The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Dear List, Here are two articles on the bribery that made SCR 1441 possible. The second one specifies some of the bribes, and gives a Jordanian view on the motives of this proposed war. Elga S. -------------Fwd------------- http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/11.13B.us.un.cash.p.htm US Dollars Yielded Unanimous UN Vote Against Iraq By Thalif Deen IPS News Analysis Monday, 11 November, 2002 Friday's unanimous vote in the U.N. Security Council supporting the U.S. resolution on weapons inspections in Iraq was a demonstration of Washington's ability to wield its vast political and economic power, say observers. "Only a superpower like the United States could have pulled off a coup like this," an Asian diplomat told IPS, commenting that the unanimous 15-0 vote was obtained through considerable political and diplomatic pressure -- lobbying that was not conducted at the United Nations, but in various capitals. UNITED NATIONS, Nov 9 (IPS) - Friday's unanimous vote in the U.N. Security Council supporting the U.S. resolution on weapons inspections in Iraq was a demonstration of Washington's ability to wield its vast political and economic power, say observers. "Only a superpower like the United States could have pulled off a coup like this," an Asian diplomat told IPS. The unanimous 15-0 vote, he said, was obtained through considerable political and diplomatic pressure. The lobbying, he added, was not done at the United Nations, but in various capitals. Besides its five veto-wielding permanent members - the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia - the Security Council also consists of 10 non-permanent, rotating members who hold office for two years. France, China and Russia, in almost a single voice, said they decided to back the resolution because of assurances by the United States that it would return to the Security Council before launching a military attack on Iraq. The resolution, they argued, does not provide the United States with the automatic use of military force. But the 10 non-permanent members - Cameroon, Guinea, Mauritius, Bulgaria, Colombia, Mexico, Singapore, Norway, Ireland and Syria - voted under heavy diplomatic and economic pressure from the United States. Nine votes and no vetoes were the minimum needed to adopt the resolution. Of the five big powers, Britain had co- sponsored the U.S. resolution. In a worst-case scenario, U.S. officials were expecting the other three permanent members - Russia, China and France - to abstain on the vote. That meant the votes of the 10 non-permanent members took on added significance. Of the 10, the two Western nations, Ireland and Norway, were expected to vote with the United States. Syria, a "radical" Arab nation listed as a "terrorist state" by the U.S. State Department, was expected to either vote against or abstain. So the arm-twisting was confined mostly to the remaining seven countries, who depend on the United States either for economic or military aid - or both. All these countries were seemingly aware of the fact that in 1990 the United States almost overnight cut about 70 million dollars in aid to Yemen immediately following its negative vote against a U.S. sponsored Security Council resolution to militarily oust Iraq from Kuwait. Last week, Mauritius' U.N. ambassador, Jagdish Koonjul, was temporarily recalled by his government because he continued to convey the mistaken impression that his country had reservations about the U.S. resolution against Iraq. "The Yemen precedent remains a vivid institutional memory at the United Nations," Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, told IPS. Bennis said that just after that 1990 vote, the U.S. envoy turned to the Yemeni ambassador and told him that his vote would be "the most expensive 'no' vote you would ever cast". The United States then promptly cut the entire 70 million dollar U.S. aid budget to Yemen. The latest incarnation of that reality, Bennis said, came from the island nation of Mauritius, which joined the Security Council last year under U.S. sponsorship. The U.S. aid package to the impoverished country, authorised by the U.S. African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), demands that the aid recipient "does not engage in activities contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests". Fear of being accused of acting contrary to U.S. foreign policy interests plays a role "not only for Mauritius, but also for any country dependent on U.S. economic assistance", added Bennis. Colombia, one of the world's leading producer of cocaine and an important supplier of heroin to the U.S. market, received about 380 million dollars in U.S. grants under the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) programme this year. The proposed amount earmarked for 2003 is 439 million dollars. Under the same programme, Mexico received about 10 million dollars last year and 12 million dollars this year. It also received 28.2 million dollars in U.S. Economic Support Funds (ESF). Guinea, another of the non-permanent members in the Security Council, received three million dollars in outright U.S. military grants last year and is expected to get 20.7 million dollars in development assistance next year. Cameroon is not only entitled to receive free surplus U.S. weapons but also receives about 2.5 million dollars in annual grants for military education and training. After Colombia, the largest single beneficiary of U.S. aid is Bulgaria, which received 13.5 million dollars in outright military grants (mostly to buy U.S. weapons systems) last year and an additional 8.5 million dollars this year. The amount earmarked for 2003 is 9.5 million dollars. Additionally, Bulgaria has received 69 million dollars in aid under a U.S. programme called Support for East European Democracy (SEED). Next year's proposed grant is 28 million dollars. Besides Syria, Singapore is the only country in the Security Council that does not receive economic or military aid from the United States. But the United States is the biggest single arms supplier to Singapore, selling the Southeast Asian nations weapons worth 656.3 million dollars last year and an estimated 370 million dollars this year. Could any of these countries easily stand up to the United States or refuse to fall in line with their benefactor or military ally? James Abourezk, a former U.S. Senator, said he seriously doubts that any country receiving U.S. government aid could withstand the economic pressure to vote for a U.S. resolution at the Security Council. "It would be a tragedy," he told IPS, "if a war were to be declared based on such pressure". 8 : t r u t h o u t 2002 |[2]t r u t h o u t -------------End------------- -------------Fwd------------- * Dec.23.2002 http://www.jerusalemites.org/articles/english/54.htm Why America is after war By Fahed Fanek (Jordan Times) ANALYSTS AND writers - this one included-have spent months trying to fathom the real reason the Bush administration is so determined to wage war on Iraq. There were many theories: oil, terrorism, Israel's security, weapons of mass destruction, a clash of civilizations, redrawing maps. It is obvious, however, that the war, if it takes place, will have nothing to do with terrorism, since Iraq has not been shown to be involved in terrorist actions. The war won't be about weapons of mass destruction either, since Iraq will never be able to match US power with its pathetic arsenal - if it still has one, that is. And anyway, the US could deal with threat by containing Baghdad. The war won't be about Islam, because American policy doesn't care about religion anyway. And it won't be about maps either, since the current fragmented state of the Arab world serves America's interests just fine. In a recent article, Jay Bookman, deputy editorial page of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, wrote about a report issued in September 2000 by the project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States under President Bill Clinton might have forfeited its chance at a global empire. Those same conservative interventionists, subsequently, became extremely influential in the current administration, especially in the White House and the Defense Department. In the context, Bookman mentions steps taken by the Bush administration, such as repudiation of anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defence system, increasing defence spending by 25 per cent, the "transformation" of the US military to meet its expanded obligations, and the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries". All these were recommended by the 2000 report. The report also explains why so little has so far been mentioned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam Hussein regime is overthrown. Quite simply, the US doesn't intend to leave Iraq at all; rather, it plans to turn the country into a military base from which it can control the entire Middle East - including Iran - in an arrangement similar to those still prevailing in Germany and Japan 57 years following the end of World War II. The occupation will be the first step towards the emergence of the greatest empire in history. Imperialism - an accusation the US used to deny - has become its goal in the 21st century. This great prize was worth the price the US paid for getting the international consensus it wanted at the UN Security Council concerning Iraq. Weeks of intensive diplomatic wrangling were needed before Resolution 1441, threatening Iraq with "serious consequences", was passed. The resolution faced many difficulties because, quite simply, it opposed the will of the international community. But the resolution was passed, with an amendment here and there to save certain parties' faces. America succeeded in getting what it wanted, which, while not representing the will of the world community, fulfilled the interests of certain countries. In other words, the US bribed certain nations to secure their backing. France, for example, was promised that a new regime would honour the trade and oil agreements it has with the current government. Russia received two prizes for its cooperation; a free hand in Chechnya and an American commitment that the future regime in Iraq will pay back its debts to Moscow, and that it will honour the oil deals signed with the government of Saddam. China's bribe was World Trade Organization membership on easy terms, opening the US market to Chinese imports, and an agreement to consider movements fighting to secede from Beijing as terrorist organizations. Mexico, another non-permanent Security Council member, was paid an appropriate bribe too: it was promised US support for better terms from the International Monetary Fund. In addition, by backing the resolution, the Mexicans avoided America's wrath. -------------End------------- _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk