Economic Invasion of Iraq
excerpted from the book
The Bush Agenda
Invading the World, One Economy
at a Time
by Antonia Juhasz
HarperCollins, 2006, paper
BECHTEL, CHEVRON, HALLIBURTON, AND LOCKHEED
Corporate globalization continues as a
model, despite the devastation it is known to cause, for one very
simple reason: It works-only not in the way that its advocates
promise. It has successfully restricted the ability of governments
and communities all over the world to regulate the activities
of multinational corporations. As a result, these companies have
been freed to scour the globe in search of the cheapest locations
to produce, the most abundant natural resources, and the most
business-friendly governments. Under the theory of "what
is good for corporations is good for everyone' laws the world
over, including in the United States, have been rewritten specifically
to benefit corporate growth and profit. The result is an unprecedented
shift in global economic power from countries to corporations
and a concurrent concentration of wealth in the hands of an ever-shrinking
group of the ultra-wealthy and powerful.
In many ways, corporations have supplanted
governments as the dominant economic force in the world. In 2002,
corporations represented fifty-two of the hundred largest economies
in the world. 2 The sales of the largest 200 corporations are
growing faster than overall global economic activity. The largest
corporations (by revenue) are heavily concentrated in the United
States. According to Forbes magazine, in 2005, 75 of the 200 largest
corporations were U.S. -based----more than the next three nations
combined: Japan (28), France (21), and Germany (20)
... The reality is that the wealth being
generated by the companies is locked firmly at the top. The rich
are getting richer and the poor are not only getting poorer but
are also increasing in number. In fact, since 1983, the only segment
of the U.S. population that has experienced large wealth gains
the richest 20 percent .
Just compare CEO pay to that of the average worker. Twenty years
ago, U.S. corporate CEOs earned on average forty-two times more
than production workers. Today, they earn a whopping 431 times
The 2005 UN Human Development Report found that the infant mortality
rate in the United States is comparable to that in Malaysia country
with a quarter the income. The UN report also found that infant
death rates are higher for black children in Washing-" ton,
DC, than for children in Kerala, India.
The oil sector is prominently represented in both the Bush Agenda
and the Bush administration. It is worth repeating that, for the
first time in American history, the president, vice president,
and secretary of state are all former energy company officials,
and the only other U.S. president to come from the oil or energy
business was George W. Bush's father. More specifically, both
the president and vice president are former chief executives of
Texas-based oil services companies with deep financial and political
ties to the Middle East. Furthermore, both the president and secretary
of state have more experience as oil executives than they do as
Chevron, Halliburton, Lockheed martin, and Bechtel represent three
key pillars of the Bush Agenda: oil, war, and building the infrastructure
of corporate globalization.
One constant in U.S. economic engagement with Iraq over the past
twenty-five years has been the ability of U.S. corporations to
influence U.S. policy to their own extreme benefit. In Iraq, many
of these corporations helped to arm Hussein, lobbied for war against
him, and are now profiting from his removal. In the 1990s and
in the lead-up to and following the March 2003 invasion of Iraq,
Bechtel, Chevron, Halliburton, and Lockheed Martin were part of
a chorus of corporations desiring increased and more secure access
to Iraqi profits. Their spokespeople began to advocate loudly
for an invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Saddam Hussein.
... until the 1991 Gulf War, the Reagan and Bush administrations
were so driven to increase economic ties with [Saddam] Hussein
that they were willing to ignore both his brutal human rights
atrocities and his support for international terrorism-despite
vocal concerns from within their own administrations. Reagan and
Bush supplied money, arms, commercial products, and other forms
of trade to Iraq. U.S. corporations, particularly through the
efforts of the U.S.-Iraqi Business Forum and Kissinger Associates,
worked aggressively to define and expand this relationship to
their extreme benefit.
in March 1982, Reagan removed Iraq from the list of countries
supporting terrorism, which rendered Iraq eligible for a broader
range of trade and credits with the United States. Then, on November
26, 1984, just days after his reelection, Reagan restored full
diplomatic relations with Iraq. This move came under extreme influence
from U.S. business interests but against the advice of many within
U.S. business interests played a leading
role in persuading the Reagan administration to open economic
engagement with Iraq, to resist calls for sanctions, and to ensure
that the U.S. taxpayer bore much of
the economic risk. The business groups
with the greatest influence were the U.S. -Iraq Business Forum
and Kissinger Associates. These two groups used the power of their
clients, and in the latter case, Henry Kissinger's personal influence,
to ensure that U.S. economic policy toward Iraq would increasingly
and consistently benefit both their own and their clients' bottom
Henry Kissinger, April 20, 1986
I think that in the modern world, if you don't understand the
relationship between economics and politics, you cannot be a great
statesman. You cannot do it with foreign policy and security knowledge
Can one possibly tell a story of American
politics from the last forty years without reserving a prominent
place for the august Henry Kissinger? Kissinger served simultaneously
as President Nixon and then President Ford's national security
adviser and secretary of state from 1973 to 1975. He began as
Nixon's national security adviser in 1969 and then continued as
Ford's secretary of state until 1977. Kissinger made his fame
in government, but he continues to earn his fortune in business.
While the twin oil shocks of the 1970s
were bad for consumers and most importer governments, they were
good for former government officials. America's corporate executives
learned the hard way that doing business overseas, particularly
in the Middle East, required unique expertise. If they wanted
access to all those petro-dollars in the hands of those state-controlled
oil industries, they would need people with economic know-how
and close relationships to government leaders. Kissinger's strength,
as explained by Anthony J. F. O'Reilly of the Heinz Corporation
in 1986, "is analyzing people and their power base. He has
a durable and great inventory of contacts. To say that he is a
door opener sounds mildly disparaging, but it is helpful in countries
with rusty hinges."" Countryrisk.com, a website that
reviews country analysis consultants, describes Kissinger Associates
as "the company that started it all."
Kissinger founded the company in 1982,
the same year that President Reagan opened economic ties with
Iraq, and it remains one of the world's preeminent providers of
advice and political risk assessments to the largest corporate-multinationals.
It has also maintained its status as one of the most secretive
businesses in the United States. Its customers are required to
sign strict confidentiality agreements committing not to disclose
their discussions with Kissinger Associates or even their status
as Kissinger clients. In fact, Kissinger resigned from his appointment
on the 9/11 Commission in 2002 in order to keep his client list
secret. The company has no known website and, the most recent
comprehensive interview conducted with Kissinger about his business
was almost twenty years ago, with Leslie Geib of the New York
Times in 1986.
Some information has found its way into
the public domain, most notably during the 1989 Senate confirmation
hearings of Lawrence Eagleburger to become undersecretary of state.
Eagleburger, who served as president of Kissinger Associates from
1984 to 1989, told that committee that Kissinger clients typically
pay a fixed annual fee for their top management to meet several
times a year for discussions lasting a day or two on international
political, economic, and security trends - ranging from Soviet
affairs to the price of oil. An October 2004 press release by
APCO Worldwide, announcing a "strategic alliance" with
Kissinger Associates, says that the company "provides strategic
advisory and advocacy services to a select group of multinational
companies. The firm provides advice regarding special projects,
assists its clients to identify strategic partners and investment
opportunities, and advises clients on government relations throughout
The names of a few Kissinger clients have
leaked out over the years, including Hunt Oil, H.J. Heinz, Arco
(now BP Oil), American Express, Shearson Lehman, Union Carbide,
Coca-Cola, ITT Corp., and engineering giant Fluor, which, in 2004,
became the recipient of the third largest reconstruction contract
in Iraq, worth $3.75 billion.
Though U.S. corporations desperately wanted to make a profit off
of Iraq, they did not want to bear the risk. The U.S. -Iraq Business
Forum and Kissinger Associates thus persuaded the Reagan administration
to reverse a ban on U.S. commodity credits and loan guarantees
to Iraq. This allowed the U.S. Export-Import Bank and the U.S.
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to start making
loans to Iraq. The Export-import Bank and OPIC are u.s. taxpayer-funded
lending institutions that provide loans and credits either directly
to U.S. corporations to help them operate abroad, or to foreign
governments to help them purchase goods produced by U.S. companies.
Both forms of lending were aggressively used to bring u.s. corporations
and their goods into Iraq. U.S. taxpayers therefore bore a good
deal of the financial cost of u.s. corporate activities with Iraq
and Saddam Hussein.
The Reagan administration and, to an even
greater extent, the Bush Sr. administration, spent nearly a decade
secretly arming Iraq through direct and indirect sales. The direct
sales were of "dual-use" materials, which are goods
ostensibly made for civilian purposes but have military applications
as well. From 1985 to 1990, U.S. corporations provided $782 million
in dual-use goods to Iraq. The Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations
allowed the sales over the objections of the Pentagon, which believed
these products would inevitably be used for military purposes.
One government official explained that in March 1985, high technology
export licenses, which previously had not been approved by the
U.S. government to Iraq, "started to go through as if someone
had suddenly turned a switch. The indirect method involved sales
of conventional and chemical weapons to third parties, generally
friendly governments, who then sold the weapons to Iraq.
U.S. arms dealers made out handsomely,
as did dozens of U.S. multinational corporations, including Bechtel,
AT&T, Hewlett Packard, General Motors, and Philip Morris ...
In 1988, the State Department was again forced to release a public
condemnation of the Iraqi government after Hussein used chemical
weapons against the people of Halabja. The next day, the U.S.
Senate passed a tough trade sanctions bill against Iraq that would
have significantly curtailed U.S. corporate dealings with the
country. But the Reagan administration, led by Secretary Shultz,
lobbied vehemently against the sanctions, and they were not enacted.
The end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 offered the newly elected
Bush administration a fresh opportunity to alter U.S. relations
with Iraq. Bush's transition team provided the president-elect
with a policy memo on Iraq, which explained that "Saddam
Hussein will continue to eliminate those he regards as a threat,
torture those he believes have secrets to reveal, and rule without
any real concessions to democracy." They argued that engagement
was the appropriate response. The United States would have "to
decide whether to treat Iraq as a distasteful dictatorship to
be shunned where possible, or to recognize Iraq's present and
potential power in the region and accord it relatively high priority.
We strongly urge the latter view." Two reasons offered in
the paper were Iraq's "vast oil reserves," which promised
"a lucrative market for US goods," and the fact that
U.S. oil imports from Iraq were skyrocketing.
Bush and Baker accepted the advice of
the transition team and ran with it. On October 2, 1989, President
Bush signed National Security Directive 26, which made explicit
U.S. support for Iraq ...
The British for their part, were wringing their hands with greed
anticipation. According to Friedman, Iraq was known among British
Foreign Secretary John Major's staff as "the big prize."
Britain's senior Foreign Office officer wrote in October 1989,
"I doubt if there is any future market on such a scale where
the UK is potentially so well placed .... We must not allow it
to go to the French, German, Japanese, etc. The priority of Iraq
should be very high."
Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress had imposed
U.S. Export-Import Bank financing restrictions on Iraq because
of the Halabja massacre. On January 17, 1990, Bush voided the
prohibition with a stroke of a pen, stating that it was "not
in the national interest of the U.S." Baker then described
trade as the "central factor in the U.S.-Iraq relationship."
During the Bush-Baker tenure, the United States became Iraq's
largest supplier of nonmilitary goods, and Iraq became the United
States second biggest trading partner in the Middle East. In January
1990, the United States imported eight times more Iraqi oil than
it had in 1987. By July 1990, U.S. imports had increased to 1.1
million barrels per day, more than a quarter of Iraq's total oil
exports. As Baker would comment, U.S. policy toward Iraq was "not
immune from domestic economic considerations, ""
At the same time, in the early months
of 1990, Saddam Hussein turned up his anti-U.S. and anti-Israel
rhetoric and actions, which included the public hanging of a British
journalist of Iranian descent in Baghdad. In response, several
Iraq sanctions bills were submitted in Congress, but every one
was successfully fought off by Bush and Baker. Just two months
before Hussein invaded Kuwait, on April 21, 1990, a U.S. delegation
led by Senator Bob Dole was sent to Iraq in an attempt to placate
Hussein. Baker personally sent a cable to the US embassy in Baghdad,
instructing U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie to meet with
Hussein and to make it very clear that, "As concerned as
we are about Iraq's chemical, nuclear, and missile programs, we
are not in any sense preparing the way for a preemptive military
unilateral effort to eliminate these programs."
During the Iran-Iraq war, Hussein built the fourth largest military
in the world with financial assistance from many nations, including
Saudi Arabia. Hussein thought the money was aid in support for
the war effort, but Saudi Arabia thought it was a loan and wanted
its money back at the end of the war. Kuwait's oil was looking
increasingly attractive, and its actions in OPEC, specifically
overproduction that drove down the price of oil for all, were
inciting Hussein's anger. In mid-July, Hussein amassed Iraqi troops
on the Kuwait border and publicly threatened the use of military
force. On July 25, U.S. Ambassador Glaspie was once again dispatched
to meet with Hussein. This time, the message she delivered to
him would become infamous: have direct instruction from the President
to seek better relations with Iraq" and "we have no
opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement
Less well known is the personal cable
sent a few days later from President Bush to Hussein, just five
days before the invasion of Kuwait, in which Bush expressed concern
but added, "Let me reassure you that my administration continues
to desire better relations with Iraq."
At 9:00 P.M. on August 1, 1990, Iraqi
forces crossed into Kuwait. On August 15 President Bush declared,
"Our jobs, our way of life, our freedom, and the freedom
of friendly countries around the world would all suffer if control
of the world's great oil reserves fell into the hands of Saddam
Hussein." To this Secretary Baker added, "The economic
lifeline of the industrial world runs from the Gulf and we cannot
permit a dictator such as this to sit astride that economic lifeline."°
On January 15,1991, the day before the United States launched
attacks against Iraq, President Bush signed National Security
Directive 54. The first line states, "Access to Persian Gulf
oil and the security of key friendly states in t e area are vital
to U.S. national security. . . The US. remains committed to defending
its vital interests in the region, it necessary through use of
military force, against any power with interests inimical to our
own." By March 3, the first Gulf War was over. The Iraqi
army was successfully expelled from Kuwait, while Saddam Hussein
remained in power in Iraq.
There are two main schools of thought
as to why the United States did not stop the invasion of Kuwait
before it began. The first is that Bush truly was caught off guard.
Bush believed he and Hussein were working together, but Hussein
had to make a show of aggression to impress both those in and
outside of Iraq of his seriousness Bush did not actually believe
that Hussein would invade Kuwait in defiance of U.S. interests
(even if those interests had not been stated) and those of most
of Iraq's neighbors, and Hussein did not actually believe that
Bush would stop him if he did invade. But once Hussein invaded
Kuwait, the Bush administration could not allow him to control
both his own and Kuwait's oil and threaten Saudi Arabia, particularly
since he had demonstrated that he was no longer to be trusted
in serving U.S. interests. Hussein had to be removed.
... Bush allowed Hussein to invade Kuwait because it provided
an excuse to remove Hussein from power, and the war with Iraq,
in turn, provided the necessary excuse to bring a significantly
increased U.S. military presence into the region-including five
hundred thousand U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. military
presence not only remained but also spread to more countries and
grew dramatically with the second U.S. war against Iraq.
... Dick Cheney in April 1991
"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with
it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place
of the one that's currently there .... How much credibility is
that government going to have if its set up by the U.S. military
when its there? ... I think to have American military engaged
in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of a quagmire,
and we [have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in that fashion."
Paul Wolfowitz Bush Sr.'s undersecretary
of defense policy
"A new regime [in Iraq] would have become the United States'
responsibility. Conceivably, this could have led the United States
into a more or less permanent occupation of a country that could
not govern itself, but where the rules of foreign occupier would
be increasingly resented."
The attempt to oust Hussein took the form
of full economic sanctions against Iraq, imposed by the United
States and the UN Security Council. Implemented just five days
after the invasion of Kuwait, the sanctions amounted to an almost
complete economic embargo of the nation, with deadly effects.
The World Health Organization found that compared to two years
prior to the war, infant mortality rates from 1989 to 1994 had
doubled, and the mortality rate for children under five increased
by six times. UNICEF reported that from 1991 to 1998, some half
a million children under the age of five died in "excess"
of the number expected to die without sanctions.
In a report to the U.S. Congress in October 2004, Charles Duelfer,
the U.S. arms investigator in Iraq at the time of the 2003 invasion,
reported that Hussein had established a worldwide network of companies
and countries, most of them U.S. allies, which secretly helped
Iraq generate about $11 billion in illegal income from oil sales
under the Oil-for-Food Program.
Between the first half of 1997 and the summer of 2000, while Cheney
was Halliburton's CEO, Halliburton subsidiaries Dresser-Rand and
Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. sold water and sewage treatment pumps,
spare parts for oil facilities, and pipeline equipment to Iraq
through French affiliates. Halliburton ultimately sold more than
$73 million in goods and services to Saddam Hussein's regime.
16 In fact, the Financial Times reported that Halliburton sold
more oil industry products to Hussein than any other U.S. company.
... for many U.S. corporations, the presidency of Bill Clinton
provided many new "free trade" opportunities, including
the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, the 1995 World Trade
Organization, ongoing negotiations for a Free Trade Area of the
Americas, expanded trade with China, and the proposed Multilateral
Agreement on Investment. Clinton was backed by the Republican-led
Congress, which whole-heartedly endorsed each new free trade agreement.
former Joint Chief of Staff Admiral William J Crowe told Cohn
"First, to be a great President you have to have a war.
All the great Presidents have had their wars. Two, you have to
find a war where you are attacked."
The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) ... was founded
in 2002 and can be viewed as an extension of the Project for the
New American Century.
... "The Committee existed to mobilize
U.S. and international support to end Saddam's regime and to work
"beyond the liberation of Iraq to the reconstruction of its
economy and the establishment of political pluralism, democratic
institutions, and the rule of law." This last sentence provides
the CLI proposal for what would differentiate the current Bush
administration from the last. Whereas the former President Bush
was seeking merely to replace Hussein with a more U.S.-friendly
Iraqi leader, George W. Bush would replace Hussein, his economy,
his government, and his laws.
Committee members did more than profit from the war. They played
a lead role in carrying the United States into war in the first
place. They influenced public opinion through articles in the
nation's leading newspapers, appearances on television and radio
talk shows, and public speeches. Perhaps the clearest public articulation
of the Committee's opinion, and ultimately that of the administration,
was expressed by Ronald Reagan's former secretary of state, George
Shultz. In an essay published in the Washington Post on September
7, 2002, under the headline, "ACT NOW The danger is immediate.
Saddam Hussein must be removed," Shultz laid out the most
influential arguments for war, which have since been proven to
have the least basis in fact. According to Shultz, the most compelling
argument for war was the catastrophic and immediate threat posed
to the United States by Hussein's weapons of mass destruction
and his links to terror. Shultz writes:
Self-defense is a valid basis for preemptive
action. The evidence is clear that Hussein continues to amass
weapons of mass destruction. He has also demonstrated a willingness
to use them against internal as well as external targets. By now,
the risks of inaction clearly outweigh the risks of action. If
there is a rattlesnake in the yard, you don't wait for it to strike
before you take action in self-defense. The danger is immediate.
The making of weapons of mass destruction grows increasingly difficult
to counter with each passing day. When the risk is not hundreds
of people killed in a conventional attack but tens or hundreds
of thousands killed by chemical, biological or nuclear attack,
the time factor is even more compelling.
Shultz then argued that Iraq is "a
major source of and support for terror and instability,"
and that by taking Hussein out, "a model can emerge that
other Arab societies may look to and emulate for their own transformation
and that of the entire region." Few people reading these
words, written by a former U.S. secretary of state and respected
scholar, published in one of the world's most prominent newspapers,
would feel anything less than terrified. What Shultz fails to
mention in this essay is his long-standing positions at Bechtel
and the company's role in providing Hussein with the means to
produce chemical weapons. He also fails to mention his personal
role throughout the 1980s as a courtier to Hussein. In describing
Hussein writes, "No other dictator today matches his record
of war, oppression, use of weapons of mass destruction and continuing
contemptuous violation of international law." And yet, for
( more than a decade, Shultz, Bush the first, Reagan, Baker, Cheney,
Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Kissinger, Eagleburger, and other U.S. corporate
/ and government CEOs were content to supply this very same dictator
with weapons, money, goods, and services.
Not only would the George W. Bush administration invade Iraq,
it would fundamentally remake its internal government and policy-making
structure such that the new country would serve U.S. interests.
The corporations would gain access to the world's second largest
oil supply and all of the wealth it generates, and the politicians
would have their "new Iran"-a regional ally from which
to protect Israel and guarantee U.S. access and hegemony over
the entire region as well as much of the world.
THE ECONOMIC INVASION OF IRAQ
Michael Scheuer, former senior CIA al-Qaeda
expert and author, Imperial Hubris'
The U.S. invasion of Iraq was not preemption;
it was-like our war on Mexico in 1846-an avaricious, premeditated,
unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but
whose defeat did offer economic advantages.
Imagine that the United States is currently under a foreign military
occupation. The foreign occupiers have thrown out the Constitution,
the Amendments to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. They
have actively and publicly participated in the writing of a new
constitution to replace all three. There will be a popular vote
on the new constitution, although its contents have not been made
public and our elected officials have not seen the final version.
Some of the contents have been leaked in the press, but the leaks
are contradictory. Three days before the vote, a small handful
of leaders-not all elected and at least one who represents the
foreign occupier-meet and make changes to the constitution. That
same day, a paper copy written several weeks earlier is made available
to the public. However, there are only enough copies for less
than one-third of eligible voters. Few legal experts have read
or analyzed it, so those voters lucky enough to get a copy must
decipher its meaning on their own. Political and religious leaders
who feel some confidence about the larger points of the constitution
advise their followers how to vote based on their limited knowledge.
You know it is a critical vote that will impact every aspect of
your life, so you go to the polls and cast your ballot.
This was the situation faced by the Iraqi
public when, on October 15, 2005, 9.8 million people voted in
a national referendum on a new Constitution for Iraq.
... few Iraqis could have known that the
constitution they endorsed locked in the most crucial aspects
of the Bush Agenda in Iraq: the military occupation, the economic
invasion, and increased U.S. access to Iraq's oil.
Five days later President Bush named L. Paul Bremer III presidential
envoy to Iraq and the administrator of the U.S.-led occupation
government, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). During
the next fourteen months, considered the period of formal U.S.
occupation, Bremer enacted new laws with full legal force over
Iraqis, all but a handful of which remain in effect today. These
laws have gone virtually unnoticed and unreported in the United
States, yet they go to the heart of the Bush Agenda. They lock
in sweeping advantages to U.S. corporations, ensuring long-term
U.S. economic gain while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to
the Iraqi people. In fact, they have set in place conditions for
the ongoing inadequate provision of basic services, unemployment,
underdevelopment, economic inequality, and violence for the foreseeable
ORDER #39: FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Foreign investment rules have been the
cherry on top of the corporate globalization pie for decades.
They have long been widely sought after but rarely achieved. It
was the adamant opposition of developing country governments to
these same laws that contributed significantly to the collapse
of WTO talks in Seattle in 1999 and again in Cancun in 2003. To
avoid another collapse, the provisions were removed altogether
from the agenda of the WTO's 2005 Hong Kong ministerial. Foreign
investment provisions continue to be one of the most controversial
elements of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between
the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Global opposition to these
laws led to the defeat of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.
In Iraq, however, there was no opposition to overcome. Bremer
simply put the foreign investment provisions into force with the
stroke of a pen.
Order #39 (September 19, 2003) is the
foreign investment Order." It includes the following provisions:
(1) privatization of Iraq's state-owned enterprises; (2) 100 percent
foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment"-which
means no preferences for local over foreign businesses, which
has allowed for a U.S. corporate invasion of Iraq; (4) unrestricted,
tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; (5) forty-year
ownership licenses; and (6) the right to take legal disputes out
of Iraq's courts and into international tribunals. More than any
other Order, it fully embodies the Bush Agenda in Iraq: the creation
of a U.S. corporate haven that will act as a model and jumping-off
point for the rest of the region.
Paul Bremer, November 2001
"Privatization of basic services,& example, almost always
leads to price increases for those services, which in turn often
lead to protests or even physical violence against the operator."
..."free trade" is a misnomer for trade policies that
are heavily regulated to favor multinational corporations ...
The Bush Agenda