HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=3089761&startrow=1&date=2003-03-11&do_alert=0 Russian Information Agency (Novosti) March 11, 2003 BUSH'S AFGHAN OVERSIGHT AND THE FORTHCOMING UN VOTE MOSCOW, 11th March, 2003 /RIA Novosti political commentator Dmitri Kosyrev/ -- As the Bush administration is making every effort to garner the necessary number of votes in the UN Security Council for the "military" resolution on Iraq, an interesting episode recently occurred in Washington. At first glance it would seem to have nothing to do with Iraq at all, but, in reality, it could have a crucial impact on the "fight for the Security Council." The story concerns the recent visit to Washington by Afghan President Hamid Karzai. According to American media reports, Karzai was furious about how his meeting with the US Senate's committee for foreign affairs had been organised. He was so angry that he reportedly was ready to fire his ambassador to Washington, Ishaq Shahyar, for failing to warn him of the reception he was about to be given in the Senate. Heads of state usually meet committee members behind closed doors, but on this occasion Karzai was sat at a table as if he were to give evidence at Senate hearings and journalists were invited into the room. Karzai then proceeded to be asked "sceptical and hostile" questions. The Republican Senator Chuck Hagel warned him that he should not tell the committee that he was working well, because when he had to return next time, he would not be believed. "We thought that these people were our friends, but now we are not sure about this," said a member of the Afghan delegation after the event. He added that the senators had not understood the obvious, i.e. that lacking money and forces, the government was trying to resurrect the entire country from the ashes. The Afghan president's questioning in the US capital would have escaped the general public's attention (the visit took place last week), if George Bush had not phoned Kabul to apologise at the weekend. He even proposed that Karzai go public with the apology, but the latter nobly did not take the offer up. Bush apologised because there is nothing more serious for his administration at the moment than the fight for votes on the UN Security Council. France and Russia's positions on one side of the matter are already well known, while the US and Britain are firmly in the opposite corner. China has so far refused to declare whether it will veto a resolution giving Washington the right to start a war against Iraq. However, China's negative position on the issue is known in principle. It would be enough for one veto, France's for example, to give Beijing the desired result. Germany and Syria are against the war, Bulgaria and Spain for it. Evidently, the resolution will not be adopted on March 14th, when the vote is expected to be held, if the British attempts to introduce a little editing are unsuccessful. In this situation, the US administration would only have to collect a certain "moral majority" of votes on the Security Council to put all those who threatened to veto the motion in a very inconvenient position. This means that without the legal right to start a war, they could refer to the support of the majority as opposed to the "small groups of dissidents." Accordingly, in recent weeks the UN, and not only there, has seen round-the-clock consultations, and to put it more frankly, ways to put pressure on the remaining members of the Security Council: Mexico, Chile, Pakistan, Angola, Guinea and Cameroon. At the same time, the American diplomats who have been doing everything within their power to secure the votes of their "little brothers" seem to have overlooked Afghanistan. This was a mistake, because the Senate episode with President Karzai became a timely and sharp reminder for these countries: they can take it as a rehearsal for how they will be treated. Would you give into American threats and get into Bush's good books, only to be insulted at a later date in the Senate? The very same Karzai has long been called an American puppet, and this is one reason why he is finding it very hard to establish his own authority in his homeland. Many more countries, whether they be UN Security Council members or not, now see only too clearly that friendship with present-day America can be dangerous for political stability on a different occasion. This is without even mentioning other difficulties. How the other "six" are intending to vote can be seen in their basic instinct to take their own "third" way, i.e. to not feature in the voting at all, by, for example, abstaining. Angola has been giving out these signals, and Mexico is doing the same. Pakistan is expected to follow suit, and this could lead to a whole epidemic of abstentions. This kind of guessing game and the aforementioned constant consultations show that the "six," even if they are against the "military" resolution, are scared of falling out with the US. The overall picture for Bush is obviously critical. Although the administration has threatened that it can and wants to start a war with the UN, and act in circumvention of the UN completely, the real actions of Bush and his team would suggest the contrary. It has often been cited that one of the main reasons for war in Iraq - aside from overthrowing Saddam and taking control over world oil prices - is the creation of a new world order dominated by the United States. And this aim would seem to be all the more doomed with every attempt made by Bush to turn the screws. The Afghan episode is an interesting example of why this happens. It shows what forces are being torn up by America's political circles and why these same circles are behaving so contrarily in these last crucial days. Neither George Bush nor Louis XIV or Charlesmagne had or can have absolute power. The moment this arrives, they have to meet public expectations. The American senators behave thus because they reflect the true conviction of at least half of war-bent American voters that not only Karzai, but every world leader should have been subjected to dry questions in front of the TV cameras a long time ago. They understand the whole story around the Iraq war in the same way: as a way to force the entire world to sit where Karzai just sat. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.bdn7KI.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^================================================================
