We have attended the past few days to the development of the Donor Conference for the Reconstruction of Iraq. Euphoria, demagogy and triumphalism, apart from whoever organized it, the truth is that the summit of donors or of what hypothetically was going to be from donors was not so much. To donate means to give something without compensation and therefore free of charge -animus donandi-, but it seems that in this case to donate means to lend, to do business, to accredit Iraq and the Iraqis, and hopefully they are not with usurious and leonine interests neither neither with burdensome mortgages of the future. Of the results that have been disseminated, there seems to be no reason to be too optimistic and much less triumphalist. Things and facts by name. It is enough that we all read with minimal attention the amount of the amounts as well as the concept in which they have been made and will be made.
So the things of thirty-three billion dollars that are shuffled as final figure, although it is not said when or how they are going to be used or if the money already delivered is already taken into account in it, the truth is that only a very small part responds to real donations, or what is the same thing, in the form of lost funds without the need for reimbursement or interest payments. Of that amount we must discount the twenty billion dollars that it contributes and, it does not contribute at the same time, the USA and that still depend on the final approval of the North American Congress. This somewhat illogical situation is explained by the fact that the US does not include its money in this common fund, which is directly managed by the Bush administration and, therefore, compromises its destiny and its application according to its interests, which means that a good part of this money is already specified and directed in good measure to the North American companies that already work in Iraq itself and that are linked to the interests, among others, of Vice President Cheney. This is undoubtedly a good example or what is the same, a great hypocrisy on the part of the Bush Administration that does not tire of asking for the responsibility of all in the reconstruction of Iraq but that follows his own by not sharing his money nor neither their strategies in that common fund.
In this way, from those first thirty-three billion of the Conference we pass to some thirteen thousand million that are still susceptible to be further disaggregated. Of this second amount, it really deserves to stand out as a donation figure for free, only four billion dollars of which only the 700 million contributed by the European Union are actually donated, without subjecting anything to any investment and without reimbursement of any amount . The rest of the contributions from other Arab countries, some of which attract attention such as the 300 million Iran or the 1.5 billion from Kuwait, the five billion from Japan or the three hundred million from Spain (of which the American press does not dedicate a single line), they are really a mixture of not very clear and less clarified amounts donated, amounts loaned at low interest and with soft depreciation and amortization periods, as well as quantities conditioned to specific investments and even some items that they constitute a kind of conditioned subsidies.
This being the case, and above all, if donating does not mean lending, the role and the attitude of De Palacio, the foreign minister, is not well understood when, once the countries participating in the Conference have shared out the crumbs of the investments and the business expectations that the North American interests leave to the rest, proclaims euphoric that to see who denies the success of the Conference. Success that undoubtedly will be, especially if the expectations of an Iraq based on millions of oil reserves are pondered, to which many of these donors, camouflaged by good Samaritans, solicitously go, but who are more aware of the distribution of the future cake.
The truth is that, for a long time and above all if we follow the trajectory of our minister, they misunderstand how well their actions and their statements, especially when it has shown us over and over again their ability to reach solutions and synthesis to the we hardly get the rest. Who does not remember his uncompromising stance that February 5 before the UN Security Council, once heard the reports of Blix and ElBaradei in which while the Iraqi regime was accused of not collaborating everything necessary was also asserted the non-discovery of the so-called weapons of mass destruction and that, in the end, have proved to be the great petty fallacy of the trio of the Azores.
At that moment, the minister pronounced a very hard and pre-war speech that did not correspond to the situation given and described by the inspectors, who simply asked for more time and did not close the doors to diplomacy. It is probable that he did not have sufficient and necessary capacity for reaction or simply did not want to have it and read the prepared and not improvised speech that he had to stage at that moment at the request of others. But aside from its political as well as diplomatic capacity, the truth is that the foreign minister continues to mark its erratic course as has the president of the government, but yes, things by name and demagogues on the sidelines.
A few days ago in the maelstrom of the election campaign in Madrid we saw an Aznar taking his chest after Resolution 1511 and asking for explanations from the opposition and flatteringly told them “and now what, what banners would they take out now”, “maybe contrary to the United Nations “. Well, in an election and a campaign many nonsense is said and too many improbabilities are promised. The truth is that he has never given them or he has not thought it necessary to give them, and this fact and attitude in a democracy are not good, since they ignore public opinion as well as the Parliament from which so much has been excused. But let’s not play with the facts and with the transgression of the international legality that both Bush and Blair and Aznar committed in their delirium of going to war and of which until now the worst stopped has been the British premier. The United Nations has not legitimized and less legalized the war, nor for six months has it legalized the occupying forces, because that is what the military forces deployed there are. Resolution 1511 legitimizes and, I insist to legitimize, that does not legalize, the current situation in Iraq on the way to a desirable democratic normalization and especially economic and social under the predominance and the North American directory. Not even a central role is offered to the United Nations, relegating it to humanitarian aid. No sovereignty is transferred to the Iraqi people yet and a timid timetable is imposed on that democratic transition that must go through a necessary constitutional drafting, but no deadlines or dates of departure of the military forces are established.
This resolution has been approved to overcome the deadlock in which some of the five countries that, more than ever irrationally now, have still had the right to vote in the Security Council. Neither Russia nor Germany nor France have continued to oppose the wishes of the US, which perhaps also questions the credibility and firmness of their previous positions, but the truth is that for now neither send troops and less money for the reconstruction of Iraq . We will see what your position is when it comes to talk of condoning the foreign debt of Iraq and of which both France and Russia are two of the main creditors.
For now blind and excessive violence continues to roam at ease in post-war Iraq. Nobody or anything escapes the objective of terrorists and resistant, and that each one calls them as they prefer. Faced with this chaotic panorama, it is not surprising that some are only willing to donate their money when its meaning is overturned by lending. Perhaps they do not see as clear a reconstruction as peaceful as predicted in the medium term.