Home  |  Subscribe |  Back Issues |  The Organization |  Volunteer |  Do Something Directory

"Unilateral" By Any Other Name Smells the Same

US pressures UN to get its way on Iraq

by Norman Solomon

Ever since the UN Security Council adopted its November 8 Iraq resolution, American politicians and journalists have been hailing the unanimous vote as a huge victory for "international cooperation." New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman was close to ecstatic. "For a brief, shining moment last Friday," he wrote, "the world didn't seem like such a crazy place." The United Nations had proven its worth -- by proving its value to Washington. Among the benefits: "The Bush team discovered that the best way to legitimize its overwhelming might--in a war of choice--was not by simply imposing it, but by channeling it through the UN."

But if the United Nations, serving as a conduit of American power, is now worthwhile because it offers the best way for the United States to "legitimize its overwhelming might," how different is that from unilateralism? Behind all the media euphemisms and diplomat-speak, a cold hard reality about Resolution 1441 is already history: The resolution was fashioned to provide important fig leaves for domestic politics and foreign governments. President Bush and Britain's Tony Blair needed UN cover for the war that they're so eager to launch.

To get the Good War-Making Seal of Approval from the United Nations, the Bush administration handed out major plums while flexing Uncle Sam's muscles. Key facts did not emerge from the drooling coverage that has saturated American news outlets. "Backroom deals with France and Russia regarding oil contracts in a postwar Iraq were a big part of the picture," Phyllis Bennis writes in The Nation. "And the impoverished nation of Mauritius emerged as the latest poster child for US pressure at the UN. The ambassador, Jagdish Koonjul, was recalled by his government for failing to support the original US draft resolution on Iraq. Why? Because Mauritius receives significant US aid, and the African Growth and Opportunity Act requires that a recipient of US assistance 'does not engage in activities that undermine US national security or foreign policy interests.'" The Mauritius episode tracked with broader patterns. InterPress Service reported that nations on the Security Council "voted under heavy diplomatic and economic pressure from theUnited States." As recipients of aid from Washington, non-permanentmembers of the Council "were seemingly aware of the fact that in 1990the United States almost overnight cut about $70 million in aid toYemen immediately following its negative vote against a US-sponsoredSecurity Council resolution to militarily oust Iraq from Kuwait."

In the British magazine The New Statesman, author John Pilger has recalled some sordid details of that pre-Gulf-War object lesson in superpower payback. "Minutes after Yemen voted against the resolution to attack Iraq, a senior American diplomat told the Yemeni ambassador: 'That was the most expensive No vote you ever cast.' Within three days, a US aid program of $70 million to one of the world's poorest countries was stopped. Yemen suddenly had problems with the World Bank and the IMF; and 800,000 Yemeni workers were expelled from Saudi Arabia." Yemen was not the onlyimpoverished country to feel the fury of an imperial democracy scorned. In Pilger'swords: "When the United States sought another resolution to blockade Iraq, two new members of the Security Council were duly coerced. Ecuador was warned by the US ambassador in Quito about the'devastating economic consequences' of a No vote. Zimbabwe was threatened with newIMF conditions for its debt."

Fast forward a dozen years: During the autumn of 2002, the USgovernment has compounded the wallop of its prodigious carrots and sticks bypointedly reserving the right to do whatever it wants. And, clearly, it wants togo to war. Two days after the Security Council resolution passed 15-0,White House chief of staff Andrew Card appeared on NBC and said: "The UN canmeet and discuss, but we don't need their permission" before launchinga military attack. Meanwhile, on CNN, the Secretary of State had thesame message. "If he [Saddam Hussein] doesn't comply this time, we'll askthe UN to give authorization for all necessary means," Colin Powelldeclared, "and if the UN is not willing to do that, the United States, withlike-minded nations, will go and disarm him forcefully." Such proclamations by topUS officials blend in with the dominant media scenery. You're notsupposed to notice the substantial ironies and breathtaking hypocrisies.

WWW Washington Free Press