A ‘Vision’ for Post-War Iraq
by Nihar Gondalia
This article was first published on the website of the now defunct Campus Coalition for Peace and Justice on March 24, 2003, four days after the United States invaded Iraq.
The war has begun. Although the anti-war effort did not succeed in stopping the war, anti-war protesters can take heart from the fact that what we did provoked a significant amount of debate, and made us better able to rise to challenges such as these. However, the efforts do not have to end here. People concerned about the welfare of Iraq, which judging from the rhetoric seems to include everyone, from the most conservative ideologues to socialists, have a new chapter in this battle they can rally to: the ethical reconstruction of Iraq.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which seems to be in charge of the reconstruction efforts, recently put forward a ‘Vision for post-war Iraq’. While this document is not public, the BBC and the Wall Street Journal have managed to get copies of the document. Some of the features of the new ‘Vision for Iraq’ shocked me. The document is fairly comprehensive, providing for the economic reconstruction of Iraq. It calls for the speedy reconstruction of roads, schools and ports, the provision of reliable electricity and water supplies. Nothing to complain about there. However, this is where the payoff for the United States begins. The reconstruction efforts include the introduction of a new Iraqi currency, and the privatisation of all state-owned Iraqi enterprises. This could be disastrous for the already devastated Iraqi economy. Conventional wisdom among economists holds that in an underdeveloped economy, industry must go through a period of protection in order to allow domestic industry to develop without being massacred by imports. Privatisation essentially involves selling state owned companies to the highest bidder. I doubt Iraq has the funds to buy back its own companies. This essentially means that practically all of Iraq’s companies with any profit potential, from oil to power to water, will be divided among the firms of the conquering nation. I fail to see how this fits in with President Bush’s statements like “Iraq’s oil belongs to Iraq’s people” and “…we intend not to control Iraq’s economic resources.” If the ‘Vision’ for Iraq is implemented, the oil may belong to the people of Iraq, but will be extracted by American and British companies. The portion of the proceeds of the oil revenues which the Iraqi people are allowed to keep will then be used to pay for power plants, etc. The power plants will then be auctioned off to an American or British firm. And what is probably the ultimate irony; the people of Iraq will get their petrol at a pump owned by a subsidiary of ExxonMobil or British Petroleum.
In case you were wondering, it’s not all economic. The U.S. led reconstruction proposal contains an anti-abortion clause. Health services in a post-war Iraq will not be permitted to perform abortions. That’s one freedom the women of Iraq had under Saddam Hussein. Some Arabs who feel that the U.SA. seeks to impose its values on the rest of the world could probably point to this as an example.
I assume as part of the post-war democracy, Iraq will be getting a new constitution, full of ideals, probably modelled in the image of the U.S. constitution, at least when the politicians present it to us. However, there is absolutely nothing to stop the United States from including a modern day version of the Platt Amendment into the Iraqi constitution. The Platt Amendment was introduced during the United States occupation of Cuba in 1901. Some excerpts from the Platt Amendment include “..government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence…all Acts of the United States in Cuba during its military occupancy thereof are ratified and validated, and all lawful rights acquired thereunder shall be maintained and protected…government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for naval stations (Guantanamo Bay) at certain specified points.” The United States would not leave Cuba until its leaders incorporated the Platt Amendment into their constitution. Desperate to get the Americans out, the Cubans finally agreed. The Platt Amendment was used to invade Cuba again in 1906 to crush a populist revolution that was about to remove a dictator the U.S. supported. I think the inclusion of some modern day version of this legislation in the new Iraqi constitution, which guarantees a permanent American military presence ‘for the preservation of Cuban Iraqi independence’, is not as farfetched as it may seem.
We have marched, taken blows and gone to jail for our cause. We have let the leaders of the world know how we feel, and some of them have responded: The Security Council would not have passed a resolution supporting war. However, a war has begun. Let us now rally to a continuation of our cause, the prevention of the economic rape of Iraq. I’m sure that in the coming weeks there will be discussion on items such as how Halliburton managed to get such a profitable reconstruction contract, whether Dick Cheney had anything to do with it, etc. Let us not get distracted by such debates. It does not matter which member of the gang commits the rape, what matters is that the rape does not happen.
Most of the information about the ‘Vision for Post-War Iraq’ comes from a segment on BBC News, which aired around 11:00pm CST on March 20th, 2003.
