Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=12-12-03

TYPE=INTERVIEW

NUMBER=2-834

TITLE=US-IRAQ

BYLINE=DAVID BORGIDA

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

CONTENT=

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Charlie Cray, director of the Center for Corporate Policy, and Mr. Radek Sikorski, Executive Director of the New Atlantic Initiative at the American Enterprise Institute, discuss the Bush administration's decision to ban countries opposed to the war on Iraq from bidding for reconstruction projects in that country.

MR. BORGIDA

And now joining us to discuss this controversial issue of awarding contracts in Iraq, Charlie Cray, Director of the Center for Corporate Policy, and Radek Sikorski, with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

Thanks, gentlemen, for joining us on a Friday here in Washington. The Washington Post, in an editorial today, at one point in discussing this issue of contracts and the Bush policy, it referred to it as spiteful unilateralism. At least those were the words that appeared in there, in a long editorial. I'm going to ask you both, do you think it is spiteful unilateralism for the Bush administration to do what it is doing? Mr. Cray?

MR. CRAY

Yes, I think this sets back the efforts to internationalize the reconstruction of Iraq, to get other countries to increase their troop commitments and lessen our troop commitments. And the primary justification for it, that it protects the interests of U.S. taxpayers, is also quite dubious in this circumstance, because I think it has a lot of possibility of increasing the bill to U.S. taxpayers.

MR. BORGIDA

When President Bush did refer to taxpayers when he talked about this policy the other day, Mr. Sikorski, he said they would expect that this be the policy. In your view, just to begin our discussion, spiteful unilateralism, do you agree or disagree?

MR. SIKORSKI

I think the style is hardball, and I have some doubts as to the wisdom of an announcing the policy, but the substance of the policy I think is correct. I think the U.S. should distinguish between friends, allies, enemies, and neutrals. And on this some countries are risking their soldiers' lives. I'm Polish, for example; two of our soldiers were injured in Iraq today. We used to be quite a power in Iraq in the 1980's. Iraq still owes us $700 million. The public in Poland does expect Poland to be treated differently for the risks that Poland is taking. I think it was known before the war that if you want to be at the landing, you have to be at the takeoff. And this is it now.

MR. BORGIDA

Well, let me follow up on that. If you were in at the beginning, you needed to get the rewards at the end; you say you think that was known. Explain that. How do you think other countries knew that?

MR. SIKORSKI

Well, I think there is a wonderful Yiddish word, "chutzpah," of the French and the Germans, who opposed the war, now to demand a slice of U.S. taxpayers' money in contracts to rebuild Iraq just defies the imagination.

MR. BORGIDA

Mr. Cray?

MR. CRAY

Well, I think France, Germany, Russia, Canada, are our primary allies in the broader war on terrorism. And I think that's the most important point here, is that this does set back a lot of trust that's being built with our allies in the broader, longer-term circumstance. And I think also the administration's own efforts, from other departments, are being set back by the Pentagon. And we just heard that envoy James Baker is going to the same countries and asking them to reduce the Iraqi debt. It's going to be very difficult for him. And a lot of things are set back by this policy.

MR. BORGIDA

Is the Baker mission, in your view, kind of an effort to soften this policy with leaders in those countries? Is that going to be part of his mission, do you think?

MR. CRAY

Well, now it has to be. I don't know if that was the case before last week when the announcement was made, but it certainly changes the circumstances of the work he has before him.

MR. BORGIDA

Let's talk a little domestic politics, because as we noted in our report just before our discussion, you've got the Democratic presidential candidates already weighing in on this. Mr. Sikorski, is this going to be a lively political issue in the months ahead; that is, Democrats suggesting the President is this unilateralist who has not done a good job in embracing the allies and so on? This has been a repeated refrain now for some time in the domestic political debate, but how do you see this? Will this inflame this debate, help Democrats, Republicans?

MR. SIKORSKI

I have no idea. But not everything is lost as far as countries like Russia and others are concerned, because Saddam Hussein is not dead yet. He's alive. If he prevails --they were very happy to do business with him when he was in charge -- then no doubt they will get very lucrative contracts from the Saddam Hussein regime.

MR. BORGIDA

I see a punt when I see one, and you punted on that. No thoughts at all about the domestic political dimensions of this?

MR. SIKORSKI

It's an election year coming up. I'm sure every piece of news will be used in the election campaign.

MR. CRAY

Well, I think the Democrats are going to make great hay out of this, and point to the fact that this benefits Halliburton more than it benefits U.S. taxpayers. For instance, a lot of the Iraqi infrastructure was built by other countries that are now excluded from those contracts. That means that we're going to have to pay a lot more money reconstructing facilities from the ground up rather than repairing them with spare parts. This could make it much more expensive for U.S. taxpayers in the long run. It also may require the U.S. to commit troops for a longer period of time, a greater number of troops.

MR. SIKORSKI

Actually, it's the countries that are committing troops that are being rewarded. And it's also the countries like Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, which have committed troops, but they also happen to be the countries that built the infrastructure. So I don't see any great contradiction here. I think if France and Germany and Russia were going to send troops, they would have done it already. I mean, it's been more than six months.

MR. BORGIDA

Mr. Cray, I'll let you respond and get the final word.

MR. CRAY

Well, I think we're hearing reports out of Iraq that the Iraqis want to rebuild their own infrastructure. And that's the part that's left out of this debate. And that so long as they can't get their schools rebuilt or medicines for their hospitals, there is going to be a lot of tension on the ground. But the troops are the ones who suffer under that circumstance because of the mismanagement of this reconstruction process.

MR. BORGIDA

Well, a little time in kicking around this issue that has been the topic of widespread conversation in Washington and other foreign capitals. Charlie Cray, Director of the Center for Corporate Policy, and Radek Sikorski with the American Enterprise Institute here in Washington. Gentleman, thanks for being our guests on NewsLine.

MR. CRAY

Thank you.

MR. SIKORSKI

Thank you.

(End of interview.)

NEB/PT