Fighting for profit in the toughest market
This week we go to the Forbes business media outfit, for a short article that gave much cause for wonder. Entitled "Poland boosts efforts to win contracts in Iraq", it reported a news conference at which Deputy Foreign Minister Sergiusz Najar announced that a high-level mission will be going to Iraq to reinforce Poland's bid for reconstruction contracts. This mission will include representatives from five ministries and some 400 Polish companies.
But what will they find when they get there?
Iraq is a country in chaos, and it is Bush's re-election that focuses and dominates what goes on there. Desperate to show the U.S. electorate that the situation is under control, Washington must make two things happen: the toll of U.S. dead and injured has to fall, and the process of handing over power to Iraqis has to begin.
The first can be achieved by training and by putting more Iraqi security on the streets which, if they get blown up, won't lead to any awkward headlines at home. The second is more difficult. Iraq is essentially made up of a Shia majority and a Sunni minority, and, ever since the British left in 1920, it has been the Sunni minority that has dominated the Shias. Now, finally, the Shias see a chance to redress this imbalance, but it is Washington that stands in the way by claiming that there is no time for direct elections. Instead, "notables" from each province will attend caucuses to select a government. In effect this means that the Americans, not the Iraqi people, will actually decide who has the power, which means the Shias smell a rat. Their leader claims that direct elections could easily be held by using the oil-for-food ration-card lists, which covered the entire population.
There is some justification for this. Washington is terrified that during free elections, ironically, the "wrong" people could get voted in. Both Shia and Sunni have extreme fundamentalists that could wreck Bush's cash-for-old-pals reconstruction plans given half a chance, and there even remain Baathists popular in some regions.
The Shias have made it clear they will oppose any government appointed by the USA (including its right to "invite" American forces to stay), and the protests have already started. Meanwhile, the cycle of violence continues; there have been more U.S. casualties since Saddam's capture than in the same period before it. A smooth transition of power in Iraq looks evermore chimerical, and the prospect of civil war evermore likely.
Into this melée the Polish mission will fly to pitch for reconstruction contracts. Figures for rebuilding are said to be in the billions of dollars, seemingly without any acknowledgement of the gulf between signing a contract, successfully completed work and money in the bank.
And this isn't the only gamble. Should eventual direct elections in Iraq (once Bush has been re-elected, obviously) overturn U.S. appointees and the contracts be broken, Polish companies would have almost no chance of compensation.
But it's not all bad news. The Forbes article also reported that the Polish government will offer financial guarantees to arms-trader Bumar if it wins a zł.22 billion ($565 million) tender to supply military equipment. So, if the situation does go down the pan, the Polish taxpayer will be on hand to pick up the tab, and then witness the unnerving spectacle of Iraqis killing each other with weapons financed by Polish taxpayers.
All of which leads to the biggest wonderment of all: Are there not, just possibly, markets in the world that could offer a more secure return, and to which all these hundreds of representatives might be better sent?
But what will they find when they get there?
Iraq is a country in chaos, and it is Bush's re-election that focuses and dominates what goes on there. Desperate to show the U.S. electorate that the situation is under control, Washington must make two things happen: the toll of U.S. dead and injured has to fall, and the process of handing over power to Iraqis has to begin.
The first can be achieved by training and by putting more Iraqi security on the streets which, if they get blown up, won't lead to any awkward headlines at home. The second is more difficult. Iraq is essentially made up of a Shia majority and a Sunni minority, and, ever since the British left in 1920, it has been the Sunni minority that has dominated the Shias. Now, finally, the Shias see a chance to redress this imbalance, but it is Washington that stands in the way by claiming that there is no time for direct elections. Instead, "notables" from each province will attend caucuses to select a government. In effect this means that the Americans, not the Iraqi people, will actually decide who has the power, which means the Shias smell a rat. Their leader claims that direct elections could easily be held by using the oil-for-food ration-card lists, which covered the entire population.
There is some justification for this. Washington is terrified that during free elections, ironically, the "wrong" people could get voted in. Both Shia and Sunni have extreme fundamentalists that could wreck Bush's cash-for-old-pals reconstruction plans given half a chance, and there even remain Baathists popular in some regions.
The Shias have made it clear they will oppose any government appointed by the USA (including its right to "invite" American forces to stay), and the protests have already started. Meanwhile, the cycle of violence continues; there have been more U.S. casualties since Saddam's capture than in the same period before it. A smooth transition of power in Iraq looks evermore chimerical, and the prospect of civil war evermore likely.
Into this melée the Polish mission will fly to pitch for reconstruction contracts. Figures for rebuilding are said to be in the billions of dollars, seemingly without any acknowledgement of the gulf between signing a contract, successfully completed work and money in the bank.
And this isn't the only gamble. Should eventual direct elections in Iraq (once Bush has been re-elected, obviously) overturn U.S. appointees and the contracts be broken, Polish companies would have almost no chance of compensation.
But it's not all bad news. The Forbes article also reported that the Polish government will offer financial guarantees to arms-trader Bumar if it wins a zł.22 billion ($565 million) tender to supply military equipment. So, if the situation does go down the pan, the Polish taxpayer will be on hand to pick up the tab, and then witness the unnerving spectacle of Iraqis killing each other with weapons financed by Polish taxpayers.
All of which leads to the biggest wonderment of all: Are there not, just possibly, markets in the world that could offer a more secure return, and to which all these hundreds of representatives might be better sent?
