----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 9:47 AM Subject: Privatizing Iraq's industry (was Re: Bitter Fruit)
>Speaking of privatization of Iraqi businesses... that's one of the argued >grounds for impeachment, as a war crime. The idea is that it is not okay to >invade another country and then sell off its assets, even if the receipts >stay there. Only Iraq, not its occupier, has the right to decide to >privatize, the argument says. The legal argument compares an occupier to a >house-sitter. There are many things that a house-sitter may reasonably >consume, but selling the house or parts of it is not reasonable. I have no argument with that sentiment, but I'd take it further. The house sitter _cannot_ sign a contract for the future sale of the assets. In the case of Iraq, the assets are oil fields that have the potential for development and massive future production. Let's posit, just for argument's sake, that the CPA signed a sweetheart deal with ExxonMobil for them to develop Iraq's oil field. The contract paid ExxonMobil far above the market rate. The CPA then turns running the country over to an appointed government, which later turned the country over to an elected government. Now, that government looks at the deal and says it's a bad one. So, they tear it up. Aren't they able to do so? Who is going to force them to honor a contract they didn't sign? Once our troops come back, Congress won't authorize sending them in just to enforce a contract signed by the CPA. The UN Security Council certainly wouldn't back up our claim with sanctions. France, China, and Russia all want to develop oil in Iraq. They wouldn't support a bogus claim. So, I agree with you that the US had no right to make long term deals for Iraq oil. But, it's not just that we shouldn't do this. It's that we can't do this. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
