In olden days, it would be the invading army that would loot and plunder the invaded. In the case of Iraq, it was the Iraqis themselves who indulged.

Some Iraqis wondered as to who the plush Al-Rasheed hotel served if not the Iraqis themselves. Obviously, it was the elite government and the rich who were served by such symbols of economic oppression. So, amongst other factors, the Iraqis lost no opportunity to help themselves after the war and to destroy some other infrastructure that the war had spared.

Important question, therefore, is whether Iraq will be RE-BUILT or BUILT afresh. For, if it is only to be re-built, it is the same old grand infrastructure that will be restored as a strong reminder of the dualism perpetuated by the outgoing Baath regime. Unless, it is building of Iraq that is undertaken, Iraqis are likely to breathe no fresh air in terms of their basic economic freedoms that the so-called free world should lose no time in providing as a positive fall-out assured to Iraqis in this war for American security as stated by them.

Iraq is rich in oil resources with the world’s second largest oil reserves. It has a population of some 27 million people only with some 5 million in Baghdad and 1.5 million in their second largest city of Basra. Having a large land area, the population density is low. Paradoxically then, an oil rich country has a poor population with nodes of affluence concentrated partly in Baghdad and possibly Tikrit—-Saddam’s hometown-and some other major cities.

Even though Tikrit is supposed to be a village, it presents the look of a developed country’s village. Up North also presents a relatively better off appearance. Most of the South and Central Iraq revealed during this highly disputed war shows socio-economic backwardness with population centres not-so-capable of thinking for themselves unless led by religious leaders with some engaged in unbelievable intra-sectarian rivalries.

However, one point on which there appeared unanimity throughout the country was their sense of economic deprivation and oppression of all kinds. It was this feeling that served as a major factor in the American war strategy too. For, Americans would not have liked to get to the centre of major cities only to be stoned which would have happened had the population been strongly resentful of them by and large.

While the Iraqi paramilitary troops fought or sniped, the rest fended for themselves and looked forward to a new beginning. As the USA found moral solace in this disposition of the Iraqis, the message is loud and clear. The Iraqis would like a country built on modern lines in which they would govern for themselves. While the economic goal appears clear, its realization remains vague for a country divided on ethnic and sectarian lines with some losing no time to even engage in intra-sectarian killings which is an appalling reflection on their collective psyche.

So, even though the goal is rational on which there appears consensus, getting to the goal will require wading through a sea of irrationality that may still be characterizing the Iraqi population especially in some parts of the centre and in the south and even in the north also found engaged in bitter ethnic strife.

While development is economic outcomes shared equitably by all segments of the population, the financial “brains” of the world are currently thinking only in terms of reconstruction effort and the pie slice each one will get of the total effort. While the approach is ironic, this is as far as the finance wizards can see. Total reconstruction effort is currently estimated at $600 billion to be spent over 10 years.

Annually, therefore, this is some 0.5 per cent of the gross national income of USA and UK combined at some $12 trillion and only 0.6 per cent of USA’s gross national income alone. This is no big catch for their economies as a whole. However, the contracts would be sizable for some corporations which have funded the election campaigns of some hawks in the highest echelons. But, not all of it is going to go to them as other G-7 countries will be staking a claim too as will Pakistan, Iran, and Syria. And, since a horizon broader than reconstruction is being currently painted by the USA, the developed economies are also being persuaded to write-off all of Iraq’s debts amounting to $127 billion.

While $127 billion is the extent of Iraq’s indebtedness to developed countries; reportedly, its debts to other Arab countries amount to $300 billion. If this report is correct, will the Arab countries, which have mostly stood by Iraq, consider writing-off their part of the Iraq debt too. This will be an acid-test of their solidarity with Iraq. Even if the issue of indebtedness is taken care of, it needs to be seen if Iraq’s building will go beyond reconstruction or will stop at that.

If the latter be the case, reconstruction will be perceived as a sharing of the spoils and debt write-off will be viewed as war reparations. Since the IMF and the World Bank have already been mobilized, it appears like a longer haul for the time being.

However, does the IMF have a stabilization package in its portfolio that would fit Iraq which has an economy in the ruins, at least, since it invaded Kuwait over a decade ago and wielded its threat of chemical weapons it used in the past?

The World Bank will be engaging in physical infrastructure projects that are likely to mean more for the affluent Iraqi minority and the contractors than for Iraq’s deprived majority. Who will then put together a development plan for Iraq and how will it be put together?

Not too long ago, such efforts were being made in Bonn for Afghanistan. All that we got out of it is what we had predicted. A Karzai besieged by war lords who cannot see beyond their own small domains and factions. How will the international financiers work through the ethnic and sectarian divides in Iraq that prove to be deadly at times?

Even if the American and Europeans succeed in installing a preferred figure in Baghdad, will he be able to mobilize the support of all the factions that dot Iraq’s landscape? In this building effort, it is putting together a popular interim government that gains salience. Can the US or the G-7 do it by themselves? Given their cultural, religious, and political distance from the people of Iraq, the answer is anybody’s guess.

For, economic development does not work in a vacuum and transcends the simplicity of aid-giving and humanitarian assistance, the unilateralism of debt write-off, and the temporary mutuality of interest in reconstruction of physical infrastructure. While there may be a mutuality of interest in economic development too, it is commonly known that the economic development strategies have strong political and ideological underpinnings.

This is where a conflict is likely to take place between the international lenders and the domestic recipients especially if the domestic representatives are not pro-West or have insights into domestic development that are at odds with the politico-economic interests of the donors.

We know that the IMF’s prescriptions are well-received in countries where the local counterparts are pro-West. Their suitability for the recipient country is currently a secondary issue for Iraq. Mobilization of the IMF in Iraq’s direction is a little different from mobilizing the finest armoured equipment and military forces towards Baghdad.

For, the latter is mainly about military might and the former about minds and hearts. Is it, therefore, possible to have an amenable Iraqi recipient of development prescriptions who would also have the people behind him? While time will unfold more information, currently, it looks like a conservative South and parts of Central Iraq who, after emerging from the devastations of the war, are likely to be thinking more about the Palestinian conflict than economic issues closer to home and are likely to be led by their spiritual leaders in the process.

Iraq’s development is, therefore, a long-term project closely inter-twined with regional political issues whose resolution requires a multilateral rethink by all parties concerned. Iraq’s will be no case of greenhouse cultivation as human minds and hearts cannot remain impervious to ideological influences in close quarters.

As Iraq’s development might still be aimed at by a strong-”willed” USA, it will be good to carry the regional influences along under the auspices of the UN. In the process, the regional conflicts may also be rethought and resolved. If this turns out to be wishful thinking in reality, then all regional influences should be rethinking their winning strategic responses this time around which will also allow the factional Iraqi leaders to think their own economic and political direction independently in concert with whosoever they may choose to do so.

It is freedom to choose and to decide that we must allow to others and thereby to ourselves. Many might then find themselves on the growth path along with Iraq where economic development of the people is long overdue.