Covering ones ass twice over

[k hanly <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Seems that not only is the US justified in excluding those not part of the
coalition of the willing for security reasons and thus consistent with WTO
rules but also CPA is not subject to rules in first place..
    The sheer idiocy of US policy is hard to fathom. Just as Baker is out
begging Germany, France and Russia to forgive Iraq debt it is announced that
they are excluded from these contracts. Guess what? Even Israel is
excluded..but the Marshall Islands and Western Samoa will be there in force
bidding!
 The real loser in all this will be US taxpayer who will have to pay
exhorbitant prices to favored companies such as Becthel, Dyncorp,
Halliburton and a few Brit firms who will then subcontract to the lowest
bidders to do most of the actual work. Hallburtons gas contract is a good
example. It sub-contracts to a Kuwaiti firm to acutally supply gas and
Halliburton collects a lucrative fee per gallon driving up price way above
what others pay for gas , probably from the same Kuwaiti company..


Cheeers, Ken Hanly


from NY times

When the committee was drafting the policy, officials said, there was some
discussion about whether it would be wise to declare that excluding
noncoalition members was in the security interests of the United States. As
a matter of trade law, countries are often allowed to limit trade with other
nations on national security grounds.

"The intent was to give us the legal cover to make the decision," one
official said.

But the phrase angered officials of other nations because it seemed to
suggest they were a security risk.

Moreover, the United States Trade Representative's office said on Wednesday
that contracts with the occupation authority "are not covered by
international trade procurement obligations because the C.P.A. is not an
entity subject to these obligations."