The WAY this story was reported in the UK was also revealing. The withdrawn UN vote was carried by CNN International but not CNN USA websites.
The BBC presented it without a single comment about British support or lack of support. It was merely suggested that there was not sufficient support from other council members to get the necessary 9 votes. It was also emphasised that as the US now has case by case indemnity approved by the UN for each of the areas in which it has troops involved, in practice it did not make a lot of difference. But that means in future it will only be possible for hegemonic forces to engage in peace making or keeping by permission of a vote in the security council. And this plays into Britain's claim to be able to punch above its weight in international affairs: capable of intervening militarily, but more multi-lateralist in spirit than the USA, less controversial, reasonably well trained. Nice chappies. Including how they murmured sympathetically to the US delegation on the Security Council about how they had been lobbying but they really did not think the votes were there, and besides they have now got the unanimous vote on Iraq. And how they would not make a mention of the British position in any press briefing. This is the nature of inter-imperialist contradictions these days. The resultant of forces is towards a multi-lateral version of Empire. Chris Burford ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Burford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 11:46 PM Subject: [PEN-L] hegemony humbled > US backs down in its attempts to win Security Council endorsement of > exemption of its forces from possible redress in International > Criminal Court after strong warning by Secretary General. > > http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/23/us.war.crimes.court.ap/index.html > > Compare to how this adminstration was purging UN officials it did not > like four years ago. > > > U.S. offers deal if N. Korea halts nuclear program > > http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/06/23/nkorea.talks/index.html > > US has been forced to respond to the audacious demand of North Korea > for a treaty guaranteeing its security, launched just as US was > preparing to invade Iraq. > > This is a superpower that has been humiliated into recognising the > limits of its powers, not least its inability to fight more than one > war at once effectively. > > Imperialism is still in command but in the face of opposition from > people over the world, unilateralist imperialism has had to cede key > ground to multi-lateralist imperialism. Blair has inched ahead of > Rumsfeld. In the process towards world government the rule of law, > however imperfectly, is being imposed on the incomparably powerful > superstate. This is a tipping point that has tipped. The weakening of > US dominance may now gather pace a little. > > Chris Burford >
