Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Oversight with undersight goals

Oct.24, 2007

Oversight with undersight goals


THE announcement that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has ordered tougher oversight of private guards in Iraq, including tighter rules on the use of force, is part of a process leading to allowing US security contractor Blackwater and other foreign security firms to remain there and continue their lucrative contracts there.
The Iraqi government's decision on Tuesday to lift the immunity offered to foreign security contractors could not be retroactive, and hence Blackwater could not be taken to task for killings of Iraqi civilians last month in Baghdad and earlier incidents elsewhere. The best "compromise" could involve Blackwater removing its guards involved in the Baghdad shooting.
State Department officials are offering a detailed explanation of the measures ordered by Rice that include improved training and clearer rules of engagement, better co-ordination with the US military as well as cultural sensitivity training for guards and more Arabic speakers. More such measures are in the pipeline, they say.
These are definitely designed to appease the Iraqis in the build-up to the expected decision that the Iraqi government is dropping its insistence that Blackwater USA pack up and leave the country.
The whole exercise was prompted by the Iraqi finding that Blackwater guards were not provoked into opening fire and killing at least 17 innocent Iraqis in the heart of Baghdad on Sept.16 and the Iraqi government's insistence early this month that the US company should leave the country in six months.
The Iraqi government had no option but to take such a tough stand because of the heat of pressure from the Iraqi people amid serious differences with the US administration.
All indications are that there is more to it than meets the eye in the "business" relationship between the US government and Blackwater USA.
The facts are clear: Blackwater is currently the largest of the US State Department's three private security contractors, providing a total of about 1,000 security guards. At least 90 per cent of Blackwater's revenue comes from government contracts, two-thirds of which are no-bid contracts.
Since June 2004, Blackwater has been paid more than $320 million out of a $1 billion, five-year State Department budget for the Worldwide Personal Protective Service, which protects US officials and some foreign officials in conflict zones.
There is a possibly sinister aspect of the US administration's links with Blackwater. US Senator John Kerry has asked the administration to explain whether it played any role it played in the possible evasion of nearly $32 million in taxes by Blackwater USA.
Kerry accuses the administration of trying to protect the company.
The government "cannot hide Blackwater in the shadows anymore -- it's time to bring all of their dealings to light," he said.
The charge of "significant tax evasion" was first raised by another Democratic member of congress, Henry Waxman. The only defence Blackwater put up was an assertion that Waxman was incorrect in contending that Blackwater personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be treated as independent contractors but rather as employees for tax purposes.
It would seem, pending an explanation from the concerned authorities, that the administration went along and helped determine that for tax purposes Blackwater security contractors are not employees.
With the government having that kind of a relationship with a company which has a $1 billion "security contract" ÑÊeach Blackwater guard in Iraq costs the US taxpayers $450,000 a year ÑÊit is no wonder that Washington is pulling all the plugs in order to ensure that the company stays on in Iraq. The net result: The Iraqis could shout and scream against foreign security contractors having the run of their land and shooting and killing them at will, but little is going to change on the ground except meaningless investigations and inquiries and new "ground rules" that effectively mean maintaining the status quo.
After all, the US did not invade and occupy Iraq to allow itself to be pushed around by the people of Iraq.