Here’s more good news for the American taxpayer: Tuesday’s Washington Post reports that not only are foreign nations reluctant to send combat troops to Iraq, they’re now resisting the notion of sending money to help rebuild a nation that becomes more ravaged every day.
Since the bombing of its Baghdad headquarters two weeks ago, the UN has substantially reduced its presence in Iraq and with it, the primary conduit for international aid. European nations could contribute to the American-led reconstruction effort, but why should they?
Consider the situation from France’s point of view. A year ago, the United States was threatening to invade Iraq, claiming Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to regional stability and American security. After protracted negotiations with the Security Council, the U.S. and Iraq agreed weapons inspectors should be sent to Iraq. The inspectors find nothing of significance. Still, George W. Bush demands the right to launch a pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation. The Security Council withholds permission; Bush invades anyhow. Six months later, Iraq is in ruins and chaos; no weapons of mass destruction have been located. This is what happens when a nation ignores the good counsel of its allies.
If you assume France’s point of view, you might note that George Bush has been doling out huge tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. You might notice George Bush raising record sums of campaign cash from the same cronies his administration is benefiting. You might notice George Bush running up record deficits. If you were France, you might direct your foreign minister to tell Mr. Bush to reverse some of his tax cuts if he needs to finance his empire. You might suggest he donate some of the tens of millions of dollars in his campaign war chest before he comes looking for money from the people who advised him against such foolish ideas in the first place.
Maybe there are other reasons the international community is against contributing to Mr. Bush’s imperial ambition. Maybe it has something to do with Executive Order 13303. Signed by Mr. Bush in May, Executive Order 13303 provides blanket legal immunity for oil companies doing business in Iraq. What does that mean? It means if the companies brought in to revive Iraq’s oil industry, say Halliburton and Bechtel, violate the law, they are immune from American justice.
That means an American worker in Iraq, injured through an act of Bechtel’s negligence, is not covered by American workplace safety laws. Human rights violations against workers, Iraqi or American, are not covered. If an ExxonMobil tanker, filled with Iraqi crude oil, wrecks and spills its cargo, there is no recourse to an American court, because ExxonMobil would be exempt from all laws under Executive Order 13303.
Of course, the Bush administration denies this is the case, but the Los Angeles Times quotes law professors at Stamford and American University as saying such oil company lawlessness is provided for by Mr. Bush’s order, especially the part that says “judicial processes” are “null and void.”
If this is the free hand George Bush is giving his cronies in Iraq, should we be surprised when foreign nations are not lining up to kick in cash?
Last week, Paul Bremer said Iraqi reconstruction will need “tens of billions” of dollars and will need them soon. George Bush won’t tax the rich and he can’t get help from overseas, so guess where the tens of billions will come from?
As the old saying goes – in for a dime, in for a dollar.
In For a Dime
Here’s more good news for the American taxpayer: Tuesday’s Washington Post reports that not only are foreign nations reluctant to send combat troops to Iraq, they’re now resisting the notion of sending money to help rebuild a nation that becomes more ravaged every day.
Since the bombing of its Baghdad headquarters two weeks ago, the UN has substantially reduced its presence in Iraq and with it, the primary conduit for international aid. European nations could contribute to the American-led reconstruction effort, but why should they?
Consider the situation from France’s point of view. A year ago, the United States was threatening to invade Iraq, claiming Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to regional stability and American security. After protracted negotiations with the Security Council, the U.S. and Iraq agreed weapons inspectors should be sent to Iraq. The inspectors find nothing of significance. Still, George W. Bush demands the right to launch a pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation. The Security Council withholds permission; Bush invades anyhow. Six months later, Iraq is in ruins and chaos; no weapons of mass destruction have been located. This is what happens when a nation ignores the good counsel of its allies.
If you assume France’s point of view, you might note that George Bush has been doling out huge tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. You might notice George Bush raising record sums of campaign cash from the same cronies his administration is benefiting. You might notice George Bush running up record deficits. If you were France, you might direct your foreign minister to tell Mr. Bush to reverse some of his tax cuts if he needs to finance his empire. You might suggest he donate some of the tens of millions of dollars in his campaign war chest before he comes looking for money from the people who advised him against such foolish ideas in the first place.
Maybe there are other reasons the international community is against contributing to Mr. Bush’s imperial ambition. Maybe it has something to do with Executive Order 13303. Signed by Mr. Bush in May, Executive Order 13303 provides blanket legal immunity for oil companies doing business in Iraq. What does that mean? It means if the companies brought in to revive Iraq’s oil industry, say Halliburton and Bechtel, violate the law, they are immune from American justice.
That means an American worker in Iraq, injured through an act of Bechtel’s negligence, is not covered by American workplace safety laws. Human rights violations against workers, Iraqi or American, are not covered. If an ExxonMobil tanker, filled with Iraqi crude oil, wrecks and spills its cargo, there is no recourse to an American court, because ExxonMobil would be exempt from all laws under Executive Order 13303.
Of course, the Bush administration denies this is the case, but the Los Angeles Times quotes law professors at Stamford and American University as saying such oil company lawlessness is provided for by Mr. Bush’s order, especially the part that says “judicial processes” are “null and void.”
If this is the free hand George Bush is giving his cronies in Iraq, should we be surprised when foreign nations are not lining up to kick in cash?
Last week, Paul Bremer said Iraqi reconstruction will need “tens of billions” of dollars and will need them soon. George Bush won’t tax the rich and he can’t get help from overseas, so guess where the tens of billions will come from?
As the old saying goes – in for a dime, in for a dollar.