WASHINGTON — The Bush administration says the U.S. won’t be faced with a huge bill for reconstruction of post-war Iraq, in large part because Iraq’s oil wells can be tapped to help defray the costs.
But some lawmakers and U.S. allies say the administration’s plan may be fraught with both logistical and political pitfalls.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, said: “To believe the U.S. will be able to pay for reconstruction with oil revenues is a little short-sighted.”
“There is a concern that the oil revenues are overstated and that the costs to the American taxpayers are understated,” said David Sirota, a spokesman for Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.
Administration officials are trying to quiet alarm bells in Congress about the potential cost of the war, as lawmakers also struggle with how to right the shaky economy and restrain the ballooning federal deficit.
When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld went before the House and Senate to lobby for the money last week, he made it clear that he believes the cost of reconstructing Iraq should not fall to the United States. That bill should be paid by allies, Iraq’s seized assets and Iraq’s oil revenues, he said.
“I don’t believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction,” Rumsfeld said.
Soon after Rumsfeld spoke, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, hammered home the point.
“I want to make sure the American taxpayers are not saddled with any of the costs of rebuilding Iraq,” Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a speech on the Senate floor.
Grassley said that under the Hague and Geneva conventions, the U.S. and allies have clear authority “to use and enjoy the profits of property owned by Iraq” for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
But some lawmakers and American allies fear that not everyone will see it that way.
Nail Al-Jubeir, director of information for the Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington, said a move to tap into Iraq’s oil could spark a “political backlash” and “undermine” the administration’s contention that this war is to liberate the Iraqi people.
— Deirdre Shesgreen, St. Louis Post-Dispatch (KRT)
