Monbiot says in the title of the Guardian article Jim posted, "The UN must not let itself be used as a dustbin for failed American adventures". I do not know if he contributed that title himself, or if this is a Guardian edit, but anyway what does it mean ? It occurs to me that the UN has frequently been a "dustbin" for American overkill - in recent memory, Yugoslavia, East Timor, Afghanistan... to name a few. In this respect, it is worthwhile for historians to explore the precise motivations which caused the UN to be established in the first place, it's an interesting story which ought to get some exposure, for the sake of a rethink in international relations.
What is wrong with the so-called "international community" is that there isn't really an international community (this concept gained currency from the beginning of the 1990s) and that, if there is, it mostly lacks not only common goals to work towards, but often the very ability to state these goals in a a clear and honest way. The "spirit of private enterprise", i.e. ruthless competition, gets in the way, such that an international "consensus" results in which a rational relationship between means and ends is lost (where I grew up, they called it "rotten compromises"). The unprincipled behaviour of US foreign policy in recent times is rather striking: it wants to set up its own organisational alternative to the United Nations, yet also wants to continue being represented, and have influence within, the existing United Nations as well. It wants to invade a country in violation of international law and UN principles, and then considers a transfer of responsibilities to the UN - previously considered out of the question - when its own policies, justified with demonstrably false arguments and misinformation, fail to achieve their objectives. In whose interests is all this ? Monbiot doesn't really answer that. The only reason why all this is happening at all, is because, with clever marketing, sabre-rattling and financial blackmail, the US government is able to cowe other countries into compliance - that is, until it is suddenly discovered, that foreign co-operation is required for a policy to succeed, because even if you have overwhelming military superiority, you still cannot make people do what you want. It is all very well to argue that, after a "pragmatic" and "flexibly implemented" policy has failed, that "wir haben es nicht gewusst", but even if that argument has some validity (since political leadership always involves some unknown or unpredictable factors, you don't need to be Wolfowitz to understand this), it is necessary to ask "WHY did you not know it" ? It is rather useless to blame it on bad intelligence, since intelligence officers can never be expected to tell the whole truth anyway, and they provide the information to governments on demand, from which governments select that which they politically require at the time. Could it be, perhaps, because "pragmatic", "flexibly adjusted" crisis management policies, imposed without genuine dialogue and on the basis of a perceived power advantage, don't work in the end, because they lack a solid, principled theoretical foundation, cannot acquire a basis of popular support, and suffering shipwreck on the shoals of their eclecticism... so that the unfortunate politicians end up doing precisely what they didn't want to do in the first place, to cover their ass ? The real horror occurs, when the dustbin is emptied out on a country like Iraq, such that the result is genocidal. The sanctions imposed against Iraq, to prevent the acquisition of new weapons by Iraq, force the dismantling of "weapons of mass destruction" and forestall possible renewed military aggression, not only failed to prevent arms sales and other foreign trade, but were also murderous and economically devastating, by hitting exactly those people that the current Bush administration seeks to "liberate from above"... but who are now attacking the institutions of the transitional regime. Alternative policies and attempts at negotiation were continuously ignored and denied by most of the G8 over many years. To their peril. It is a rather bizarre twist, that in the wake of the disaster of the sanctions regime, the US government now thinks that it can prevent terrorism, by blocking funding sources suspected to be supportive of terrorist acts. This is a bit like the moral equivalent of the Dutch boy who stuck his finger in the dyke to prevent a flood. It is telling capitalists that "terrorism is nasty, you shouldn't support it" when in reality a terrorist act doesn't even cost a lot of money, as the lengthy experience of Israel/Palestine demonstrates. Obviously, I am not arguing in favour of terrorism, but it is remarkable how grown men can make these arguments, and how gullible people believe them. Why do Keynesian policies fail ? Ultimately, because you cannot force investors to invest where they don't want to. If that is true, what makes politicians think that you can stop investments in terrorism ? The focus on the "war on terrorism" does not really reflect an overall larger amount of terrorist activity than there was before (although I suppose it depends on your definition), but rather the inability to promote a constructive political agenda for world politics and regional politics, and it is a flexible argument for justifying anything you want to do, because the existence of a terrorist "threat" cannot really be known, specified or publicly revealed. All we have is vague references to an enemy which may or may not exist, and may or may not strike. It substitutes a climate of fear, mistrust and the "might-makes-right" principle for constructive political engagement. It hides the real problems that need to be addressed. If anything, that actually stimulates the perpetrators of terrorist acts, and assists them in getting the world's attention. For if a dominant theme in world politics is terrorism, then terrorism gets more publicity, that is all. The correct policy is the withdrawal of foreign troops out of Iraq, the cancellation of the illegal expropriations of Iraqi property, payment of compensation to Iraq for the wanton destruction of people and property in violation of international law and principles of human justice, and the commencement of new negotiations with a sovereign Iraqi government regarding assistance with the reconstruction of this ravaged country. "Well", the learned diplomats will say, "that is just an idealistic, unreal policy, because we are dealing with a real mess out there". But when a soldier gets gangrene in his foot, and a doctor proposes to surgically remove a few toes, the doctor doesn't make his proposal out of "idealism", he does it to save a life. The persistence of US and British politicians in their false policy opens up a lethal "can of worms". The patronising assumption in the West remains that the people of Iraq, who have lived under virtual siege conditions for more than a decade, are unable to restore order in their own country, and are unable to negotiate the help they need themselves... as if, when left to run their own country, they have an immediate stake in starting another war, or at the very least, participate in a new terrorist offensive... Beyond this assumption, it is of course a matter of business interests. The persistence in policy errors however only intensifies the antagonism, as will be shown in future, I am sure. Monbiot's idea that, through greater military control over what happens in the Middle East, the US government can turn off or squeeze the Chinese oil-tap is just rubbish. What evidence is there for such political leverage ? It is true, oil resources within China are dwindling. By 2020, it is estimated that something like 70% of oil and 50% of gas used in China will have to be imported. But the Chinese could import oil from all over the place, including Venezuela, Russia and even from Arab countries, etc. if those countries dissent from the American view of the world. The only real dispute is about the price. Iraq was smuggling oil "illegally" even despite severe sanctions. Turning the screws on China would mean having to police the seven seas 365 days a year and barring oil vessels from reaching their destination - I'm sure that the oil barons are thrilled at the prospect. Not to mention taxpayers who have to fund the navy to do it. What progressive agenda is served by turning the screws on China anyway, if it could be done ? To lower the exchange rate of Chinese currency perhaps ? That would be an astonishing policy; first you import some tens of billions of Chinese wage goods produced by cheap labour at a comparatively low price, and resell them at a higher price, pocketing the differential, while still staying competitive in the market - which facilitates the capping of wages in the "rich" countries - and then you say that the Chinese should adopt a more favourable exchange rate, or else ! If anything, I think that US administration is making policy with a dustbin over its head, and, if not seeing a psychiatrist, should at least have the damn thing taken off. This is not an attempt to save either Bush or the UN from themselves. It is saying that if a point of view is a crap, one ought to say that it is crap. Bush has pronounced himself numerous times in favor of "freedom". Rosa Luxemburg said, "Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden". And I don't happen to be working for Rupert Murdoch. Jurriaan
