HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
http://www.jordantimes.com/Wed/opinion/opinion2.htm Jordan Times September 18, 2002 America, Iraq, the UN and the world � who decides? Rami G. Khouri US PRESIDENT George Bush's important speech at the UN last Thursday, challenging the world body to implement its own resolutions on Iraq or lose relevance, may prove to be a turning point in modern world history � or it could fade into ignominious oblivion as the latest example of American hypocrisy in dealing with the world. In fact, we have three tests taking place these days: the UN is being tested on its ability to implement its own resolutions. The US is being tested on its sincerity in wanting to expand the UN's capacity to ensure peace and security in the world, or only to use the UN in this case to allay short-term American and Israeli fears. And, the Arab world is being tested on its ability to act coherently and collectively to get Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions, which would generate fresh Arab credibility in demanding that all UN resolutions be equally enforced, and not only resolutions that sanction Arab states. Bush was impressive in his call for the UN to act to enforce its own resolutions, including his appropriate call for Baghdad to allow UN-mandated weapons inspectors back into Iraq (they left in 1998). I rejoice at the prospect of the world's leading power pushing for full implementation of UN resolutions. I was also struck and pleased by the strong and apparently successful Arab diplomatic moves in the past week to convince Baghdad to readmit the UN weapons inspectors. This important signal shows how the US and the Arab world can work together for common goals, based on shared values, when conditions are right. Questions about Bush's speech pile up quickly, though, when we examine more closely four aspects of the US call on the UN: 1) Is the US committed to the enforcement of all UN resolutions, or only those that please it? Does the US call to implement all UN resolutions include or exclude scores of resolutions that demand an end to Israel's occupation, colonisation, annexation and extensive human rights abuses in occupied Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese lands? 2) Is the US committed to implementing UN resolutions as they have been written and passed, or is it only using UN resolutions to legitimate the new unilateral American demands that Bush placed on the Iraqi government? It is not clear if US power is to be used to enforce the UN's multilateral legitimacy throughout the entire world, or if the US is using the UN's global legitimacy in order to expand unilateral American power throughout the world. For example, existing UN resolutions curtail Iraq's capacity to attack others, but they do not demand changing the Iraqi leadership; the US explicitly demands a change in the Iraqi leadership as one of its goals. Who decides? 3) How seriously should we take the US call for enforcement of UN resolutions, when the top American leadership simultaneously says that if UN action is not forthcoming, the US will act on its own? Is the US call for UN action an act of diplomatic high morality, or just another American cruel hoax? 4) Is it acceptable to act against a state on the basis only of fear of some future action, rather than on verifiable proof of an actual deed or threat? Existing UN resolutions punish Iraq for its past actual, aggressive actions; but US policy demands new punitive measures because of vague, imagined or hypothetical threats that Iraq could pose to others in the future. Such crucial questions about Washington's real intent in its sudden love-fest with the UN are being asked by governments and interested citizens all over the world. The American call for enforcement of UN resolutions is clear, but the full intent behind it is not. We will all be better off if the US really puts its power to work to implement all UN resolutions with equal vigour and consistency around the world, reflecting the global consensus as expressed by the UN Security Council and General Assembly. On the other hand, we will all be much worse off if the US proves that it really only wants selective and occasional implementation of UN resolutions, excludes Israel from compliance, transforms and expands resolutions to fit its own image and domestic political needs, and decides to ignore the UN and act militarily when that proves more convenient for it. We shall soon find out if the US, Iraq, Israel and the Arabs as a whole use this decisive moment to pull back from the use of threats and war as the preferred instruments of foreign policy, and instead work to ensure their collective security and prosperity through the impartial, universal, application of international law and UN resolutions. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.bacIlu Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
