Aftermath and Rebuilding Iraq

Occupation

CNN reported² that U.S. think tank, Council on Foreign Relations, produced a report in March, that called on Bush to stress two messages: Explain the United States' vital interest in Iraq's future to the American people, so they will be willing to bear the cost of reconstruction; and to make the public commitment, so Iraqis understand the United States will not walk out before job is done.

Under the Geneva Conventions, an occupying force has responsibility over security and order, but Iraq has proven to be a difficult place to fully secure, with occupying troops meeting fierce pockets of resistance and anger.

A huge blast at the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad killed at least 24 people on August 19, 2003. It would at first appear odd why the U.N. would be targetted, when previous waves of attacks have been aimed at the U.S. and British troops. While we often see the U.N. and U.S. at odds on most international issues, many in areas such as the middle east have long seen the U.N. as a manipulated arm serving western/U.S. interests. As a result it has been conceivable that the U.N. may have also been a target too. But U.N. Secretary General, Koffi Annan blamed the U.S. for lack of security in Iraq on the whole, while the U.S. military said that the security for the U.N. was a U.N. issue. Quoting from an article in the South African, Daily Mail and Guardian at some length:

In September, at a major United Nations conference in New York, Annan continued his criticism saying that nations (implying the United States) that take unilateral action risk breeding more terrorism. As Sydney Morning Herald reported:

At that same conference, George Bush, speaking after Annan, defended the invasion of Iraq. However, Bush did not seem to get much international support of his speech ⁹.

Amongst the various things that Bush mentioned, he stated that another issue we must confront together is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Outlaw regimes that possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons -- and the means to deliver them -- would be able to use blackmail and create chaos in entire regions. These weapons could be used by terrorists to bring sudden disaster and suffering on a scale we can scarcely imagine. The deadly combination of outlaw regimes, terror networks, and weapons of mass murder is a peril that cannot be ignored or wished away. If such a danger is allowed to fully materialize, all words, all protests, will come too late. Nations of the world must have the wisdom and the will to stop grave threats before they arrive.

Former head of the UN oil-for-food program in Iraq and assistant secretary general of the UN, Dennis Halliday provides a very to-the-point critique of this talk. He noted that Bush's own disregard for international law is contributing to proliferation¹⁰. Nuclear proliferation? Does Bush not understand that his military aggression, disregard for the rule of international law and the UN, plus his concept of pre-emptive strike is the very cause of proliferation, as countries openly threatened by Washington determine that nuclear capacity is the only defense against American madness?

This issue of powerful nations using their might and possibly causing other countries to consider their nuclear options is discussed more on this site's sections on arms control¹¹ and the arms trade¹².

In addition, no country has offered troops or financial contributions¹³, as requested by George Bush, according to La Figaro (September 26, 2003). One of the reasons, the article suggests is that other countries do not want to legitimate the role of occupation. It might be early days, and diplomacy and such pressures from the U.S. and U.K. might sway some countries into various forms of assistance.

Koffi Annan, at the end of September 2003, ordered a cutback of international UN staff in Iraq¹⁴, responding to recent security fears. This might be playing into the hands of the terrorists who have bombed the UN, some say, but whether or not, the security of Iraq continues to look shakey for the near future.

Back to top

U.S. or U.N.-led Reconstruction of Iraq?

At the time of writing, it is unclear what the United Nation's role will be in the reconstruction of Iraq. At different times, media reports from the U.S. indicate that the U.N. will have a key role (whatever that means!) and at other times it appears that the U.N. will likely have a role subordinate to the U.S. The United States appear to be keen to run the show, as if it were, while much of the international community want the effort to be headed by the United Nations. Politically, the criticism that would be charged against the U.S. if it were to lead the process would include that again it is usurping international will, and that the U.N. is again subdued by U.S. interests.

As of August 2003, it looks less likely that the U.N. will have the leading role, as the South African Daily Mail and Guardian comments, in an article on the bomb blast that killed 24 at the UN headquarters in Baghdad:

Back to top

Rebuilding and Reconstruction

There has been long concern at where lucrative reconstruction costs and oil contracts are going.

Back to top

Looting and Lost Archeological Treasures

The terrible scenes of looting due to the power vacuum were initially broadcast all over the media, while the Coalition forces at first appeared to do little to prevent it. This was despite organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Red Cross, and others pointing out that the occupying power, under the Geneva Conventions, has an obligation to provide security and establish law and order. Under public pressure forces eventually started to provide some sort of security. However, looting was still continued for a while, and as the Observer reported (May 25, 2003), gangs and high crime levels ³⁰ have continued to be major problems in places like Baghdad.

Amidst the looting, many of Iraq's archaeological treasures were destroyed or stolen. At first it was reported that these were tragic aspects of looting, though now it is emerging that it was perhaps organized³¹. Some of the treasures have been so valuable that is has been described as the equivaluent to the loss of many Mona Lisa's. A number of the items are some of the oldest archaeological findings (Some of the areas in modern Iraq are regarded as parts of the birthplace of civilization).

Inter Press Service reported during the war on the concerns about the archaeological sites, April 8, 2003³². They pointed out the damage from the previous war. They also noted that Iraqi territory is estimated to hold 10,000 archaeological sites with artefacts and constructions that have yet to be studied and countless secrets to decipher. In addition, Much of the country's treasures are in Mosul Nasiriya and Tikrit, three cities that have been bombed heavily by the invading forces. Before the war began, academic experts met with the Pentagon to tell them about Iraq's most valuable cultural sites. The Pentagon had a list of 150 important locations. The academic experts handed over a list of more than 4,000 and insisted that they represented just a small percentage of Iraq's rich heritage.

The Pentagon itself had sent a memo in the early days of the war urging top commanders of U.S. ground forces to protect the Iraqi National Museum and other cultural sites from looters. The Washington Times obtained a copy of the memo. Coalition forces must secure these facilities in order to prevent looting and the resulting irreparable loss of cultural treasures the Washington Times reported³³. The US army had been criticized by the media for failing to do so adequately, resulting in 270,000 artefacts being stolen from Iraq's national museum alone, as mentioned by the Guardian (April 20, 2003³⁴).

The US military argued, (as the articles above also highlight), that its primary job in the first few days was to quell armed resistance in Baghdad, and that it could not tackle looters until it had finished fighting a war. U.S. Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, tried to fend off some of the criticism, saying that in a war situation such unfortunate circumstances cannot be helped, as it is difficult to stop. However, the head of President Bush's Advisory Committee on Cultural Property, Martin Sullivan, resigned over the issue, as the Guardian also reported, saying it was inexcusable that the museum should not have had the same priority as the Iraqi Oil Ministry which was secured very soon. In a pre-emptive war that's the kind of thing you should have planned for he also added, as reported by Channel 4 News (April 18, 2003³⁵).

(For more about this aspect, see also the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) web site³⁷ dealing with Iraq. It will contain more information as it becomes available on the details of the treasures lost, recovered, saved, and so forth.)

Back to top