07 April 2003
"Winning the Peace" by Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Chuck Hagel
(Op-ed column by Biden and Hagel in April 7 Washington Post) (930) (This column by Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who is a Republican member of the committee, first appeared in the Washington Post April 6 and is in the public domain. No republication restrictions.) (begin byliner) Winning the Peace By Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Chuck Hagel The war in Iraq is still on, but it's not too early to think about what the United States should do to win the peace that will follow. There may be difficult days ahead, but we are confident in the rightness of our cause, the skill of our soldiers and the certainty of our victory. Last December we traveled to northern Iraq and visited key allies in the Middle East. Nearly every leader we met stressed the importance of gaining international legitimacy for our efforts in Iraq. The best way to build such legitimacy is by involving our key allies and international organizations -- starting with the United Nations -- in securing and rebuilding Iraq. Yes, our decision to use force in Iraq produced deep divisions among our Security Council allies. Nonetheless, America need not and cannot take sole responsibility for the challenges of a postwar Iraq. And we must not allow the U.N. Security Council and our Atlantic allies to become casualties of war. There are five main reasons for this. First, building an Iraq that is secure, self-sufficient, whole and free will require tens of billions of dollars over many years. While Iraq's long-term economic promise is good, its short-term prospects are bleak. Iraq's annual oil revenue, in the first years after Saddam Hussein, is projected to be no more than $15 billion. Iraq is saddled with U.N. sanctions, an estimated $61 billion in foreign debt and approximately $200 billion in reparations claims through the U.N. Compensation Commission. Experts who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee put the price tag for post-conflict security, humanitarian assistance and reconstruction at $20 billion to $25 billion per year over 10 years. The United States should not bear this burden alone. Second, a military occupation, even temporary, that includes only American and British soldiers could fuel resentment throughout the Middle East, bolster al Qaeda's recruitment and make Americans a target for terrorists everywhere. If the military mission stretches for several years, the failure to include other countries will compound these problems and turn us from liberators into occupiers. We need to make the peace in Iraq the world's responsibility, not just our own. Third, if the United States alone selects and seats a new Iraqi government, even an interim one, that will call into question the government's legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people, the region and the world. Iraqis who have lived through the brutality of Hussein's rule should be given the time, space and support to choose their own leaders and to develop the institutions of a stable, representative government. We should work with other countries to help them achieve that. Fourth, we need to place Iraq in a regional context. We support President Bush's commitment to restart the Middle East peace process. True security for Israel and a better future for Palestinians can be achieved only through a lasting settlement. Our "Quartet" allies -- Russia, the European Union and the United Nations -- have worked with us to draft a road map out of the current impasse. In addition, we need to take real steps toward a new, inclusive approach to security in the Persian Gulf that builds confidence and prevents future conflicts. Fifth, many around the world, even longtime allies, question our motives in Iraq. They wrongly believe we are driven by commercial interests or imperial designs. We have to convince them otherwise or risk a further erosion of those alliances and institutions essential to American security and global cooperation for more than 50 years. That would undermine our interests, because it becomes increasingly difficult to contend with multiple threats to our security alone -- including the unfinished war on terrorism, the dangerous nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran, and the spread of infectious diseases such as SARS. Making friends and allies who opposed the war our full partners in Iraq's peace can go a long way toward repairing the hard feelings that have emerged in recent weeks. In short, we must internationalize our policies for rebuilding a postwar Iraq, even as we retain full control on the security side, ideally with the involvement of NATO, the EU and countries in the region. The best way to do that is through a new U.N. resolution authorizing the necessary security, humanitarian, reconstruction and political missions in a post-conflict Iraq. As we were told by our allies in the region in December and in subsequent meetings, securing the United Nations' endorsement would give political cover to leaders from allied countries whose people oppose the war, allowing them to justify their participation -- including financial participation -- in building the peace. It also would open the door to NATO, the European Union and the World Bank. Without the United Nations, it would be difficult for governments and international organizations to buck strong public opposition and join the effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq. By refusing to disarm, a defiant Saddam Hussein made the fateful choice between war and peace. We must make sure that in winning the war, we also win the peace. (end byliner) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
