Although final details have not yet been announced from the recent International Donor Conference in Madrid for the reconstruction of Iraq, Australia is contributing much less than many other countries, and very little considering their role in the invasion. A list of the published amounts promised by various governments is as follows:
$20bn from the United States
$5bn from Japan
$3bn-$5bn from the World Bank
$1bn from Saudi Arabia
$1bn from Kuwait
$835m from Britain
$300m from Spain
$250m from the United Arab Emirates
$231m from the European Union
$200m from South Korea
$174m from Italy
$150m from Canada
$85m from Australia
$32.6m from Sweden
$24.2m from China
$5.9m from Belgium
It should be noted that most of these pledges are in the form of loans that will need to be repaid by the Iraqi government, hence providing it with an enormous liability even before a new government is created.
Australia’s contribution seems completely out of line with the extremely prominent role Prime Minister John Howard took in deciding to commit troops for the invasion of Iraq in March. In fact, Australia was one of only a handful of countries that supported the US and the UK in sending troops to remove the previous regime. This was said to be due to the threat of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam’s links with terrorists. Both of these reasons have, of course, subsequently been proven false.
Prime Minister John Howard was vocal in identifying the threat posed by the Saddam Hussein regime and the dire need to take pre-emptive action. He also suggested it was important for the future peace of the Middle East region.
For political reasons, the Prime Minister has played up fears of terrorism, shifted Australia’s foreign policy framework even further towards the United States and moved away from our Asian neighbours. President Bush even upgraded Australia from acting as “Deputy Sheriff†in the region to “Sheriffâ€, much to the chagrin of Indonesia and Malaysia.
Yet when it comes to having to pay the price for the reconstruction of Iraq – caused by a deadly invasion and the reported use of up to one million missiles – the government does not apparently see the need for generosity. Defense Minister Robert Hill even suggested there was no international law requiring Australia’s contribution to Iraq’s reconstruction.
But surely this is not the point. Australia has a moral duty and responsibility for bearing its fair share of the cost of rebuilding the country’s infrastructure. If Australia and other countries do not ensure Iraq is put back onto a firm footing, it could descend into the sort of anarchy that bedeviled Afghanistan after the Russian troops withdrew in the 1980’s.
Furthermore, it is immoral and unfair to burden the Iraqi people with loans from the proceeds of future oil sales when the country will have so many other pressing financial needs in the near future.
The United Nations have estimated that the total bill for reconstruction of Iraq’s infrastructure will amount to more than US$55bn over the next few years. The countries that initiated the attack should therefore bear the heaviest burden for its reconstruction. Australia’s contribution, however, amounts to only 0.2% of that amount.
Australia’s contribution is even more dismal when you look at the breakdown of the US$85m figure. Only A$37.5m is being provided for humanitarian assistance with the bulk (A$83m) being for supplies of 100,000 tonnes of wheat and the milling, bagging and distribution of the wheat. (see Australian Foreign Affairs report of the costs of War in Iraq at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2002-03/03Cib24.htm ). Iraq has been a major customer of the Australian Wheat Board for many years and does not want to lose that long term supply contract. It seems Australia’s main contribution is in the form of allowing Iraq to avoid payment for its annual wheat sales for the coming years.
The stated aim of the Australian Government’s decision to join the US and UK as one of the invaders and a partner in the coalition’s transitional authority in Iraq, was “to help build a better future for the people of Iraq†(http://www.dfat.gov.au/globalissues/). Australia was willing to spend over A$500m in the invasion of Iraq but is not willing to commit more than A$120m for its reconstruction. By comparison, Australia spent A$231m on humanitarian assistance for East Timor and A$53m for Afghanistan in recent years.
The nations that participated in the military action without international sanction and support have a particular responsibility in relation to the reconstruction of Iraq. If they do not take primary responsibility for rebuilding the country, then their citizens will be even more aggrieved about their role in the invasion.
Kamil Mahdi, an Iraqi Economist based in the UK, pointed out in last week’s Al Ahram Weekly how many of the contributions by other countries are as much less generous than they were made to appear (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/663/re7.htm). The United Kingdom for instance has decided to contribute two to three per cent of the total funds, in order to secure 12 per cent of the contract value of reconstruction contracts. This according to Jeremy Greenstock, a former British representative at the UN Security Council, now acting as deputy to US Civil Administrator L Paul Bremer in Iraq.
As Mahdi points out, what Iraq really needs is for the question of the cancellation of debt and reparations payments to be sorted as soon as possible. “Iraq does not need aid. It needs an end to the double bind of occupation and debtâ€, he writes.
The recent rise in violence against international agencies such as the Red Cross and the United Nations shows the folly and danger of the Coalition’s plan to “free the Iraqi people†by invasion. Perhaps up to 15,000 Iraqis died during the attacks that used long-range guided missiles, depleted uranium and cluster bombs. And another 1,500 Iraqi’s have been the victims of violence since the removal of the old regime, according to reports. These statistics do not of course include the much larger number of injured and those who have lost their homes.
Far from creating a peaceful democratic Iraq, the current situation has created more violence and terrorism than ever existed in Iraq’s history, perhaps even in the darkest days of Saddam’s oppressive regime. Al-Qaeda has now identified Iraq as the new front for its reign of terror against the West, even though they had no presence there until recently.
In order to reduce the financial demands on the US government, the provisional authority has also paved the way for unrestricted foreign investment and privatization of many of Iraq’s essential services, such as health care, education, telecommunications and power generation. If these industries are sold off to multinational corporations at bargain basement prices, future generations of Iraqis will bear a heavy cost, no doubt resenting those who made such decisions without public consultation.
Privatising Iraq’s basic services at this time is pure lunacy from an asset managers perspective as well, due to the risks involved for foreign investors.
Pressure is mounting on the Bush Administration, partly due to the huge cost of keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely. The Blair government faces the real risk of public censure from the findings of the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly. Surely the Howard government must also be held responsible, not only for the lies told in justifying this immoral war, but also for its horrendous consequences.
Imran Andrew Price is an Australian citizen who has lived in Singapore for 9 years. He has an MBA from the Australian Graduate School of Management and is undertaking a Diploma in Islamic Studies at the International Islamic University of Malaysia. He is also Deputy Director General of the Centre for Contemporary Islamic Studies in Singapore (www.ccis.org.sg).
ZNetworki rahastatakse ainult selle lugejate suuremeelsuse kaudu.
annetama