[kvm_mkdb]

Not many are talking about the only really successful part of the occupation: the economic reforms.

The occupation authorities met very little resistance in the implementation of their economic plan: privatization of water, electricity, communications, transportation, health…

Not only such a reform is having catastrophical effects at this moment (70% of the population is jobless and cannot afford to pay for utilities or medical treatment) - it is plainly illegal under the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Convention. This article explains why.

Western companies are free to buy Iraqi assets at incredibily low prices (and make fortunes out of it), while common Iraqis earn next to nothing. In other words, the economic colonialism imposed by the CPA is being extremely successful.

You can find an interesting analysis of the situation in this article:
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mh...24&s=klein

[Mohammed Atef]

Iraqis earn so little in Western terms b/c of their low standard of living and lower living costs. People in Vietnam don't need to make US$6.00/hr; that'd be crazy. Inflation would go through the roof. Same in Iraq, Somalia, Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
Iraqis earn so little in Western terms b/c of their low standard of living and lower living costs. People in Vietnam don't need to make US$6.00/hr; that'd be crazy. Inflation would go through the roof. Same in Iraq, Somalia, Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.

What the **** are you talking about?

This is not about Iraqi standards of living and living costs, this is about America pillaging and plundering Iraqi infrastructure for it's own gains - leaving the Iraqi people short-changed in the process.

If you want to get down to it, Iraqi living standards used to rival parts of Western Europe - guess which country and whose sanctions shattered that reality.

[Troll]

I'm reminded of this refrain every time I read about Iraq these days:

The Beautiful Occupation
The Beautiful Occupation
Don't need an invitation
To Drop in Upon a Nation

The Beautiful Occupation
The Beautiful Occupation
So much for an intervention
Don't call the United Nations

- Travis, "The Beautiful Occupation" from 12 Memories

Of course, there is a big risk that if a US puppet government doesn't result from this adventure, that the new Iraqi government might nationalise all of the industries again. Since these sales are not legal under international law, the private American companies that invest money into these projects would have no legal recourse internationally against the state of Iraq if it took these industries back. I actually hope the new Iraqi government has the balls to nationalise these industries again together with any improvements the Americans effected during the time they were unlawfully dealing in Iraq's assets. I hope this happens for the simple reason that I think the US needs to learn that you go around breaking international law at your own risk.

[Mohammed Atef]

Originally posted by eklipse:
guess which country and whose sanctions shattered that reality.

put the blame for that where it lies: with Saddam. He invaded Kuwait. Coalition forces, with support of the Security Council, liberated Kuwait and slapped sanctions on Saddam. Stop blaming the US for Saddam's short-sighted and greedy actions. It's pathetic.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Troll:
Of course, there is a big risk that if a US puppet government doesn't result from this adventure, that the new Iraqi government might nationalise all of the industries again. Since these sales are not legal under international law, the private American companies that invest money into these projects would have no legal recourse internationally against the state of Iraq if it took these industries back. I actually hope the new Iraqi government has the balls to nationalise these industries again together with any improvements the Americans effected during the time they were unlawfully dealing in Iraq's assets. I hope this happens for the simple reason that I think the US needs to learn that you go around breaking international law at your own risk.

Yeah - it doesn't bode well for the chances of a future democratic Iraq where a legitimate government looks out for the best interests of the Iraqi people, does it?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
put the blame for that where it lies: with Saddam. He invaded Kuwait. Coalition forces, with support of the Security Council, liberated Kuwait and slapped sanctions on Saddam. Stop blaming the US for Saddam's short-sighted and greedy actions. It's pathetic.

I heard that Saddam suspected Kuwait of illegally slant-drilling oil from his country - they denied this - but ol' Saddam just had to verify things for himself - being that said drilling constituted an 'imminent threat' to the Iraqi economy. He would have liked a security council resolution authorizing the use of military force to stop the drilling - but, realizing the unlikelihood of such a resolution passing (something about a certain 'liberal-pinko-peacenik' country like America vetoing) - he decided to go in anyway.

[tie]

Originally posted by eklipse:
If you want to get down to it, Iraqi living standards used to rival parts of Western Europe - guess which country and whose sanctions shattered that reality.

Iraq itself. With its continual wars with Iran, then the Gulf War. Even without these wars, Iraq wouldn't have living standards to rival Western Europe. The situation would be pretty much just like Saudi Arabia. Iraq would most likely have an economy entirely based on oil, and therefore basically stagnant -- with high population growth pushing per-capita GDP down and down.

I actually don't care if the economic reforms are "legal" or not, as long as they work! Are they working? No. Might they still work? Possibly, but judging from the general incompetence of the American occupation, probably not.

Assuming that the economic reforms have been made for the good of the Iraqis and not American companies -- which isn't at all clear -- then they were a big risk. We could have moved slowly with reforms, and basically ended up with an Iraq like the rest of the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia. This is not a recipe for long-term success. Instead, the risk is to try to transform Iraq into a real capitalist democracy. High risk, but could still succeed.

[Troll]

Originally posted by tie:
I actually don't care if the economic reforms are "legal" or not, as long as they work! Are they working? No. Might they still work? Possibly, but judging from the general incompetence of the American occupation, probably not.

I don't think we're talking about "economic reforms" here. This is THEFT! The Americans are stealing Iraq's resources; taking their assets and privatising them by giving them or selling them to American companies. They are no more reforming the Iraqi economy than a thief would be reforming your asset base by stealing your Mac.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by Troll:
I don't think we're talking about "economic reforms" here. This is THEFT! The Americans are stealing Iraq's resources; taking their assets and privatising them by giving them or selling them to American companies. They are no more reforming the Iraqi economy than a thief would be reforming your asset base by stealing your Mac.

Who held prior ownership?
If it was an Iraqi citizen or corporation of citizens, then it is indeed arguable that the transfer of ownership happened involuntarily (theft.)

If it was the Iraqi state under Saddam Hussein, then no theft from the Iraqi people occurred.

The test of ownership is, can a person sell his stake in what he is told he owns. If not, then he doesn't really own it.

So, if the state owned the resource, and the state has changed governance and as a state decides to change the handling of resources from state-owned to privately owned, no theft seems to have occurred. You may not like the new owners, but if the new owners attained it through no use of force from themselves, they have committed no theft.

Now, if you want to argue that the US forced the transaction through use of force, that's different, but places the companies in the position of recieving stolen property, at best. This is also an untenable argument, considering that ALL government action is essentially coercion, or use of force, so the new government's decision to privatise formerly state-owned resources is not theft, any more so than it was in keeping private Iraqis from owning it under Saddam Hussein. No new theft has occurred.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Who held prior ownership?
If it was an Iraqi citizen or corporation of citizens, then it is indeed arguable that the transfer of ownership happened involuntarily (theft.)

If it was the Iraqi state under Saddam Hussein, then no theft from the Iraqi people occurred.

Dude: if something is state-owned, it belongs to the people - it doesn't matter if Saddam Hussein administered it.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by tie:
Iraq itself. With its continual wars with Iran, then the Gulf War. Even without these wars, Iraq wouldn't have living standards to rival Western Europe. The situation would be pretty much just like Saudi Arabia. Iraq would most likely have an economy entirely based on oil, and therefore basically stagnant -- with high population growth pushing per-capita GDP down and down.

Actually, Iraq was well aware of the drawbacks of having an oil-dominated economy - there was a concerted effort to develop new industries (such as electronics, consumer goods and mineral mining) and move away from the reliance on oil revenue. I believe Saddam Hussein was once quoted as saying that he intended for Iraq to eventually become entirely self-sufficient.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Dude: if something is state-owned, it belongs to the people - it doesn't matter if Saddam Hussein administered it.

Incorrect. The test of ownership is, can you sell your share in it. If you can't, you never really owned it.

Since no iraqi citizen could sell their share in it, it was effectively owned by Saddam Hussein, never by the iraqi people.

The government which has replaced Saddam Hussein inherited ownership and has voluntarily done that which ownership entitles- made a sale.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Incorrect. The test of ownership is, can you sell your share in it. If you can't, you never really owned it.

Since no iraqi citizen could sell their share in it, it was effectively owned by Saddam Hussein, never by the iraqi people.

The government which has replaced Saddam Hussein inherited ownership and has voluntarily done that which ownership entitles- made a sale.

BS. Can you sell your share of the USPS? No. Do you own it? Yes.

There is a difference between ownership and possession.

No government has yet replaced Saddam Hussein. The sale of Iraqi assets at this moment is not only illegal, it's against the best interest of the Iraqi people.

[Troll]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Incorrect. The test of ownership is, can you sell your share in it. If you can't, you never really owned it.

I've never heard of that test. What legal system are you referring to? Making some weird argument about the definition of ownership is irrelevant since the law that applies in the situation of occupation is clear on this point. The Geneva Convention says that the occupier must hold the assets on trust pending transfer to the new government.

Those industries were paid for from revenue generated from the exploitation of Iraqi resources and from taxes paid by Iraqis. The state of Iraq is independent from its government. When the government is removed, the state doesn't cease to exist. So, the assets have been stolen from the state of Iraq if not from the people. It, acting through its government would be entitled to take them back by nationalising them again.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
BS. Can you sell your share of the USPS? No. Do you own it? Yes.

There is a difference between ownership and possession.

No government has yet replaced Saddam Hussein. The sale of Iraqi assets at this moment is not only illegal, it's against the best interest of the Iraqi people.

Can you sell your share in the USPS? No.

This is the simplest and most accurate test of ownership. If you can't control your share of it, then you don't really own it. Someone else who can control your share owns it, and is telling you sweet nothings that are inaccurate.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Can you sell your share in the USPS? No.

This is the simplest and most accurate test of ownership. If you can't control your share of it, then you don't really own it. Someone else who can control your share owns it, and is telling you sweet nothings that are inaccurate.

hm. Much like the Bush administration talking about Iraqi self-governance. Do the Iraqis control it? No. So they don't really own it.
Can the Bush administration control it? Yes. The Bush administration, who can control the Iraqi government owns it, and is telling the Iraqis sweet nothings that are inaccurate.

[Troll]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Can you sell your share in the USPS? No.

This is the simplest and most accurate test of ownership. If you can't control your share of it, then you don't really own it. Someone else who can control your share owns it, and is telling you sweet nothings that are inaccurate.

The American people as a group can sell their share in USPS. No one is saying that each individual Iraqi has been robbed. We're saying that the Iraqi people as a group have been robbed. Those people are collectively represented by the state of Iraq which holds the assets on trust for the Iraqi people. As I said, this is irrelevant, because the law defines this behaviour as being illegal. No need to work out if the Iraqi people owned the assets; anything owned by the previous government has to be held by the occupiers on trust for the people pending the end of occupation. They cannot dish out the assets before the people have taken control of their country again.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Troll:
I've never heard of that test. What legal system are you referring to?

The Zionist legal system - it worked for the Palestinians, why shouldn't it work for the Iraqis?

[tie]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Actually, Iraq was well aware of the drawbacks of having an oil-dominated economy - there was a concerted effort to develop new industries (such as electronics, consumer goods and mineral mining) and move away from the reliance on oil revenue. I believe Saddam Hussein was once quoted as saying that he intended for Iraq to eventually become entirely self-sufficient.

They all say that, but nothing ever comes of it. Perhaps Iraq was different, but I'd doubt it (not having any statistics either way).

Originall posted by Troll:
I don't think we're talking about "economic reforms" here. This is THEFT! The Americans are stealing Iraq's resources; taking their assets and privatising them by giving them or selling them to American companies. They are no more reforming the Iraqi economy than a thief would be reforming your asset base by stealing your Mac.

It's possible that theft is the best way to jump-start the economy. The accepted modern economic history of Russia, up to a couple weeks ago, went something like: political insiders stole billions of state assets, but then were forced to accept legal and accounting reforms to hold power and make their companies even bigger (by attracting investors, for example).

I think Bush found the idea of an oil-based economy, welfare state with steadily falling standards of living unacceptable, and is taking any risks to avoid that. And if these risks just happen to involve giving billions to his corporate buddies, it's just coincidental.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by tie:
They all say that, but nothing ever comes of it. Perhaps Iraq was different, but I'd doubt it (not having any statistics either way).

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...(DOCID+iq0056)

[einmakom]

Originally posted by eklipse:
The Zionist legal system - it worked for the Palestinians, why shouldn't it work for the Iraqis?

Because we all know that when you haven't got a relevant answer to anything else, you blame the Zionists. Good for you!

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Because we all know that when you haven't got a relevant answer to anything else, you blame the Zionists. Good for you!

We conquered it, we own it - It never belonged to them anyway

Sounds familiar?

[swrate]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Not many are talking about the only really successful part of the occupation: the economic reforms.

The occupation authorities met very little resistance in the implementation of their economic plan: privatization of water, electricity, communications, transportation, health…

Not only such a reform is having catastrophical effects at this moment (70% of the population is jobless and cannot afford to pay for utilities or medical treatment) - it is plainly illegal under the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Convention. This article explains why.

Western companies are free to buy Iraqi assets at incredibily low prices (and make fortunes out of it), while common Iraqis earn next to nothing. In other words, the economic colonialism imposed by the CPA is being extremely successful.

You can find an interesting analysis of the situation in this article:
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mh...24&s=klein

Going well,,,, is this a sarcasm? peanuts.... compared to what was meant to be.

The Iraqis life is not going well,,, puppets for the masters

Whereas the Pipeline dream, well I wonder...
Why did Bremer rush home?

What effect is it going to have on Iraq that a shia mayor was killed?
(?by a US soldier?)

at one point bush and putin and others will have to discuss, and agree, or we in for a very long war.

[einmakom]

Tom Bethell, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and Washington correspondent for "The American Spectator," has penned a book titled ""The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages."

The book analyzes the history and principles of private property, an institution held in contempt by tyrants throughout history. In pursuit of social objectives such as conservation, environmentalism and income equality, Fifth Amendment private property protections are increasingly held in contempt by most Americans.

Bethell says that property plays a key role in establishing justice in society and it is the most peaceable of institutions: "In a society of private property, goods must be either voluntarily exchanged or laboriously created. As long as such ownership is protected by the state, goods cannot be easily taken by force."

That fact helps explain why private property is held in such deep contempt by tyrants. They believe they've been endowed with superior wisdom and they have the right to use force of any kind to impose that wisdom on the ordinary citizen. Part of that "wisdom" is how what we produce shall be used. The principles of private property stand in their way.

Certainly, Bethell's book discusses America in particular, but it is quite relevant to the discussion at hand. Mr. Hussein was a tyrant, and as such, chose to keep resources state-owned for his own greater good, his condescending 'wisdom', instead of his citizens benefitting from owning such resources privately, and the customers of said resources benefitting from price competition and competition to provide good service.

Basic economics.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by swrate:
Going well,,,, is this a sarcasm? peanuts.... compared to what was meant to be.

The Iraqis life is not going well,,, puppets for the masters

Whereas the Pipeline dream, well I wonder...
Why did Bremer rush home?

What effect is it going to have on Iraq that a shia mayor was killed?
(?by a US soldier?)

at one point bush and putin and others will have to discuss, and agree, or we in for a very long war.

The economic colonization of Iraq is going very well - unlike the rest of the pipe dream.

I agree with you: life for the Iraqis is going very badly.

We are already in for a long war - expect the fighting to escalate... warplanes are on their way.

[swrate]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Tom Bethell, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and Washington correspondent for "The American Spectator," has penned a book titled ""The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages."

The book analyzes the history and principles of private property, an institution held in contempt by tyrants throughout history. In pursuit of social objectives such as conservation, environmentalism and income equality, Fifth Amendment private property protections are increasingly held in contempt by most Americans.

Bethell says that property plays a key role in establishing justice in society and it is the most peaceable of institutions: "In a society of private property, goods must be either voluntarily exchanged or laboriously created. As long as such ownership is protected by the state, goods cannot be easily taken by force."

That fact helps explain why private property is held in such deep contempt by tyrants. They believe they've been endowed with superior wisdom and they have the right to use force of any kind to impose that wisdom on the ordinary citizen. Part of that "wisdom" is how what we produce shall be used. The principles of private property stand in their way.

Certainly, Bethell's book discusses America in particular, but it is quite relevant to the discussion at hand. Mr. Hussein was a tyrant, and as such, chose to keep resources state-owned for his own greater good, his condescending 'wisdom', instead of his citizens benefitting from owning such resources privately, and the customers of said resources benefitting from price competition and competition to provide good service.

Basic economics.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Basic economics.

Basic economics will also tell you the state has to provide some goods that would otherwise never be provided by the private sector.

The Hoover Institution is widely regarded as a conservative think-tank, American Spectator a conservative magazine. So let's not kid ourselves, it's not like Tom Bethell is some unbiased economist. He has a private sector, rich get richer, conservative agenda. Which is not to say its worse than a socialist agenda, but just that bias exists.

This morning I heard on the radio how the price of propane tanks had increased from 600 dinars to 6,000 dinars because of the loss of state-run agencies.

American businesses see Iraq as a new place to make huge profits. This is a war-torn nation. We need to maintain the stability and not hand things over to private industry yet. Will "the market" prevail? Yes, if well regulated. In Iraq, it is certainly not well regulated and appears to have become the old west, with Bush as the new sheriff in town.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Basic economics.

It has nothing to do with basic economics. It's called colonialism.

[swrate]

I wonder, I dont know exactly how much the Bush administration benefits of all this, or at least was planning on...

Were they really going to redistribute $$$$ for the masses?

Regarding their many personnal links with PetroCo's, arent they also an oligarchy?
I dont know what the intentions of this "intervention" was:
if it was to reinstall democracy, they should of thought of
- the shisms, (-subdivision of different prophets teachings,
- the history
- the culture
and respect the percentages in politics, they should of tried to discuss with them beforehand) ---- imao
- the neighbours influences
and lots more....

for people who base lots of their information on the mullah's
and who feel the stress of having to feed themselvesand their children....
basics, water, food, education, electricity,,, etc.... medical care
should of been pre-organized by the one's who decided "the change".

We dont know yet if Iraq may not be finishing with another Hussein family tyranny or a sheik shah tsar

UN? no... they said they were not ready yet. (for a war, they knew the logisitc support was inadequate)


sorry to all for my ramblings,
it helps to swallow.

[christ]

Originally posted by swrate:
... it helps to swallow.

eeewww (how do you spell that?)

[eklipse]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Because we all know that when you haven't got a relevant answer to anything else, you blame the Zionists. Good for you!

I wasn't blaming anyone. I was pointing out a similarity in tactics. kvm got it. Better luck next time.

[Troll]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Basic economics.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about how "ownership" is defined. Ownership is a legal concept rather than an economic term. In any event, you're comparing apples and oranges. The tension between the state and private ownership in a democratic context is wholly irrelevant to the context of a military occupation ... where all of the principles are well-defined.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
It has nothing to do with basic economics. It's called colonialism.

The US has no intention of keeping Iraq as a US territory, so colonialism doesn't fit this situation. The US isn't in the business of empire building as the British once sought to do.

Private ownership is simply the best available means for this situation, and the Iraqi economy stands to benefit.

We've discussed the meaning of ownership, why private ownership is far better than state-ownership.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by einmakom:
We've discussed the meaning of ownership, why private ownership is far better than state-ownership.

The ultimate test of ownership cannot be based on the concept of a sale. This is very simple, so please read and think carefully - you cannot define what a sale is without first defining ownership/property. Thus, trying to define property using the concept of a sale is circular logic, a big no-no.

Property comes down to nothing more than this: I own a thing if someone else thinks I own it. The test of property, then, is a question of agreement (no matter how that state of agreement is arrived at - by force or by persuasion). If I can persuade enough people that I own a thing, and forcefully (whether that force is supplied by me or the state) prevent anyone else from challenging my claim, then I own it.

So, for instance, I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, even though nobody else thinks that I own it, if I can convince you that I own it. I can own the moon, if everyone else agrees that I do.

If you don't like this definition, then supply us with a better one that doesn't require the existence of property to be a valid definition.

BlackGriffen

[einmakom]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
The ultimate test of ownership cannot be based on the concept of a sale. This is very simple, so please read and think carefully - you cannot define what a sale is without first defining ownership/property. Thus, trying to define property using the concept of a sale is circular logic, a big no-no.

Property comes down to nothing more than this: I own a thing if someone else thinks I own it. The test of property, then, is a question of agreement (no matter how that state of agreement is arrived at - by force or by persuasion). If I can persuade enough people that I own a thing, and forcefully (whether that force is supplied by me or the state) prevent anyone else from challenging my claim, then I own it.

So, for instance, I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, even though nobody else thinks that I own it, if I can convince you that I own it. I can own the moon, if everyone else agrees that I do.

If you don't like this definition, then supply us with a better one that doesn't require the existence of property to be a valid definition.

BlackGriffen

A good friend related this to me a few days ago, saying:

A congressman told him that each American owned public property. As an example, he insisted that my friend was part-owner of the Washington Monument. My friend insisted it was none of his.

They insisted back and forth until the congressman asked my friend for the why of his position. His answer was a question, "Can I sell my part?" His test of whether I own something is whether he can sell it.

Indeed, the working definition of private property is the rights held by the owner to keep, acquire and dispose of property.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
The ultimate test of ownership cannot be based on the concept of a sale. This is very simple, so please read and think carefully - you cannot define what a sale is without first defining ownership/property. Thus, trying to define property using the concept of a sale is circular logic, a big no-no.

Property comes down to nothing more than this: I own a thing if someone else thinks I own it. The test of property, then, is a question of agreement (no matter how that state of agreement is arrived at - by force or by persuasion). If I can persuade enough people that I own a thing, and forcefully (whether that force is supplied by me or the state) prevent anyone else from challenging my claim, then I own it.

So, for instance, I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, even though nobody else thinks that I own it, if I can convince you that I own it. I can own the moon, if everyone else agrees that I do.

If you don't like this definition, then supply us with a better one that doesn't require the existence of property to be a valid definition.

BlackGriffen

excellent post.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by einmakom:
A good friend related this to me a few days ago, saying:

A congressman told him that each American owned public property. As an example, he insisted that my friend was part-owner of the Washington Monument. My friend insisted it was none of his.

They insisted back and forth until the congressman asked my friend for the why of his position. His answer was a question, "Can I sell my part?" His test of whether I own something is whether he can sell it.

Indeed, the working definition of private property is the rights held by the owner to keep, acquire and dispose of property.

"Keep, acquire, and dispose" are not synonymous with "sell." In fact, they are closer in meaning to, "defend, conquer, and abandon." I was trying to define property differently than I did, but I kept running in to what is essentially "Might makes right." The problem is that nowadays people "own" things that they neither possess nor control all of the time.

Also, consider that everything you've said is implied by the definition I gave. Anyone who can get all comers to agree that they own something, by hook or by crook, will have the ability to "keep, acquire, and dispose," of that property.

BlackGriffen

[Troll]

Originally posted by einmakom:
The US has no intention of keeping Iraq as a US territory, so colonialism doesn't fit this situation. The US isn't in the business of empire building as the British once sought to do.

Private ownership is simply the best available means for this situation, and the Iraqi economy stands to benefit.

We've discussed the meaning of ownership, why private ownership is far better than state-ownership.

Whilst the discussion of ownership is interesting, and there is no global definition that applies, it is irrelevant here. It's irrelevant because in terms of law, neither the CPA nor the Occupying Powers ever become the owner and therefore can never sell the assets.

Colonialism is not simply about "keeping Iraq as a US territory." Colonialists soon realised that there was another, far more lucrative and important dimension to having colonies. You can generate a considerable amount of wealth by taking their resources either by theft or paying derisory sums, shipping them back to the mother country, processing them, and then selling them back to the colony at a massive profit. Basically, you steal something from them and then sell it back to them. The world is a smaller place today than it was in 1820. The strategic element of occupying land is far less important than it used to be. To succeed economically, however, the US still needs to access resources cheaply and create markets for the processed goods.

This is what the US is doing in Iraq and it is every bit colonialism. In the words of Naomi Klein, "If every last soldier pulled out of the Gulf tomorrow and a sovereign government came to power, Iraq would still be occupied: by laws written in the interest of a foreign country; by foreign corporations controlling its essential services; by 70% unemployment sparked by public sector layoffs."

The UN resolution passed in May specifically required the occupying powers to "comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva conventions of 1949 and the Hague regulations of 1907". The Hague regulations specify that the occupying power must obey "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". Iraq's constitution outlaws the privatization of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. Furthermore, the regulations state that occupying powers "shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public assets belonging to the hostile state, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct." So, at best the US or the CPA have a usufruct over the property. That is not ownership. It certainly would alter the substance of a state-owned asset to sell it to a foreign private company.

And the Occupying forces seem to know this. In a leaked memo written in March, the British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned Tony Blair that "the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorized by international law".

But for those who still have no respect for international law, like Mr. Bush, it is instructive to take note that this is also a violation of US law. The US army's Law of Land Warfare states that "the occupant does not have the right of sale or unqualified use of [non-military] property".

Bremer's now infamous Order 39 announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatized, that foreign firms can retain 100% ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories and allowed foreign firms to move 100% of their profits out of Iraq. No country in the world allows this sort of asset rape to take place.

The only way out of this is for the US is to ensure that the real, sovereign government that results from free elections in Iraq rubber stamps the CPA's illegal acts. A real government of Iraq would, as the representative of the Iraqi people have title to the assets and could renationalise them without compensation or ratify their sale by passing laws. One more reason why the US has to make sure that a puppet government comes into power.

[christ]

Originally posted by Troll:
...usufructuary...

Word of the day!

[gadster]

It seems very few are getting it at all. The US, and particularly, the US government, has been infiltrated by, and is controlled by ********. I dare not speak their name in this place.

But you probably know of whom I speak.

The Republicans are OK, the Democrats are OK. The political system could do with a third (or fourth) way, but that is beside the point at this juncture.

Seriously, you from the US need to get rid of these guys. The current administration is infested with them. They are not acting in *your* interests, morally, tactically or strategically.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Private ownership is simply the best available means for this situation, and the Iraqi economy stands to benefit.

We've discussed the meaning of ownership, why private ownership is far better than state-ownership.

Depends. If we were talking about private ownership for Iraqis then I might agree with you.

Private ownership by foreigners is bascially systematic capital flight. All profits leave the local economy.

State ownership isn't inherently bad or good. It all depends on the nature of the state. State ownership in a functioning democracy can be tremendously positive just like state ownership in a dictatorship can be devastatingly negative.

Have we already forgotten the causes of the Islamic revolutions? Just how ignorant of history can we get? Didn't anyone notice that Suadi Arabia has a state owned oil industry?

Oh wait, Bush is waiting for his second term to crack that nut isn't he?