Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 14. Mars 2006 / Time Line March 14, 2006
Version 3.503/14/2006
UK COMPANIES IN IRAQ
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk//?bid=183
This report analyses the role of UK corporations in post-Saddam
Iraq. To date, we have uncovered evidence for about £1.1bn
worth of contracts, from the US and UK reconstruction budget, and
from the Iraqi ministries.
This UK figure is certain to be an understatement, as the value of
several large contracts is not known. These include the printing of
the new Iraqi Dinar by De La Rue and Datasat's 'major telecomms
contract', plus the money that successful security forms such as
Hart, AK Group and Olive have made. It is also hard to gauge the
revenue and influence that the banks HSBC and Standard Chartered
have gained through their operations in Iraq.
The real UK total is certain to be far behind the US corporate Iraq
profits; the latest Haliburton/KBR military contract alone is worth
about £2.85bn.[1]
However, UK corporations are playing a key role in two sectors:
consulting (especially privatisation support) and private security,
including private military companies. See the sections
'Consultants: creating a new Iraq' and 'Bodies of armed men' for
more on these areas. The UK government, and British-based trade
associations, have also played a key role in facilitating corporate
access to Iraq's markets, services and resources; see section 'Iraq
wasn't sold in a day.'
BREAK DOWN OF SOURCES OF INCOME
USAID £556,743,161
Pentagon £332,540,000
Iraq £165,650,340
DfID/FCO £78,532,490
Unknown £28,800,000
BREAKDOWN OF INVOLVEMENT, BY SECTOR
Power/water £501,237,311
Private security £382,971,284
Petroleum £76,339,726
Financial £62,161,871
Construction £24,815,441
Consultants £13,867,795
Telecomms £10,000,000
Education £9,470,451
Procurement £7,992,112
Services £7,500,000
Software £4,500,000
Materials £20,000
References
[1] 'Hallliburton Wins New $4.9Billion Iraq Contract', 06/06/05,
Corporate Watch (US), www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12487
03/14/2006
PSEUDO-SECRETS: A Freedom of Information Audit of the U.S.
Government's Policies on Sensitive Unclassified Information
Washington D.C., March 14, 2006 - The first-ever government-wide
audit of the ways that federal agencies mark and protect
information that is unclassified but sensitive for security reasons
has found 28 different and uncoordinated policies, none of which
include effective oversight or monitoring of how many records are
marked and withheld, by whom, or for how long.
The audit began in February 2005 with Freedom of Information
requests from the National Security Archive at George Washington
University, to more than 40 agencies, for copies of their policies
and guidelines on "sensitive unclassified information." The Archive
released its Audit today at a Congressional hearing held by the
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats (chaired by Rep. Christopher
Shays, R-CT.), U. S. House of Representatives Committee on
Government Reform.
Titled "Pseudo-Secrets: A Freedom of Information Audit of the U.S.
Government's Policies on Sensitive Unclassified Information," the
audit found:
- No agency monitors or reports on the use or impact of sensitive unclassified information policies.
- Only 8 agencies have policies that are authorized by statute and implemented by regulation.
- No challenge or appeals mechanism for questioning the markings exists in any of the policies.
- Only one policy contains a "sunset" provision for the sensitive unclassified markings - at the Agriculture Department - but the maximum duration of 10 years is the same as for Top Secret information in the classification system.
- 8 agencies effectively allow any employee to slap protective markings on records, including the largest single department other than Defense, Homeland Security (more than 180,000 employees).
- Only 7 policies include cautions or qualifiers against using the markings to conceal embarrassing, illegal or inefficient agency actions (in the classified system, this is an explicit prohibition).
- 11 agencies report no policy on sensitive unclassified information (these agencies may use "official use only" and similar markings, but not - apparently
- to protect information that is sensitive because of its
security implications, which was the focus of the Archive's
Audit).
Archive director Thomas Blanton testified to the Subcommittee today
that "We believe the diversity of policies, the ambiguous and
incomplete guidelines, the lack of monitoring, and the
decentralized administration of information controls on sensitive
unclassified information - all of which is evident in our Audit
results - means that neither the Congress nor the public can really
tell whether these sensitive unclassified information policies are
actually working to safeguard our security, or are being abused for
administrative convenience or coverup."
03/14/2006
International Comments regarding the South African Prohibition
of Mercenary Activity Bill, 2005
http://www.ipoaonline.org/news/legislative/display.cfm?ID=294
Amnesty International - Submission on the Prohibition of Mercenary
Activity and Regulation of Certain Activities in an Area of Armed
Conflict Bill, 1 November 2005
British Association of Private Security Companies (BAPSC) -
Submission on the Prohibition of Mercenary Activity and Regulation
of Certain Activities in an Area of Armed Conflict Bill, 31 October
2005
Helmoed Roemer Heitman - Submission on the Prohibition of Mercenary
Activity and Regulation of Certain Activities in an Area of Armed
Conflict Bill, 31 October 2005
International Peace Operations Association (IPOA) - Submission on
the Prohibition of Mercenary Activity and Regulation of Certain
Activities in an Area of Armed Conflict Bill, 28 October 2005
Institute for Security Studies (ISS) - Submission on the
Prohibition of Mercenary Activity and Regulation of Certain
Activities in an Area of Armed Conflict Bill, 31 October 2005
Laurie Nathan (London School of Economics) - Submission on the
Prohibition of Mercenary Activity and Regulation of Certain
Activities in an Area of Armed Conflict Bill, 25 October 2005
Michael Hough (University of Pretoria) - Submission on the
Prohibition of Mercenary Activity and Regulation of Certain
Activities in an Area of Armed Conflict Bill, 18 October 2005
Private Security Company Association of Iraq (PSCAI) - Submission
on the Prohibition of Mercenary Activity and Regulation of Certain
Activities in an Area of Armed Conflict Bill, 22 October 2005
Raenette Taljaard (University of the Witwatersrand) - Submission on
the Prohibition of Mercenary Activity and Regulation of Certain
Activities in an Area of Armed Conflict Bill, 1 November 2005
South African National Halaal Authority - Submission on the
Prohibition of Mercenary Activity and Regulation of Certain
Activities in an Area of Armed Conflict Bill, 24 October 2005
South African Special Forces League - Submission on the Prohibition
of Mercenary Activity and Regulation of Certain Activities in an
Area of Armed Conflict Bill, 31 October 2005
SAFAIR - Submission on the Prohibition of Mercenary Activity and
Regulation of Certain Activities in an Area of Armed Conflict Bill,
4 November 2005
Safenet Group - Submission on the Prohibition of Mercenary Activity
and Regulation of Certain Activities in an Area of Armed Conflict
Bill, 28 October 2005
Richard Smith - Submission on the Prohibition of Mercenary Activity
and Regulation of Certain Activities in an Area of Armed Conflict
Bill, 1 November 2005
Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference - Submission on the
Prohibition of Mercenary Activity and Regulation of Certain
Activities in an Area of Armed Conflict Bill, 31 October 2005
USAID Contractors - Submission on the Prohibition of Mercenary
Activity and Regulation of Certain Activities in an Area of Armed
Conflict Bill, 31 October 2005
The Ceasefire Campaign - Submission on the Prohibition of Mercenary
Activity and Regulation of Certain Activities in an Area of Armed
Conflict Bill, 2 November 2005
Safer Africa - Submission on the Prohibition of Mercenary Activity
and Regulation of Certain Activities in an Area of Armed Conflict
Bill, 24 October 2005
03/14/2006
CONTRACTS from the United States Department of Defense
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL),
Laurel, Md., is being awarded a $2,177,071,290 modification to
previously awarded contract (N00024-03-D-6606) to exercise an
option for approximately 11,303,610 staff hours of research and
development and specialized engineering support. The Johns Hopkins
University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL), as a Navy
University Affiliated Research Center (UARC), will provide research
and development, test and evaluation and specialized engineering
capabilities. These capabilities have been established and
maintained at the Applied Physics Laboratory since the 1940's, and
have continued to be determined essential to the Navy's needs. Work
will be performed in Laurel, Md., and is expected to be completed
by September 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the
current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington,
D.C., is the contracting activity.
 |
 |