CPA Orders untainted

POSTED BY: Connorflynn
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 00:04
VIEWED: 2885
PAGE 1 of 2

The best way to gather an objective view of what is reality is to go to the source, rather then the misrepresented opinion pieces that show halftruths. To stop the misrepresentation on these boards and in some cases misquotes altogether of the CPA orders submitted and put in place by Paul Bremer, please see the links below.

http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/

-------------------------------------------------

Particularly Order #39
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20031220_CPAORD_39_Foreign_In
vestment_.pdf

Quote:

---

originally quoted by Rue on another topic:

Further, the interim constitution of Iraq, written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn.
A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

---

Actual Text:

COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY ORDER NUMBER 39
FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Pursuant to my authority as Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)
and the laws and usages of war, and consistent with relevant U.N. Security Council
resolutions, including Resolution 1483 (2003),
Having worked closely with the Governing Council to ensure that economic change
occurs in a manner acceptable to the people of Iraq,
Acknowledging the Governing Council’s desire to bring about significant change to the
Iraqi economic system,
Determined to improve the conditions of life, technical skills, and opportunities for all
Iraqis and to fight unemployment with its associated deleterious effect on public security,
Noting that facilitating foreign investment will help to develop infrastructure, foster the
growth of Iraqi business, create jobs, raise capital, result in the introduction of new
technology into Iraq and promote the transfer of knowledge and skills to Iraqis,
Recognizing the problems arising from Iraq’s legal framework regulating commercial
activity and the way in which it was implemented by the former regime,
Recognizing the CPA’s obligation to provide for the effective administration of Iraq, to
ensure the well being of the Iraqi people and to enable the social functions and normal
transactions of every day life,
Acting in a manner consistent with the Report of the Secretary General to the Security
Council of July 17, 2003, concerning the need for the development of Iraq and its
transition from a non-transparent centrally planned economy to a market economy
characterized by sustainable economic growth through the establishment of a dynamic
private sector, and the need to enact institutional and legal reforms to give it effect,
Having coordinated with the international financial institutions, as referenced in
paragraph 8(e) of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483,
In close consultation with and acting in coordination with the Governing Council, I
hereby promulgate the following:
CPA/ORD/19 September 2003/39
2

Section 1

Definitions

1) “Administrator” means the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority.

2) “Business entity” means any entity constituted or organized by law of any country,
including, but not limited to, any corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm,
enterprise, State-owned enterprise, organization, or other similar entity.

3) “Foreign investment” means investment by a foreign investor in any kind of asset in
Iraq, including tangible and intangible property, and related property rights, shares
and other forms of participation in a business entity, and intellectual property rights
and technical expertise, except as limited by Section 8 of this Order.

4) “Foreign investor” means (a) a business entity constituted or organized under the la

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Connorflynn- The take-home message that anyone should get from your post is that either you don't know how to read or YOU are deliberately misrepresenting things.

In response to

Quote:

---

A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

---

You said

Quote:

---

Misrepresention ->(2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; refuted: As you can see this states that there is no prohibition of Iraqi Investors. Thus it appears as if it isn't a declaration of 100% foreign owned businesses. 3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; refuted: what this is saying is that Foreign investors will not be penalized for investing in Iraq. It does not say that Iraqi's don't get first dibs. Misrepresentation ->(4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; refuted - No where does it say that that Foreign investors are allowed to function unrestricted and tax-free. What this says is that money that belongs to the company may be moved around without prejudice, similar to rights granted to that of any company in the civilized world, foreign or not. This eliminates any potential holdup of creditor payments etc..etc..to those abroad.
Misrepresention -> (5) 40-year ownership licenses. refuted: As you can see this states that the license shall NOT EXCEED 40 years. It doesn't say that every license is 40 years.

---

---

Now, if you re-read the text that you are quoting (you DO know how to read, don't you?) nowhere just it claim any of the "misrepresentations" that you have a problem with. The text does not say that Order 39 prohibits Iraqi owenerhsip, does not say that licenses MUST be for 40 years and so forth, what it says it ALLOWS FOR.

Allow me to be really, really snotty, because you're either an idiot or a liar. The REAL issues of Order 39 (not the fake ones you bring up) are-

What to do with electricity production, water supply, sewgae treatment, banks, oil processing, oil drlling, communication (incl. cell phones), health care, and so forth- utilities, industries. services and financial institutions and 200 industries that were nationalized?

Order 39 ASSUMES that Iraqis want privatization, and that this is the best course for the stabilization of Iraqi society. In other developing countries where privatization occurred (water, banking etc), riots and economic collapse followed. The CPA, undeterred by the history of Russia, Argentina, Peru etc. decided that all Iraq nationalized industries, indeed all Iraqi enterprise, would be "opened" to foreign ownership at fire-sale prices.

People often point to our efforts in Iraq as being similar to the Marshall Plan. There are too many differences to go into exhuastive detail, but the Marshall Plan was was series of grants and loans to a European entity (OEEC) for fertilizer, basic equipment and so forth. It was NOT primarily a means for private investment in post-war Europe, it did NOT require (or even open) the banks, ulilities and so forth to foreign ownership. What it did was encourage production and development in post-war Europe, by Europeans themselves.

The sole exception to Order 39 is oil drilling, and the only reason that was excepted was sensitivity of "nut cases" like myself who have the idea that the Iraq is a Viking raid on the
oil.

POINT BY POINT


Now, you may happen to be in favor of unrestricted foreign investment as a general principal AND as specifically applied to Iraq, but (a) that should be for the IRAQIS to decide not Paul Bremer and (b) it has proven extremely destructive to local economies everywhere it's been tried, (c) it is illegal under internation

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I disagree with you. I don't think there were any "Assumptions". The Iraqi Governing council had a say in what was proposed and finally put in place.

The difference between Iraq and the other countries you speak of is that there were a large number of privatized companies already present in Iraq. What Order #39 does is take any companies that were state run and privatize them, backed by talented and knowledgeable entities who are helping that happen. Also Iraq isn't made up of a hundred different republics all intent on seceding LOL.

Quote:

---

The sole exception to Order 39 is oil drilling, and the only reason that was excepted was sensitivity of "nut cases" like myself who have the idea that the Iraq is a Viking raid on the oil. Even that would have been privitized, had not objections been raised.

---

Well..I don't know if I buy the whole objections and outcry influenced this. The oil belongs to the Iraqi's.

As for you being a "Nutcase" LoL.. if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..then it must be a .. hehehe j/k ;) Your entitled to your opinion. As am I ;)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Connerflynn- the IGC was appointed by Bremer. And there were NOT a "large number of privatized industries already in place in Iraq". A quick reading of the most basic text on Iraq economy would tell you that it is primarily based on oil, and that oil, all utilities, all financial institutions, all services, and many large industries (such as construction material) were nationalized as a form of social and economic control under Saddam.

Also, what is the point of the comment about 100 different republics?

I don't know where you get your "facts" from or what world you're living in, but it's not consistent with reality. So, what is the hallmark of insanity? Since your opinions don't seem to have ANY relationship to truth or reality... not sure if the deficiency is mental or moral... why should I take anything you say seriously?

heh heh heh

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Signym - Take a breather and re-read my post. I am not an idiot and I do know how to read. I can see how it might have been confused.

I stated what the misrepresentation was by a couple of articles and a post made by Rue. My follow up comments are after the word "refuted".

This was posted by Rue -

Quote:

---

A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

---

These were my responses -

Misrepresention ->(2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses;

I refuted: As you can see this states that there is no prohibition of Iraqi Investors. Thus it appears as if it isn't a declaration of 100% foreign owned businesses. Here is where we seem to be having a translation problem. I read that misrepresented statement as saying that all businesses in Iraq will be 100% foreign owned. Not only is that not the case, it is a dramatic lie. What the order allows for is that a company the is opened in Iraq may be 100% foreign owned. Basically, to me that reads that there isn't a requirement that every business must have an Iraqi owner. Can you imagine if that was the case in the US..or Mexico LOL, (That every business must have a nationalist who is an owner). It's common sense really.

Misrepresentation ->3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses;

I refuted: what this is saying is that Foreign investors will not be penalized for investing in Iraq. It does not say that Iraqi's don't get first dibs.

Misrepresentation ->(4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds;

I refuted - No where does it say that that Foreign investors are allowed to function unrestricted and tax-free. What this says is that money that belongs to the company may be moved around without prejudice, similar to rights granted to that of any company in the civilized world, foreign or not. This eliminates any potential holdup of creditor payments etc..etc..to those abroad.

Misrepresention -> (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

I refuted: As you can see this states that the license shall NOT EXCEED 40 years. It doesn't say that every license is 40 years.

Quote:

---

Now, you may happen to be in favor of unrestricted foreign investment as a general principal AND as specifically applied to Iraq, but (a) that should be for the IRAQIS to decide not Paul Bremer and (b) it has proven extremely destructive to local economies everywhere it's been tried, (c) it is illegal under international law because of (a) and (b)

---

Again I say, Paul Bremer did not come in and dictate without express approval by the Iraqi Governing Council. So in essence it was the Iraqi's that decided. All things are subject to change particularly as free elections are held.

PS - your allowed to be really really snotty hehe.. I have a thick skin (but not a thick skull ;) )

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Connerflynn- the IGC was appointed by Bremer. And there were NOT a "large number of privatized industries already in place in Iraq". A quick reading of the most basic text on Iraq economy would tell you that it is primarily based on oil, and that oil, all utilities, all financial institutions, all services, and many large industries (such as construction material) were nationalized as a form of social and economic control under Saddam.

---

Quote:

---

Also, what is the point of the comment about 100 different republics?

---

LOL..you got me..I pulled a Liberal and exaggerated a bit;) I assumed every word I type won't be taken literally. In the proverbial words of Ron White ,An American comedian, "I wuzz wrrongg" LOL. 15 Republics made up the USSR. My point was that Iraq doesn't have a bunch of areas all trying to secede. There are countries including the US that are trying to help them succeed. So privatization will work. Not all companies in Iraq were solely State owned.

Heres a good link for some current info:
http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_economy.php

Interesting enough it appears as if only Approximately 50% of Iraq's GDP comes from Oil.

Quote:

---

I don't know where you get your "facts" from or what world you're living in, but it's not consistent with reality. So, what is the hallmark of insanity? Since your opinions don't seem to have ANY relationship to truth or reality... not sure if the deficiency is mental or moral... why should I take anything you say seriously?

heh heh heh

---

Just about everything I post is supported by facts. As for taking me seriously..you don't have to. As I don't many of the folks on these boards.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

But neither Rue's post nor the article that was quoted implied any such things as "requiring" 100% foreign ownership or 40-year licenses so how can you "refute" something that wasn't stated? That's like me saying "I refute Connerflynn's view that all businesses in Iraq SHOULD be 100% foreign-owned." Now, you didn't say that and for me to imply that is either serious idiocy on my part or a gross falsification of your viewpoint.

So again... WHAT are you "refuting"? Please, quote right here the part of Rue's post where it says that foreign owneship is required, and all the rest. I certainly don't know what you're talking about!

Ok, as far as Iraq not having areas that want to secede... THe Kurds had been trying deperately to insert a clause in the interime constitution that would basically allow them veto power. The majority Shiites believe this gives Kurds too much power for their population. Northern Iraq has already threatened to secede several times, they want the land back that had been forcibly settled by Arabs 30 or so years ago and they want 100% control of their oil. They definitely don't want the Shiites signing away their revenues!

So again... WHAT world do you live in???

"Not all companies in Iraq were solely State owned."

As usual, you misrepresented what I said. Did I say ALL companies were nationalized under Saddam??? Please... quote it right here so that we all know what you're referring to.

Of course I didn't say that. Farming, fishing, hand-manufacturing, smuggling, and businesses that don't require a lot of capital (small contractors, shopkeepers, ec.) were not state-owned. My point is that even knowing that some companies were NOT state-owned, privatization is going to kill the Iraqi economy rather than develop it.


"Only" 50% of Iraq's GDP comes from oil is like saying that "only" 50% of America's economy comes from Hollywood. That means that the economy is seriously unbalanced.

On the link that you included, it says that Iraq's oil revnues go into the UN Development Fund for Iraq (DFI). That's fine in theory, but since the CPA is selling the oil and it's accounting and money transfers are less than transparent, billions of dollars appear to have been siphoned off directly to Halliburton:

"The British based non-government organisation Christian Aid released a report on June 28, pointing to the unrestricted plundering of Iraq’s oil by the US and its allies. The paper, “Fuelling suspicion: the coalition and Iraq’s oil billions”, revealed that up to $US3 billion in oil export revenues has gone missing.

The determined refusal of the now dissolved Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to accurately account for its collection of these revenues has resulted in a situation where no-one knows just how much Iraqi oil the US authorities sold, and at what price."

According to KPMG (an auditing firm):

"KPMG said it had been unable to get information about Halliburton and other firms that received noncompetitive contracts from President Bush's administration funded by Iraqi oil proceeds."

ttp:// www.nysscpa.org/home/2004/704/3week/article26.htm

I think in future I'll just reply to your other posts by linking to this one as an example of the quality of your thinking or whatever.

TTFN

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
But neither Rue's post nor the article that was quoted implied any such things as "requiring" 100% foreign ownership or 40-year licenses so how can you "refute" something that wasn't stated? That's like me saying "I refute Connerflynn's view that all businesses in Iraq SHOULD be 100% foreign-owned." Now, you didn't say that and for me to imply that is either serious idiocy on my part or a gross falsification of your viewpoint.

So again... WHAT are you "refuting"? Please, quote right here the part of Rue's post where it says that foreign owneship is required, and all the rest. I certainly don't know what you're talking about!

---

Okies..enlighten me what does it mean then? What was the whole point of that article? It is insinuated , it is suggested, it is implied. I'm refuting the simplified statements in that article and they way they misrepresent the facts. The article itself contradicts its own accusations. But knee-jerks libs tend to skip the real facts or condense them to fit their own agendas. Thus the reason for posting links to the full documents and breaking order #39 down.

---

Originally quoted by Rue:Not free, it was a very expensive acquisition in terms of lives, money, opportunities lost.
If you don't think it was bought as a present for the corporations with US blood and your health care and Socials Security,
read here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-juhasz5aug05,1,
3665796.story
The Hand-Over That Wasn't
By Antonia Juhasz
(excerpts)
Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.
The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life — from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition (Iraq) from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi — a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

Further, the interim constitution of Iraq, written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn.
A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.
Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.


Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.

Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors.

---

Still seems pretty specious and insinuative to me..

Quote:

---

Ok, as far as Iraq not having a

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME