• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

10 July 2003

Text: Coalition Officials Say Farm Development Advancing in Iraq

(Security concerns don't stop work, U.S., Australian officials say)
(6150)
Agricultural development efforts are moving forward in Iraq despite
security concerns, said the U.S. senior advisor to Iraq for
agriculture.
Speaking July 9 at a press briefing in Washington, Dan Amstutz said
U.S. agriculture officials are working closely with representatives of
the Australian government and have met with representatives of the
World Bank and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to
plan the reconstruction of the country's agricultural sector.
Amstutz said officials have begun also to meet with Iraqi farmers,
cautioning that patience is needed as the country's agricultural
sector shifts from a heavily-subsidized system to one that is
market-based.
He characterized the security situation in Iraq as "serious" and said
the contacts with farmers have been constrained in recent weeks
because of a limited number of military personnel available to
accompany them on convoys for travel outside of Baghdad.
Also at the briefing, Trevor Flugge, Australia's senior ministry
advisor for agriculture, said coalition officials have been working to
assure Iraqis in the agriculture ministry that the coalition is in the
country "to help you as much as we possibly can to manage through the
processes of change." He said he stressed to the Iraqis that the
coalition's commitment is long-term.
Amstutz and Flugge are scheduled to return to Iraq the week of July
14.
Flugge said that Iraq has "huge potential for economic growth" and
said the United States and Australia need to invest in the country so
it can grow to be a strong trading partner.
Flugge praised the coordination between coalition civilian and
military personnel in rebuilding the agriculture ministry building.
Also speaking at the briefing, J.B. Penn, U.S. under secretary for
farm and foreign agricultural services, said Iraq's wheat and rice
needs have been met "for the next several months."
Following are excerpts from the press briefing:
(begin text)
U.S., Australian Agriculture Officials Discuss Rebuilding Efforts in
Iraq
Dan Amstutz, U.S. Senior Ministry Advisor for Agriculture
Trevor Flugge, Australian Senior Ministry Advisor for Agriculture
J.B. Penn, USDA Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
PENN: Good afternoon. Thank you all for being here. I know that Iraq
and developments there continue to be of great interest to most of
you, and we are pleased to have the opportunity to update you on the
situation as it evolves, as it involves us.
We've had a couple of earlier sessions with you to keep you apprised
of our efforts, of our efforts to assist in rebuilding the Iraqi
economy, especially the agricultural part. As all of you know, this is
a joint undertaking with the Australians, our Coalition partner.
Since we last briefed you, on June the 7th, Mr. Amstutz has been to
Baghdad for a series of meetings with the Coalition Provisional
Authority [CPA] and for his own firsthand observations of the
situation.
Also, since we last touched base, our USDA Foreign Service Officer,
Lee Schatz, who's been in Baghdad since mid-April, has returned. Lee
is going to be stateside now for several weeks, but he is going to
return to Iraq in the near future, and in the meantime, he's going to
be actively engaged here, helping to backstop the efforts in the
field.
Another one of our Foreign Service Officers, Mr. Lloyd Harbert, has
gone to Baghdad, and he's going to be posted there for several months
replacing Lee. Lloyd joins his Australian counterparts in Baghdad, and
they'll continue the activities and the operations that Lee, and
Trevor and others have, the Australian counterparts have underway. We
also expect that we'll be sending several technical specialists over
the next several months to assist in all of those efforts.
Next week, Trevor and Dan are returning to Baghdad together. And
they've had an opportunity this week to meet with senior
administration officials around town, representatives of the World
Bank, other international organizations, and other groups to apprise
them of their assessments and to tell them about our activities there.
I want to ask both of these gentlemen to say a few words of
introduction about the situation in Iraq and our activities there, and
then we'll turn to your questions.
FLUGGE: It is certainly a pleasure to have the opportunity to be here
and particularly to be with Dan and Lee because I've worked with Lee
now for the last six weeks in Baghdad, and what I want to say is that
our relationship, in terms of our objectives that are set here, the
way we've been able to work together has been absolutely outstanding.
For Dan, I've known Dan Amstutz for the last 20-odd years, and on
various occasions, in past lives, we've worked together. We are
clearly of one mind as to what we need to be doing to help the people
of Iraq in terms of agriculture.
AMSTUTZ: I just want to really join J.B. in welcoming Trevor to the
United States. I think both he and I have enjoyed this opportunity to
meet with a myriad of U.S. administration people, as well as the World
Bank, so important to this venture. This whole Iraqi effort has many
fathers, as I'm sure you all know. Many agencies of government are
involved.
I am pleased with the Agriculture Ministry team that's in place in
Baghdad and servicing it from capitals. We have a good team, and I
think probably more has been accomplished in the agriculture area than
in most other ministry areas.
Saying that, I'll repeat something which you all know, that there are
major issues that still have to be addressed in Iraq. The security
issue is serious, so we have difficulty getting around, and power and
water still are not flowing at the rates that we all would like, and
telecommunications is a real problem throughout the country of Iraq.
Fortunately, we have communications now among ourselves, which was
nonexistent several weeks ago.
Nonetheless, the efforts plod ahead. The farmers were able to sell
this year's harvest of wheat and barley and have been paid for it. We
are working hard to get the inputs together so that the fall-sown
crops can go to the ground with the necessary inputs.
Big progress has been made -- a real thanks to Lee Schatz on
developing the Management Committee of the Ag Ministry into a
functioning group. And Trevor and I share this vision that we have for
Iraq that one day it will have an agriculture industry which is a
showpiece for the entire Middle East. That is our hope, and we want to
help facilitate that.
QUESTION: A question for Mr. Flugge. What is your assessment of the
potential impact on Australian contracts, existing wheat contracts,
and the future of Australian wheat sales in Iraq based on the pending
U.N. review and potential renegotiation of those contracts?
FLUGGE: Let me explain something that I think is a bit of a
misconception by a lot of people because the ministry that we work in
is the Ministry of Agriculture, and we actually have no contact
directly with the Ministry of Trade, who are responsible for the
importation of food products.
The Ministry of Agriculture does have a responsibility for the
importation of some feed items, such as feed that is available for
chickens and the like, and because really the livestock industry [is]
limited to chickens, very limited dairy, very limited beef production,
and the sheep meat production don't require imported feed, we actually
have very little involvement.
Q: Trevor, could you give us -- Mr. Amstutz has mentioned this before
-- but could you give us, from the Australian point of view, your
assessment of the security issues, both for yourself and the
Australians who are working there, but also in terms of how this is
affecting your ability to work in the field with Iraqi farmers and how
that also works at a kind of local town level or village level.
FLUGGE: When we first arrived in Baghdad with the ORHA [Office of
Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance] group -- we actually went
into a period where I think there was basically, after the war, there
was a huge release of emotion by the people, generally, and there was
a lot of confusion, but generally people were saying, "The war is
over, thank God. We've been freed from this millstone that's been
around our neck for the last 20-odd years, and there is a better life
ahead of us."
And so we went into a period of where I think everyone was very, very
comfortable, and we, as civilians working in that environment, were
also very comfortable. We traveled extensively during that period. We
traveled in, you know, these SUVs [sports utility vehicles] that we've
been given. We were able to travel to the North. We traveled to the
South to farmers meetings. We were able to communicate very freely.
Our ministry building in the center of Baghdad was one where we
visited virtually every day and met with the Management Committee and
other people that came into that building. So it was very comfortable.
I must admit the last couple of weeks things have changed, and I don't
think this is unexpected, and that is that all of a sudden the people
of Iraq have woken up. The honeymoon is over. It's actually going to
be hard work from thereon. The country is technically bankrupt. A lot
of the infrastructure is showing the signs of neglect of the last 25
years.
So things like power and water were inadequate before the war. They
haven't improved overnight, and of course they can't improve
overnight, but there was an expectation by a lot of people that, you
know, the Coalition could wave the magic wand and basically bring 100
percent of power back to Baghdad in one minute It's not going to
happen. And despite the best efforts of the Coalition partners and the
people working in that area, it's going to take some time to bring it
back up to speed.
So we've got now a situation where I think there is a degree of
concern and unrest amongst the people. I think that's understandable.
I think there is a concern that the security is not as good as it
should be, and I think there's potential at least for some organized,
I suppose, resistance.
Now, as a civilian, we don't really know whether there is or there
isn't. There is no way that any of us individually can assess that,
and so it would be pure speculation on our part to enter into that.
However, we are seeing sabotage to some of the utilities, we're seeing
these random shooting events. Whether they are linked to something
organized or not, we don't know. The fact of the matter is they are
occurring.
And so, for us, as civilians, I think it really is going to change
certainly for the next month or so the way we go about our business.
The reality is it will slow down the progress that we have been making
with our Ministry of Agricultural people in trying to stand that
ministry up and get it working again. That's going to slow that
progress significantly, and I think it's just something we're going to
have to be patient and work through.
We will, if the military gets on top of this situation fairly quickly,
then I think we can get back to business in the short term. Security
is going to become a fairly high priority on all of our lists.
Q: Dr. Penn, the United States set aside a lot of wheat from the Bill
Emerson Trust. I think it was around 600,000 tons. To date, very
little has been sent over, and USAID [U.S. Agency for International
Development] has even diverted some of that now to Ethiopia. Is this
done with? Is there going to be absolutely no more need for this Bill
Emerson Trust, these wheat donations, or is this something we're
keeping open as an option for later?
PENN: Well, as you indicated, the administration opened the Bill
Emerson Trust for an "up to" amount for some maximum level that we
felt might be needed during the course of this enterprise.
Back when this action was taken, of course, there was no notion as to
what the future might hold, and we didn't have any idea of what the
food situation might be there or what we might encounter. So we were
being prudent to make available supplies in case we needed them, and
the availability was both for Iraq and for Africa, and as it turns
out, the crisis in the Horn of Africa became much greater, and so we
have been able to use some of the supplies for Africa.
But I think these gentlemen can tell you far better than I, but in
terms of wheat and rice, I think most of the needs have been met for
the next several months, and so that it's unlikely that we'll need any
of the Emerson Trust Wheat for the next several months until we look
beyond what we can see now and see what the food needs might be.
Q: At the November conclusion of the oil-for-food contracts, what
comes next, and what are the prospects for exports of foodstuffs both
from the U.S. and Australia?
AMSTUTZ: You are right that the oil-for-food program ends November 21,
and a transition has to begin before that to go into a different
system. Much of what Trevor and I discussed here today, and during his
stay, was this subject with various agencies of the U.S. Government,
and we were in constant dialogue with the CPA about this.
We're not in a position to announce exactly what form that will take,
but we hope it begins a transition into a market economy. Let me just
put it that way, but the key word here is transition. It can't happen
overnight.
And beyond that, we are quite sure that for the next year or so, in
some food items, Iraq will have to depend on some imports, certainly
some wheat and some rice. Our hope is that the purchasing is done
competitively, in an open way, and that all interested suppliers have
a crack at the business.
Q: Would you tell us, please, who is paying you and how much you are
being paid. USDA has told reporters how much Mr. Amstutz is being
paid. As you know, there are lots of questions from U.S. wheat-growers
about this.
And, also, can you tell us, since the Australian aid agency is I
believe doing analyses in Iraq and so is USAID, how is all of this
being coordinated? Is there also an Iraqi agency to receive them? Are
they working with the Iraqi Agriculture Minister? There seem to be so
many people, and we'd like to know how it's coordinated.
FLUGGE: Well, I can assure you the American taxpayer is not paying my
bill. That's the first thing.
No, the Australian Government picks up all of my costs and has
contributed significantly to agriculture in Iraq. In fact, let me say
to you this, that things like the reconstruction of the current
building of the Ministry of Agriculture in central Baghdad is being
paid for by the Australian Government. The communication system we're
putting in, the satellite communication system which we're putting in,
is being paid for by the Australian Government. So along with the
United States, who is putting in enormous amounts of money, I mean
there's no question about that, and are really making a huge sacrifice
to help Iraq on the way.
Australia is doing its part, as part of the Coalition partners. So
people like myself and other Australians that are there are being paid
for by the Australian Government. The amount of money we're being
paid, let me just say it's commensurate with the risk that we are
undertaking. We are not actually government employees. I'm a
private-sector person, and I'm contracted to the Australian Government
to carry out this task, and anything that I do and don't do is
confidential information.
I won't give it to you. So that's all I'm prepared to say on that.
In terms of coordination, that's a very good question because we're
all very concerned that the scarce resources that we have, even though
it sounds like there's a lot of money being thrown at this from a lot
of different sources, the reality is that it's a huge issue. I mean,
this whole problem of Iraq, we're dealing with 25 years of neglect. I
mean, this regime effectively bankrupted the people of Iraq through
mismanagement and misappropriation of funds over the years.
So we're dealing on behalf of the Iraqi people now with a huge
problem, and the sorts of money that people talk about may seem big on
paper, but in reality, when you try and put it on the ground, it's
actually quite small, and we're going to need probably a lot more
money to come forward from the international community to help this
country get back on its feet and get on the road to recovery.
Of course, it has the potential to get on the road to recovery because
it's a nation that does have huge reserves of oil, huge potential in
terms of agriculture because of its water, its lands, and its ability
to actually produce. So it's not a country that's a basket case. It's
simply been neglected by the previous regime, and the damage that's
been done to that country is enormous.
In terms of coordination, that is always a big concern. And we do
everything we possibly can within the ministry, and Dan and myself and
the other advisors, to ensure that the aid agencies actually talk to
one another. In fact, the previous meeting to this was with the World
Bank.
Now, we need at our level some economic advice. And we'll be seeking
to get a couple of economists on the ground just to give us some, you
know, quick analysis of the current terms of trade to farmers. Because
if we're going to give advice to a future government and the Iraqi
people, we need to know what the situation is. And at the moment, to
be quite honest, we're all guessing. So we need this work done.
That has to dovetail into the sort of work the World Bank are going to
do, because they're looking at the bigger picture. They're looking at
the longer-term future, how Iraq is going to be funded in the future
to look and get up to the point where it can look after itself.
So we're very conscious of that, and all I can say is that, at our
level, we're doing everything we can to coordinate the agencies. And
I'm going to say to you now that I think the agencies are being
extremely cooperative in this effort. We haven't found any that are
sort of running off doing their own thing or being protective about
the work that they're doing. In fact, quite the opposite. They all
realize that we need to work together. And, you know, USAID [was] in
Baghdad about two weeks ago. We had meetings with them there. I mean,
all the agencies are coming through. The FAO [U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization], we meet with them once a week to work
through our issues -- the U.N. people that are involved constantly in
meetings.
So I think one can be very confident that the communication is
actually taking place, and the coordination will flow from that
communication.
Q: Trevor, could you just talk a little bit more about how the attacks
have slowed down, as you've said, the work you're doing? And has it in
any way caused Iraqis who are working with the coalition to have
second thoughts or be reluctant to do that sort of work?
FLUGGE: There is a little bit of an issue here, I think, that we have
to manage, and that is that there is an inherent fear amongst Iraqis
on the street that the coalition might move out and, if they do, these
bad people will come back. And the aftermath of the Gulf War was such
that -- and the things that occurred after that and the reprisals on
people were such that they're very clear in people's minds. So I think
politically we have to keep on reminding them that we are there for
the long haul. And in our ministry, I mean, we say to those people,
look, we're not going to abandon you. We are going to be here. We will
stand beside you. We're not going to run the country for you; you have
to do that. But we're here to help you as much as we possibly can to
manage through the processes of change that you have to go through.
So you're quite right. There is a public relations exercise that we go
through at the agriculture level, that the CPA is doing a very good
job, I believe. I think Jerry Bremmer is working very hard at trying
to ensure that the people understand that the coalition and other
friendly partners are there for the long haul. But there is that fear.
And that fear comes about when, you know, you have a degree of
lawlessness on the streets, you have random shootings, you have
sabotage events, you have power failures, water failures, and the
like.
So this is why it is very important in the next month or two months to
get on top of these issues to show that, one, we can control the
situation, and two, give that sort of long-term security to people.
And we're right in the middle of that right now. So I don't think--I
don't downplay that as an issue, but I think it's an issue that can be
managed and we're doing our part to try and manage that.
Q: How much is the new agricultural ministry building costing, and
when will it be finished?
FLUGGE: What actually happened with the buildings, the ministries got
their 12 major buildings and numerous warehouses and other buildings
around the country. They were all effectively looted and vandalized
and, in some cases, sabotaged. Most of it was relatively superficial,
like glass and floor coverings and furniture taken and air
conditioning systems wiped out and the like. In some cases, where they
were burnt, there was structural damage. What we decided to do was, .
. . to say, look, let's get this building up in central Baghdad. Let's
stand it up so that people can physically come back to work.
So we've taken that on, the cost of that, to actually physically refit
it. And this is in terms of painting, floor coverings, replacement of
glass, getting the air conditioning system back up and running again.
It will be somewhere between 300-400 thousand U.S. dollars. The actual
provision of desks, computers, and the like, will probably be another
300-400 thousand. So I think we'll probably get out of it for about
$800,000. I mean, we've got the money sitting there now in Baghdad to
do it; we physically brought it in, in cash.
This is very important to show them that we could physically do
something. It's a symbolic gesture. It's not very much, when you look
at the reconstruction bill of Iraq, but it actually shows that's we're
prepared to get out and do something. And we've done it as a team. I
mean, you know, it is Australian money, but let me tell you, the
people that went and picked it up and carried it back in a bag from
Kuwait were our civil affairs guys out of the American Army. So, I
mean, we've done this together. They took the risk. If anything was
going to happen, they had to take it.
We're doing this, and it's a great gesture on behalf of the Australian
government, but it's a team effort. In fact, Danny Woodyard, our civil
affairs guy who is an attorney, works for USDA out at Little Rock. I
mean, he's an attorney, he drew up the contract, he's in fact in
charge of making sure that that building is completed. And the time
span he has for completion is about another two months from today.
So, I mean, we're working this as a team. We provide the money, he
provides the skill and the necessary to make sure it happens.
Q: Now that you've talked about all that money over there, I'm
definitely going to ask you a security question. When he reports that
things deteriorate quite rapidly, when do you make the decision that
it's just too dangerous for you and your team to go there, since you
stress that you're not military. When do you make that call, and have
you thought about making that call?
FLUGGE: Oh, well, I think we can be there. I mean, basically, where
all the people involved in the CPA live and essentially work in
offices is a very secure zone. I mean, we have a few Abrams tanks and
all these sorts of military things that I'm not really familiar with,
but I mean, that part of it is quite secure. We don't actually have a
problem. The problem is where you have to get out and interact with
the Iraqi people. You can actually bring Iraqi people into what is the
convention center. In fact, initially this is what used to happen. You
-- because it was too dangerous to go out, and uncertain, what you did
was arrange for these people to come into the convention center.
There's a whole range of meeting rooms there so that you could
actually have your meeting. That's exactly what we'll do. Our
management committee and people that we need to see, we'll say, well,
look, we can't travel out there anymore today or this week, why don't
you guys come in.
I don't think that we've even considered pulling our team out or
anything like that. It hasn't reached the point where, you know, all
of a sudden we're going to have another war on our hands. It's just
uncertainty in the streets.
Having said that, I've advised our team to make sure that they do take
the necessary security precautions that are in place, and we'll deal
with it that way.
Q: Given the security problems, do either of you meet regularly or
consistently with farmers and, if so, what is it they're telling you
about what they need?
AMSTUTZ: It's pretty much as Trevor has explained it. Initially, as he
said, the problem of getting out of Baghdad was a small one, and he
and Lee covered much of the territory in the north. And they had what
sounds like a marvelous meeting with rice farmers south of Baghdad.
And no question, from those kinds of meetings you learn a lot. And
you've heard each of us say at one time or another, or one way or
another, that we viewed getting out and talking with farmers an
enormously important part of our function of ours. And that's more
difficult now. There's just no question about it. And there are just a
limited number of military people that can go along in convoys.
So we are very hopeful that this situation improves quickly. We are
confident that it's being addressed, and we just hope it moves along
quickly, because we really do want that contact with farmers. As
Trevor has said, and you'll hear me say frequently, too, that we're to
facilitate doing what the Iraqis perceive is necessary. It's their
country, their agriculture. And so we want to hear from them.
FLUGGE: Well, we actually had a very good meeting a few weeks ago. We
went down to Najaf, which is a town about 200 kilometers south of
Baghdad. And it's a rice-growing area. Now, one of the issues that we
have, of course, is the Ministry of Agriculture historically provided
a lot of the imports -- fertilizer, chemicals, and all that -- at very
reduced rates. Because of all the looting that occurred, a lot of our
warehouses were literally bare. I mean, we didn't physically have the
inputs to provide to these rice farmers. So we had to go down and
literally say to them, look, we're sorry, but, you know, this is one
occasion where you're going to have to do the best you possibly can.
And it's not a good message.
So there were about 150, I think that's right. What both of us said at
the meeting was if they closed their eyes and listened to what was
going on, the only difference between going to a farmer's meeting in
Kansas or in [inaudible] Australia, my hometown, was they spoke in
different languages. But all the characters were there, all the
problems were exactly the same. They're [against] the former
government, they're [against] the new government. The prices are not
high enough and the cost of imports are too high. And frankly, it's
about time you guys, instead of coming down here, why don't you earn
your money and get out and sort the problem out for us.
So, I mean, it was really no different to the problems we have here.
Farmers are the same the world over. I told them that afterwards. I
said, look, you know, you guys are exactly the same as what we deal
with within our own countries.
So, you know, that's interesting, though, because it means that at
least people like Dan and myself and Lee that have had, you know, the
opportunity over the years to deal with farmers and to deal with the
problems of farmers, that we're not dealing with anything different
here. The needs, the wants of these people, their love of the land,
their love of agriculture, their commitment to their country, their
pride is exactly the same as what you'd have here in the United
States, exactly the same as what you'll have in Australia and other
parts of the world.
That means it seems like change is not easy. People don't respond
quickly to change. That's why, when we talk about moving agriculture
from this very heavily subsidized type structure that they currently
have to a fully open market where they have to live on their wits,
we're not going to be able to do that overnight. If we try and do it
overnight, the reaction will be very, very strong against that. We'll
be battling to manage the politics. And the politics are going to be
very important in the future of Iraq because politicians are going to
be elected from the rural areas. And if the rural people are unhappy,
the government will be far less stable than it should be.
So we actually have to be able to advise these people on how we can
move agriculture from this very dysfunctional state that they're
currently in -- and, quite frankly, unaffordable in the future -- to
something that is a truly market-based system that can be a positive
contributor to their economy. But you can't do that overnight.
So it's a real challenge, I think, for people like Dan and myself. And
obviously our team can try and devise mechanisms that will set them on
the road to this change, and hopefully, you know, they'll be able to
achieve it down the track. But we can't do it quickly. It's going to
take time.
And the other pressures that come on, of course, are the Treasury
people that say, Trevor, we have no money, you're going to have to do
something. And we have to say, well, okay, let's talk about this
because we're going to need some time and you're going to have to give
us some time. The international community [is] going to have to give
us time. You just cannot make the changes rapidly. That's what the
agricultural farmers are like.
And I think that's a -- it's actually a very healthy situation,
because it means you've got the basis there for a very good future
agricultural industry, if we can get it right.
Q: Based on what you've said, all of the logistical and the
infrastructure problems and the difficulty of getting supplies to
producers, how do you assess now the prospects for this market in
terms of its size and potential of the future once you get past some
of these hurdles. In May, after the war, I believe, Ambassador Amstutz
was saying that he saw this as a possibly smaller wheat market, for
example, because of greater self-sufficiency. Minister Vale was saying
it might be a bigger market with more opportunities for all
competitors.
Today, how do you view the situation in terms of the long-term
prospects for market potential?
FLUGGE: Well, let me say this about the long-term prospects. This
country has got huge potential for economic growth. And I think if it
can find ways of establishing a very stable government, which
obviously the coalition will be doing everything they can to
encourage, if they are given the opportunity by the international
community to resolve some of these relatively short-term financial
issues that they're currently facing, if we can provide, you know,
sound advice and sow the seeds of a truly market-driven economy with
all the opportunities that that can bring, then I think this country
will be a very strong, vibrant economy within the Middle East.
Now, what comes with that are trading opportunities for all of us.
And, you know, I wouldn't like to predict or even try to predict
whether that will be more or less than currently is imported into
Iraq. But all I'm going to say is that if we, as Australia and the
United States, want to have a strong trading partner in the future, we
need to sow those seeds now. And if we can build their economy and
help them grow their country the way it should be able to grow, and
make them prosperous, they will be good trading partners with all of
us. And frankly, out of that will come great trading opportunities for
the future. And we'll all be involved in that.
So clearly, in my mind, the important thing is now to make the
investment. And I think in the long term we will all benefit from
that.
Q: Earlier in the conversation from the original conferences with Mr.
Amstutz, we have discussed the outstanding debt. Can you tell us how
that's being addressed and what implications that has for future
trading opportunities?
And then also to Mr. Amstutz and Mr. Flugge, could you typify what
kind of discussions you've had with World Bank, and what role they
will play in rebuilding financial infrastructure?
PENN: I don't think there's a lot of new information that I can tell
you beyond what we knew at the time. I think that the amounts of debt
that we talked about are pretty much the same. The interagency group,
a team led by Treasury, is examining the Iraqi debt situation and
they're evaluating how best to handle this. And it's going to involve
the Paris Club and the London Club and debt restructurings and all of
these things. So a lot of that is being looked at, is being examined.
But as far as I know, there's nothing new to report beyond what we
said at the earlier time.
AMSTUTZ: And the World Bank is in the process of conducting what they
call needs assessments in a number of industry areas. I think they
mentioned today 14 industry areas covering the full gamut of
investor-like activity in Iraq. They're pointing toward a date in
October when there will be a more formal donors conference in the U.N.
in New York. And needless to say, an up-to-date, impartial, objective,
hopefully accurate assessment of needs will be a very important
ingredient in that discussion.
Concurrent with World Bank developing that information, the CPA in
Baghdad is working on the 2004 budget. You just saw released, I think
today, in the Wall Street Journal some 2003 budget figures. They're
working on the 2004 budget. And these are the two major ingredients
that will be presented to the participants at the donors meeting in
New York. And that will be a very important meeting. As Trevor has
said, more money is needed. And we're going to have to find it.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)