Iraq Inc: Developing the war-torn country into a modern state

It is audacious of U.S. President George W. Bush and his National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, to think that Americans can achieve a modern state in Iraq.

Audacious - but not impossible. To succeed, they must develop and communicate a clear vision that fills in details omitted in Rice's recent statements on America's "generational commitment" to Iraq.

Here are some thoughts on what that vision should contain: It should be based on developing a self-governing administration that will initially be involved in, and then quickly become wholly responsible for, decisions that shape the medium and long-term future of Iraq. An embryonic national political process is, in fact, underway in Baghdad. It needs to be encouraged, accelerated and elevated urgently.

Privatisation

From privatising industry to determining the national standard for a cellular phone system, Iraqis must be visibly and effectively involved now in decisions that they will have to live with long after occupation ends. That is, unfortunately, not the case nearly four months after major combat ended.

In particular, American involvement in economic decisions in a country conquered by its arms must do more than diminish over time: it must be totally transparent and above reproach. U.S. honour, as well as the effectiveness of the political and cultural transformation effort in Iraq, depends on U.S. officials, politicians and business leaders not misusing positions or influence to create uneven playing fields for themselves, their friends or clients, or for favoured Iraqis.

There must be no giving in to the temptation to play at empire or to seek unfair advantage in Iraq. Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. helped rid the world of colonialism, even though it did not do all it could all the time. It is neither in America's interest nor in its nature to try in the 21st century to establish a neocolonial economic dependency in Iraq.

The administration has already been taken to task for favouring Vice President Dick Cheney's old firm, Halliburton, and the giant Bechtel Corporation in initial reconstruction contracts. U.S. and corporate officials deny any favouritism.

And strong pressure for political intervention is likely to be exerted in Congress as constituents press their elected representatives for help in acquiring lucrative pieces of the Iraqi pie. This lobbying, which is much more difficult for critics and the press to follow, is already under way, as a recent, misguided and unsuccessful attempt to restrict a new wireless phone network in Iraq to U.S. standards shows.

Congressional delegations visiting Baghdad this summer and autumn will find a familiar face on hand to greet them - Tom Korologos - who recently retired as one of Washington's most effective corporate lobbyists. Korologos was dispatched to Iraq by the Pentagon to help establish and run the beleaguered occupation authority. He will also acquire an unrivalled view of future business opportunities there.

Other countries should be free to share in Iraq's economic opportunities and its burdens. An international conference in October to generate aid pledges for Iraq will usefully illuminate which countries are prepared for both.

But it is illusory to allocate contracts to other countries to lure them into joining a UN-sponsored peacekeeping force, or to expect that such a force would be created or effective if American and British troops leave, as Bush critics advocate.

UN sanctions

The UN enforced economic sanctions against Saddam Hussain's regime for a dozen years. Neither Baathist dead-enders nor the lunatic followers of Osama bin Laden and his murdering kind will respect UN "blue helmets". Nor is the Iraqi population likely to be as sympathetic to a UN command as many of those urging that approach on Bush assume.

Ensuring equal economic opportunity for Iraqis and foreigners alike performs a more fundamental political task: it will reduce or help eliminate the resentments and anxieties against exploitative foreign domination that fed Arab nationalism at its creation at the beginning of the last century.

Bush and Rice see great opportunities. They deserve credit for their idealism and ambition. But they must also keep their eyes on the great dangers in the Middle East that rise not from American weakness but from America's strength and ability to enforce its will on others.