Comments on: Order 39, Paul Bremer and the CPA

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:35:26 +0000

Klein has completely misrepresented the situation, so my comments do not represent nitpicking. What I am pointing out are not minor mistakes and I am not somehow trying to have it both ways. I recognise that the US is running the country and that as a result it needs to take decisions. It is illogical to suggest that they can just sit on their hands until a government is elected some time this year. The changes that they have made are minor, in the country’s interest, have a base of approval within the country and could be reversed by a new government.
People who don’t like the changes should say they don’t and explain why they are bad, rather than inventing a rationale to do with legality.

By: I. Smith

I. Smith — Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:36:09 +0000

It’s convenient to cite errors in an article by Naomi Klein and attempt to tear down all who oppose the illegal invasion of Iraq. If her facts are wrong, she should acknowledge errors and make retractions where appopriate but to label millions who disagree with, as Tristan put it, ‘far reaching’ reforms by an occupying power, sounds like the same Naomi Klein tactics you complain of. Arguments that the reforms are in the interest of Iraqis falls contradictorily flat before the simultaneous claim of fostering democratic institutions.
Only the most naive or nefarious, misunderstand or defend such doublespeak.

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:02:54 +0000

Actually the ability of foreigners to buy Iraqi assets will produce the opposite effect of what you think Copeland. It should actually leave them with much more of the country than they would otherwise have had.
If Iraqis sell an asset they receive money for it and what do they do with that money? Unless they are immigrating they are most likely to reinvest it in their own country. Assuming Iraqis are as rational as the rest of us they will try to reinvest that money in something to give them an even better return than the asset they have just sold. As they know the country better than the foreigner they are likely to succeed in that endeavour, and the miracle of compounding rates of return will see them outstrip the returns they achieve from the country compared to the overseas investor.
Countries like Australia would be very much less than they are now without foreign investment. It is a classic case of giving away a bit now to get much more later. Your solution would have the Iraqis relying purely on domestic savings, which is the very slow boat to prosperity. Their need at the moment is a fast boat to prosperity, because if it never embarks the chances are Hussien or a political lookalike will get back in control.

By: Copeland

Copeland — Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:28:20 +0000

If foreign business soaks up Iraqi assets like a sponge, that doesn’t really leave the Iraqis owning much of their own country. In just how many ways will other people (outsiders) be in control of this country’s fate? In a way it resembles a never-ending occupation.

By: Tristan Ewins

Tristan Ewins — Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:08:25 +0000

Dear Graham,
I do disagree with the policy per se, but my position re: the government not having a popular mandate is as genuine as it is legitimate. It is a genuine and honestly-held argument, not a ‘decoy’ or ‘cover’ argument.
Tristan

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:38:07 +0000

So you’d suggest fiddling while the house burns? Isn’t the basis of your opposition to the policy not that it is not the outcome of a democratic process, but that you don’t agree with it per se? And isn’t that really Klein’s position too? Seems to me that a lot of the argument over Iraq isn’t about Iraq at all but about other agendas completely.

By: Tristan Ewins

Tristan Ewins — Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:43:49 +0000

Dear Graham,
Even if what you say is true, that still does not change the fact that the provisional government does not have a popular mandate, and thus should have waited until it had such a mandate: achieved through democratic elections, and thorough public debate – before undertaking such fundamental and ‘far-reaching’ reform. ‘Provisional’ governments should behave as ‘care-taker’ governments. Without popular mandates, it is only democratic and proper that they limit themselves purely to matters of administration.
Tristan Ewins