Pentagon diplomacy
A Pentagon decision to only award reconstruction contracts to coalition partners is a strange way of generating greater cooperation in rebuilding Iraq, writes Jaideep Mukerji
Relations between the United Sates and nations opposed to the war in Iraq took yet another turn for the worse last week after the Pentagon unveiled a list of countries eligible for prime reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Notably absent from the 63 countries on the list were those who had voiced opposition to the US-led war in Iraq such as France, Germany, China and Russia.
The decision met with howls of protest from the excluded countries. German officials called the decision "unacceptable", Chris Patten, the European Union's commissioner for international relations decried the decision as being "gratuitous and unhelpful", and even UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan weighed in on the decision calling it "divisive and unhelpful".
The 26 contracts, worth a total $18.6 billion, cover a wide range of infrastructure reconstruction projects in Iraq ranging from building electricity grids and water management systems to equipping the new Iraqi Army. In a statement posted on 5 December on the Pentagon's Web site, US Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz explained that, "it is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States to limit competition for prime contracts of these procurements to companies from the United States, Iraq, coalition partners and force-contributing nations."
What exactly these security interests are has been the subject of some controversy. At a press briefing last week, White House Press Spokesperson Scott McClellan had difficulty articulating what specific security interests had prompted the US to exclude France and Germany and yet include countries like Palau and Moldova. Senator Joseph Biden, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters the Pentagon's decision "does nothing to protect our security interests and everything to alienate countries we need with us in Iraq".
A US Department of Defence official, who asked not be named, clarified the situation to Al-Ahram Weekly, explaining that the security concerns mentioned in the document were in fact simply jargon that had to be used for administrative purposes.
"[The security concerns] have nothing to do with the security status of the countries that aren't listed; [they] have nothing to do with the security status of the countries that are listed. Rather it is our internal verbage we have to put in a document in order to process this in support of our national policy." The official then explained the list was actually the result of an interagency decision designed to reward "countries that have stood up and said 'we support the US policy of establishing a collation partnership to work in Iraq and rebuild'". In a more conciliatory tone, however, the official pointed out that all countries, including the ones excluded on the list, are eligible for subcontracts.
That comes as small comfort to countries like Germany and France. German officials said the Pentagon's policy was "unacceptable and [does] not correspond either to the spirit of what we had agreed together, which is about looking together towards the future". Both France and Germany are questioning the legality of the situation and are looking to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to see if they are any legal options open to them.
Stephen Woolcock, a professor of international trade at the London School of Economics, explained to the Weekly that bringing the case to the WTO was not necessarily in France and Germany's best interest.
"If the WTO rules in favour of the US position it would provide an opportunity for any country to claim exclusions for reasons of 'national security' [but] if the US loses the case, it would threaten to fundamentally undermine [US] support for the WTO," he said. "All trade experts would say this kind of case is best left alone [because] of the potential damage to political relations and the fabric of the world trade rules."
For its part, the US maintains it is perfectly entitled to award the contracts to coalition members only. A US Department of Defence official pointed out to the Weekly that the $18.6 billion in contracts was money "generously provided by US taxpayers" and that the US had every right to disburse that money as they saw fit, echoing President George W Bush who earlier justified the decision to reporters saying: "It's very simple. Our people risked their lives. Friendly coalition folks risked their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that and that's what the US taxpayers expect." Bush blithely brushed aside questions about the legality of the move saying: "International law? I better call my lawyer."
Aside from the legality of barring certain countries from the reconstruction contracts, the timing of the Pentagon's decision is also being questioned. The announcement comes at the same time President Bush is sending former US Secretary of State James Baker to Europe to discuss debt forgiveness for Iraq with some of the very same countries excluded on the list. One senior US State Department official described the timing of the decision as "a train wreck". Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Ivanov told reporters that, contrary to earlier indications, Russia now had no intent to restructure or forgive Iraq's debt to Russia. "Iraq's debt to the Russia Federation comes to $8 billion and the Russian government is not planning any kind of a write-off of that debt."
Despite the controversy both abroad and at home, the Pentagon insists awarding contracts to coalition members is in fact meant to generate greater international cooperation by creating an incentive to join the coalition.
"The intent is to be inclusive, not punitive," a US Department of Defence official told the Weekly. "We do not determine who is on that list. The coalition is open; there is nothing that we have in place that is prohibiting anyone from joining us. The coalition can be as large as those countries who want to participate in it and say 'we'll be there'."
Others, however, see the move in a different light. "What we did was toss away our leverage," one senior American diplomat said. "We could have put together a policy that said, 'The more you help, the more contracts you may be able to gain.' [Instead] we found a new way to alienate them." During a candidate's debate, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry was harsher in his criticism. "I can't think of anything dumber, or more insulting, or more inviting to the potential failure of our policy [in Iraq]."
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 18 - 24 December 2003 (Issue No. 669)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/669/fo9.htm