The war in Iraq will end quite soon. This is not a time for those against the war to deny the joy and jubilation, neither is this the time for those for the war to flaunt the ever-closer military victory.

Many, many Iraqis are welcoming the end of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. But many too are the issues that need to be resolved.

UN network

Soon will come the need for humanitarian aid, peace-keeping, reparation, and development of Iraq. Notice I've avoided the much-spouted word 'reconstruction' because it has become a muddle of meanings.

These three levels of post-Saddam assistance must be distinguished, and the effort and funding at each stage clarified.

Humanitarian aid and peace-keeping provide basic needs and transitional security. Reparation compensates the damage and restores things to a level of normalcy and operation. Development work makes things better for the future.

The first task of humanitarian work and peace-keeping must be overseen by the United Nations. Some will protest and cry, why let the US bomb and the rest of the world clean up? The work of humanitarian aid and peace-keeping is not a menial and vestigial task, but a necessary and honourable o­ne.

Doing humanitarian work does not legitimise the attack, but shows the UN can retain (or reclaim) moral ground. Besides, the UN and NGO humanitarian relief agencies that co-ordinate activities with the UN do have the best networks and skills. How can the world abandon Iraqis when they most need the basics of food, water, shelter and security?

Still, it is true that the rest of the world should not have to mop up, which is why the second task of reparation must be done by the US. Some will fume, arguing that reparations are traditionally paid by the losers of war.

But this pre-emptive war defies convention to such an unprecedented degree that the post-war efforts also require an entirely new rethinking.

Amidst the euphoria and chaos, remember that the primary cause under which this war is waged is still the threat of attack from Iraq or links to al-Qaeda. When this war is over, this threat would have been disposed of.

The reward to America is their safety, freedom from the threat. So, now that the reward has been reaped, the hour has come to compensate the innocent victims and bombed infrastructure.

Families of all dead civilians must be compensated. Second, buildings, roads and utilities must be restored. All this with American taxpayers' money.

Rebuild Iraq

The Bush administration has been assuring Iraqis that ownership of their oil will remain in their hands. That is a nice gesture, but it is most patronising and insolent to even propose that the oil should be left to Iraqis; America has no right to make that decision in the first place.

The US does not need to pay homage to Iraqi oil, it needs to pay for the damage of the bombardment. And leave Iraqi oil for development purposes after the reparations have restored the infrastructure. Indeed, the smashed Iraq Oil Ministry headquarters must be restored by the US.

The international community is less vocal about American companies taking the contracts, but must insist loudly o­n American funding for the repair of Iraq.

Yes, the cronyism is vile, but so is cronyism everywhere. The more international attention is drawn to the cronyism, the more cronies and autocrats elsewhere will seize opportunities to be judged less harshly by comparison. (For truly, the venality of the American military-industrial complex is shocking and awesome.)

Besides, insisting that opening up the contract-bidding to international players o­nly undermines o­ne's integrity, for this is implying that the rest of the world should have a share of the spoils of war. No, let American companies get the contracts, and may they do it efficiently.

As long as roads get built and buildings reconstructed, I suggest we be more concerned about who is paying. As long as American tax money pays, it is up to the American people to make sure the contracts are awarded openly and the funds disbursed fairly. We respect American sovereign statehood.

And what if there are protests that the amount is too high, for surely, the total cost of rebuilding all that was bombed will be high? Not really, if we make comparisons.

To date, USAid has committed a total of US$540 million to Iraq for 2003. US President George W Bush recently got his US$75 billion war budget approved.

So, the amount spent o­n feeding and helping Iraq is less than o­ne percent of the amount spent o­n bombing Iraq. President Bush, what is another US$20-30 billion in the wake of US$75 billion?

America can ask Britain to share the expenses, if it wants to. If people of either country do not like this outflow of their cash, they can make inflows at the next ballot box.

New government

The third and most critical stage is the development of fractured, volatile Iraq. Suitable political institutions need to be established, for transitions to more democratic forms of governance, just social institutions and a functioning economy.

The character of political involvement is a more critical issue than the source of funds. Developing political institutions must be a multilateral effort conducted under UN supervision. The UN is the o­nly body with the credibility and integrity to do this, and it has recent experience in facilitating Cambodia and East Timor towards democracy.

The government of Iraq must be a choice of the Iraqi people and not a puppet American outpost, as feared by many people. Economic development must be sensitive to social welfare, and balance the needs of growth with distribution.

The development of Iraq can gain from international aid funds, and the utilisation of oil money. There is a use for oil profits after all. Furthermore, there is no hurry getting the wells gushing if we follow a just plan, for the repair work will be funded by the already rich victors whose lives are much safer.

Thus, the establishment of oil complexes and distribution of proceeds can be done systematically and independently, ensuring that it can remain in the Iraqi interest. Iraq will take Bush's assurance that the war is not about oil, that it is about liberation of Iraq and disarmament from weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and breaking of the link with al-Qaeda.

Bush also affirmed the UN will have a 'vital role' to play. We await details.

One thing is beyond debate, though. The disarmament of WMD was a vital objective of the war. It follows that UN weapons inspectors must be sent in as soon as possible to provide objective and authoritative evaluation of Saddam's possession of WMD.

Global role

Much attention has been drawn to US decisiveness in acting against a tyrannical regime. As much has been said about US recklessness in running down dissenters o­n the way to crushing a tyrannical regime.

Some say the UN is slow and irrelevant, others say the UN is more relevant than ever before. Shall we do away with the UN's role in international conflict and security? Let's use an illustration.

Suppose the White House demands to have its way o­n an unpopular proposition - say, to make Houston the capital of America - but the majority of Congress representatives do not approve.

Suppose Congress insists o­n a more thorough case to be made, for more patience and evidence that this is a necessary thing.

Would the president accuse Congress of being tardy, impotent and irrelevant? Would the president suggest relegating Congress to take care of welfare and house-keeping matters, while political, military, and financial interests become concentrated in the White House? Would the White House relegate and insult Congress?

Democracy and diplomacy usually operate slowly and patiently, but they can steer us away from recklessness.

LEE HWOK AUN is a lecturer in development studies at Universiti Malaya.