| |
The lucrative business of rebuilding
Iraq
By Ehsan Ahrari
The Arab
Middle East, where mushrooming of conspiracy theories is
a frequent phenomenon, is convinced about one more such
theory. It states that the US invasion of Iraq is really
about controlling the vast oil reserves of that country,
about using its ensuing occupation of Iraq to redraw the
strategic map of the entire region for only its own
dominance, and to use its dominance of the region to
extract the acceptance of Israeli dominance by all Arab
states. But when one examines various "plans" that are
bandied about to rebuild Iraq in Washington these days,
it is, indeed, difficult to dismiss the recent theory as
merely a figment of someone's fertile imagination.
There is one plan that the US Agency for
International Development (USAID) issued, "The Vision of
Post Conflict Iraq". This plan was sent to a number of
US companies. Somehow, the Wall Street Journal got hold
of it and promptly leaked it. Soon thereafter, the
London Times and Middle East Economic Digest (MEED, also
London-based) published the contents of that plan.
According to the USAID plan, US$900 million in US
government contracts will be offered to US companies for
the initial rebuilding of infrastructures in Iraq that
will be shattered by US bombs and missiles.
Needless to say, the "scramble for Iraq" is on.
The London Times dispatch of March 6, after examining
various other US documents on reconstruction of Iraq,
writes, "The documents ... will lend weight to the
suspicions that America has been planning a war
regardless of international opinion ... Most of the
construction contracts which are being awarded by a
variety of American government agencies," it continues,
"look set to be handed to large American companies, much
to the anger of their British counterparts."
But
the explanation on the US side is that these contracts
are limited to US corporations because the USAID
"invoked a clause in government procurement procedures
allowing it to bypass the normal competitive bidding
process on the grounds of 'urgent circumstances'". An
additional explanation is that a prerequisite for
winning the contracts is the ability to get Pentagon's
security clearance. Five US companies are invited to
submit bidding. They are Kellogg Brown & Root,
Parsons Engineering, Louis Berger, Bechtel Corp, and
Flour Daniel. These firms will be in charge of carrying
out eight "separate prime contracts: port
administration, airport administration, capital
construction, theater logistics support, public health,
education, personnel support, and local government".
It is interesting to note that Kellogg Brown
& Root is a subsidiary of Halliburton. Vice
President Dick Cheney was the chief executive officer of
that company from 1995-2000, when he joined the
Bush-Cheney ticket in the presidential elections.
Bechtel Corp has equally impressive government
connections. George Schultz and Caspar Weinberger - who
were secretaries of state and defense, respectively,
during president Ronald Reagan's administration - were
top executives of that corporation. Halliburton is also
reaping the bonanza from its past association with
Cheney by getting a number of construction projects in
Afghanistan.
But an even clearer picture of the
United States' reconstruction plans and the related
financial bonanza emerges when one examines the
activities of the Office of Reconstruction and
Humanitarian Assistance, created at the end of January,
under the leadership of a retired US Army general, Jay
Garner. Its original intent was to rebuild Iraq by using
existing bureaucracy. After the occupation of Iraq is
complete, an interim Iraqi administration will be
created. An Iraqi expatriate based either in Washington
or London - derisively described in Washington as part
of the "Gucci guerrilla corps" - is expected to be named
as head of that administration.
Disaster
Assistance Response Teams (DARTs) will enter the
post-Saddam Iraq. The Office of Reconstruction and
Humanitarian Assistance will start its actual work to
rebuild Iraq. General Tommy Franks, commander in chief
of the United States Central Command, is expected to be
the top US authority in Iraq, a la General Douglas
MacArthur in post-World War II Japan. However, at least
according to present plans, Franks' main focus will be
on enhancing the internal security of Iraq, not on
becoming its viceroy. Garner will be in charge of civil
administration. At least the roles of Garner and his
office role appear quite firm, given the fact that he
has been preoccupied for quite awhile in developing his
plans for the governance of Iraq, and has a staff of
about 200 former military officers and diplomats to
administer that country.
But who will pay for
the awesome task of governing Iraq during its occupation
by US forces? There are several highly controversial
aspects of this issue. First, the administration of
President George W Bush has not yet requested funds from
Congress for the war's aftermath.
Second, the
bipartisan, New York-based Council on Foreign Relations
has stated that just the cost of deploying 75,000 US
troops will be at least $20 billion. At least initially,
the United States will have to rely on its taxpayers to
foot the bill for occupation. That proposition is
destined to create acrimonious domestic debates, given
the already sagging nature of the US economy.
Third, the European Union, after going through
rancorous debates over the issue of Iraqi invasion
before the fact, will not be very enthusiastic, if at
all, about offering financial assistance, especially if
those funds are to be utilized to bankroll the US
occupation of Iraq under the highly contentious
euphemism of "liberation", which remains a highly
unpopular concept in Europe.
Finally, the United
Nations, as the only and the ultimate embodiment of the
international community, is likely to save the day for
the United States by offering its legitimacy, know-how,
and even its capability to invigorate international
passion and, equally important, raise finances for
rebuilding Iraq. A sad irony related to such a potential
development is that the sitting US president succeeded
in whipping up anti-UN passions in the United States
before the invasion by making an argument about the
purported irrelevance of the world body. In the coming
months, that entity will re-emerge as a true symbol of
global resolve to ameliorate the misery of the
ever-suffering Iraqis.
The Bush administration
has been coy about offering sporadic and somewhat
ambiguous evidence of its thinking that Iraqi oil
reserves will pay for the US invasion, and for the
rebuilding of that country. It was only on Monday of
this week that Bush submitted to Congress a request for
$75 billion, out of which $62.5 billion is for the
Department of Defense. The White House's assumption
underlying that estimate is that Saddam Hussein will be
ousted in 30 days. About $8 billion was listed as aid
for "Israel, Afghanistan and other US allies, a down
payment on humanitarian aid for Iraq and for rebuilding
the country, and money to increase security for American
diplomats".
A report published in the
neo-conservative magazine National Interest makes a case
for "the reintegration of Iraq's oil industry into the
global marketplace" so that it could provide "numerous
opportunities for the region and the world". It
advocates the privatization of Iraq's abundant oil
assets as "a model for privations by other OPEC members,
thereby weakening the cartel's domination of the energy
market". It goes on to add, "The United States should
offer its guidance on establishing sound economic and
trade policies to stimulate growth and recovery." Given
the existing political clout of the neo-cons in and
outside the Bush administration, that suggestion may not
be dismissed.
The very suggestion of changing
the regional order to weaken the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) sounds dangerously
ambitious, and, if followed through, assigns the United
States the role as a sole determiner for creating
economic conditions that, first and foremost, are
beneficial to its own private enterprises. Washington
knows only too well how crucial oil has been in the
geopolitics of the Middle East in the two previous
centuries, and how the great powers of those eras
maneuvered to sustain their own supremacy over the
peoples of that region for the control of oil. When the
colonial period ended, it was hoped that Western
domination had also ended once and for all. Arab oil
producers established their independence over Western
oil companies in the 1970s through a variety of tactics
and maneuvers of their own.
But through the
dismantlement of the Iraqi government in the beginning
of the 21st century, the United States appears to be
re-establishing its unquestioned dominance in Iraq and,
through it, on other oil-producing countries of the
region. That, in the final analysis, might be the
ultimate lucrative price of a regime change in Iraq.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria,
Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.
(©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights
reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
