The Bush administration recently succeeded in pushing through Congress a request of 80 billion dollars to help pay for the war. Most observers agree that this is only the tip of the iceberg, that more is to come. Not only this, but the money doesn’t all go to pay for the expenses related to killing Iraqis in the Middle East. Much of it, almost a quarter, is needed to pay the bribes and other extravagant promises used to secure US support for the war among the so-called “coalition of the billing.”
John Horvath 09.04.2003
It’s payday for the coalition of the billing
In some of these coalition countries, there has been protest and pressure on governments not to accept what is seen by many as “blood money”. In Hungary, for instance, Greenpeace released a statement calling on the government not to accept from the US “blood and oil stained dollars”. Hungary is one of the coalition of the billing members, and expects to receive 15 million dollars in “aid” for the part it played in supporting the US, a part which saw it contribute to stressed international relations between the US and Europe, not to mention within Europe itself culminating in the split between so-called New and Old Europe.
According to Greenpeace, the present conflict will ultimately lead to at least 10,000 Iraqi casualties, with more than half of the victims being children. The environmental group considers it immoral that Hungarians would indirectly support this slaughter by having the government accept US “aid” on their behalf, a bribe which works out to be the equivalent of $1.50 per person. Not only is this repulsive from an ethical point of view, but from a budgetary standpoint the amount is so small that it can be discounted.
In order to voice their opposition to the American kickback, Greenpeace and other peace activists within Hungary have called on all those opposed to the war to donate the per person equivalent of what the government would receive from the US. They argue that if the Hungarian government is really in need of aid, then in this way at least it won’t have its hands soiled by the blood and oil stained cash coming from the Bush administration.
Lucrative business contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq
For its part, the Hungarian government denies that the aid it receives from the US is to pay for its support of the American war in Iraq. Although the government won’t say specifically why Hungary is in need of such “aid” at this point in time, observers speculate that it will be used to buy weapons in order to make the country’s armed forces more NATO compatible.
This, of course, merely reinforces what has been known all along: that Hungary, as well as the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe, had been bought-off by George W. Bush. In essence, Washington bribed the weak knee governments of the region to side with the US against the will of their own people. It’s an issue that has even been acknowledged by US media outlets, such as the Associated Press and USA Today, among others.
Yet there is more to this story than simply a one-off payment to corrupt government leaders. The financial remuneration to the coalition of the billing also comes in the form of lucrative business contracts to be handed out by the US for the rebuilding of Iraq. Already, this past week Hungary was among 60 countries invited to tender for some of these contracts. For Hungary, the areas of interest are mainly in contracts related to construction, such as road building.
Napoleon syndrome
While the pay-outs may have now begun, governments which have turned on their own people still need to be careful not to count their chickens before their hatched. For one thing, the war is still not over. Although US government propaganda and media spin makes it appear as the war will soon be won, it can still drag on for a while yet. Though round-the-clock media coverage of the war in Iraq makes the conflict seem like an elaborate game of Risk, reality is another story. As Gwynne Dyer, a London-based independent journalist, predicts: “We are probably no more than two years away from a Somalia-style US withdrawal from Iraq.”
It’s clear to all serious observers that the US generally suffers from what can be termed as “Napoleon syndrome”. That is, the assumption that a conflict follows a prescribed set of objectives, and once these have been met the campaign can be considered a success. Napoleon had learned the folly of this way of thinking when he invaded Russia and took Moscow. He thought that by simply capturing the capital he had won the game. History has proven otherwise.
Hence, it won’t be enough to simply capture the capital, Baghdad, in order for George W. Bush to claim victory. The fall of Iraq’s capital could mean an end to the conflict, but it could also very well mean that the nature of the conflict will simply change, becoming much like Lebanon was in the late 1970s and early 1980s, from which the US marines eventually had to retreat. Moreover, the failure to capture Saddam Hussein dead or alive will haunt the Bush administration much like that of Osama bin Laden. As in Cambodia with Pol Pot, it can take decades before a renegade leader finally comes to the end of the line — in that case, as a result of natural circumstances and not direct intervention.
For those waiting to receive their share of the loot from Uncle Sam, therefore, although the pay-outs may have begun it’s not certain they will continue along the lines promised. Indeed, some may even end up empty-handed, for the money recently requested from Congress may not be enough for everyone on the list. The tab of 80 billion dollars is based on the premise that the war will be over in weeks and not months. Thus, any slippage to the far end of the timetable will add to the overall cost of the conflict and may leave the US administration in a monetary crunch.
Who will get what?
In a Financial Times editorial at the end of March, one analyst put it bluntly: “President Bush’s budget is the stuff of fantasies.” The column went on to note that the payments to the various countries that make up the coalition of the billing — including Pakistan, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey — will not only account for a significant amount of the budget, but may turn out to cost a whole lot more.
“Yet here again this may underestimate the total cost of buying off medium-term support for US aims in the region,” states the author. “And it is probably also the case that the $4bn allocated for homeland security will prove insufficient to meet the vastly expanded needs of federal, state and local authorities. The administration is under mounting pressure from Congress for a bail-out of the nation’s airlines and other economic casualties of war may require more spending,” the paper writes.
On top of the financial woes the US administration has to deal with, there are already disagreements among coalition partners as to who gets what from the spoils of war. At the end of March the Bush administration already handed out several “emergency” contracts through the US Agency for International Development. Many have complained that lucrative contracts went to US companies first, even before the fighting in some areas was over. What is more, foreign companies were only offered sub-contracted positions on these projects. All this, despite the fact that the outlook of the war then was far from certain.
Finally, even if the war was “officially” declared over and that the spoils of war were split among the coalition of the billing in a more or less equitable manner, such contracts might end up becoming a bittersweet surprise. Like in Columbia, there is still no peace; to work in the area carries with it serious risks. Hence, such risks in Iraq may become so high that they shall end up costing more than expected, diminishing prospective returns.
Of course, none of this delves into the perverse immorality of the whole situation. Lives are being lost and cultures destroyed because of government greed and the cynical quest for corporate profit. There can be no justification nor excuse for aiding and abetting this process, whether through bribery or reconstruction contracts. Those who take part — either directly or indirectly — have blood on their hands. To paraphrase Shakespeare, not all the oceans of Neptune can wash the stain clean away from their hands, nor can all the perfumes of Arabia mask the stench. At least Judas had enough of shame to throw away his payment and hang himself.
Links
Telepolis Artikel-URL: http://www.telepolis.de/english/inhalt/co/14567/1.html