|
We may be strangers to Iraqi mores but we always are mindful of the glorious
history of the country. Long before there were ancient Greece, Rome, and the
beginnings of Western civilization, there were the Babylonians, the pioneers
of civilization throughout western Asia. Their capital was a radiant city some
50 miles south of modern Baghdad. They ruled more than once what they believed
to be a world-wide empire. By 2800 B.C. they already had developed a system
of writing which was used throughout the Mediterranean and in Egypt. Excellent
sculptures and engravings testify to their artistic attainments and a legal
system such as the Code of Hammmurabi speaks of their search for order and
justice. Their economic system allowed them to be industrious traders with
partners and customers throughout western Asia.
Face-to-face with present-day Iraqians we must reflect on their recent past.
History may provide a vantage point from which we can observe the people and
understand the ideologies which motivate them. The history of modern Iraq is
a record of bloody revolution, rebellions, coups, and wars. It began after
World War I when the country emerged from 400 years of Turkish rule and was
made a British mandate. It became a sovereign, independent state in 1932, but
suffered a second British occupation in World War II when German forces in
Egypt threatened the British mandates in western Asia. British troops had barely
left in 1947 when Iraq joined other members of the Arab League and waged an
unsuccessful war against the newly formed state of Israel. A few years later,
in 1958, a bloody military revolution replaced the constitutional monarchy
with a ruling clique of generals who introduced "people's courts" and
mass executions. Thereafter, Iraq was ruled by various radical regimes of the
Baath party, champions of "Arab socialism." Always at odds with one
or more neighboring countries, they readily participated in the October 1973
war against Israel.
In 1979 Iraq experienced an unusual transfer of power from one Baath leader
to another: a bloodless change of power. Citing ill health, the old president
handed over the reins to General Saddam Hussein, Vice Chairman of the Revolutionary
Council of the Party. But barely installed, the general discovered a plot against
his government; twenty-one high government officials promptly were executed
by firing squads. A few months later, in September 1980, Saddam Hussein voided
old peace agreements with the late Shah of Iran, which signalled the outbreak
of an all-out war with Iran, the bloodiest since World War II. It pitted some
13 million Iraqis against 38 million Iranians, lasted nearly eight years, and
cost the lives of some one million Iranian and Iraqi men.
The end of the war with Iran in 1988 left Saddam Hussein with an experienced
army estimated to be a million strong. He lost no time as, in August 1990,
his army invaded and conquered the oil-rich neighbor, Kuwait, which had supported
him generously during his war with Iran. But to his surprise and dismay, this
aggression rebounded as President George H. Bush marshaled an international
force which liberated the country early in 1991. Iraqi casualties were estimated
at over 85,000 and some 175,000 soldiers were taken prisoner.
Saddam Hussein managed to cling to power despite United Nations economic sanctions
and several uprisings by the Kurds in the North and Shiites in the South. Large-scale
executions suppressed all resistance and many Iraqis just disappeared. Hussein
organized the economy along the lines of a rigid command system with price
and wage controls, strict rationing of basic foods and supplies at normal prices,
and a ban on the sale of "nonessential luxury" items. At the same
time, he boosted government spending and inflated the stock of money at hyper
rates of many thousand percent. His economic system soon developed its well-known
inevitable symptoms; while the official economy slowed to a crawl and unemployment
at times soared to 40 percent, Iraqi economic life turned illicit, that is,
to black markets. But in stagnation and poverty, Hussein succeeded in making
the UN sanctions the dominant issue not only with his people but also the international
community. Ever contemptuous toward the UN and especially the United States
he enjoyed great prestige at home and with Arab masses for confronting the
Western powers.
In the end, his bluster and swagger vanished when American and British armed
forces occupied the country. While the four-week war wrought much destruction
on Iraqi government facilities and, for a few days, endangered the lives of
the people in major cities such as Baghdad, Arbil, Basra, and Mosul, it inflicted
little damage on agriculture and major industries of oil, chemicals, textiles,
and food processing. It crushed the old political order and left the economy
in confusion and disarray. Above all, it left the command system with no one
in command.
* * *
Human life is driven by a dim apprehension of religious, political, and economic
thought which philosophers and economists seek to understand. Much of Asia
is driven by Islam, the religion founded by the Prophet Muhammed, and by socialism,
the political and economic theory that advocates government ownership and management
of the means of production and government distribution of goods.
Islam, meaning "submission" to the one God, Allah, resembles the
monotheistic faith of Judaism and Christianity. It is unitary in nature, covering
and uniting both man's relationship with God and with society. Religion and
social relations are inseparable; the ruler of a community is both a religious
and a political leader seeking to guide his members. This unitary nature helped
the spread of Islam from Mecca to Spain in the West and Indonesia in the East,
from Kazakhstan in the North to Tanzania in the South. As Islam continues to
expand and become more visible in Europe and North America, religious tension
and conflict tend to grow.
The unitary nature of Islam naturally is partial to political responsibility
and leadership in economic matters which helps to explain the economic and
social policies of governments throughout the Muslim world. The leaders sit
in judgment of economic policies or even conduct them. Influenced by various
schools, doctrines, and notions of economic thought, they may favor any kind
of economic policy from welfarism to radical socialism of the dictatorial type.
Clerics are the tutors and preceptors of Islamic theology and social and economic
ideology.
Saddam Hussein chaired the Baath party of Arab socialism. Although out of
sight since the arrival of American and British troops, the party continues
to represent the paramount political, economic, and educational ideology of
the Iraqi people. Its advocacy of collective ownership of the means of production,
of wage and price controls, and government allocation of individual income
and benefits is the source of perpetual social conflict and political power.
Personal ambition and social conflict together provide the ideological fuel
for rebellions and revolutions. Attempts at overthrowing an established regime
somewhere in the socialistic world are made nearly every year. In Iraq the
number of revolutions, uprisings, rebellions, revolts, and coups d'etat since
its inception in 1932 are too numerous to mention.
Well-versed in socialistic exploitative thought, the clerics and their disciples
are convinced that the United States government is interested only in the rich
oil deposits in Iraq, known to be nearly as large as those of Saudi Arabia.
In their eyes, the war is a bloody imperialistic conquest and usurpation of
their national resources.
The most important industry in Iraq undoubtedly is the petroleum industry
which is exploiting the deposits in the Northeast, North, and South of the
country. Their ownership, past and present, raises important ideological questions.
Do the deposits belong to the land owner who finds them, develops them, and
makes them productive and profitable, or do they belong to the government that
happens to rule the country? Socialists of all shades and colors render all
economic resources and production to government officials and politicians who
plan and direct economic activity. In socialistic countries government owns
and its officials manage all natural resources and industries including fishing,
forestry, and mining. Even in countries that allow private property in production
the government may claim legal title to all the minerals in the ground. Exploitation
is either by government agencies or private companies under concessions from
the government. They are granted preferably to domestic firms belonging to
the political party in power.
Before World War I oil companies throughout the world enjoyed fee-simple titles
to the property they acquired and developed. But with the rise of socialism
and nationalism in many parts of the world, governments sought to assert paramount
claims and titles to all the minerals in the ground. In time, many began to
expropriate not only foreign companies but also domestic firms. In nearly every
case the compensation paid for the properties seized was arbitrary and confiscatory.
In Iraq it was an Anglo-German business, known as the Turkish Petroleum Company,
which exploited the Iraqi deposits and began production before World War I.
After the War the German owners were expropriated and the property was divided
between the British Petroleum Oil Company which received 23¾ percent
of ownership, Royal Dutch Shell 23¾ percent, Standard Oil of New Jersey
together with Standard Vacuum of New York 23¾ percent, Compagnie Francaise
23¾ percent, and a local foundation 5 percent. After World War II the
British government became the majority stockholder in the British Petroleum
Oil Company by way of nationalization and the French government assumed 35
percent ownership of the French Company.
In the footsteps of European socialism the Iraqi government nationalized some
oil fields and assets in 1961 and others in 1972. It paid no compensation for
those assets seized in 1962 and limited its payment for Western-owned property
seized in 1972 to delivery of a few million tons of crude oil. As a reprisal
for U.S. support of Israel, it nationalized the property of two American oil
companies, Mobil and Exxon, and severed its diplomatic relations with the United
States, which forced a few U.S. officials to work out of the Belgian embassy
in Baghdad. Diplomatic relations were restored during the Iran-Iraq War when
Iraq sought favors from the Reagan Administration.
The United States government now faces the thorny job of managing Iraq's oil
production and sales which employs more than 40,000 workers throughout the
country. It is a tattered industry misruled and deprived of investment during
decades of government ownership and management. Run by Saddam Hussein cronies,
it is in urgent need ot people with industry expertise and of billions of dollars
to repair the rundown industry's infrastructure. What should now be done with
the industry that has such a colorful and controversial past? President George
Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are in agreement and made it clear that
Iraqi oil and other natural resources are "the patrimony of the people
of Iraq, which should be used only for their benefit." This position obviously
echoes the point of view of all statists and socialists who look upon government
and its officials as the guardians of the people's natural resources. To them,
private property in petroleum production, in contrast with political ownership
and bureaucratic management, apparently is suspect of the selfishness, greed,
and covetousness of predatory capitalists. Most media throughout the world
echo this very position.
The only question still being discussed is who will manage the industry in
the short term - United States appointees, United Nations officials, or Iraqi
national oil company executives. United Nations officials undoubtedly would
prefer to continue the food-for-oil arrangement which made them the custodians
of the proceeds of Iraqi oil exports during the UN sanctions; unless they are
returned as keepers, they are likely to favor continuation of the sanctions.
But we may assume that Paul Bremer, President Bush's appointee, will search
for Iraqis with industry expertise to run the industry, replacing Saddam Hussein's
cronies. And if only few such experts can be found or can be trusted, he may
call upon professionals of American and British oil companies. They may be
able to manage "the people's property."
Friends of the private property order observe the Iraqi scene with great concern.
They are convinced that now is the time to encourage the Iraqi people toward
establishing freedom and the market order. If it is missed, it may be lost
forever. It will continue the political order of mismanagement, dissension,
turmoil, strife, and struggle and enmesh the United States in a conflict with
a resentful world. Now is the time to privatize all industries and facilities
of production owned by the government of Iraq. What the generals brutally expropriated
should be returned to the builders and owners, whoever and wherever they should
be. The foreign corporations with millions of stockholders throughout the Western
world should be invited to return or at least be compensated for their expropriation
losses. We cannot undo the past but we must meet its obligations and attend
to the injuries suffered in the past. Surely, any kind of privatization of
Iraqi industry is likely to cause a cry of protest throughout the socialistic
world and especially by the governments of the oil-producing countries in the
Middle East. It will provoke the wrath of the kings, emirs, and sultans of
the Muslim world, for they practice a different type of privatization which
yields personal riches, splendor, and pleasure to them. Even the people of
Iraq are likely to resist and defy any true privatization because they have
never experienced a freely functioning market order and, therefore, would feel
lost and abandoned without controllers and commanders.
The difficulties of transition from an economic command system that has shaped
and conditioned the psyche and memory of several generations of Iraqis are
numerous and immense. Yet the people already passed two important milestones
on the way to a free-market system. They reached the first in 1984 and 1985
amidst the war with Iran when Saddam Hussein embarked upon substantial privatization
of the economy, especially in light and medium industries, the service industries,
and most significantly, agriculture. It led to increased economic cooperation
with other Arab countries and the West. Surely, he sought to control his people
with draconic price and wage controls as he inflated and depreciated the currency
during the 1990s. Yet, the thought of privatization of economic production
has been a popular Iraqi concept ever since.
The second milestone on the way to economic freedom was reached during the
time of hyperinflation which depreciated the government benefits and thus severed
all ties of dependency. Moreover, black markets always train and prepare a
new generation for the market order. Capable black marketeers tend to become
great entrepreneurs who search for new ways of rendering economic services.
Once the black markets are set legally free and unhampered, the entrepreneurs
are likely to work miracles, recasting and rebuilding the economy. Unfortunately,
they will have to contend not only with some felons in their midst, who do
not distinguish between illegal black-market service and fraudulent trade,
but also with many former politicians and bureaucrats who, accustomed to the
old ways of connection and corruption, are likely to subvert and degrade the
markets on which they appear as entrepreneurs. Observing the confusion and
bedlam of transition, the media then may call for return to the command system,
and new politicians may prepare new sets of government controls. In short,
people accustomed to a command system may feel rather secure and contented
in such a system and, therefore, not be ready for the unfamiliar demands of
the enterprise system. While they may favor and opt for the command system
they may yearn for the fruits of free enterprise.
A thorny job of managing Iraq's oil production is dealing with numerous foreign
companies which under contract are rendering vital services to the industry.
To make peace in the world of petroleum, this writer would honor all international
construction, service, and sales contracts signed under Hussein, even if they
were driven by his private interests. Some contracts held by Russian, Chinese,
Indian, French, and German companies undoubtedly were made to curry political
favor and win favorable votes in the UN. But voiding such contracts, which
differ fundamentally from intergovernmental loans and credits, would be a clear
violation of the quintessence of contract and undermine the enterprise order
which is a contract order.
During the bloody war with Iran the Hussein government sought and received
loans and credits from its Muslim allies and friendly neighbors, estimated
as high as $120 billion, which amount to some $5,000 per head of the present
population of 24 million. It received large loans from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
and other friendly Persian Gulf states sympathetic to his stand against the
Iranian theocracy. The Soviet Union supplied military air-to-air missiles.
Even the United States provided financial credits for the purchase of American
foods. Should the Iraqi people now be forced to repay loans incurred to finance
a war of aggression launched by their dictator, a war which took the lives
of some one million Iranians and Iraqis, greatly impoverished the people of
both countries, and burdened them with staggering debts?
It is an "odious debt" on the part of both the debtors and creditors.
Economists have struggled with the question of debt and payment throughout
the last century from World War I to the Persian Gulf conflict. While their
reaction usually is ambivalent, this economist draws an important distinction
between intergovernmental credits and private contract debt. He would honor
all private obligations, no matter what borders they cross and where and when
they were incurred, but would refuse to redeem intergovernmental debt that
allowed a dictatorial regime to wage wars of aggression. There cannot be any
doubt that the Iraq-Iran War would soon have drawn to a close and the Hussein
regime would have come to ruin if friendly governments had not lent full support
to his aggression. Why should the credits that facilitated the slaughter of
a million men and kept a ruthless dictator in power for another decade of bloodshed
be honored and redeemed? Refusal would send a strong cautionary message to
politicians and officials throughout the world about lending to dictatorships
and financing wars of aggression.
* * *
The bloody dictatorship of Saddam Hussein has been vanquished, but the ideas
that propagated and nurtured it are alive and popular throughout the Muslim
world. Proclaimed and propagated by a multitude of teachers and clerics, they
kept Hussein in power and the Iraqi people dependent on a master. Finally liberated
by American and British forces, they now express open indignation at "the
occupiers" and urge them to leave. They would love to return to a new
version of Arab socialism.
There can be no more challenging task for occupation forces than to guide
their charges to the light of freedom. Resentment, bitterness, wounded pride,
and national honor are natural obstacles to their willingness to learn and
comply. It may take several years of an unhampered market order with its visible
fruits and improvements, introduced and protected by Coalition forces, to win
the people over to its form and structure. The shortest road to an Iraqi enterprise
system is yet another: it would be one proposed, promoted, and prescribed by
an Iraqi mullah or professor who could successfully demonstrate the necessary
changes and lead his people every step of the way. Students always learn best
from their own teachers.
|