|
REBUILDING
IRAQ - BUT AT WHAT COST?
Barnard Faculty Discuss War's Aftermath in Community Forum
The
American overseer in Iraq has promised a quick restoration
of basic services, but rebuilding Iraq will be a long and
costly effort with potential harsh economic and political
implications for the United States, at home and abroad, according
to Barnard College political scientists who spoke at a campus
community forum on April 21.
|
Alexander Cooley
Lorraine Minnite
Provost Liz Boylan
Kimberly J. Marten
|
Alexander
Cooley, an assistant professor of political science and one
of three panelists at the forum, said Iraqi political and
government institutions will require a massive overhaul, with
reforms needed in everything from the monetary system, civil
and criminal codes to hospitals and schools. "Make no
mistake," said Cooley, "creating a new, vibrant
Iraq will be very expensive." Reflecting uncertainty
on the cost coming from Washington, Cooley and fellow faculty
members Lorraine Minnite and Kimberly Marten mentioned a range
of estimates for rebuilding Iraq, one as high as $200 billion
over the next four years.
Minnite, also an assistant professor, said rebuilding Iraq
represents a potential huge drain on the U.S. Treasury and,
coupled with tax breaks being contemplated by Congress, would
divert needed funds for important programs at home for years
to come. "Overall, this will weaken the position of those
in our society who need help the most," she said.
About
75 students, faculty and staff attended the forum, "Rebuilding
Post-War Iraq: Domestic and International Implications"
held in Sulzberger Parlor and organized by the Barnard administration
through the office of Provost Elizabeth S. Boylan, who served
as moderator.
Cooley questioned the most recent contracts awarded to U.S.
companies to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, a process he
said had "no transparency, no oversight and no bidding."
He said the contract awards appeared to favor politically-connected
firms and provided a way for the United States government
to avoid accountability in the rebuilding process. "To
whom are contractors accountable?" he wondered. Calling
the situation a "twist on occupation," in which
contractors in effect serve as occupiers with no accountability
to those directly affected, he asked: "Who do Iraqis
go to if things are not going well?"
Cooley, a specialist in international politics, also suggested
that the United States was projecting the wrong image in the
aftermath of war, an unacceptable appearance, he said, that
suggested patronage and war profiteering. "The evidence
is we're not taking this very seriously," he said.
The
third panelist, Kimberly J. Marten, an expert on Russian defense
and foreign policy, said the United States faced a very tough
road in trying to rebuild Iraq alone. "We're not going
to be able to impose a democratic liberalism on Iraq,"
said Marten, an associate professor at Barnard and associate
director of the Harriman Institute at Columbia University.
Marten, in response to a student question about the rise of
an Islamic fundamentalist movement in Iraq, said this scenario
was indeed a strong possibility. "They'll try and they'll
get a lot votes," she said, referring to future elections.
"They will absolutely be a player in the political process."
Marten said she had been struck by many comparisons in the
media between the rebuilding of Iraq and the United States'
effort in rebuilding Japan after World War II. "This
is a very poor model," she said, because the devastation
in Japan following the war was total, as a result of the firebombing
of cities and the atomic explosions. "The Japanese had
no alternative to submission to the American occupiers,"
she said. In addition, Japan was socially homogenous, unlike
Iraq, which has many ethnic and religious groups, such as
Shiite and Sunni Moslems and Kurds. "There will be lots
of political scores to settle among them," she said.
Minnite
noted that the Bush doctrine of pre-emption was a strategy
that foretold "endless war" and criticized the White
House's economic plan, saying the very wealthy would get an
annual break of $90,000 on their tax bills, while most middle-income
earners would receive about $250. "We will sacrifice
poor and middle-class families and shrink the safety net,"
she said.
Contact:
Suzanne Trimel, (212) 854-7583, strimel@barnard.edu
|
