US shareholders, and has a corporate executive officer who is British. Company started in France one hundred years ago.. and it's out. WTF???? What about a US subsidiary company that is owned by a Russian holding company?

Why the hell is Saudi Arabia and Turkey among those that can bid on contracts? Especially Turkey, they screwed you guys just before the whole thing went down? WTF???? Again.. WTF????

Of course this all boils down to: it's U.S. money and the government can give it to whomever they want.. oh wait a minute.. the reconstruction is being paid for with Iraqi Oil money isn't it?

Welcome to grade 8 Mr. Bush, enjoy your new colony.

Djinn Raffo · 12-11-2003, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
The "real reason" these countries are being excluded is because the bulk of the reconstruction costs will be provided by the American taxpayers....so I believe it is only right that the contracts go to those who supported America.

No it's not. Wasn't Iraqi Oil money to pay for the reconstruction? Oh.. unless you meant US buys Iraqi oil and then calls the payment money for it 'Aid Money'

Djinn Raffo · 12-11-2003, 01:51 PM

Read the article that Timber just posted.

It amounts to: Bush Administration = FUBAR.

12-11-2003, 09:09 AM	#2
Cerek the Barbaric Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice Join Date: October 29, 2001 Location: North Carolina Age: 62 Posts: 3,257	The "real reason" these countries are being excluded is because the bulk of the reconstruction costs will be provided by the American taxpayers....so I believe it is only right that the contracts go to those who supported America. Since France, Germany, Russia, and the other countries were strongly opposed to the war, there is no reason to seek their help in reversing the results of the war. I respect their right to oppose the U.S. actions in Iraq, but they shouldn't expect to be rewarded for this stance by the U.S. nor to reap the benefits offered by a war they were against. __________________ [img]\"http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/cerek/cerektsrsig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Cerek the Calmth

12-11-2003, 11:33 AM	#5
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	Today's NY Times: _________________________ December 11, 2003 DIPLOMACY Bush Seeks Help of Allies Barred From Iraq Deals By DAVID E. SANGER and DOUGLAS JEHL ASHINGTON, Dec. 10 — President Bush found himself in the awkward position on Wednesday of calling the leaders of France, Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq's debts, just a day after the Pentagon said it was excluding those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects. White House officials were fuming about the timing and the tone of the Pentagon's directive, even while conceding that they had approved the Pentagon policy of limiting contracts to 63 countries that have given the United States political or military aid in Iraq. Many countries excluded from the list, including close allies like Canada, reacted angrily on Wednesday to the Pentagon action. They were incensed, in part, by the Pentagon's explanation in a memorandum that the restrictions were required "for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States." The Russian defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, when asked about the Pentagon decision, responded by ruling out any debt write-off for Iraq. The Canadian deputy prime minister, John Manley, suggested crisply that "it would be difficult" to add to the $190 million already given for reconstruction in Iraq. White House officials said Mr. Bush and his aides had been surprised by both the timing and the blunt wording of the Pentagon's declaration. But they said the White House had signed off on the policy, after a committee of deputies from a number of departments and the National Security Council agreed that the most lucrative contracts must be reserved for political or military supporters. Those officials apparently did not realize that the memorandum, signed by Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, would appear on a Defense Department Web site hours before Mr. Bush was scheduled to ask world leaders to receive James A. Baker III, the former treasury secretary and secretary of state, who is heading up the effort to wipe out Iraq's debt. Mr. Baker met with the president on Wednesday. Several of Mr. Bush's aides said they feared that the memorandum would undercut White House efforts to repair relations with allies who had opposed the invasion of Iraq. White House officials declined to say how Mr. Bush explained the Pentagon policy to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, President Jacques Chirac of France and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany. France and Russia were two of the largest creditors of Saddam Hussein's government. But officials hinted, by the end of the day, that Mr. Baker might be able to show flexibility to countries that write down Iraqi debt. "I can't imagine that if you are asking to do stuff for Iraq that this is going to help," a senior State Department official said late Wednesday. A senior administration official described Mr. Bush as "distinctly unhappy" about dealing with foreign leaders who had just learned of their exclusion from the contracts. Under the Pentagon rules, only companies whose countries are on the American list of "coalition nations" are eligible to compete for the prime contracts, though they could act as subcontractors. The result is that the Solomon Islands, Uganda and Samoa may compete for the contracts, but China, whose premier just left the White House with promises of an expanded trade relationship, is excluded, along with Israel. Several of Mr. Bush's aides wondered why the administration had not simply adopted a policy of giving preference to prime contracts to members of the coalition, without barring any countries outright. "What we did was toss away our leverage," one senior American diplomat said. "We could have put together a policy that said, `The more you help, the more contracts you may be able to gain.' " Instead, the official said, "we found a new way to alienate them." A senior official at the State Department was asked during an internal meeting on Wednesday how he expected the move to affect the responses of Russia, France and Germany to the American request. He responded, "Go ask Jim Baker," according another senior official, who said of Mr. Baker, "He's the one who's going to be carrying the water, and he's going to be the one who finds out." In public, however, the White House defended the approach. Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said "the United States and coalition countries, as well as others that are contributing forces to the efforts there, and the Iraqi people themselves are the ones that have been helping and sacrificing to build a free and prosperous nation for the Iraqi people." He said contracts stemming from aid to Iraq pledged by donor nations in Madrid last month would be open to broad international competition. Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said Wednesday that while the bidding restriction applied to prime contracts, "there are very few restrictions on subcontractors." He also said the World Bank and International Monetary Fund "may have different, or their own, rules for how they contract." When the committee was drafting the policy, officials said, there was some discussion about whether it would be wise to declare that excluding noncoalition members was in the security interests of the United States. As a matter of trade law, countries are often allowed to limit trade with other nations on national security grounds. "The intent was to give us the legal cover to make the decision," one official said. But the phrase angered officials of other nations because it seemed to suggest they were a security risk. Moreover, the United States Trade Representative's office said on Wednesday that contracts with the occupation authority "are not covered by international trade procurement obligations because the C.P.A. is not an entity subject to these obligations." "Accordingly, there is no need to invoke the `essential security' exception to our trade obligations," the office added. That raised the question of why Mr. Wolfowitz included the phrase. The Pentagon was already recasting the policy on Wednesday. "Nobody had the intent of being punitive when this was being developed," said Larry Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "This is not a fixed, closed list," he said. "This is meant to be forward looking and potentially expansive." __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A tale of Afghan reconstruction outside of Khabul	shamrock_uk	General Discussion	0	05-14-2005 07:50 PM
Level 8 - The Underground Forest - Reconstruction	Ziroc	NWN Mod: Escape from Undermountain	6	03-08-2005 06:59 PM
Iraq Reconstruction Package -- and you thought the $300 screwdriver was bad	Timber Loftis	General Discussion	13	02-16-2004 05:43 AM
Powell & Kay on Iraq's WMDs	Chewbacca	General Discussion	22	01-29-2004 02:57 PM
Iraq's Dis-information War	Chewbacca	General Discussion	0	07-06-2003 02:55 PM

12-11-2003, 04:54 AM	#1
Dreamer128 Dracolisk Join Date: March 21, 2001 Location: Europe Age: 40 Posts: 6,136	(EuroNews.net) Washington has defended its decision to ban companies from countries who opposed the Iraq war from bidding for reconstruction projects. The move has re-ignited bitter trans-Atlantic tensions. The projects in Iraq are worth $18.6 billion. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said it was natural they would be awarded to US allies. "We are talking about US taxpayer dollars here and I think it is appropriate and reasonable to expect that the Iraqi people and those countries who have been working with the United States and contributing forces to the efforts in Iraq would be the ones that would be eligible for the prime contracts," he said. Germany, which for more than a century built much of modern Iraq, said it was stunned. Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said: "From our side, all I can say is that we noted the reports today with astonishment and we will be speaking about it with the American side." France and the European Commission say they will investigate whether the US is breaking international trade rules. The US cited national security concerns for its decision but some analysts say the real reason is to punish the opponents of the war.

12-11-2003, 09:15 AM	#3
Dreamer128 Dracolisk Join Date: March 21, 2001 Location: Europe Age: 40 Posts: 6,136	Possibly. Though it would be benefit the Iraqi economy more if the contracts were to go to Iraqi firms. There are alot of Iraqi bussinesses that are quite well equiped to help rebuild the country. But they only seem to get the small contracts. Maybe we are missing out on a golden opportunity to battle local unemployement in Iraq, and assist in the recovery of their economy.

12-11-2003, 12:15 PM	#6
pritchke Bastet - Egyptian Cat Goddess Join Date: September 5, 2001 Location: Calgary, AB Age: 50 Posts: 3,491	This decision is just a way for Bush and his cronies to get back at countries who were not for the War in Iraq. Personally I am OK with this decision because it gives a reason for my country to not give any more of the aid money that it said it would give. Which would amount to almost $300 million or more in the next year. This money could than go back to the tax payers here or go to something else. If Bush does not want to have fair and equal bids with world companies than fine but don't expect aid money for rebuilding purposes to come from other countries. If he wishes to go it alone than let the US tax payer pay more for Iraq than they already are, a few billion more is nothing. I am sure they will love him for it. Russia should not forgive Iraq's debt. If Bush is so concerned about it then ask him to pay off the debt. This is another bad move by Bush based on petty diplomacy, but could be good for tax payers world wide except it will cost the US tax payers more in the long run as countries withhold aid, and forgiving the debt of Iraq that they will now have to pay out of their pockets. Congratulations Mr. Bush, it should make CEO's of companies in countries who supported the war happy but its the tax payers in those countries who will have to foot more of the bill. [ 12-11-2003, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

12-11-2003, 01:41 PM	#8
Djinn Raffo Ra Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: Ant Hill Age: 50 Posts: 2,397	This is one of the stupider statments i have heard from the Bush Administration. Why make the announcement? A better diplomatic move would have been to rig it so that bids from 'banned' countries were simply not selected. Oh right: Bush administration acts in arrogance and out of spite. Coming out with this statement makes it harder for others to come on board in the future. What about multinational companies? I read that Schlumberger can't bid on any contracts because it is 'French'. But its primary listing is New York Stock Exchange, its Headquarters is in New York, it does a third of its business in North America, has thousands of American employees and huge numbers of US shareholders, and has a corporate executive officer who is British. Company started in France one hundred years ago.. and it's out. WTF???? What about a US subsidiary company that is owned by a Russian holding company? Why the hell is Saudi Arabia and Turkey among those that can bid on contracts? Especially Turkey, they screwed you guys just before the whole thing went down? WTF???? Again.. WTF???? Of course this all boils down to: it's U.S. money and the government can give it to whomever they want.. oh wait a minute.. the reconstruction is being paid for with Iraqi Oil money isn't it? Welcome to grade 8 Mr. Bush, enjoy your new colony.

12-11-2003, 01:51 PM	#10
Djinn Raffo Ra Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: Ant Hill Age: 50 Posts: 2,397	Read the article that Timber just posted. It amounts to: Bush Administration = FUBAR.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)