Whilst U.S. President, George W. Bush, and his administration are making it clear they want nothing less than "regime change" in Iraq, they have already moved to set up a new civilian administration headed by a retired American General, Jay Garner, and under the Pentagon.
The "Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance" is working within the U.S. defence agency that would oversee Iraq after the war ends and reconstruction begins.
Although it may seem premature, an article by Elizabeth Becker in the New York Times states Garner's "team includes three regional co-ordinators and co-ordinators for reconstruction, civil administration and humanitarian assistance. They will see everything from emergency relief and refugees to long-term planning for roads, rail and waterways as well as economic development and weeding out senior officials in the ruling Ba'ath party of Saddam Hussain."
It is said Garner is already in Kuwait seeking to put together some form of an administration that would become operational even during the duration of the war so it can take over once "victory" is declared.
However, many see this as still some way off with the war continuing and American and British troops bogged down in fighting; and with decision-makers and military planners in Washington and London talking about a prolonged and protracted war rather than a quick end.
While the coalition - the U.S. and Britain - are eager to get back to the post-war stage, there seems to be a bit of a muddle going on both in thinking and approach in providing a "blueprint" for a future Iraq. On his way to Camp David to meet with Bush on March 26, British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, made it clear "?it was premature to have detailed talks on governing post-war Iraq. We don't know what is going to happen when you go to the post-conflict situation."
Quoting the Daily Telegraph, Khayta Choor says, after the Camp David meeting both Blair and Bush "'gave little clue'" as to what kind of Iraqi government or administration can be expected after the war, adding "plans for a post-war Iraq remain disappointingly vague."
One thing is clear though, the U.S., through General Garner wants to rule Iraq for the immediate post-war period. This is being repeated time and again, that it would be the U.S. and no one else that would be controlling and seeing through a post-war Iraq.
Europeans, especially France and Germany who have been against war right from the start, have been clamouring to put pressure on the U.S. to hand the initiative back to the UN. They, together with Russia and China, are saying the UN should play a prime role in any post-war arrangement in Iraq.
But this is not the thinking of the U.S. which has made it clear, it is the coalition who are to have a major role in post-war planning. However, in a bid to dampen feelings of anger among Europeans, U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said the UN would have a role sometime after the war ends, but it is not yet worked out and more planning is required.
Speaking for the majority view in Washington is Condaleezza Rice, Bush's closest foreign policy advisor. Harping upon the fact that an office headed by Garner has already been set up to run post-war Iraq, she is never afraid to let her opinion known. In recent comments Rice said the "coalition of the willing and not the UN will play the leading role in Iraq after the war."
She added the "coalition would naturally have the leading role for a period of time, having given life and blood for Iraq's liberation," she was quoted on ABC online as robustly saying. However, she did say "as soon as possible, an Iraqi Interim Authority would then be established, made up of Iraqis, from inside and outside the country and from all ethnic groups."
However, it is the attitude in Washington that is not washing well in Europe. Europe is not happy when it listens to comments by U.S. Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld. His comments back in February that the "international coalition" would be "guided by two commitments: to stay as long as necessary, and two leave as soon as possible" has had a worrying effect among Europeans. This is because the length of stay in the country, according to observers, would last anything from two to five years.
Privately the Europeans fear Iraq would become a "U.S. protectorate in which long term contracts go solely to American companies", and that is why they see that a central role for the UN would be most appropriate to reverse the schism created in the international system with the U.S. and Britain waging an "unilateral" war on Iraq.
Such a position was eloquently put forward by the French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin. Quoted by Ian Black in the Guardian, Villepin said: "The UN must play a key role after the crisis that shattered the world order."
In a move to mend the fences between America and Europe, Blair has sought to play a "bridging" role. But many experts say in undertaking this Blair antagonized his ally in Washington. Many are now saying there are differences between Washington and London.
Blair himself, for instance, doesn't appear to support a U.S.-appointed administrator but wants a post-war Iraq under UN supervision that would serve as "swift transition to civilian rule" after the "ousting of Saddam Hussain" according to one Financial Times article.
He said a post war Iraq "should not be run by the Americans, should not be run by the British, should not be run by an outside force or power. It should be run for the first time in decades by the Iraqi people."
If this is really the case, then there would appear to be a major rupture in the coalition over post-war Iraq. For the time being however, Britain is concentrating more on winning the war on what it calls disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.
Now, and in the days leading up to the war, there were not really any concrete figures about the actual cost of rebuilding and reconstructing a post-war Iraq, an issue that is raising many soul-searching questions about who should pay for a bombed-out country. Should it be America, the West, maybe European countries, the UN? Or should the Iraqis be made to pay for their own re-construction through their oil revenues?
Figures are scarce with the U.S. administration deliberately shying away from providing real estimates. Oliver Morgan, reporting in The Observer, suggests it would cost anything between $2.5 billion (U.S. Council on Foreign Relations) to $10 billion (UN) to rebuild Iraq. These figures are quite conservative when compared with another study by the London-based Institute of International Strategic Studies (IISS) last February, suggesting it would cost anything between $12 billion to $50 billion annually to rebuild Iraq.
Already, there is a force of around 300,000 of mainly American and British troops in Iraq, so the figures provided are very conservative. Further, the IISS study suggests a five-year occupation by coalition troops will cost $125 billion and this is presumably only for their upkeep, discounting the expenditure on construction.
In his article on the "Moral maze over who pays to rebuild Iraq" Morgan says aside from the ballyhoo of reconstruction, the question is posing a "moral dilemma" for the U.S., Britain and the West in general, simply because of what will be involved.
Morgan argues, in a post-war Iraq there are two different issues to consider: there is the humanitarian question and there is the reconstruction issue, a necessary issue because of the extensive bombardment that Iraq is subjected to at present.
The humanitarian issue arising from displacement would go under the UN and this may say a great deal about why Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice suggest there is a role for the UN but it would have to be worked out at a later stage.
The second issue is of reconstruction. Morgan suggests western governments, including the U.S. and Britain, don't feel money for construction needs to come out of their pocket but say Iraq has ample resources to pay for it's own development through the oil it possess. This, they say, is a viable solution.
Blair plainly stated in the British House of Commons: "Let the oil revenues, which people falsely claim we want to seize, be put in a trust for the Iraqi people, administered through the UN." But Morgan also asks: "What does this actually mean?"
Many reject making the Iraqis pay for their post-war reconstruction on moral grounds. Quoted also by Morgan is Dan Plesch of the Royal United Services Institute: "If oil revenues pay for the bomb-damage, it will be the Chinese principle of putting someone in front of the firing squad and charging them for the bullet."
Clearly the war on Iraq has opened up a "can of worms". The issue of post-war Iraq is not as easy as it seems. For one thing, the war is still very much in progress. For another, dismantling the regime structure appears to be a long way off. In addition, there is the "politicisation" of the war and the schism it created in the international system.
The extent of this division has been embedded by the "economic" benefits to be had under a post-Baathist regime in Iraq, with the U.S. calling the tune for its own companies while excluding others from participating in the re-building process.
The writer is Managing Editor of The Star, an English language weekly published in Jordan.
Gulf News
