Racketeering Reconstruction

In the May 2 issue of The Nation, Naomi Klein wrote a rather scathing (and brilliant) piece about the increasing profits made from post-conflict reconstruction. The article is of particular interest to me given that I wrote a similar document for my Political Economy class in the spring. Klein reports that the Bush Administration has established a new office that will oversee the reconstruction efforts in societies. "Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, headed by former US Ambassador to Ukraine Carlos Pascual. Its mandate is to draw up elaborate "post-conflict" plans for up to twenty-five countries that are not, as of yet, in conflict. According to Pascual, it will also be able to coordinate three full-scale reconstruction operations in different countries "at the same time," each lasting "five to seven years.'" The question that arises from this line of reasoning is how the Bush administration can know which twenty-five countries will need post-conflict reconstruction efforts if they are, in fact, not currently in conflict. My paper addressed this question and essentially argued that the U.S., global governments, and other international private interests have a huge stake in catalyzing conflict and subsequently aiding in the rebuilding effort. Why? Klein clearly points this out: ". . . there is no doubt that there are profits to be made in the reconstruction business. There are massive engineering and supplies contracts ($10 billion to Halliburton in Iraq and Afghanistan alone); "democracy building" has exploded into a $2 billion industry; and times have never been better for public-sector consultants--the private firms that advise governments on selling off their assets, often running government services themselves as subcontractors. (Bearing Point, the favored of these firms in the United States, reported that the revenues for its "public services" division "had quadrupled in just five years," and the profits are huge: $342 million in 2002--a profit margin of 35 percent.)" This is a disturbing trend that continues to flourish under the governance of the Bush Administration and the inevitable importation of "democracy" (read: capitalism) carried out under his leadership. Klein's article is a thoughtful treatment of the problematic situation that will haunt both civil societies and post-conflict states.