The oil wealth of Iraq is enormous, and it is this, of course, that encourages the bankers to argue with realistic prospects of satisfaction. At some point in the future, Iraq will be producing perhaps as much as 3 billion barrels of oil per day. How and to whom should the proceeds from that oil flow?
Enter the United States. Our government has not asked to be compensated for the cost of our military venture to effect the liberation of Iraq. But voices are raised asking why we should not take some part of Iraq's oil revenues in the future to compensate us at least for some of the $87 billion Mr. Bush has asked for to consummate the Iraqi recovery.
Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., has proposed that money paid out to Baghdad should be in the form of a loan, which would permit us, in better economic days, to put in for repayment. We do not know at this point whether, in Madrid, the U.S. representatives will press beyond the moral point. That point looks Russia and France in the face and says: You should contribute to this Marshall Plan for Iraq on the grounds that you stand to benefit from a non-odious neighbor in the Middle East. A different approach, though it makes the same point, is to adopt the position that money coming in from oil revenues should be pre-empted to repay the United States the anticipated $87 billion spent on assisting Iraq.
It is no wonder that Alexander Sack, who distilled the odious-debt doctrine seeking to protect successor governments from responsibility for debts incurred by predecessors when unrelated to national concerns, is a voice in the chanceries of power. It is a very solemn act to repudiate a national debt. Russia most recently did that, when in 1998 it failed to pay a debt come due. To have a responsible reason for not paying a debt generates great warmth of mind and body, and the prospect of booting Chirac and Putin for their failure to cooperate with us in removing Saddam gives understandable satisfaction.