Although couching criticism in diplomatic language, officials from the World Bank and the U.N. made it clear that the international community's $13.5-billion rebuilding effort would differ from the U.S. approach.
The United States in early 2004 awarded contracts to a handful of U.S.-based multinational firms such as Halliburton Co., Bechtel Corp. and Perini Corp. for massive infrastructure projects such as building power plants, hospitals and clinics and refurbishing water treatment facilities.
But many of the firms have had difficulty completing projects in the face of insurgent attacks, logistical difficulties and complicated U.S. contracting guidelines. At least one contractor, Contrack International Inc., has pulled out. Perini and Pasadena-based Parsons Corp. have had jobs taken away from them over concerns about rising costs.
The international officials said they had learned from the U.S. experience and would rely on Iraqi contractors. Besides being cheaper, Iraqi contractors often face fewer security concerns, said Michael Bell, a Canadian official overseeing part of the international reconstruction effort.
It's amazing that this late in the process, it takes international involvement to point out that reconstruction money is poorly spent when it:
- isn't providing local employment;
- isn't addressing immediate needs in a war zone; and
- is building megaprojects which Iraq can't maintain or operate on a long-term basis.
Amazingly, a U.S. negotiator commented that it was "a very successful day" without addressing the criticisms. I suppose the bad news is that if the U.S. sees other countries filling the need to spend money on useful projects, it can devote itself full-time to lavishing windfalls on American contractors.
But even if that's the U.S. position at this point, at least somebody's doing some good for a change.
No comments:
Post a Comment