Outlook for postwar Iraq: Diplomatic rifts<\/p>\n
Bantarto Bandoro, Editor, 'The Indonesian Quarterly',
\nCentre For Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),
\nJakarta, bandoro@csis.or.id<\/p>\n
As U.S.-led troops tightened their grip in and around Baghdad,
\npolitical leaders in several countries, including key parts of
\nthe coalition forces, have already begun to reposition themselves
\nfor the next phase of the drama. The past few weeks witnessed a
\nseries of diplomatic maneuvers to search for a common stand on
\nthe future of Iraq. There was a report of a meeting in Belfast
\nbetween George W. Bush and Tony Blair, at which the two leaders
\ndiscussed scenarios for postwar Iraq.<\/p>\n
As war begins to fade into postwar reconstruction, Chancellor
\nGerhard Schroeder of Germany, President Jacques Chirac of France
\nand President Vladimir Putin of Russia plan a meeting in St.
\nPetersburg to search for a common way forward, which may include
\na bid for rapprochement with Washington. UN Secretary-General
\nKofi Annan is also seeking a consensus on Iraq with the leaders
\nof France, Germany, Britain and Russia.<\/p>\n
The UN's role in postwar Iraq could become as great an
\ninternational bone of contention as did the second UN resolution
\nbefore the war.<\/p>\n
The postwar era seems to be one in which Iraq, by design, is
\nturning into a ground for new \"projects\". Political and
\ndiplomatic rifts may emerge between countries that have
\nanticipated huge benefits, politically and economically, from
\nsuch a project.<\/p>\n
Though the Bush-Blair summit indicated their common stand on
\nthe future of Iraq, each possessed his own vision about how the
\nfuture of Iraq was to be managed. Britain stressed a strong role
\nfor the UN, but the U.S., which has carried the brunt of the
\ninvasion to topple Saddam Hussein, appears to be less
\nenthusiastic about UN participation in an interim administration.<\/p>\n
The idea that London wants to garner wide international
\nsupport and UN endorsement for the future of Iraq is, perhaps, to
\nplacate antiwar countries -- particularly France and Germany --
\nand also to appease widespread international skepticism about the
\nmotives of the U.S. But in a joint press conference with Prime
\nMinister Blair after the summit, President Bush modified his
\nlanguage, to talk about a \"vital role\" for the UN in postwar
\nIraq, rather than the secondary role he seemed to have envisioned
\nin his earlier comments on the role of the UN.<\/p>\n
It is doubtful whether the U.S. meant a role for the UN beyond
\ninvolvement in delivering food, construction materials and other
\nhumanitarian aid, etc. The UN is likely to be sidelined again, at
\nleast at the outset of the process, in Iraq's rebuilding and
\nreconstruction. Some members of the Association of Southeast
\nAsian Nations and the European Union strongly advocate that
\npostwar Iraq be managed outside the UN framework, arguing that
\nthe UN should be the only international institution that
\nlegitimizes all work in postwar Iraq.<\/p>\n
If the U.S. is to go ahead with its postwar Iraq plans and
\nwishes to seek endorsement from the UN Security Council for
\nexample, France and other antiwar countries would likely vote
\nagainst a resolution that would give the American and British
\nbelligerents the right to administer Iraq. Differences over how
\nto run Iraq have put added strain on already tense relations
\nbetween the U.S. and several European countries.<\/p>\n
Signs that the U.S. will venture forth and go ahead
\nunilaterally with its plans for postwar Iraq are reflected in the
\ndecision by Bush to dispatch to Iraq a retired American general,
\nF.J. Walters, to bring democracy and aid to Iraq. It is reported
\nthat he will cooperate with another American retired general,
\nJay. Garner, whose task is to lead a postwar administration in
\nIraq.<\/p>\n
The appointment of Gen. Garner would look too much like an
\nAmerican consul overseeing an American protectorate in Iraq. This
\nperception would increase antagonism in the Arab world and has
\nalready angered people in Britain and other European countries.<\/p>\n
The problem in Iraq now is not only about designing an interim
\ngovernment. Public facilities, such as hospitals, schools, roads
\nand other infrastructure, would have to be fully rebuilt. It is
\nagainst such a background that the private sector is seeking a
\nbig role in postwar Iraq. American, J.A Jones construction
\ncompany, which has a longstanding record of building and managing
\nconstruction of U.S. military bases, for example, has reportedly
\nshown its preparedness to take part in huge postwar Iraq
\nprojects. Other U.S. companies are also eyeing postwar Iraq.<\/p>\n
Worried it could be shut out of business deals in postwar
\nIraq, France has reportedly drawn up plans to win French
\ncompanies access to lucrative oil and reconstruction contracts,
\ndespite its vigorous opposition to the war.<\/p>\n
The strong enthusiasm demonstrated by French companies in the
\npostwar Iraq project is perhaps due to the concern of the French
\nthat a U.S.-led administration in Iraq would favor companies from
\nthe U.S. and other prowar countries, while penalizing companies
\nfrom France.<\/p>\n
French companies, many with ties to Baghdad stretching back
\nfor decades, have established themselves as the largest suppliers
\nof goods to Iraq since a UN trade embargo was partially lifted in
\n1996. A postwar Iraq is likely to witness severe diplomatic rifts
\nas well as business competition from the private sector.<\/p>\n
If a postwar Iraq is to be seen as a \"project\", it should be
\nprojected to restoring the activities of the Iraqi state in all
\ntheir aspects, with the support of the world community.<\/p>\n
Reconstruction of Iraq must also delve into the issue of
\npower, meaning the transition and transformation from the rule of
\na single party to a pluralism of voices and the \"reengineering\"
\nof Iraq's army to an institution of nation building and defense.<\/p>\n
By transforming its military from a force that threatens
\nneighboring states into an army of nation building, perhaps Iraq
\ncould provide a model that strengthens security in the region and
\nreduces bloated military budgets.<\/p>\n
It is almost certain that the U.S. is to lead the formation of
\nan interim authority in Iraq, meaning that though the UN can
\ncontribute to that process, its role would be no more than
\nauxiliary. A U.S.-led coalition will probably run the country for
\nat least six months until a new Iraqi government is in place.
\nWhether the U.S. and its allies have the focus and commitment for
\nthe long haul that Iraq's reconstruction requires is unclear. The
\nquestions here might properly be: Can Iraq really be rebuilt and
\ncan the rebuilding be profitable?<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/outlook-for-postwar-iraq-diplomatic-rifts-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}