Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Global Insecurity of the American Threat

Expand Messages
  • Djehuti Sundaka
    In a world with nations willing to have stood against imperial Soviet Russia but unwilling to stand against imperial democratic America, the UN Security
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 31, 2002
      In a world with nations willing to have stood against imperial Soviet
      Russia but unwilling to stand against imperial democratic America, the
      UN Security Council is absolete. The United Nations are not united in
      their own collective self-defense thus their security council can
      provide no security for members who cannot defend themselves against
      nuclear powers. Global tyranny has taken center stage and Aryan
      supremacy has become a house united against a disunited world.

      Djehuti Sundaka

      Fear of U.S. Power Shapes Iraq Debate
      As U.N. Considers War Resolution, a Distrust of American Policy

      By Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus
      Washington Post Staff Writers

      Wednesday, October 30, 2002; Page A16

      The intense debate in the United Nations Security Council over a
      resolution mandating new weapons
      inspections in Iraq has boiled down to a few phrases deep with meaning
      for diplomats. But the
      seven-week battle has masked a larger struggle over the projection and
      containment of U.S. power,
      diplomats and analysts said.

      While officials reported some progress on a deal yesterday, narrowing
      differences between France
      and the United States on whether further consultations are necessary to
      trigger military action, the
      negotiations have done little to assuage fears abroad that the Bush
      administration is merely seeking an
      international imprimatur for war. In the past two years, the
      administration has rejected international
      agreements covering topics from global warming to war crimes, leaving
      allies deeply cynical about its
      motives in going to the United Nations now, according to U.N. diplomats.

      "The whole debate is about two issues," said an envoy whose country
      is one of the five permanent
      Security Council members. "One is Iraq. The other is U.S. power in the
      world. The second issue is the
      bigger part of the debate."

      The U.S. draft resolution calls for tougher inspections measures,
      granting unfettered access to U.N.
      arms experts throughout Iraq. It says Iraq is in "material breach" of
      its U.N. obligations to disarm and
      declares that any failure by Iraq to comply with the resolution "shall
      constitute a further material breach"
      -- a phrase previously invoked by Washington to justify military action.
      The resolution warns Baghdad of
      "serious consequences" if it continues to impede inspectors.

      Hans Blix, the U.N.'s chief weapons inspector, is to meet separately
      today with Vice President
      Cheney and President Bush, officials said. A U.S. official described the
      meetings as part of discussions
      with Blix to make sure the administration understands how he intends to
      exercise his authority if
      inspections begin again in Iraq.

      On Monday, Blix said he would have "great practical difficulties" in
      taking Iraqi scientists and their
      families out of Iraq for interviews -- a proposal mentioned by Bush in
      two speeches -- "unless there was
      cooperation by the Iraqi side." He also said Iraq could meet a U.S.
      proposed deadline for providing a list
      of its weapons within 30 days but probably could not provide an
      exhaustive account of its civilian
      chemical and biological programs that could be used for weapons.

      Within the Security Council, diplomats said, there is increasing
      distrust on both sides. Many
      counterproposals made by the French and Russians -- who have objected
      strongly to the U.S. resolution
      -- have been to limit the U.S. ability to launch military action against
      Iraq without returning to the Security
      Council for authorization.

      French President Jacques Chirac, at a recent gathering of
      French-speaking nations in Beirut,
      forcefully argued that war can only be used in self-defense or with the
      backing of the international

      "In the modern world, the use of force should only be a last, and
      exceptional, resort," Chirac said. "It
      should only be allowed in the case of legitimate defense, or by decision
      of the competent international
      authorities. Whether we are talking about making Iraq adhere to its
      obligations, relaunching the
      Israeli-Palestinian peace process or solving conflicts in Africa, the
      same logic of legitimacy has to inspire
      all of us, because only this firmly guards us against temptations of

      U.S. officials fear that, if Iraq fails to comply with the
      resolution, other nations will still be reluctant to
      authorize military action. As a result, they said, the administration
      has sought a resolution that would
      leave countries little choice but to accept an eventual military
      solution if Iraq fails to abide by any aspect
      of it.

      "This is why words are so critical and important now," said Ivo H.
      Daalder, a Brookings Institution
      fellow who served on the National Security Council staff in the Clinton
      administration. "It is clear that
      some of our closest friends, like the French, don't trust us."

      Administration officials have said the best way to prevent a war is
      to pass a strong resolution, but, as
      one put it, the French can't drop the notion that the United States is
      some sort of "cowboy hyperpower."

      The Bush administration began its campaign for a new resolution at
      about the same time it unveiled
      its national security doctrine, which outlines the concept of preemptive
      action to counter perceived
      threats. The new doctrine unnerved even close allies, who feared that
      the world's only superpower no
      longer felt bound by the international rules established after World War

      The French have tried to extract concessions from the United States
      so that the resulting resolution
      cannot be seen as a license for military action. But they don't want to
      push the United States so far that
      it abandons efforts to win a resolution, making the Security Council

      A French official said yesterday it is necessary to craft a "very
      clear" resolution "with no ambiguity
      about what it means," to prevent member states from imposing their own
      interpretation on clauses.
      French officials are also wary about making a deal with the United
      States without making certain that
      Russia is comfortable with it.

      The U.S. proposal envisioned a series of steps that the Iraqis must
      take in response to the
      resolution, including Baghdad's acceptance seven days after its
      adoption. Iraq's failure to abide by any of
      those steps might have triggered military action. Secretary of State
      Colin L. Powell noted yesterday that
      even if a negotiated resolution suggests Security Council action is
      needed to approve military force, the
      United States reserves the right to launch its own strike.

      "I can't tell you now how long it might take them to consider such a
      report or what action they might
      take," Powell said. "But as their clock is ticking, there is a clock
      that is also ticking on the U.S. side as
      to whether or not the violation is of such a nature that the president
      makes a judgment in due course that
      he should act if the U.N. chooses not to act."

      The key sticking point in the negotiations is the second reference to
      "material breach," which says
      the Security Council "decides" that any failure to comply by Iraq "shall
      constitute a further material
      breach." French officials say this could be a "hidden trigger" for
      military action, since it predisposes a
      decision by the Security Council before it has even met to consider the
      nature of Iraqi behavior.

      Another section of the resolution says the council would meet to
      discuss any report by the weapons
      inspectors that Iraq was not complying with the resolution.

      In his report to the Security Council Monday, Blix said he recognized
      that a "great responsibility"
      would be placed upon him. He said he would report "only significant
      results," a phrase that indicates if a
      gate or door in an inspected facility is locked or a temporary
      obstruction is met, that will not immediately
      be reported back to the Security Council as a potential breach.

      When it does come to significant matters, he said, "We report. It is
      the Security Council and its
      members who decide" whether there would be peace or war.

      Staff writer Colum Lunch at the United Nations contributed to this
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.