I recently saw what I believe to be one of the single-best policy recommendations that I ever have heard. This seemed to me to be the place to vet it.
The idea was this: Iraq should be restructured so that each citizen receives a direct, pro rata share of the nation’s annual oil income (after deductions for the national and regional governments and industry maintenance, of course). I believe that I saw the idea on Joshua Marshall’s Talking Points Memo blog, and I believe that he based it on a program in Alaska. That I do not know or do not recall.
What I do know, or at least believe, is that a pro-rata distribution program could address all or almost all of our (and I mean the U.S.'s) concerns about the rebuilding of Iraq in one fell swoop. For example:
National identity. A huge issue in Iraqi reconstruction will be developing a national identity that currently exists due only to (1) colonialism and (2) a strong-arm dictator. The pro rata program would help. If every Iraqi citizen received a direct, personal, in-the-hand benefit from a central source, I submit, the citizenry quickly would associate itself with that source.
Kurd separatism/Iranian influence. Hand-in-hand with the development of a national Iraqi identity, a pro rata program also would quell, or at least diminsh, the role of regional powers over the rebuilding Iraq. Kurds would adhere to the national government, rather than a separate Kurdistan homeland, if the national government provided them with equal rights (and equal revenues) as other Iraqis. Southern Shias would tend to keep their focus at home, rather than with the Iranian theocrats, if the homegrown secular leaders were the ones who delivered the goods. Further, a program that provided certain infrastructure revenues on a province-by-province basis would give the regional tribal chiefs, sheikhs and militia leaders the type of local power necessary to appease them long enough to establish the national system.
Democratization. This is the big one. A pro rata distribution of oil revenues would promote democracy by (1) providing a local political issue for debate (i.e., the proper formula for the distribution of oil revenues among the citizenry, the national government and the provincial governments); and (2) developing ground-level free choice, petty capitalism and – most important of all – critical thought. If there is a big assumption in this analysis, it is the assumption that an annual oil revenue cut would spark more free choice and proto-consumer behavior among the average citizen. I like that bet. I also like the idea that if there is a local, pocketbook issue to debate, it is less and less likely that politicking would turn anti-American. And if you are concerned about the link between the two, I have another solution: instead of a poll tax, Iraqis could get an oil revenue check each time they vote. Democracy becomes its own reward.
Satellite media. However you define the “problem” of unrest in the Middle East, al Jazeera and the other satellite (read: non-state controlled) channels ultimately will have to be part of the solution. But here’s the thing: all TV works on ads. If Iraq develops the best consumer economy in the region, it will provide the best advertising demographic, as well. And if a satellite channel focuses its programming to attract petty capitalists and proto-democrats, it is playing our tune.
Anti-Americanism generally. Setting apart the satellite media issue, a pro rata plan also would do wonders for Americanism in the region. It would show that the US was not “in it for the oil”; that the US was not “attacking Islam”; that the US was fighting for the rights of the local population; and that the US could be trusted to help locals and then leave. If the US left Iraqis as the best-off Arab population outside of the Gulf emirates, it would put an awfully big dent in the rhetoric of the region. It also would lend some weight to the “oil if every Iraqi’s birthright” rhetoric than came out of the White House.
The stain of sanctions. We know that Iraqis hated the sanction regime. A oil-revenue-to-you plan would reverse
Syria/Iran. Even the neo-est neocons would have to agree that it would be far better to see Syria and Iran crumble from within than topple from external pressure. Here’s our chance. Iran is the easy one – how long would the rising young of Iran suffer an open (and relatively wealthy) democracy on their border without rising up in real revolt? And, as many have mentioned, how long can Syria exist under Baath rule when it is surrounded by democracies and proto-democracies?
The U.N. Here’s another nifty trick. We know that France and Russia have massive oil contracts that served as little more than bribes for their support for Iraq in the UN. We know that France and Russia are going to use those contracts – and the threat or practice of international litigation about those contracts – to undermine rebuilding and muscle their way in-country. But how could France and Russia stand on those contracts if a new government in Iraq said that it was only trying to maximize oil revenue for its newly-freed citizens? I would take may chances even with the Security Councel – or even the East German ICC judge – on that one.
Saudi Arabia. OK, here’s another big one. Under any standard, the US has to be able to convince the potential jihadis from the souther Arabian desert that their enemies lie somewhere other than across the Atlantic. If the US is known as the nation that brought middle class status to the Iraqi population, I think that we would be well on the way.
Is this simplistic? Sure. Realistic? I hope so. Heck, for all I know it is the administration’s plan. But I see so many upsides, and so few downsides, that I think it well worth the time to discuss.