More on the Iraqi election/occupation. posted by Richard Seymour

A very interesting study of just how much power the occupiers retain here . It was written after the July handover, but little has changed. Note the kinds of laws that the Iraqi government won't be able to change:

The (New and Improved) Bremer Orders
A sampling of the most important Orders demonstrates the economic imprint left behind by Bremer:

Order #39 allows for the following: (1) privatization of Iraq’s 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) “national treatment” of foreign firms; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses. Thus, it allows the U.S. corporations operating in Iraq to own every business, do all of the work, and send all of their money home. Nothing needs to be reinvested locally to service the Iraqi economy, no Iraqi need be hired, no public services need be guaranteed, and workers’ rights can easily be ignored. And corporations can take out their investments at any time.

Order #40 turns the banking sector from a state-run to a market-driven system overnight by allowing foreign banks to enter the Iraqi market and to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

Order #49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat rate of 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

Order #12 enacted on June 7, 2003 and renewed on February 24, 2004, suspends “all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq, and all other trade restrictions that may apply to such goods.” This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap consumer products, which has essentially wiped out all local providers of the same products. This could have significant long-term implications for domestic production as well.

Order #17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq ’s laws. Even if they do injure a third party by killing someone or causing environmental damage such as dumping toxic chemicals or poisoning drinking water, the injured third party can not turn to the Iraqi legal system, rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts under U.S. laws.

Order #77 established the Board of Supreme Audit and named its president and his two deputies. The Board oversees inspectors in every Ministry with wide-ranging authority to review government contracts, audit classified programs, and prescribe regulations and procedures.

Order #57 created and appointed an inspector within every Iraqi Ministry with five-year terms who can perform audits, write policies, and have full access to all offices, materials, and employees of the Ministries.

Then there are the approximately 200 mostly U.S. and other international advisers who will remain embedded as consultants in every Iraqi Ministry well after the official occupation has ended.

Clearly, the Bremer Orders fundamentally altered Iraq’s existing laws. For this reason, the Bremer Orders are also illegal. Transformation of an occupied country’s laws violates the Hague regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions, both ratified by the United States), and the U.S. Army’s Law of Land Warfare. Indeed, in a leaked memo, British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned Tony Blair that “the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorized by international law.”

Well, what is the situation with that today? Obviously, the bulk of Bremer's orders still stand, barring the ones regarding de-Baathification which he revoked in his last days. There was an obvious impact on the elections, since Coalition Provisional Authority orders 92, 96 and 97 prohibited parties that are "associated with or indirectly financed by" any group that was ever armed, or any group judged to engage in "hate speech." Anyone judged by the electoral commission to lack "a good reputation" was also prohibited from running for office.

Meanwhile, more complaints are emerging about 'irregularities' in the election, denying thousands the right to vote. There have been demonstrations involving "hundreds". Meanwhile, Dick Cheney thinks the Shi'ites recently elected will insist on retaining the occupation . Is it wishful thinking or does he know something we don't?

Finally, why did the press whoop for joy and glory at the colonial elections? Jonathan Steele has the answer.