Mission accomplished?
So, Negroponte has today left Iraq.
Mission accomplished?
It depends what the mission was, of course. If it was to "lead" Iraq through a mockery of an election, leave the physical and much of the social infrastructure in tatters, public security a nightmare, and the political situation in an impotent impasse, then yes, jolly well done, John!
If on the other hand this man cares one whit about the wellbeing of the people of Iraq, he should be hanging his head in shame and slinking out of the country to hide for a very long time in an "undisclosed location."
So how do the rest of us think John Negroponte will get treated when he gets to Washington? Feted or fetid?
Care about the well being of Iraqi's? Who? Where? Certainly not anyone in our government, our media or the general public.
He will be 'feted', of course. Why? Because to 70% of Americans he was on the front lines in the war on terrorism. And to those people, he was winning!
.
Who knows what Negroponte has been doing in Iraq? He is a sinister and shadowy figure who was involved in America's dirty wars in central America. I imagine he has been involved in the same skulduggery in Iraq. He will be feted by the neocons, who are cut from the same cloth and have been trumpeting the elections.
I think there must be all sorts of schemes happening in Iraq that we don't have a clue about. For example, right after the invasion Robert Fisk reported that some of the looting seemed organized; people were moved around in white vans. That story remains untold.
Motto for our lying government: "Ignorance is Strength".
Of course he'll be feted. He oversaw the "purple finger revolution". But it will be in the quiet, understated way that all other successful and loyal members and employees of this administration like Bremer and Tenet. He'll be invited to the Whitehouse and treated to some congratulatory ceremony in front of the national Press corp which will dutifully fawn all over him and the occasion... and everyone will admire him and then he'll be given his next assignment which will be eliminating a certain "problem" in Venezuela.
I was on the verge of saying that he would get a medal, like Bremer and Tenet, but both were then put aside by Bush.. so it may be different.
I've always found this nomination was surprising : how do you interprete it ? Is it Negroponte who wanted to get out of Iraq after only a few months ? or was he put aside ? and, whether the first or the second proposition is true, for what reason ?
Two other nominations have shocked the EU opinion. First the nomination of Bolton as ambassador to the UN (if Bush really wants to mend fences with the EU, he shouldn't have appointed such a virulent critic of the UN institutions, but someone more convinced by the necessity of the multilateral approach).
Second the proposal to nominate Wolfowitz at the World Bank. He doesn't have experience with developing countries but for the catastropic chaos he helped to create in Iraq. It is to fear that he will try to use the Worldbank money following the US interest in "developing freedom and democracy" and punishing other countries who don't favor US policy (like in South America or Africa or else). It is a tradition that the US has the presidency of the WorldBank.. but the EU will probably try to block a candidate like Wolfowitz.
Bush's visit to Europe was a complete failure. He got nothing that he asked for. And in the case of Russia (yes, I know, not Europe) he was publicly embarressed while there, and then suffered world wide embarressment with the Iran announcement right after he left.
Wolfowitz is almost certainly a 'pay back' for these (and other) humiliations.
I won't defend Wolfowitz, whom I consider to be one of the stupidest people in public service, BUT..
The World Bank NEEDS 're-ordering'. For years it's policies have turned developing countries into basket cases. Something has to be done there. Perhaps a hamhanded, one idea idealogue like Wolfy can bring some sanity there.
But I doubt it. 'Deep thinking' and care about the mis-fortunes of others is not this crowds forte.
.
Warren,
I don't see what kind of humiliations the Western EU countries have done to Bush lately (but for the story of Iran, but EU wasn't concerned). If Bush feels humiliated because he begged troops from France and Germany and they refused, well, he had been warned long ago.
The main thing is that Bush/Rice came to EU with lots of talks and empty hands. The problem lies not only with the tone and language, with the wrapping, but also with the content of US policy. What about the Kyoto ratification for instance ? The same is true in Iraq and ME : all the hype about freedom, democracy and terrorism may work in the US media, for the US citizen, but that doesn't convince the rest of the world, when we see Abu Graib, Guantanamo, not to speak of the externalization of torture.
This article
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6890A8DA-AF79-45AD-BB4F-42C060978A07.htm
about Fallujah probably describes a Negroponte "accomplishment". During the first U.S. assault independent reporters were able to create a propoganda disaster for the U.S. During the second assault Fallujah's hospital was occupied and aide groups were kept out to prevent the world from seeing negative images-- and this worked. There was little outrage.
I wonder how implausible it is that the Italian journalist was targeted given the U.S. attacks on Fallujah's medical centers to prevent negative reports.
"Negroponte was the spearhead," declared a Washington insider. "He was sent down there by Haig and Enders to carry out the operation without any qualms of conscience"
- From Washington's war on Nicaragua by Holly Sklar (page 126).
The 'operation' referred to above was the Contra campaign of unremitting terror, directed expressly at Nicaraguan civilians. Negroponte was overseeing it. He is one of Washington's true henchmen and it's a safe bet that they'll find another job for him in the future.
>"[Wolfowitz]...doesn't have experience with developing countries"
Wolfowitz's experience as ambassador to Indonesia, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, pressing a reluctant President Reagan to support democracy in the Philippines and dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University are evidence of his expertise and involvement in development issues.
Negroponte didn't leave because Bush felt he had disgraced himself. He's actually getting a promotion of sorts - nominated last month for the first director of national intelligence. For better or worse.
Hammurabi,
Sorry, but I disagree. Being an ambassador isn't a real experience in development issues. Even if that was in Indonesia. East Asian and Pacific, that means Japan, Korea, Malaisia HongHong and a lot of other very developped and fast growing economy. I don't see any real experience in managing development projects there. Just look at Amazon. Here are some titles he published :
"U.S.-Japan relations: Dangers and opportunities, myths and realities ", "Asian Democracy and American Interests", "Developing an enduring relationship with China", or "Managing the International System over the Next Ten Years" (and of democratic industrialized societies in that system). All titles are on these matters. Meanwhile, I dont' see any interest in how to improve the living standard in the African countries or in South America.
In two years along with Bremer he managed to put Iraqi economy lower than it was after years of economic sanctions. He drafted plans in order to privatize Iraqi oil (this is a BBC scoop). Do you still think it proves his competence in matter of developement ?
Christiane, that BBC story was an entertaining read, but I'm afraid it says nothing at all about Wolfowitz. What makes you think he "drafted plans to privatise" anything? That's not what your article says. And Ariel Cohen has been writing on that topic for years (eg http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/bg1594.cfm ); there's hardly much of a secret there. Some scoop -- btw Palast is a reliable laugh riot on economic topics, he's like the UK version of Michael Moore.
In any case, privatising and taxing the oil resources of kleptocracies like Iraq are the surest route to transparency and accountability. Rulers of the OPEC countries skim billions from their subjects with the complicity of big oil companies like Shell -- it is any surprise "Big Oil" prefers to deal with bribeable dictators and royal friends rather than armies of directors, shareholders, auditors and analysts? But again it has nothing to do with Wolfowitz (though if it did it wouldnt be much of a strike against him.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,950756,00.html
http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/indepth/0401csr/csr_casestudy1nigeria.pdf
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/ShellNigeria.html
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/nigeria.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F03%2F07%2Fnhain07.xml
This is the face of OPEC-style "nationalization." Military juntas and "royals" selling their subjects patrimony for swiss accounts.
Andrew,
It was that sentence : "In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists". "
Isn't Wolfowitz the neocon ideologue in the Bush government, along with Douglas Feith and others ? I thought he was the most prominent, am I wrong ?
Concerning your second mail, well, it's not exactly related to the subject of Iraq. Of course big companies are exploiting many developping countries, doing them much harm just to increase their benefits. This doesn't justify the fact that US invaded Iraq for its oil. (Nor does this fact justify what the Shell company did in Nigeria). To come back to Wolfowitz and the neocons, what is new in the BBC article and video is that these plans are becoming public and that business men in the oil industry accept to talk about it.
I first came to Helena Cobban's site through a link from Juan Cole's. In the mean time, Cole has been quite heavily criticised here. Nevertheless Cole once again prominently recommended Helena's site a couple of days ago.
Juan Cole is a decent man. Thank goodness there are still people like him. I read his site daily, but I would like to criticise him again here in relation to what Christiane has said in the previous post about the BBC Newsnight report on "the struggle between the Neocons and Big Oil".
Let me quote from Juan Cole's blog as follows:
"Iraq has been a socialist country since at least 1968 (and had elements of socialism in the period of military rule 1958-1968). Most major industries were publicly owned. Moreover, the Iraqi population liked it that way. Opinion polls show that 80% of Iraqis think the purpose of a government is to take care of people.
"Paul Bremer, the second US civil administrator of Iraq is a fanatical laissez-fairiste."
Juan Cole is wrong in this day and age to equate nationalisation with socialism. Most of the nationalisations in history were done by bourgeois (capitalist) governments in the interest of capitalism, not socialism, and this was the case in Iraq, whether it called itself socialist, or not.
This is not a pedantic point, it is a crucial reality in many countries including South Africa where I live.
It cannot be said that because "Big Oil" prefers to oppose privitisation of Iraqi oil, that Big Oil has therefore become "socialist".
Likewise, and even more absurdly, it is wrong to call Paul Bremer a "laissez-fairiste". "Laissez-faire" in English means "leave well alone", which is just what Bremer didn't do. Bremer was a fanatical interventionist. He was an extreme social engineer.
Professor Cole could and should help us to escape these absurd and misleading traps of language. I'm afraid that as much as he is energetic in pursuit of empirical detail, he has been lazy in matters of politics.
Dear Helena
Quote from you
"I'm a columnist, researcher, and writer on global affairs. I'm a Contributing Editor of Boston Review. I've written a column for The Christian Science Monitor since 1990 and another for Al-Hayat (London) since 1993. Check out my home web-site for details of my five books, my current projects, etc.
I'm probably the only Quaker who's also a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies."
So you don’t know what's Negroponte Mission in Iraq? You asked us as readers to tell you!...
You are closer one to the closed door and the sources of the Negroponte Mission in fact US mission in Iraq…. .
In a NewsHour interview Negroponte said
"The new embassy would help prepare Iraq politically for upcoming elections, establish security in the country and it would help rebuild its economic and physical structure using an $18.4 billion budget allotted by Congress.
My role in Iraq will be fundamentally different from that of Ambassador Bremer," said Negroponte at his Senate confirmation hearing on June 23. "Whereas the CPA is the ultimate political authority in Iraq, the embassy will be in a supportive, as opposed to a commanding, role," he said.
Yah exactly he did…….
He should be hanging his head in shame and slinking out of the country to hide for a very long time in an "undisclosed location."
No Helena if there is justice in this world this guy and his boss Henry Kissinger should be sentenced for what they did in Latin America, Negroponte should be also charges with the criminals against humanity what he did in Faluja.
Now some stories floated like this story from News Ltd newspapers reported Senator Lightfoot had smuggled $US20, 000 into the country, on behalf of the Woodside Petroleum Company,
Full story
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12584435-29277,00.html
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,12569216%5E661,00.html
What about this one, the former employee of a Halliburton subsidiary and a Kuwaiti businessman have been indicted in a federal court, charged with defrauding the United States of more than $3.5 million in a subcontract to supply fuel tankers for military operations in Iraq, the Justice Department announced yesterday.
Full story
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/18/international/middleeast/18halliburton.html?pagewanted=all
During Bremer administration there where $9.0 Billion missing!.. or miss management who knows where was gone.
The reality Helen Iraq assets striped from the country, and also there is in the horizon that the richest oil fields to be sold to US companies at low prices simply because there is no real state of Iraq under Iraqis power.
I quite agree with this
The Iraqi people must be given back not only the right but also the capacity to decide their own rulers, without intervention from the United States, who firstly armed and supported Saddam Hussein and who are now only interested in controlling oil supplies, not in achieving democracy in Iraq. We need an international effort to rebuild Iraqi society and infrastructure, which was deliberately destroyed to undermine the civilian population.
Full story
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/homepages/first_speech/sfs-aor.htm
"To come back to Wolfowitz and the neocons, what is new in the BBC article and video is that these plans are becoming public and that business men in the oil industry accept to talk about it."
The plans have been public, not very new, and whats more they aren't Wolfowitz'. Palast's "neo con" brush is far too broad, and he presents no evidence of Wolfowitz or Perle or Feith's ownership of this scheme (whose very public details -see link and READ IT PLEASE-resemble Palast's paraphrase not much at all.) Heritage isnt a neocon think tank. Does Palast know this? Does Cole? Of course oil men don't like the neo-cons or neolibs, they prefer OPEC intact, oil prices high, and drilling concessions off market and opaque. Is Cole in his post defending Saddam-style (or Saudi-style) socialism? The poll he cites does not follow his remark about Iraqi will at all.
"This doesn't justify the fact that US invaded Iraq for its oil" -- this wasn't even Palast's contention. His notion is that it was to destroy OPEC, not lay claim to its oil (not that OPEC doesnt deserve it.)
Dominic,
In general, I agree with you. Capitalism is the socialization of the losses and the privatization of the benefits. The big oil companies don't want to privatize the oil in Iraq, because the infrastructure is ageing and there are big investments to achieve in order to modernize the infrastructures. A war never occurs for one single reason. There are always many goals behind it and somtimes competing ones. However among all these goals, the interests of the Iraqis weren't in the foreground, even if some brave, mileaded hearts went there in order to topple a dictator and a tyrant. Also, big oil companies are perfectly OK with high oil prices : that's one of the thing Greg Palast's video shows very well.
Socialism for the bosses, capitalism for the workers, is what they used to say in SA.
Not all transatlantics are equally blind to these realities. J K Galbraith recently wrote a book in which I believe he pointed out that there is not and never has been anything like "laissez-faire" in fact.
But the USA maintains a peculiar delusion. "Social security" they take as socialism. "Homeland security" on the other hand, although it represents a cruel and intrusive manifestation of state power, is not called socialism.
The carrot of bourgeois welfarism gets called socialism while the stick of bourgeois state centralism does not.
Time for a brief definition of socialism: "To each according to his work!"
Forward to the Paris Commune!
Salah,
In connection with Mr. Negroponte, thanks for reminding everyone about the dreadful part Mr. Henry Kissinger has played in U.S. policy in South America as well as in Cambodia. Somehow he managed to weasel himself out of any culpability. The last I read about him in the media he was rocking at Tina Brown's with, of all people, Mr. Wolfowitz and others.
Off message, remember: Iran has done nothing directly wrong to the U.S. except take embassy staff hostage nearly 25 years ago: that's right a quarter of a century. Talk about bearing a grudge. What the U.S. has done wrong to Iran was destroying its democracy in 1953 (because the U.S. and Britain refused to accept Mohammed Mosaddeq's nationalization of Iranian oil) and installing Mr. Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as head of state, who turned out to be so awful that even the U.S. eventually let him fall as the Iraian Revolution unfolded.
Warren wrote:
"Wolfowitz is almost certainly a 'pay back' for these (and other) humiliations"
Don't think so. He is more like 'the right man in the right place', so to speak.
Since Worldbank and IMF are the instruments of the rich world (US and Europe) to force the rest of the world to accept the dominance of Western Religion - not Christianity by the way, but neo-liberalism - and since neo-liberalism seems tailor-made to create an economic environment in which Western corporations can grow and prosper, the appointment of Wolfi as new Worldbankboss makes perfect sense.