Iraq- to the victor the Spoils.

international | anti-war / imperialism | news report

Friday August 01, 2003 14:11

by Tim

"liberation and enterprise" only for the allies.

Iraqis can now have mobile phones, but only from Bush friendly companies. Soon, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan will have airlines again.
They will be the same planes that carried the troops for the war. Guess the troops smashing up the Iraqi state owned aircraft was just "eliminating the competition"?

Iraq is one of the few rich countries without a mobile phone network. The paranoid and evil Hussein regime didn't allow them.
Now the paranoid US military regime is telling the people that they can have mobile phones, but they can't be Arab phones. They'll have to be good ol' "Cell Phones" from Bush country.
Iraq, which before sanctions and war, had enjoyed a high standard of living, is now ripe to be exploited by greedy businessmen. There are no mobile phones There's a lot of money for whoever gets in their first.
The Oil is already out of the people's hands, but here just two examples of the other 'business opportunities'.

A Bahraini company spent a small fortune setting up a GSM network in Iraq, making it easier for people to communicate, rather than using expensive satellite phones which cost $600 to buy and $6 a minute to use.
The US authorities threatened to confiscate their equipment unless the closed down.
GSM networks account for 70% of the world market including Europe and most of the Middle East.
The USA of course has its own system, CDMA which is used mostly in the US and has 12% of the market.
With industry analysts predicting 5 Million customers in three years, the US companies would like to promote CDMA in Iraq and keep out the GMS competition.
So while Batelco gave a lot of Iraqi's the chance to speak to the outside world, to loved ones abroad or in other parts of Iraq, it's patently obvious that their needs are secondary to the divine right to profit of exploitative capitalism.
Or perhaps Batelco didn't contribute to Bush's election funds?

The second example is just as enlightening.
It will be hard enough to get civil aviation going in Iraq again, with the aftermath of war, and the smash and grab pillaging spree of the third infantry division, who smashed up the airport, robbed the duty free, and tore apart the 5 servicable airliners at the airport, stealing or vandalising anything they could.
read more at
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_16-7-2003_pg3_3

Now it seems that the first landing slots will (surprise to surprise) go to American companies who helped to move the troops and bombs for the war.

No strangers to Shannon airport, World Airways and North American are hoping to start flights to Iraq and Afghanistan. Evergreen International, last week applied to operate in Iraq (Evergreen had a $75million contract with the military and visited Shannon several times :) )

North American, were the first to apply to the US Department of Transport to fly from JFK to Afghanistan. It's worth noting that North American airlines were the airline that flew Bush and Cheney around during the election campaign.

see North American with the words "BUSH and CHENEY" painted on the plane during the election campaign.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/127729/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/127728/L/

It's also worth noting that after 9-11, a whole bunch of airlines looked for federal bail-outs.
The ones at the top of the list? The ones that moved the troops and bombs.

Last year, World and Evergreen sought federal loan guarantees to help keep them flying.
World Airways applied for a $27 million US government loan guarantee to help it catch up on aircraft lease payments saying it "hopes the military’s reliance on the carrier to operate passenger charter flights will help its loan guarantee application." about 2/3 of their business was military, until 2002 World also operated several charter flights for Muslims worshipers going to the Hajj pilgrimage at Mecca.

Evergreen made a similar argument in its application. The US Department of Defense (DOD), Evergreen’s largest customer, supported its application.

So, follow the money on this one. Ask for money, help with the war and get the spoils of victory too.

Compare this partial list of companies that served the military with the list of those that are expecting to get first call on landing rights in the new US-occupied countries.

Military contracts
WORLD AIRWAYS
NORTH AMERICAN
EVERGREEN INTERNATIONAL
ATLAS AIR
POLAR AIR CARGO
ATA
GEMINI AIR CARGO

Requesting landing rights for Afghanistan or Iraq
WORLD AIRWAYS
NORTH AMERICAN
EVERGREEN INTERNATIONAL
ATLAS AIR
POLAR AIR CARGO
GEMINI AIR CARGO

A lot of the money for this is coming from Swiss investors and both North American and World will stop off in Switzerland.
North American hopes to go from JFK to Kabul via Geneva. World will operate services twice a week on a Washington Dulles-Geneva-Kabul. World estimates the contract value for 2003 will be $19 million.

The USA does not have a bilateral aviation agreement with Afghanistan, but both carriers argue their proposed service would be in the public interest of the USA and Afghanistan and believe that the (puppet) Afghanistan government “would welcome scheduled passenger service by US airlines"

In addition, no US carrier is permitted to engage in any service to and/or from Iraq under current US law. North American believes, however, that once the US military forces have established a new government authority “capable of regulating air transportation in Iraq, the restrictions will be lifted."

A spokesman with the DOT says an executive order from the US President would be required before any carrier is permitted to serve Iraq.

Anyone think he will say no to his friends in North American?

save preference

Comments (9 of 9)

And what exactly is wrong about this?

by Seáinín

Sat Aug 02, 2003 12:26

It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the US is entitled to first call on resconstruction contracts after having had to spend so much money on cleaning up that toilet of a country in the first place.

Anyone think he will say no to his friends in North American?

by Kev

Sat Aug 02, 2003 21:54

Eh, No.

Seainin - well as I don't agree with the 'free market' I would say lots of things are wrong with this state of affairs.

But, lets argue on your level. The Free Market, means a free market, yes/no?

Therefore, 'competetion' is to be encouraged, yes/no?

But the US want to stifle competition. The example of the GSM vs Cell is a good one. Someone is providing a cheaper service, but this can't be tolerated because...? well, like Tim says, they didn't donate to the Bush campaign.

In the free market economy there is meant to be no such thing as 'first dibs'. But, in this case (as in many others) there appears to be.

Does this not strike you as even slightly contradictory?

But then again, your argument, brought to its logical conclusion means that, as Bush 'fought' the war (mind you I didnt see any of his family on the front line), America gets first dibs on the rebuilding etc, and therefore those who donated to Bush's 'election' should get first dibs out of american comapines for these contracts. Isn't that called corruption in some places?

Cash for contracts. The free market is a fantastic thing isn't it?

This is not a Free Market situation

Sun Aug 03, 2003 03:18

It's not a classic consumer goods supply/demand dynamic. There is only one customer, the putative Iraqi government and suppliers are selected on a "tender" basis. The single solitary customer may use many criteria to select a supplier, apart from price or perceived quality. Since the customer is a governing entity, political consideration come into play. Payback time for the US after having to sort out the UN's pathetic mishandling of a loathsome tyrant.

this is not a FREE situation

by spons

Sun Aug 03, 2003 18:49

There is only one customer?

Wait a minute.... what about the Iraqi people?
Weren't they supposed to get a fair deal here?
Seanin's bidding for Ari Fleischer's job folks.

Nice on Tim!

by Eoin

Ignore the trolls please.

Great article Tim! You must have spent a heap-load of time at airliners.net, and it was worth it.

The Iraqi people?

Sun Aug 03, 2003 20:58

Well, they've got a far brighter future now than they had last March - something which you characters tried to prevent.

Wait a minute...

by Albo

Tue Aug 05, 2003 11:18

I thought the reward USA wanted for the billions spent on "cleaning up" the country was to get rid of the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.

Now they've got that.

Agreed, the people have got a brighter future now, but they might have had even a brighter future still if a more civilised way was found of solving the problem.

Free market my arse

by kokomero

Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:39

Not only have the Iraqis lost the right to any sort of government under American occupation, but they have acquired the right to a dead-end mobile phone system called CDMA.

This system in contrast to the GSM phone system is used by only the US, South Korea and a number of South American countries who have been forced to adopt it ... all told less than 10% of worldwide mobile phone users, as opposed to the over 80% who use GSM.

Progress and free choice indeed

A more civilised way???

Tue Aug 05, 2003 22:56

Like prolonging the misery of sanctions and visits by weapons inspectors? How long do you think Saddam could have spun that out for? Another 20 years at least, IMHO. Maybe a letter writing campaign might have deposed him, who knows.

At least Iraqis have a chance to live a decent life now, let's hope they don't screw it up by electing a Theocracy.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Lockdown Skeptics

Iraq- to the victor the Spoils.

Comments (9 of 9)