Article from new york times website:
www.nytimes.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Q&A: Who Will Lead the Reconstruction in Iraq?
From the Council on Foreign Relations, March 28, 2003


Who will lead the reconstruction in Iraq?

The situation is still in flux and is a matter of heated debate. As things stand now, in the short term, the United States will likely take the leading role. In the longer term, the United Nations may become involved--if the issue can pass a U.N. Security Council vote.

What has the Bush administration said about United Nations involvement?

President Bush and other members of the administration have been clear that they want the United Nations to provide food and humanitarian relief in Iraq. However, officials have been openly negative about handing over military and security control of postwar Iraq to a U.N. force. In fact, they have reportedly come up with a short-term plan that places the United States in charge, not the United Nations, until the Iraqi people can rule themselves.

How has the plan been received by other countries?

The plan has not gone over well with France, Russia, and other nations that opposed the war in Iraq. France, in particular, has said it believes the United Nations should run a postwar government. French officials have also said they oppose any U.N. resolutions that would seem to legitimize a U.S.- or British-led occupation of Iraq. This would create a stumbling block for U.N. cooperation under a U.S.-led occupation force, as U.N. involvement must be approved by the Security Council.

What does British Prime Minister Tony Blair think of the U.S. plan?

Blair has not said that he wants the United Nations to run Iraq after a war. He has stressed, however, that the United Nations must be involved with both aid provisions and the establishment of a post-Saddam administration in Baghdad. This could put him at odds with the Bush administration if it decides to move forward with its postwar plan without U.N. approval. "It is important that whatever administration takes over in Iraq has the authority of the U.N. behind it," Blair asserted March 25.

Why is the Bush administration against the United Nations running the interim government?

The United States clearly wants to have political control over what happens in a new Iraq, experts say. In part, this is because U.S. officials feel they will be more efficient than the United Nations in finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction and rebuilding the country. It is also, experts say, because they would like to see a government in Iraq friendly to American interests. At a recent briefing, Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant, dominating control over how it unfolds in the future."

What is the United States' plan for Iraq?

As debate over a U.N. role continues, the Bush administration has already begun implementing its plan for a U.S.-led civil peacekeeping operation that will administer Iraq under the direct command of CENTCOM commander General Tommy Franks. The administration has already begun to award $1 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq, a task that experts say could eventually cost $25 billion to $100 billion. The contracts have so far gone to American companies, provoking criticism from many other nations.

Who will lead Iraq in the American plan?

The top leaders will be retired diplomats and military officers. The chief civilian administrator will be Jay Garner, a retired general who directs the Pentagon's new Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. He is already in Kuwait. He has started to appoint his staff, which will be led by three regional coordinators. Garner will also name coordinators for reconstruction, civil administration, and humanitarian assistance. The plan also calls for a U.N. coordinator for humanitarian aid.

Who will pay for the reconstruction?

If the United States retains control over the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, the initial costs of the rebuilding will be paid for by the American taxpayer. The United States included $2.45 billion for immediate relief and reconstruction of Iraq in its recent war budget request to Congress. Senior administration officials, however, have hinted that Iraqi oil revenue will also be used to rebuild the country. "We're going to use the assets of the people of Iraq, especially their oil assets, to benefit their people," said Secretary of State Powell on March 21.

What's going to happen?

While the final outcome is still unclear, it appears that there will be some U.N. involvement with relief in the short-term, under the U.S. occupying force. International law expert Anne-Marie Slaughter said March 28 that she believes France will agree to some kind of compromise to allow this to happen.

Has there already been some compromise?

Yes. The U.N. Security Council on March 28 adopted a resolution to allow a key part of the humanitarian relief effort--the U.N. Oil for Food program--to restart operations.

What's the Oil for Food program?

It allows Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil to pay for food, medicine, and other civilian needs for its population. Iraq has been banned from engaging in most international trade under a strict sanctions regime imposed in August 1990 after it invaded Kuwait. The Oil for Food Program was started four years ago to help Iraq feed its population. Experts estimate that 60 percent of Iraqis rely on Oil for Food for assistance.

How much Oil for Food money is available?

U.N. officials say there is already $2.4 billion worth of food and medical supplies in the pipeline for Iraq at the moment, and $4.7 billion in unspent money in the Oil for Food account to purchase new supplies.