NationStates Jolt Archive


Sovereignty, Iraqi-style....

Silliopolous
09-09-2005, 15:33
You remember that election right? The one that gave Iraq back to the Iraqis?


So, how does that work in real life?

Well, the CPA had negotiated the deal to run IRaq's only real functioning civil airport and given it to a British concern. That contract ran out, and they have been trying to hammer out a deal. The British company decided to up the pressure and close down the airport.

So, how much control of their country is the IRaqi government allowed?

Zilch.

When the IRaqi Government sent troops to try and gain control of their airport, Coalition forces aparently stood guard with the British Company's security forces to deny access to the airport to the Iraqi Government, and the company is stating as a fait accompli that it will continue to guard the facility, but that it will suspend airport operations. I.e, it's ours.


So, to recap, the so-called independant Iraq is not permitted to manage it's own infrastructure or resources, and is being stretched across a barrel by forcing it to negotiate a deal with this ONE British firm (read as, no competition allowed), and that one firm gets to hold all the cards in the negotiation.


This is what sovereignty is to Iraq.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050909/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

The Baghdad International Airport, the country's only reliable link to the outside world, was closed Friday in an embarrassing pay dispute between the government and a British security company. The interior ministry said it was sending troops to reopen the facility.

The brewing standoff could involve American forces in a confrontation with Iraqi troops. An official close to the dispute said the U.S. military had joined security forces from the British company at a checkpoint to block Iraqi interior ministry troops. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of negotiations.

The U.S. military said it could not confirm that U.S. troops had taken up positions at the checkpoint on the dangerous airport road.

Iraqi officials said they were sending troops to reopen the facility because its closure was illegal.

"This issue is related to Iraq's sovereignty, and nobody is authorized to close the airport," acting Transportation Minister Esmat Amer told The Associated Press.

He said the Cabinet approved the dispatch of interior ministry troops to take over from the London-based Global Strategies Group, which had provided security at the sprawling airport since last year.

Amr said the government had been trying since the first of the year to renegotiate a now-lapsed $4.5 million monthly contract which Global had signed with the defunct U.S. Coalition Provision Authority. The CPA handed sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government in June 2004.

This was believed to be the first serious dispute involving a Western contract operation since the U.S.-led invasion ousted Saddam Hussein. The United States has managed to keep its forces in Iraq — now at about 140,000 — to a minimum by hiring out vast amounts of work the military normally would do to outside contractors. Congress has routinely complained that oversight is lax and the U.S. government is routinely overcharged.

Global said its workers would continue securing the facility but had suspended other operations because Iraq' transportation ministry — which owns the airport — was six months behind in payments. All flights in and out of the capital were suspended, it said.

"We're in continuing dialogue and we're hoping it'll be resolved as soon as possible," company spokesman Giles Morgan said. He declined to answer questions about the specifics of the dispute.

Amer confirmed that Global had not been paid since contract negotiations resumed about the first of the year.
Balipo
09-09-2005, 15:36
Color me surprised. And I'm sure the GWB PR folks will spin this into "see, we need to say as they do not have control. More troops, more money, more taxpayer burden....blah blah blah."
Skyfork
09-09-2005, 15:38
You fail to mention that Iraq's Ministry of Transportation has not paid this firm in 6 months.
Silliopolous
09-09-2005, 15:43
You fail to mention that Iraq's Ministry of Transportation has not paid this firm in 6 months.


Since when do you pay someone not under contract? It is often normal to continue payment at the previous rate while renegotiating, however I think you will find it awfully hard to get the Federal Government of the United States to hand over dollars for doing work that you are not legally contracted to do.

Withholding funds is a legal method of negotiation.

Stealing state resources is not.
Skyfork
09-09-2005, 15:57
If they don't act now, they'll never get paid. It's not easy being a mercenary. These are typical tactics, don't let the security company title fool you. Professional soldier of fortune or plain mercenary titles are now passe. To not expect such strongarm tactics is naive and had the Coalition not intervened, there would have been a strong chance of bloodshed.
Kroisistan
09-09-2005, 16:05
As horrible as it'd be, I think it would be fascinating if Iraqi forces attacked and overran this airport. I wonder what the hell would happen if the shiny, new democratic government of Iraq installed by the Coalition decided to go to blows with the British over who controls this airport...

I'd turn on CNN and get some popcorn to watch that one play out.
Skyfork
09-09-2005, 16:08
Interior Ministry troops are well-armed in comparison to the regulars. I have no idea of the capabilities of the British mercs though.
Silliopolous
09-09-2005, 16:10
If they don't act now, they'll never get paid. It's not easy being a mercenary. These are typical tactics, don't let the security company title fool you. Professional soldier of fortune or plain mercenary titles are now passe. To not expect such strongarm tactics is naive and had the Coalition not intervened, there would have been a strong chance of bloodshed.


Well not geting paid is a risk of continuing to work without a contract. It's called a business loss and is nicely tax-deductable on the balance sheet.


And while your notion that the Coalition needed to intervene to avoid bloodshed might have some merit, I find it decidedly interesting that they chose to do so backing the side of the Company, NOT the government that they are supposedly there to help get on it's feet. Do you think that if instead the troops had marched towards the airport ALONGSIDE the government forces that there would have been bloodshed?


Which is to say that expecting strongarmed tactics from the company is immaterial to my point that the much-publicized notion of a newly soveriegn Iraq is pure bullshit.


They have exactly as much sovereignty as the coalition allows.
Messerach
09-09-2005, 16:15
Things aren't looking that good for Iraq. There are clear Kurd, Sunni ans Shhite areas, and holding them together as a democracy is prety unlikely. The biggest problem is that the traditional power-holders, the Sunni, don't hold the oil fields and are likely to lose a lot of power if Iraq becomes democratic. The US isn't encouraging democracy either, as it is supporting the dominance of the Sunni in an attempt to weaken the insurgency. Frankly, the USA has a history in the Middle East of supporting tyranny over democracy and I see no reason to believe they have reversed their position of valuing frendly regimes over humanitarian or democratic ones.
Laerod
09-09-2005, 16:18
Hehe, and some people keep coming up with the loony idea that the British need the Empire back because they can handle Africa so much better than the African dictators. Now I've got good evidence to to show them that they aren't. :D
Skyfork
09-09-2005, 16:22
Well not geting paid is a risk of continuing to work without a contract. It's called a business loss and is nicely tax-deductable on the balance sheet.
Not for mercs.


And while your notion that the Coalition needed to intervene to avoid bloodshed might have some merit, I find it decidedly interesting that they chose to do so backing the side of the Company, NOT the government that they are supposedly there to help get on it's feet. Do you think that if instead the troops had marched towards the airport ALONGSIDE the government forces that there would have been bloodshed?
Actually, I'm suprised myself. The U.S. isn't fond of mercs or at least American mercs.


Which is to say that expecting strongarmed tactics from the company is immaterial to my point
Truth. However, I should have also said the responsibility of resolving this matter falls squarely on the Coalition. They knew what kind of people they were dealing with and were I in the same situation as the British mercs, not only would I shut down the airport until paid, but be prepared to demolish it should those Interior Ministry troops be allowed to assault the airport. Don't mistake this as being apologetic for Coalition policy, it just looks to me that the intervention occured to cover their own asses than prevent bloodshed.

that the much-publicized notion of a newly soveriegn Iraq is pure bullshit.
Well, that goes without saying. I really wasn't expecting much.

They have exactly as much sovereignty as the coalition allows.
Truth.
Skyfork
09-09-2005, 16:29
Hehe, and some people keep coming up with the loony idea that the British need the Empire back because they can handle Africa so much better than the African dictators. Now I've got good evidence to to show them that they aren't. :D

The London-based Global Strategies Group has nothing to do with British policy, government or military. As said before, they are essentially mercenairies and thus could consist of many different nationalities.
Laerod
09-09-2005, 16:33
The London-based Global Strategies Group has nothing to do with British policy, government or military. As said before, they are essentially mercenairies.Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the British Empire based on non-governmental groups going out and establishing colonies?
Silliopolous
09-09-2005, 16:38
Not for mercs.

Just curious, but exactly what about a British founded and registered company exempts them from normal actuarial rules of business as you state when you claim that tax writeoffs don't exist for this company?

I mean, I'm not arguing their mindset, but you seem to be stating the notion that regulated rules of business reporting don't apply.

Have you any foundation for that?


Nor do the normal laws of income recovery fail to apply. If there was ever any agreement to allow them to continue to run the airport during the renegotiation then they would have a valid lawsuit to file against the Iraqi government for damages.
Skyfork
09-09-2005, 16:52
Just curious, but exactly what about a British founded and registered company exempts them from normal actuarial rules of business as you state when you claim that tax writeoffs don't exist for this company?

I mean, I'm not arguing their mindset, but you seem to be stating the notion that regulated rules of business reporting don't apply.

Have you any foundation for that?


Nor do the normal laws of income recovery fail to apply. If there was ever any agreement to allow them to continue to run the airport during the renegotiation then they would have a valid lawsuit to file against the Iraqi government for damages.

Their behavior is my indicator. Rest assured that any security/mercenary company is concerned with only two things: profit and reputation. Would there be a logical reason to stay if losses could be recouped by filing it on a tax report? These men do what they do for sheer profit.
Silliopolous
09-09-2005, 16:54
Their behavior is my indicator. Rest assured that any security/mercenary company is concerned with only two things: profit and reputation. Would there be a logical reason to stay if losses could be recouped by filing it on a tax report? These men do what they do for sheer profit.


And that makes them different from virtually any other other company how exactly?
Tactical Grace
09-09-2005, 17:18
Interior Ministry troops are well-armed in comparison to the regulars. I have no idea of the capabilities of the British mercs though.
Usually former paratroopers and commandos, so I doubt anything but an artillery-backed attack could shift them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the British Empire based on non-governmental groups going out and establishing colonies?
What? Establishment figures from the UK and Commonwealth having an interest in private military companies? *slaps face* Noooo! :D
Skyfork
09-09-2005, 17:20
And that makes them different from virtually any other other company how exactly?
Difficult for me to say right now. Trying to see if Global Strategies Group is defined as a plain-Jane sercurity firm or a private military army. If the former, apologies in advance for being stubborn.
Laerod
09-09-2005, 17:23
What? Establishment figures from the UK and Commonwealth having an interest in private military companies? *slaps face* Noooo! :DI'm not sure what you're trying to say with this or whether it really addresses the point I made...
Silliopolous
09-09-2005, 17:28
Usually former paratroopers and commandos, so I doubt anything but an artillery-backed attack could shift them.


I gather that the group deployed to perform security at the Airport are almost entirely Nepalese ex-Ghurkas.


In other words, tough little bastards.
Skyfork
09-09-2005, 17:41
I cannot prove that the afformentioned group is a private military army though they have at least 500 combat-ready personel in that airport and another 1,300 dispersed throughout Iraq as force-protectors. Regardless, since I cannot prove they are a private military army I conceed the point.