Want to re-build Iraq?

[Texsox]

By Sue Pleming

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Citing national security reasons, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has ruled that prime contracts to rebuild Iraq (news - web sites) will exclude firms from nations such as France and Germany that opposed the U.S. war.

 

In a policy document released on Tuesday, Wolfowitz said he was limiting competition for 26 reconstruction contracts worth up to $18.6 billion that will be advertised in coming days.

 

"It is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States to limit competition for the prime contracts of these procurements to companies from the United States, Iraq, coalition partners and force contributing nations," Wolfowitz said in a notice published on the web site www.rebuilding-iraq.net.

 

The move is likely to anger France and Germany and other traditional allies in NATO and the U.N. Security Council who are being blocked out of prime contracts after their opposition to the war. They may bid for sub-contracts.

 

But the decision will placate countries such as Britain, Italy and Spain, which provided troops to Iraq but whose companies were excluded from the first round of deals that went to U.S. firms.

 

The contracts cover electricity, communications, public buildings, transportation, public works and security and justice. Additional contracts are also being awarded to oversee those projects.

 

TIT FOR TAT RESPONSES

 

U.S. trade lawyer Clark McFadden questioned the administration's criterion for the contracts. "Is this going to set a precedent where national security can be used to justify limiting competition?" he asked.

 

Procurement specialist Prof. Steven Schooner from George Washington University said it was "disingenuous" to use national security as an excuse and predicted an angry reaction from those nations excluded.

 

"This kind of decision just begs for retaliation and a tit-for-tat response from countries (such as Germany, France and Russia)," said Schooner.

 

But a defense official said NATO partners had known for weeks they would not get prime Iraq business. "This is not a slight. We still have many agreements with those countries and good working relationships with them."

 

Wolfowitz is hoping that excluded companies will put pressure on their governments to join the post-war effort.

 

"Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international cooperation in Iraq and in future efforts," wrote Wolfowitz.

 

The document, dated Dec. 5, listed more than 60 countries eligible for contracts funded by the $18.6 billion appropriated by Congress to rebuild Iraq.

 

The list included Britain, Australia, Poland, Japan, Italy, Norway, Spain, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, South Korea (news - web sites), the Philippines, Romania and Saudi Arabia.

 

Some officials had argued privately the United States should not limit international competition to rebuild Iraq, where the infrastructure has been shattered by years of neglect, war and post-conflict looting and attacks.

 

The roll-out of tenders to rebuild Iraq has been delayed in recent days while "high-level" policy decisions were being taken on Iraqi reconstruction and as lawyers checked that the final wording complied with U.S. procurement laws.

 

A defense official said he expected the new contracts to be advertised on government Web sites later on Tuesday or on Wednesday.

 

U.S. trade lawyer Roger Schagrin told Reuters non-coalition firms could still get business from selling material and equipment to the lead contractors.

 

"Much of the money is expended on materials. A British or U.S. company could get a prime contract and then buy 100 percent French materials," said Schagrin.

[southsider2k5]

No big surprise there... Why would you reward people who went against you?

[Texsox]

No big surprise there...  Why would you reward people who went against you?

I figured we would have kissed and made up. Through most of the last century our foreign policy was "here's some money, please like us".

[southsider2k5]

I figured we would have kissed and made up. Through most of the last century our foreign policy was "here's some money, please like us".

Not with "You are with us, or against us" in the White House.

[cwsox]

No one was against anybody. There were those who felt strongly a second UN resolution was needed.

 

We just had the adminsitratioin asking these countries - Germany, France, USSR, Canada, for money and troops for Iraq, after insulting them last spring with the "Old Europe" line. Right after asking fdor assistance - which these nations ahve been giving in various ways since the fall of Hussein - turn right around and shut them out again for petty reasons. This is not the way to make friends or build coaltions or engage in real world diplomacy, just more of the mean spirited revenge method of acting as we have seen from this administartion all along. Oh, and of course by knocking out other country's corporations, this leaves Haliburton in a better position to reap more profit$.

 

And after this little announcement, what happens when next week the US asks these nations for assistance in this or any other matter?

 

And now that Canada has said it must reconsider, after this announcement, any further financial aid which they have been giving since last spring, that leaves the US taxpayer - or in this administration's case, the deficit and our children and grandchildren - paying the price for the petty vindictiveness that passes for policy these days.

[FlaSoxxJim]

We just had the adminsitratioin asking these countries - Germany, France, USSR, Canada, for money and troops for Iraq, after insulting them last spring with the "Old Europe" line.  Right after asking fdor assistance - which these nations ahve been giving in various ways since the fall of Hussein - turn right around and shut them out again for petty reasons.  This is not the way to make friends or build coaltions or engage in real world diplomacy, just more of the mean spirited revenge method of acting as we have seen from this administartion all along.

We're the schoolyard bullies of the world and we know how to hold a grudge, even while we keep asking all you other countries to do your part.

 

France, germany, and Russia sided with the concience of their cityizens in wanting due process to occcur through proper UN channels and a vote on a second resolution. Now we’re retaliating by locking long-time ally nations out of rebuilding contracts and dressing it up as a security issue. I am continually amazed at how dumb the Administration thinks the rest of the world is, (or more likely) how little they care what the rest of the world thinks so long as they ‘do their part.’

[DonkeyKongerko]

The French and Russians had ties to Iraqi oil before this war, it's no surprise that they still want these reestablished after the fact. The US made it pretty clear before this war that we were going in and whoever went with us would have a say in postwar reconstruction. Apparently we are a nation that keeps its word and holds a grudge. Either way, something that intrigues me is a presidential campaign in 2004 where foreign policy issues will actually be IMPORTANT to the general populace for a change.

[SuperSteve]

f*** France and Germany. Those pussies are good for nothing.

[CrimsonWeltall]

[IlliniBob72]

The rebuilding is being funded by the U.S. It should make sense that the contractors being hired should come from the U.S. and her allies who helped in the war. The fact that there is any objection to this, while not a surprise to me, goes against reason.

 

As for concerns about the next time we need these "allies'" help, let us remember that they need the U.S. much more than the U.S. needs them.

[Texsox]

Just wondering;

While they are spending your tax dollar would you like them to spend it with the low bidder meeting specifications or spend 2% more with a British or Spanish contractor? 5% more? 25% more?

 

It's never a free lunch.

[IlliniBob72]

Just wondering;

While they are spending your tax dollar would you like them to spend it with the low bidder meeting specifications or spend 2% more with a British or Spanish contractor? 5% more? 25% more?

 

It's never a free lunch.

Well, based on what I pay in taxes and the percentage of the Federal Budget being spent in Iraq, they are spending about 97 of my tax dollars in Iraq. For that, I don't care what a British or Spanish or Aussie contractor charges, as long as my dollars aren't converted to marks or francs.

[southsider2k5]

Well, based on what I pay in taxes and the percentage of the Federal Budget being spent in Iraq, they are spending about 97 of my tax dollars in Iraq. For that, I don't care what a British or Spanish or Aussie contractor charges, as long as my dollars aren't converted to marks or francs.

Well I can assure you one thing NO ONE is changing your dollars to marks. (Germany adopted the Euro Currency a couple years ago )

[Texsox]

Any chance of the military bombing the sox and rebuilding? hell money won't be an issue. Not being able to draft a german or french players won't be too much of a hinderance (was south america solidly beghind us?)

[southsider2k5]

Any chance of the military bombing the sox and rebuilding? hell money won't be an issue. Not being able to draft a german or french players won't be too much of a hinderance (was south america solidly beghind us?)

I don't know, you saw the job George W did with the Rangers, do you really want him in charge of rebuilding the Sox?

 

The bright side is we would have a $1 billion payroll, the bad side would be Halliburton would be running the team and keeping $950 million as a consulting fee on their no bid contract...

[FlaSoxxJim]

The rebuilding is being funded by the U.S. It should make sense that the contractors being hired should come from the U.S. and her allies who helped in the war. The fact that there is any objection to this, while not a surprise to me, goes against reason.

 

As for concerns about the next time we need these "allies'" help, let us remember that they need the U.S. much more than the U.S. needs them.

The effort is largely, though not entirely, funded by the US. But Canada has already given $190 million to the rebuilding and is now told that their companies cannot bid for the rebuilding contracts. They are right to be seriously reconsidering any future monetary help, and you think they are in the wrong to feel like they are being screwed over?

 

At the outset of the war, Bush courted the nations of the UN for approval of action by stating that even those nations choosing not to contribute troops would be allowed to play a role in the rebuilding efforts (this was before we did the end-run around the UN request for a second resolution). I guess that just meant they would be allowed to give money to tha effort but not have their corporatiuons make legitimate bids for any of the rebuilding work.

[IlliniBob72]

The effort is largely, though not entirely, funded by the US.  But Canada has already given $190 million to the rebuilding and is now told that their companies cannot bid for the rebuilding contracts.  They are right to be seriously reconsidering any future monetary help, and you think they are in the wrong to feel like they are being screwed over?

 

At the outset of the war, Bush courted the nations of the UN for approval of action by stating that even those nations choosing not to contribute troops would be allowed to play a role in the rebuilding efforts (this was before we did the end-run around the UN request for a second resolution).  I guess that just meant they would be allowed to give money to tha effort but not have their corporatiuons make legitimate bids for any of the rebuilding work.

I admit to not knowing much about how the Canadians fit into the puzzle, but the overall concept makes sense to me. The allies who helped to depose Saddam should keep the rebuilding dollars in their economies. The French and German governments did their utmost to put up roadblocks and should be frozen out of the rebuilding.

[Rex Kickass]

Well, that's true and not true at the same time. Germany did offer some aid that was rejected by the US. In fact, post US war, the Germans offered to train Iraqi security forces (police) and were turned down.

 

The point is, it seems like countries are finally coming around to helping out the US on Iraq and they take a stance like this, somewhat out of the blue. It doesn't help. All it does is further alienate people who could help us the next time we need it.

 

After all, France and Germany could always retaliate by pulling their troops out of Afghanistan, saving about 10,000 US soldiers from that other warzone.

[mmmmmbeeer]

The effort is largely, though not entirely, funded by the US.  But Canada has already given $190 million to the rebuilding and is now told that their companies cannot bid for the rebuilding contracts.  They are right to be seriously reconsidering any future monetary help, and you think they are in the wrong to feel like they are being screwed over?

 

At the outset of the war, Bush courted the nations of the UN for approval of action by stating that even those nations choosing not to contribute troops would be allowed to play a role in the rebuilding efforts (this was before we did the end-run around the UN request for a second resolution).  I guess that just meant they would be allowed to give money to tha effort but not have their corporatiuons make legitimate bids for any of the rebuilding work.

Canada donates $190M to the effort and then thinks they can turn that $190M into a billion or two in contracts. UmmmmNO. We had troops give their lives while Canada sat back and watched (and criticized). $190M after the blood was spilt doesn't buy forgiveness nor does it buy a shot at 500% returns on contracts. France and Germany....we don't need 'em, they need us. Just ask some Frenchies how that wine/cheese boycott treated their economy.

[CrimsonWeltall]