Virtuous pursuits are to remain the exclusive province of the State. At least that's what modern day Marxists would have you believe. The neo-socialist movement understands it is vitally important that the State be seen to be the only provider of services that directly benefit the common good, especially when those services can be delivered in a humanitarian way. As they see it, this principle of sole State involvement in humanitarian processes applies everywhere on the planet - including on the ground in Iraq. The horrifying idea that, on the odd occasion, it may be possible to subcontract some of these endeavours to - Oh my God, I can barely say the word - corporations; is almost too much to bear.

Right now, the most fashionable targets of the highly fashion-conscious neo-socialists are the American companies Halliburton and Bechtel. These companies have only themselves to blame for being significantly involved in the wide-ranging humanitarian reconstruction process that is going on within Iraq. What a completely unsatisfactory state of affairs. Not only are these entities corporate in nature - although admittedly riddled with humans doing the actual work - they also have the sheer nerve and audacity to supply needed humanitarian services to the Iraqi people. Halliburton is assisting the Iraqi people with getting their oil industry back up and running. Bechtel is assisting the Iraqi people with securing their water and power supplies. When will common sense prevail? Why won't the State take over all such activity?

On October 30, 2003, the left-leaning, Washington-based, sectional interest group, the Centre for Public Integrity - amplified a day later by some increasingly effective BBC rocket-boosters - described 'a stench of political favouritism and cronyism' in the awarding of Iraqi reconstruction contracts. One question remained unanswered by this group. Why would career public servants working in the American procurement system, where the contracts for the Iraqi reconstruction effort are awarded, put their own careers on the line to financially assist companies such as Halliburton and Bechtel? Were these same public servants receiving benefits for their role in awarding contracts? The Centre for Public Integrity didn't provide any answers.

While the Centre for Pubic Integrity made over 40 Freedom of Information requests when conducting their research, they appeared not to seek any documents related to the transparency, or otherwise, of the procurement process itself. Luckily, they could explain this apparent anomaly. As they put it 'our report was focused on the recipients of the contracts, not on the procurement process.' That makes perfect sense. Presumably if you have serious concerns regarding the recipients of the contracts, that has nothing to do with the method used by the relevant federal agencies to award those contracts. The two are mutually exclusive - just like the number of guns owned in America and the number of people killed in America by guns.

Later, on December 13, 2003, the BBC presented a story about a potential 61 million dollar overcharge by a Halliburton subsidiary. The BBC explained that 'the controversy comes at a difficult time for the Bush administration, which is under fire for limiting bids on a new round of Iraq contracts to countries which supported the US-led war there.' However, the BBC didn't provide any material evidence that linked the existence of this new controversy to the Bush administration, as opposed to Halliburton - where it belongs.

The BBC's own category of related stories is headed up "Companies and controversies". Clearly, that was an error. The category of related stories should have read "Bush administration and controversies". The broadcaster did present Bush's reaction to the possible pricing irregularity: "if there is an overcharge, like we think there is, we expect that money to be repaid." That sounds like more difficulty for George W. Bush. On January 15, 2004, the BBC referred again to the possible overcharge story and commented, 'the row has embarrassed the White House as Vice President Dick Cheney was formerly Halliburton's chief executive.' Obviously, Dick Cheney must have told the BBC how personally filled with shame he feels about the current row - why else would they report it?






These views are solely the opinions of the writer, regardless of how close to the truth they may be.

© Copyright John Cavanagh 2004

Article posted to this site on the 5 February 2004 by John Cavanagh.

All requests concerning permission to reprint - please contact Liz Foley at lizfoleyau@yahoo.com