US business interests & Iraq.
This is an article from today's Guardian (UK newspaper). Comments, anyone?
========== British anger as port contract goes to US firm rather than to locals Rory McCarthy in Camp as-Sayliya, Qatar and Vikram Dodd Friday March 28, 2003 The Guardian Serious divisions emerged last night between Britain and America over plans for the running of Iraq's largest port at Umm Qasr. Air Marshal Brian Burridge, Britain's chief military officer in the Gulf, said it should be run by Iraqis as a model for the future reconstruction of the country. But earlier this week the Bush administration handed the $4.8m (£3m) contract to the private Stevedor ing Services of America (SSA). The Seattle-based firm has clashed with workers across three continents and faced accusations of being union busters. SSA will manage the port and handle cargo and shipping at Umm Qasr whose docks are a similar size to those at Dover. The US and UK military say Umm Qasr is vital for delivery and unloading of humanitarian supplies, though some experts think it could also be very useful if the war drags on and fresh supplies are needed for the troops. Air Marshal Burridge said yesterday he wanted the port handed to the Iraqis once the area was secure. "The best outcome is that we find the people who ran it before." British soldiers have found the port's former manager, an Iraqi army colonel who was arrested in Umm Qasr during the first days of the operation. Officers are trying to find other former staff. The British military say they do not want to seem imperialist invaders. "This is not the pax Britannica. We don't want to conquer a second Mesopotamia. The ultimate goal is to hand everything over to the Iraqi people," an officer said. The Umm Qasr contract was the second awarded by the US agency for international development to a US company for reconstruction work in Iraq. The first went to the US engineering firm Kellogg Brown and Root - part of Halliburton, the company once headed by Vice-President Dick Cheney. The firm won a contract to put out oil well fires and repair oil facilities. Until Stevedoring Services take over the port, it will be run by 17 Port and Maritime Regiment of the Royal Logistics Corps - the first time the British military have run a port in wartime since the second world war. Last year SSA and other US port firms were involved in a bitter and lengthy dispute with American dock workers. Ports across the west coast were crippled and the strike ended when President Bush ordered the dockers back to work. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union accuses SSA of being ideologically anti-union. Joe Wenzl, a union officer, said: "They want to undermine the strength of the union. They have taken a position that they would like to move forward without us. "They won't be hiring union help in Iraq." The Seattle company has business interests at 150 sites around the world, including Vietnam, India, Chile and Panama. Its president, Jon Hemingway, has made political donations to Republican candidates. Concern has grown that lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq, after the allied bombing and years of neglect under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, are going to US firms with British companies missing out. After the harbour at Basra was destroyed in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, Umm Qasr became the country's most important docks. It was the main access for food delivered under Iraq's oil-for-food programme and will be vital for the military, aid agencies and the UN world food programme to deliver food, water, and medical supplies. |
That is one off the reasons that Europe need to give money to their own companies an organisatons for help to Iraq after the war. Europe money going to American companies,.....:(
|
The first of many US companies to be awarded contracts I'm sure.
I think Perle resigned so he will have more time to work behind the scenes negotiating these contracts. |
:hmm:u know what would be beautiful?
If because of this, the Iraqi population were able to get decent salaries and decent jobs and healthcare instead of living on $2.00 a week. DB9 :) |
Yes db9 that's what NAFTA brought to our neighbors south of us. Maybe that's why they wouldn't support the UN resolution.
|
I'll agree about decent jobs and such for Iraqis. If we're going to be consistent at all the first people we should give a damn about is the Iraqi people. If we make it through this :censored: war-- and I'm getting frustrated and worried about casualties--they are sure as hell going to need our help. This is no time to be plotting to make millions off of the Iraqi people. The $$ should go to them and they should be able to spend it on rebuilding their own country.
|
Quote:
|
ok.
i will tell them to just work for free;) diamond |
|
Yeah, it's a shame that business contracts would go to the U.S. I mean, the French (and many other countries) put no money or effort or aid to get Saddam out, but once the U.S. spends over 1 trillion (yes trillion) dollars to get this job done, they all want to step in and share the rewards.
to me, it only seems fair that contracts should go to the countries that were part of the coalition in the first place. the U.S. also continues to state that they are there to liberate not occupy, so while they may control the port in Um Qasr for a while for transition purposes, I suspect that this would then be transitioned to Iraqi workers. |
Read a story that the oil company Halliburton -- the company that Dick Cheney receives his pension checks from -- has been eliminated from the process of choosing a contractor for post-Iraq. We'll see how long that sticks.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Are the Iraq people only good for cheap labour ? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
of course american business interests are going to get first dibs at the contracts... how would you feel if you left your job to go fight in iraq, came home, and you've been laid off because the company you worked for lost out on a lucrative contract to a company in a nation that refused to support you, i.e. france, germany, russia. even if this was a war that was supported across the board by the security council, someone would still need to get the business contracts. why should those contracts go to someone who didn't help in the liberation? that just makes no sense.
and as for the "bush international airport" thing... come on let's get serious for a second. some soldier with a sense of humor plopped a sign saying "bush international airport" on a taken over military airfield. let's not try to make it out into anything more than that. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com