home > by publication type > backgrounder > IRAQ: Madrid Donor Conference
Email
| Author: | Esther Pan |
|---|
October 30, 2003
About $33 billion in grants and loans, almost two-thirds of it from the United States. The widely used estimate of Iraq's reconstruction needs is about $55 billion over several years. Still, the Bush administration was pleased with outcome of the conference, because non-U.S. pledges totaled more than many U.S. policymakers had expected.
The donors, according to USA Today, The Financial Times, and Brad Setser, International Affairs Fellow in residence at the Council on Foreign Relations, include:
Many countries, including France, Germany, and Russia--which pledged no new funds--have promised to cooperate with the U.S.-led effort to reduce Iraq's large debt burden. Some countries also donated products or services in lieu of money: Bulgaria and Egypt offered technical assistance; Iran donated electricity, gas supplies and oil export facilities; Vietnam donated rice; and Sri Lanka gave 100 tons of tea.
A U.N./World Bank task force estimated Iraq's reconstruction needs at $36 billion over the next three years. The $18.4 billion from the United States for 2004 is based on a funding estimate that overlaps with some of the financial needs identified by the World Bank but adds others, including security. Development and reconstruction experts expect that some of Iraq's long-term needs will be paid for by eventual Iraq oil revenue and private investments, as well as future donor conferences.
Potential donors seemed reassured by the creation of the new fund. Many nations that opposed the war did not wish to appear to support the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq; the new fund helps mitigate that impression by assuring international donors that their money will be managed by international organizations rather than by the United States. In addition, under international bidding rules, international donor money will be used in a bidding process open to global corporations. U.S. administrators have been criticized for awarding large contracts to American companies such as Halliburton and Bechtel in closed or no-bid processes. A U.N. Security Council resolution adopted October 16 also helped pave the way for increased international financial aid to Iraq.
Security Council Resolution 1511 stresses that the U.S. occupation of Iraq is temporary and encourages the United States to let Iraqis govern themselves "as soon as practicable." It also authorizes a multinational force to establish and guarantee security in Iraq, and urges member nations to contribute to the costs of the country's reconstruction. It partially assuaged international concerns about U.S. dominance of Iraq's security, economy, and politics. European countries, led by France and Germany, had pressed for a significant U.N. role in Iraq's reconstruction and a quick transfer of power from the U.S.-led Coalition ProvisionalAuthority to a U.N. administration or the Iraqis themselves. Instead, the United Nations will, for the time being at least, play a mostly advisory role to the Iraqi Governing Council, which must submit, by December 15, 2003, a schedule for drafting a constitution and holding elections.
Possibly. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell called the 15-0 vote for the resolution "a great achievement" and said he was much more optimistic about fundraising prospects after it passed. But representatives of France, Germany, and Russia criticized the resolution, claiming it did not transfer authority quickly enough to Iraqis. "The conditions are not created for us to envisage any military commitment and no further financial contributions beyond our present engagement," a joint statement from the three countries said.
On October 29, Congress agreed to provide nearly all the money President Bush had asked for to fight terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan: $64.7 billion for military operations and $18.4 billion for reconstruction, almost entirely in Iraq. A Senate attempt to make half of the funds for Iraq reconstruction a loan instead of a grant was stymied by a threatened White House veto.
The Senate's attempt reflected uneasiness on the part of many Americans about giving such large sums to Iraq at a time of unemployment and rising budget deficits at home. American lawmakers were reportedly upset about spending U.S. tax dollars in Iraq while European countries that opposed the war are pressing for repayment of loans they made to Saddam Hussein. The Senate provision, which was dropped from the final version of the legislation, stipulated that the proposed U.S. loan to Iraq would be forgiven if Iraq's other creditors forgave at least 90 percent of the debt Iraq owes them. Administration officials argued that a loan would add to Iraq's already heavy debt load and cast doubts on the United States' commitment to Iraq.
This issue has divided the United States and its European allies. The debt run up by the Saddam regime is estimated to be between $120 billion and $135 billion, according to Joseph Siegle, Douglas Dillon Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Iraq also owes some $200 billion in reparations to Kuwait and other countries from the Gulf War. The United States is pushing to classify Iraq's obligations as "odious debt." Alexander Sack, a pre-eminent international legal scholar, defined the term in 1927 as debt incurred by a despotic power not for the needs or interests of the state, but to strengthen the regime and repress the population under its rule. Some debt experts argue that, because the people had no choice and received no benefit from the despot's actions, they should not be held accountable for the debt. Others add that institutions or companies that lend to despots and their regimes should consider the risk they are taking. However, there is no formalized international legal framework to define odious debts or to determine which debts of which countries could be thus classified. France, Germany, and Russia insist they won't forgive debts Iraq owes to them. Hans Eichel, the German finance minister, told reporters on October 18, "We do not only expect to get our money back; we will get our money back."
Iraq's Gulf state neighbors are owed the most, at $30 billion. Japan is next at $9 billion, Russia at $8 billion, France at $8 billion, and Germany at $4 billion.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Explore international efforts to curb nuclear proliferation with a new interactive from CFR's program on International Institutions and Global Governance.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
In War of Necessity, War of Choice, Richard N. Haass contrasts the decisions that shaped the conduct of two wars between the United States and Iraq involving the two presidents Bush and Saddam Hussein, and writes an authoritative, personal account of how U.S. foreign policy is made, what it should seek, and how it should be pursued.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba’s unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
As Ray Takeyh shows in Guardians of the Revolution, behind the famous personalities and extremist slogans of Iran is a nation that is far more pragmatic—and complex—than many in the West have been led to believe.
Complete list of CFR Books
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
The Canadian oil sands present an important challenge to policymakers: they promise energy security benefits but present climate change problems. Michael A. Levi assesses the energy security and climate change effects of the oil sands and makes recommendations for U.S. policymakers within the context of broader bilateral relations with Canada.
This report explores an important element of the maritime policy regime: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Author Scott G. Borgerson examines the international negotiations that led to the convention, the history of debates in the United States over whether to join it, and the strategic importance of the oceans for U.S. foreign policy today.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.