Privatize this - corporatize that

Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |

One certainly doesn't have to look far to see the direction of the Bush regime. Whether it is declaring preemptive wars, strong-arming or buying a "coalition of the willing," building nuclear weapons while condemning them, using the WTO to beat up the EU or avoiding multilateral agreements by making unilateral deals with other nations, saving the resources of Iraq by privatizing and "free" trade, it says big money and big business and Bush and crew are right in the middle of it. What really irks me is not what the regime is trying to do, but what they are getting away with.

It is bad enough that all this pay off and profit taking and war profiteering is going on. It is another when it works. This was brought home when I read Annan Warns of World 'Crisis' (Barringer, NY Times, 7/31/03). And that "world crisis?" War in Africa or Latin America? Starvation? AIDS? Global warming? No, friends and comrades it is not any of those things -- though those crises have also been clarioned by Mr. Annan in recent weeks. Nope, this crisis is one of international institutions in the face of "preventive action, or war" and feels that an answer is needed for the question "what are the rules?"

Some of us were still hoping that the US would be brought to task for preemptively invading Iraq (especially in light of what looks like "cooking" and "spinning" "evidence" to gather support for that action). Of course that didn't really work anywhere except with the spun public of the US. Everyone else who jumped on board -- the "coalition of the willing" -- jumped to save their upcoming loan and aid packages.

But the issues here are privatization and unilateral globalization. We are in Iraq and we were told (at least early on) that unlike Hussein, Iraq's oil was for the Iraqi people. But there are more than hints that the regime sees Iraq as an "model" site for privatizing everything. It started with Paul Bremmer claiming the Iraq was "open for business," but that business was not Iraqi business.

The looting of Iraq by U.S. corporate raiders had begun. Pentagon bombers and tens of thousands of invading troops had smashed open the doors.

Some of the same giant U.S. corporations that had received multi-billion dollar contracts to participate in the destruction of Iraq were the first to receive no-bid contracts for reconstruction. Halliburton, MCI World/ Com, Bechtel--all insiders in the Bush administration--were at the front of the line for giant handouts.

The Bush administration and Corporate America had a detailed plan for the reconstruction of Iraq long before Bush gave the order for the massive destruction and military occupation. The May 1 Wall Street Journal reported that the confidential plan prepared by U.S. Agency for International Development and the Treasury Department was drafted in February--before the U.S. invasion and occupation.

The plan calls for mass privatization of Iraqi industry, liquidation of insolvent Iraqi industries and assessment of others for sale. It also proposes a year-long propaganda effort to persuade the Iraqi people that this is in their best interests.

Overseeing the restructuring of Iraq's financial system is Peter McPherson, a top Treasury Department official who is now the head of the Iraq National Bank. The U.S. AID/ Treasury Department report echoes the recommendations of the Heritage Foundation. This powerful, neo-conservative think-tank calls for preparing state assets for privatization, including industries, utilities, transportation, ports, airports--and most importantly, the energy sector. (The Corporate Looting of Iraq Flounders, CRG 7/24/03)

USLAW (US Labor Against the War) Published a report on 6/15/03 The Corporate Invasion of Iraq which has detailed company profiles of the big corporations at the "head of the list" in Iraq.

Everyone knows that the US wants to "privatize" Iraq's oil reserves. In fact, that has been a sticking point on getting international and UN support into Iraq. I don't think this sticking point has been privatization, but other nations who want in on the "lucrative" process.

Hopefully everyone remembers the massive destruction and looting of government offices in Baghdad shortly after the city was "taken." It seems likely that this was part of the privatization plan. As noted in Kiryakos' article Destroying Iraq's Public Records (7/30/03 CRG), the destruction of these records eliminated all record of ownership and assets in Iraq. This of course leaves the door open to "new" (or perhaps redistributed) ownership. Imagine if the property and business records of the US were destroyed. Imagine the free for all that would result. Now imagine a foreign invading force in control of making the decisions. I think you can see the endless possibilities for power and control.

Though kept largely out of the US public's view, the US has been utilizing private military firms in its various "conflicts." Check out the following excerpt from an Interview of P. W. Singer (author of "Corporate Warriors") being interviewed by Terry Gross (NPR) (Private military firms in today's wars Fresh Air, 7/9/03):

"GROSS: Can you give us an overview of how private military firms have figured in so far to the war in Iraq?

Mr. SINGER: They've been all over the place in the war on Iraq. Actually, what's interesting is The Economist magazine actually called the Iraq war the, quote, "first privatized war." Private military firms handled everything from feeding and housing the US troops, building our bases in the region to maintaining some of our most-sophisticated weapons systems, everything from the B-2 stealth bomber, the F-117 stealth fighter. They ran the computer systems on a number of Navy ships. For example, I had spoke to a reporter who was embedded, and he was actually surprised when he got on board a US Navy guided-missile destroyer and he found that there were 20 different contractors from four different companies on board this ship with him running the computer systems, running the air defense systems of this ship. They also helped operate a number of weapons systems. For example, the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle, which was this robotic plane that collects intelligence and does targeting for us; that was not just the maintenance of it, but the operation of it was privatized.

At the end of the day the ratio between private military contractors, and US soldiers was one contractor for every 10 US soldiers, which is actually a tenfold increase since the '91 Gulf War. In the '91 Gulf War the ratio was 1:100. Now we've gotten to 1:10. And it's actually probably going to grow during the period of the occupation of post-Saddam Iraq. Some of the areas that private contractors are taking isn't just the reconstruction roles that we've heard about, but also, for example, building up the new police force. The Dyncorp company, which is based in Virginia, just got that contract. It's a rather controversial company--to training and building the new post-Saddam Iraqi army. The Vinnell company just got that contract. And some people may have heard of that name because it was targeted recently in Saudi Arabia in May, 2003. One of its corporate sites was bombed by al-Qaeda. So, again, these companies, you often hear about them just behind the headlines, and that's the case also in the war in Iraq."

But privatization is not just a tool of foreign conquest and empire - it is a tool of empire at work in the US under the regime as well. We have the blatant example from the August issue of The Progressive in the article by Anne-Marie Cusac Outsourcing Fraud: Privatizing environmental protection. In the article she discusses the outsourcing of EPA functions noting that last year "some of the nearly 600 job functions the EPA listed as "commercial" appeared to denote research, monitoring, and enforcement positions: "Risk Analysis" for the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the Food Safety Advisory Committee; "Data Collection/Analysis" for solid waste, air pollution, and water pollution; "Environmental Restoration Analysis"; and "Multimedia Compliance and Pollution Prevention.""

This is not to mention the 850,000 federal jobs that Shrub has said should be contracted rather than relying on federal employees (Cusac, above article).

Sometimes privatization is being conducted in more covert ways, namely by policy where the end result is likely to be corporatization of public functions. One excellent example is the "Leave No Child Behind" legislation which places performance standards on public schools. The estimated cost of meeting these requirements is over $500 per child, but the Bush budget only allows $77 per child. With public education funding across the nation in a massive crisis, it is likely that most schools will not do particularly well, and there is a big cost attached to failure. According to Bennett and Pauken (All the President's Lies 5/01/03 The American Progressive):

"States already strapped by record deficits are being held responsible for the extra testing and administration mandated by law -- but aren't getting nearly enough money to pay for it. So the number of public schools likely to be labeled "failing" by the law is estimated to be as high as 85 percent. Failing triggers sanctions, from technical assistance to requiring public-school choice to "reconstitution" -- that is, firing the entire school's staff and hiring a new one."

Is such a threat real? Is there truly a problem? I think so and that is confirmed by Alexandra Mark in her article As schools 'fail,' parents talk transfers (7/21/03, Christian Science Monitor).

"Across the country, millions of parents will be notified in the next few months that their children are attending schools that don't make the new federal grade set by the No Child Left Behind Act.

In New York City, more than 25 percent of the schools have already been labeled failing. In Charlotte, N.C., 60 percent didn't pass. In New Mexico, more than 70 percent of the schools statewide would have failed if the new standards had been applied, so it got an extension."

And further down the article:
"There's no guarantee whatsoever under No Child Left Behind that any school has the basic resources that they need to bring these children up to the level of achievement the law calls for," says Michael Rebell, executive director and counsel of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, a nonprofit education funding advocacy group in New York. "You can beat them over the head as much as you want, but you can't get blood from a stone."

Privatizing, or sending students to private schools, would also be a certain scenario in some school districts. If you have high percentages of the schools in a district "failing" (under federal guidelines) where else would parents be able to send their children? I guess that home schooling might be an option for some, but probably not for most.

Or how about water supplies? Most know that there have been big moves on the part of the WTO and major corporations (such as Monsanto) to privatize global water supplies.

In India, Monsanto has bought MAHYCO, Maharashtra Hybrid Company, EID Parry and Rallis. Mr. Jack Kennedy of Monsanto has said, "we propose to penetrate the Indian agricultural sector in a big way. MAHYCO is a good vehicle." According to Mr. Robert Farley of Monsanto, "what you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it's really a consolidation of the entire food chain. Since water is as central to food production as seed is, and without water life is not possible, Monsanto is now trying to establish its control over water. During 1999, Monsanto plans to launch a new water business, starting with India and Mexico since both these countries are facing water shortages." GE Food Alert Campaign. 3/6/02 Monsanto Moves to Control Water Resources and Fish Farming

But what about in the US? Surely that wouldn't happen here. Well I suggest reading Jim Hightower's 8/15/2002 article in The Nation -- Going Down the Road - The Water Profiteers -- in which he states the following:

"In just the past few years, such transnational conglomerates (along with such US players as Bechtel, T. Boone Pickens, Monsanto and, until recently, Enron) have quietly privatized all or part of the water delivery systems in Atlanta, Berlin, Bolivia, Buenos Aires, Casablanca, Chattanooga, Houston, Jacksonville, Jersey City, Lexington, Ky., Peoria, San Francisco and many other places (some of which have reverted to public ownership), plus laid claim to whole bodies of water, including the Midwestern Ogallala Aquifer, Blue Lake in Alaska and Canada's huge James Bay."

And the legislation being used in the US? Why the Water Investment Act of course. It has two little provisions: "(1) a city cannot get federal financing unless it "has considered" privatizing its water system; and (2) private water corporations could get public subsidies for their water schemes." (Hightower)

So the path to empire is clearly marked and the steps are well under way. The UN, rather than fighting vigorously against the US bid for exemption from international law through the use of preemptive war and assassination (and immunity from criminal prosecution for war crimes), now asks whether the laws should be changed to accommodate it? I guess that it is one way of striking back, If you can't bring the US back into the global community, and you can't sanction it for its blatant violations, then change the global rules so that all can participate in the free for all.

Somehow I doubt that this is going to lead us to a safer world. Somehow I doubt that this is going to empower the people. Somehow I doubt that this is going to solve the massive problems we as a world are facing right now. Instead, for me, it creates a frightening scenario of a global scramble for power and control guided by the worst motives and the narrowest of focus. Nope, I don't think this is a good sign at all.

Posted by rowan at August 9, 2003 01:42 PM | Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |