Unilateral
Power – By Any Other Name
by Norman Solomon
Dissident Voice
November 21,
2002
Ever since the
U.N. Security Council adopted its resolution about Iraq on Nov. 8, American
politicians and journalists have been hailing the unanimous vote as a huge
victory for international cooperation instead of unilateral action.
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 U.N."
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 U.N. 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. You wouldn't know key
pertinent facts 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
U.S. pressure at the U.N. The ambassador, Jagdish Koonjul, was recalled by his
government for failing to support the original U.S. draft resolution on Iraq.
Why? Because Mauritius receives significant U.S. aid, and the African Growth
and Opportunity Act requires that a recipient of U.S. assistance 'does not
engage in activities that undermine U.S. 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 the United States." As recipients of aid from Washington,
non-permanent members of the Council "were seemingly aware of the fact
that in 1990 the United States almost overnight cut about $70 million in aid to
Yemen immediately following its negative vote against a U.S.-sponsored Security
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 U.S. 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."
Back then, Yemen
was not the only impoverished country to feel the fury of an imperial democracy
scorned. In Pilger's words: "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 U.S. ambassador in Quito about the
'devastating economic consequences' of a No vote. Zimbabwe was threatened with
new IMF conditions for its debt."
Fast forward a
dozen years: During the autumn of 2002, the U.S. government has compounded the
wallop of its prodigious carrots and sticks by pointedly reserving the right to
do whatever it wants. And, clearly, it wants to go 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 U.N. can meet and discuss, but we
don't need their permission" before launching a military attack.
Meanwhile, on CNN, the Secretary of State had the same message. "If he
[Saddam Hussein] doesn't comply this time, we'll ask the U.N. to give
authorization for all necessary means," Colin Powell declared, "and
if the U.N. is not willing to do that, the United States, with like-minded
nations, will go and disarm him forcefully."
Such
proclamations by top U.S. officials blend in with the dominant media scenery.
You're not supposed to notice the substantial ironies and breathtaking
hypocrisies.
Norman Solomon's latest book is The Habits of Highly
Deceptive Media. His syndicated column focuses on media and politics.
Email: mediabeat@igc.org
_____________________________________________
Informational link:
Detailed analysis of U.N. Security
Council resolution on Iraq:
www.accuracy.org/un2