[www.ANTIC.org] UN's Godfather

[Miroslav Antic]

Title: Message

Tariq Ali argues the UN Security Council has always served as a venue for the US to bribe and coerce member states to do its bidding, a claim reinforced by a London Times report on current horsetrading over Iraq. Ali says the UN has historically supported or deferred to US foreign policy, including in Korea, the Congo, Vietnam, Kashmir, Pakistan and a succession of other trouble spots. He notes that the world body also tolerated Soviet intervention in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but overlooks that this was consistent with US policy in those crises. Ali describes illusions about the UN as the soft underbelly of the antiwar public, which may accept a UN-sanctioned war on Iraq that would be essentially no different from a unilateral US assault. The accompanying London Times report describes the muscle and grease being used by the US to line up support for a second Security Council resolution authorizing war.  -Supporting facts http://www.supportingfacts.com/

A second resolution is not enough   By Tariq Ali The Guardian February 21 2003  A massive majority in Britain is currently opposed to the war, but the anti-war movement confronts a virtually uniform House of Commons. Both major parties are united and Labour MPs incapable of mounting a parliamentary revolt to ditch Blair, the only thing that could halt the drive to war. The British peace movement, however, has a soft underbelly. A war that is unjustifiable if waged by Bush and Blair alone becomes acceptable to some if sanctioned by the "international community" - ie the UN security council. The consciences of those opposed to the unilateralist bombing of cities and civilian deaths are appeased if the weapons of destruction are fired with UN support. This level of confusion raises questions about the UN today. Do its resolutions carry any weight if opposed by the US, as has repeatedly been the case with Palestine and Kashmir? The UN and its predecessor, the League of Nations, were created to institutionalise a new status quo arrived at after the first and second world wars. Both organisations were founded on the basis of defending the right of nations to self-determination. In both cases their charters outlawed pre-emptive strikes and big-power attempts to occupy countries or change regimes. Both stressed that the nation state had replaced empires. The League of Nations collapsed soon after the Italian fascists occupied Ethiopia. Mussolini defended his invasion of Albania and Abyssinia by arguing that he was removing the "corrupt, feudal and oppressive regime" of King Zog/Haile Selassie and Italian newsreels showed grateful Albanians applauding the entry of Italian troops. The UN was created after the defeat of fascism. Its charter prohibits the violation of national sovereignty except in the case of "self- defence". However, the UN was unable to defend the newly independent Congo against Belgian and US intrigue in the 1960s, or to save the life of the Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba. And in 1950 the security council authorised a US war in Korea. Under the UN banner the western armies deliberately destroyed dams, power stations and the infrastructure of social life in North Korea, plainly in breach of international law. The UN was also unable to stop the war in Vietnam. Its paralysis over the occupation of Palestine has been visible for over three decades. This inactivity was not restricted to western abuses. The UN was unable to act against the Soviet invasion of Hungary (1956) or the Warsaw Pact's entry into Czechoslovakia (1968). Both Big Powers were allowed to get on with their business in clear breach of the UN charter. With the US as the only military-imperial state, the security council today has become a venue for trading, not insults, but a share of the loot. The Italian theorist Antonio Gramsci predicted this turn of events with amazing prescience. "The 'normal' exercise of hegemony," he wrote, "is characterised by the combination of force and consent, in variable equilibrium, without force predominating too much over consent." There were, he added, occasions when it was more appropriate to resort to a third variant of hegemony, because "between consent and force stands corruption-fraud, that is the enervation and paralysing of the antagonist or antagonists". This is an exact description of the process used to negotiate Russian support at the UN as revealed in a front-page headline in The Financial Times (October 4, 2002): "Putin drives hard bargain with US over Iraq's oil: Moscow wants high commercial price for its support." The world has changed so much over the last 20 years that the UN - the current deadlock notwithstanding - has become an anachronism, a permanent fig leaf for new imperial adventures. Former UN secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali was sacked on Madeline Albright's insistence for challenging the imperial will: he had insisted that it was the Rwandan genocide that needed intervention. US interests required a presence in the Balkans. He was replaced by Kofi Annan, a weak placeman, whose sanctimonious speeches may sometimes deceive an innocent British public, but not himself. He knows who calls the shots. As Mark Twain described it in 1916: "Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." If the security council allows the invasion and occupation of Iraq either by a second resolution or by accepting that the first was sufficient to justify war as a last resort, then the UN, too, will die. It is necessary to insist that UN-backed war would be as immoral and unjust as the one being plotted in the Pentagon - because it will be the same war. Tariq Ali is the author of The Clash of Fundamentalisms (Verso) United States must dig deep to pay the price for loyalty   By Roland Watson and Elaine Monaghan London Times February 21 2003  America faces a bill running into many billions of dollars even before the first missile strike against Iraq as it tries to coax, pressure and, if necessary, buy allied support. Washington’s unseemly cash-for-access wrangle with Turkey may involve big money, but it reflects only a small strand in a web of deals that the Bush Administration is trying to weave with potential allies in the Gulf, on the United Nations Security Council and in “new” Europe. Yesterday Turkey was still waiting for the US to increase an offer of a $26 billion (£17 billion) aid package to more than $30 billion. The Turkish Government has it in its power to undermine America’s whole battle strategy for an invasion of Iraq. For Operation Desert Storm II, General Tommy Franks, the US commander of the 200,000-strong coalition invasion force, needs access to at least three Turkish military bases for an attack on Iraq. Such an attack launched from Turkey and involving 20,000 troops from the US 4th Infantry Division, may force President Saddam Hussein to divert his special units north if he wanted to try to prevent Iraqi territory from falling into American hands. Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, said there was no more money to add to the “take it or leave it” deal, although he said there may be some “creative things” that could be done with the finer details. There is good reason to hold firm, despite the havoc a Turkish refusal would wreak on the Pentagon’s war plans. Buckling to Ankara’s pressure now would embolden others to increase their demands in what US officials say has already become “a bazaar”. Ankara has found itself in the role that Pakistan played in the Afghanistan war — the ally that the US cannot do without — despite Washington’s public insistence that it could defeat Baghdad without the help of Nato’s only Muslim nation. In 2001, Pakistan was rewarded with a $1 billion debt write-off, $100 million in immediate aid and the lifting of sanctions imposed when it tested its nuclear bomb. In return, it agreed to blanket demands for US military access. As a member of the Security Council, it can expect more help if it eventually supports a war. America’s other key ally in the Middle East, Israel, is discussing a record $12 billion request for US assistance on top of the nearly $3 billion in direct aid that it receives every year. About $8 billion of the request is for loan guarantees, prompted by Israel’s worst economic crisis in 50 years. Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, is under American pressure to repeat Israel’s restraint of the 1991 Gulf War by not responding to any Iraqi missile attacks during a war, an undertaking he has refused to give. The final size of a US aid package could depend on the conduct of a war, and could also be shaped by any push for a Middle East peace deal after war. The US is providing Patriot missiles to shield against attack from Iraq’s Scud missiles. Jordan and Egypt, two other key American allies, have also requested huge aid packages. Jordan is asking for $1 billion in direct assistance, and Egypt wants a big increase in the $1.3 billion it received last year. Other costs include possible compensation for Russia, which has $8 billion worth of unpaid debts in Baghdad, as well as billions of dollars in promised oil contracts. Among the swing votes on the Security Council, Mexico could hope to win an immigration deal for Mexicans living illegally in the United States, which Washington has long promised. The three African countries, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea, can also expect attention and the prospects of aid above the $10 billion in new Aids money that President Bush is trying to push through Congress. Any focus by Washington on the African continent is welcome because African interests are frequently relegated to the third division of US foreign policy interests. East European countries, the vanguard of the “new Europe” countries that have rallied to Washington’s side, are also hoping for big diplomatic paybacks and a better chance of winning US military contracts. The cost to Washington of war with Iraq is far higher this time than in 1991, and at a time when the sluggish US economy is on shaky ground. The US yesterday reported a record $435.2 billion trade deficit for last year, the largest imbalance in history, while inflation rose by 1.6 per cent in January, the biggest monthly increase in 13 years. In 1991, faced with Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, allies did not need financial inducements to back a war. The final bill of $60 billion was paid largely by Japan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Rewards for backing Bush  ·  Russia Gives: Support in UN Security Council vote Gets: Guarantees on $10-$12bn of Iraqi debt and possible oil contracts ·  Hungary Gives: Facilities for training the Iraqi opposition Gets: Enhanced international status and financial support ·  Bulgaria Gives: Vote on UN Security Council Gets: US support for entry to EU and increased military co-operation within Nato ·  Chile Gives: Vote on UN Security Council Gets: Strengthened position in talks on US trade tariffs ·  Jordan Gives: Access for US air defence, radar and special forces Gets: $1bn in direct aid and military assistance ·  Egypt Gives: Arab support to campaign Gets: $1bn and promise of increased US support for Middle East peace process ·  Israel Gives: Behind-the-scenes assurances they will not retaliate Gets: $12bn in direct aid and loan guarantees. US promises of defence ·  Mexico Gives: Vote on UN Security Council Gets: Improved immigration regulations ·  Angola Gives: Vote on UN Security Council Gets: Future co-operation with US companies in developing offshore oilfields ·  Guinea, Cameroon Give: Votes on UN Security Council Get: Development aid and increased international status ·  Turkey Gives: Key military facilities for US invasion from the north and a regional ally Gets: At least $26bn in direct aid and loans

http://www.supportingfacts.com/