#is largely defined by 9/11 the invasion of iraq and the 2008 recession so like

[hudbannonarchive]

they just don’t make movies about people being sent 20-30 years into the past anymore

[kavout-blog]

What if corruption cost Kurdish independence?

First of all, let’s focus on the latest events in the region where the Kurds live. In the past couple of years, the Kurdish people have been under the spotlights for fighting against Daesh. They are indeed fierce fighters, have been in a difficult situation with the central governments controlling them (Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria) and had many casualties in the last several wars.  It was even un-hoped for that a Kurdish would have had the audacity to go through a referendum for a potential independency. The people living in the Kurdish region of Iraq pay the price of the “yes” for independency. Besides the reality on the ground and the political game in the Middle-East where no ally would have supported it, there are factors, which Barzani undermined or underestimated. It seems now that it was a “bluff” and the other players disclosed it. Poor governance in the region has lead to chaos after the inaction of the leaders the following days of the referendum. Kurdish leaders have indeed undermined the importance economic and political stability on a negotiation towards independency.

Second, none of the main international organizations such as the UN, the OECD or even the Council of Europe defines the word “corruption”. Instead they establish “the offences for a range of corrupt behaviour”[1]. Nevertheless, there is no consensus on a definition; the most common one points out corrupt activities as “abuse of public or private office for personal gain”[2].

Persistency of corruption in Kurdistan is one of the main concerns for its citizens: 77%. Besides, it remains the highest priority for them. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) report[3] in January 2013, 3.7%[4] of people in Kurdistan who interacted with civil servants paid a bribe[5](against 29% in the rest of Iraq). Moreover, 4.3% of civil servants are exposed to bribery in Kurdistan.

According to The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), although the level of corruption is lower in Kurdistan Region than in Iraq, it remains “high by international standards”[6]. Transparency International[7], an NGO focused on fighting corruption in the world, studied Financial Times’ list of the 10 fastest growing countries in 2013. For each country in that list, the NGO analyzed its level of corruption with its growth rate. Transparency international concluded that growth would have been even higher and more sustainable if the corruption rate was lower. To summarize, corruption is a source of “long-term instability”[8].

Last January when I was in Dohuk (Kurdistan Region of Irak), I heard on the news that approximately 60,000 civil servants living Kurdish areas did not get their salary. What is astonishing is not the fact that a government (Bagdad) is not paying its employees – it is a routine in Iraq- but the fact that they were all working for the Iraqi Railways. You did not know that there was a rail network, well no Iraqi citizens did.

Besides, corruption also has a sociological impact. The loss of hope on future for new generations will also have a negative impact on entrepreneurship, innovations, etc. The UNODC goes even further by declaring that not only “corruption undermines democratic institutions” but also “slows economic development and contributes to governmental instability”[9]. As a result, “foreign investment is discouraged and small businesses within the country often find it impossible to overcome the “start-up costs” required”.

We can use France as an example, although it is a recognized democracy. In 2013 October, the 19th, Mediapart[10], a French online newspaper, held a conference titled “Corruption, it is enough!” since it is a major concern[11] for French citizens[12]. As a matter of fact, Nicolas Sarkozy, the former President, is allegedly involved in several different judicial cases[13] of financial fraud.

That conference was the first of its kind and gathered many distinguished guests: magistrates, lawyers, economists, sociologists, policemen, etc. The main reason that corruption exists in countries like France as well as Kurdistan Region is that judicial institutions are not provided with adequate tools to fight it. To do so, first, judicial power has to be independent[14], which is not the case in Kurdistan since political parties control it. Pierre Lascoumes[15], a sociologist, noticed that ignorance and indifference for corrupted behaviour are very present among politicians and businessmen. Therefore, he listed two solutions. He blamed business school for not teaching and training their students to ethical behaviour in business. The government should pressure them to teach business ethics in their program. Political parties also have a major responsibility, according to Pierre. They should have a greater selection for their candidates and train them.

You’ll ask me then: what is the link between corruption and independence then?

To be able to reach a political independence you need a strong or rather stable and sustainable economic development. The Catalans have understood it quite well. The governance needs to be good enough as well.

Before 2014, the growth rate was high and the purchasing power was increasing. In the EIU report in May 2014, the KRG’s score on “the Business Environment Index is 5.10/10, which is equivalent to a rank of 57th out of 83 countries”[16].This rank is quite respectable since it is “just ahead of Indonesia”. However, the weakest areas of Kurdistan region are located in “labour market, infrastructure, and financing conditions”. “Financing is Kurdistan’s weakest area since it is ranked 78th even behind Iraq (66th). Banks are reluctant to lend to businesses”[17]..

The main problem though is that according to the same report, “the level of corruption is still high by international standards and perceptions of corruption were one of the catalysts for protests in the KRG in 2011. » Furthermore, « even if the true level of nepotism is lower than it is perceived to be, this is an issue that the KRG needs to address through increased transparency in areas like the contracting process, in order to minimise perceptions of bias that might discourage new firms from investing. »

These two weaknesses combined were already back in 2013 prior to Daesh’s attacks a concerned for western countries, the main supporters of the Kurdish military forces in the war. The West has been criticised repeatedly for interfering in the Middle-East (Iraq invasion in 2003) or the support of former dictators such as Moubarak for example for national interests. It was obvious that none of the western political leaders would have supported a Kurdish independency but they would not have rejected contrary to what happened. The poor economic and political governance (even if Bagdad gives the Kurdish region its rightful share of the budget) reveals the incapacity of the Kurdish people to rule itself. They are deeply divided in the region, even the military forces are party controlled ones.

The region has also a $17bn[18] in debt for a near 5.5 million in a territory approximately as big as Swtizerland. The debt has increased since 2014 because of the drop of oil price. The unemployment rate is at 14% in 2016, according to the Ministry of Planning in 2016. As for the public sector, « the exact number of people working for the public sector is unclear, but it is estimated by some observers to be as high as 1.2m[19]».

It is obvious that remaining in Iraq will not help Erbil to eradicate corruption but the risks were too many (the total control of Iran in Iraq) for the West, and the compensations not enough to allow it to happened. The Kurds were too dependent on their western allies and did not realize it. Eventually, the costs of the referendum are quite terrible to pay for the population: the loss of trust of any current political leader, the increasing discontent of the weak governance, the economic and political isolation they are in, the endemic corruption despite the economic recession, the nepotism…

   [1] “Corruption:  A Glossary of International Standards in Criminal Law “, OECD, 2008, p 22

[2] “Corruption:  A Glossary of International Standards in Criminal Law “, OECD, 2008, p 22

[3]“Corruption and Integrity in the public sectors in Iraq”, UNODC, January 2013, p10

[4] “The data used in this study are derived from three different sources:

1. ICS Survey 2011: the sample survey on Working Conditions, Job Satisfaction and Integrity of Civil Servants of Iraq (ICS Survey) was implemented by the Central Statistical Office (CSO) of Iraq and the Kurdistan Region Statistical Office (KRSO), with the assistance of UNODC and UNDP, during July-August 2011.7 This survey covered 33 ministries/institutions in the Federal Government (FG) and 22 ministries/institutions in the Kurdistan Region Government (KRG).8 In total, more than 31,000 civil servants took part in the survey: a large sample distributed over the entire country and representative of 1,867,000 public servants in 55 institutions (see Methodological Annex for technical details). This survey provides information on working conditions, recruitment practices, motivation, job satisfaction, management schemes, experience of bribery, reporting of corruption and related perceptions.

2. IKN Survey 2011: the Iraq Knowledge Network Survey (IKN) was conducted in 2011 by the Central Statistical Office (CSO) of Iraq and the Kurdistan Region Statistical Office (KRSO), with the assistance of United Nations agencies. 9 The survey covered all Governorates of Iraq and a random sample of roughly 29,000 households was interviewed. This survey included a module on governance, which also collected data on prevalence and forms of bribery faced by the population, reporting practices and perceptions about corruption (see Methodological Annex for technical details).

3. CoI Administrative Dataset on Corruption: administrative data on the criminal justice process relating to corruption cases over the period 2006-2011 were provided by the leading anti-corruption body in Iraq, the Commission of Integrity (CoI). The data provide a comprehensive statistical picture of the criminal justice response to corruption, from the number and type of corruption cases initially reported to authorities and those passing to the investigation phase to the number and type of judicial sentences. These data are analyzed to gain insights on the progress made in the fight against corruption as well as on challenges remaining and areas for improvement.” “Corruption and Integrity in the public sectors in Iraq”, UNODC, January 2013, p14

[5] “Bribery is defined in article 15 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption as (a) the promise, offering or giving to a public official, directly or indirectly, of an undue advantage, for the official himself or herself or another person or entity, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her official duties and (b) as the solicitation or acceptance by a public official, directly or indirectly of an undue advantage, for the official himself or herself or another person or entity, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her official duties”. “Corruption and Integrity in the public sectors in Iraq”, UNODC, January 2013, p18

[6] “Benchmarking the Kurdistan Region”, EIU, May 2014, p29

[7] It is an NGO created in 1993 based in New York: http://www.transparency.org/whoweare/organisation

[8]http://blog.transparency.org/2013/07/09/bribery-blocks-the-potential-of-emerging-economies/

[9]http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/index.html?ref=menuside

[10]Mediapart was created in 2008 funded by only its readers to keep its independence.  http://world.time.com/2013/04/05/mediapart-meet-the-upstart-journalists-shaking-up-french-politics/

[11] “Corruption represents 80 billion euros per year of loss for France”, “Corruption” Antoine Peillon, 2014.

[12]  66% of the French think that corruption has increased from 2007-2010.  http://www.transparency.org/country#FRA_PublicOpinion

[13]http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2014/03/19/six-affaires-qui-menacent-nicolas-sarkozy_4385871_4355770.html

[14]The Montesquieu doctrine of the separation of power in between Executive, Legislative and Judiciary

[15] “Sociologie des Elites délinquantes”,2014, Pierre Lascoumes.  

[16] “Benchmarking the Kurdistan Region”, EIU, May 2014, p31

[17] “Benchmarking the Kurdistan Region”, EIU, May 2014, p42

[18] https://www.ft.com/content/0d592a0a-a388-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2

[19] “Benchmarking the Kurdistan Region”, EIU, May 2014, p45

[reformedorthodox]

It’s been a few years and I still have problems with capitalism

My deployment to Iraq defines a large portion of my life. I was a medic attached to a National Guard infantry unit, and despite having a relatively "easy" deployment, I came back with PTSD and depression. An example of the hard transition: I went to Disneyland two weeks after I came back from Iraq. While in a place of enchantment, my cheeks ached. I had been so stern for so long that my smiling muscles were underused. (This also shows how great Disneyland is) That's a light-hearted example. In reality, I silently suffered suicidal thoughts for years, and I dropped out of university multiple times, which lead me to question my service. I sacrificed my body and mind for America, but I kept wondering, "Why?" Ultimately, based on research, the atrocity of the Iraq war is at capitalism's feet. Yes, that economic system that we often credit for giving us democracy, freedom, and a decent paycheck. To understand how we can blame capitalism, let's start from the beginning. To begin the inquiry, it's helpful to look at the five major promises of the war. 1. Iraq held weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) - nuclear, biological and chemical weapons that could attack America - and it was necessaryto make America safe from it 2. Iraq was in cahoots with Al-Qaeda 3. Iraq was involved with 9/11 4. American forces would be welcomed with open arms to embrace western-style democracy 5. The war would be quick and easy As it turned out, none of these promises held a grain of truth. Iraq did not hold WMDs after Desert Storm; Saddam saw Al-Qaeda as a threat to his hegemony; Saddam didn't communicate with Al-Qaeda to coordinate attacks on 9/11; American forces were not welcome en masse; the war lasted nearly a decade. That's a tough pill to swallow as 4,500 troops died in Iraq, and 50,000 severely injured, with veteran suicides routinely outnumbering the troop casualties every year. This adds urgency to the question of "why?" by adding another item: "why was the American public deceived into fighting the war?" Actually, the American public didn't wholly buy the war justifications. 50% of Americans opposed the Iraq war, holding anti-war rallies for months across every major city before the invasion. Obviously, it was not enough, but they saw something the other half did not. For 50% of Americans, the reason we went to Iraq was for oil. Let's investigate this claim. We will look at testimonials and accounts by journalists and soldiers on the ground, including my own. By the time I graduated from initial military training, the Iraq war was ramping up, and I was eager to get into the fight. Training makes you eager to prove your mettle. So I walked up to my First Sergeant and asked to be on the next unit's deployment to Iraq (again, I was in the National Guard, so asking to deploy was a thing). He glinted with pride in his eyes as a young buck offered himself to go to war. I would too if I were in his position. Word got around my unit, and on two separate occasions, Sergeants walked up to me and said something to the effect of, "Why would you volunteer yourself?" One said, "We get into a major war every thirty years and small ones every ten. You'll get your time." The other said something more meaningful to me, "See this ribbon I have here? This ribbon is for fighting for the war on terrorism. I didn't fight any fucking terrorists. I fought the Iraqi Army. There are no fucking terrorists over there." He implied that the war was based on lies. (There would later be insurgents in Iraq, whom we called terrorists) Now, let's look at the ground-level experience of other soldiers. First Lieutenant Paul Rickeoff lead a platoon of soldiers in the hottest areas of Baghdad. In his book "Chasing Ghosts," he recounted the tales of not having the necessary body armor, no humanitarian aid, and no real plan to bring Iraq to its feet. There were death and destruction, and he didn't have the help he needed to help the Iraqi people. In Chris Hedge's and Laila Al-Arrian's book "Collateral Damage," Americans enacted a sort of terrorism to keep civilians in line by routinely conducting home raids, convoys, patrols, detentions, and military checkpoints. Untrained to fight an insurgency, American troops killed indiscriminately both insurgents and civilians. In "War Without End" by Michael Schwartz, he called these acts of terrorism as collective punishment. Of course, there are the deaths involved with insurgents – insurgents who never have fought if we did not invade. The collective punishment, indiscriminate killed, and search and destroy of insurgents killed between 150,000 to 600,000 Iraqis. It also internally displace 2 million Iraqis. A state that had never seen Al-Qaeda now had operatives running from village to village, all the while American troops blindly and haphazardly tried to keep the peace. Journalist Thomas E. Ricks offers a broader perspective on the debacle. Ricks recorded conversations with General Petraeus during the war, a principal coordinator in fighting the insurgency, and wrote his bird's eye view of the Iraq war in the book "Fiasco." In it, we begin to piece together these different random violent experiences of Soldiers and Marines into a larger narrative. Ricks asserts a bold claim: The widespread chaos of individual servicemembers is because America did not have a game plan. Why wouldn't America have a game plan in Iraq? What was its real intention? Ricks continues in his book that during the initial invasion, American troops stood idly by as the bureaucracies and government offices were ransacked (it should be noted that after WWII, America worked in tandem with the defeated police and military to restore order). Instead of protecting the public good, military leaders directed troops to protect oil refineries. During the invasion, American bombers were directed to not hit oil refineries. Then, shortly after the invasion, American contractors were immediately sent to the refineries, and modified the refineries to American proprietary technology, making Iraq dependent on American expertise. Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq war, made plans to increase Iraqi oil production from 2.5 million barrels a day to 3.5 million barrels. This focus on protecting oil refineries had dire consequences – millions of Iraqis suffered from a lack of clean water, power, and food because American troops protected oil rather than the livelihood of Iraqis. Thus, it's evident that the Iraq war suffered a lack of coordination for a lot of troops but was very well-coordinated to protect oil interests. I recall hearing Sarah Palin, in the 2008 election, justify the Iraq war by saying, "at least we got oil out of it." (we never did, actually) So what does oil have to do with blaming the Iraq war on capitalism? We've looked at individual experiences and a broad stroke of American actions in Iraq. Now let's step back even further and look at the structures of the American economy. The American economy runs on cheap energy. It is what allows people to commute to work, to enable factories to build gizmos and to travel and enjoy themselves. Every time the price of oil goes up, it gums the economy as money is not spent on goods and services, but is instead gobbled by oil producers. According to the Research Unit for Political Economy in their book "Behind the Invasion of Iraq," America was primed to invade Iraq even before 9/11. The book predicted that America would go to war in Iraq for a simple reason: America needs cheap energy, and it needed to get out of the grip to OPEC. The logic is simple: The goal in a capitalist economy is to generate profits. That's why capitalists invest - they hope to get a return. So they spend to build factories and other materials, until one day, the supply of the goods they produce outstrips demand. As demand declines, producers slow down their production and fire workers. Over investment and underwhelming demand inevitably trigger recessions. There is no right solution to fix the inevitable recession. Still, one way to alleviate a pending recession is to issue a credit to Americans. Americans hold the lion's share of the world's debt. But in order to make sure American keeps spending, debt cannot be piled up into gas for cars or expensive energy for homes. In addition, capitalist economies can help ward off pending economic collapse by using its military: 1. The military secures supplies to oil, furthering access to cheap energy 2. Invading Iraq makes sure oil is always tied to the dollar, which props up the economy 3. Controlling the oil makes sure other economies bend to America's will So there you have it. This is the argument why we went to war in Iraq: to get oil. And why is oil so essential? Because the capitalist economy needs cheap energy, and the dollar needs to remain stable. American adventurism into Iraq harkens to many other colonial projects, like that into the Philippines (so America could have access to Chinese markets), into Central and South America (for cheap labor and resources) and Vietnam (to maintain French colonialism). It also rings true to British, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and French colonialism across the globe: To exploit the local resources for profit at home. In the end, the American adventure in Iraq is just another colonial expedition. It functioned with the exact same reasons as European powers at the beginning of the 20th century and often operated with similar brutality. It comes at the price of hundreds of thousands of dead human beings and thousands of injured service members. One can imagine a simple counter-argument: We needed to invade Iraq to maintain American dominance in the world. A conservative friend of mine, a sniper in the Marine Corps, retorted to me, "I don't mind America being #2 behind China if it means we're not invading other countries." I agree: Invading and killing other people in unseen parts of the world is not worth maintaining American hegemony. We can imagine better than the cyclical nature of capitalist invasion; this is why I'm opposed to it.