The WAY this story was reported in the UK was also revealing.
The withdrawn UN vote was carried by CNN International but not CNN USA
websites.
The BBC presented it without a single comment about British support or
lack of support. It was merely suggested that there was not sufficient
support from other council members to get the necessary 9 votes. It
was also emphasised that as the US now has case by case indemnity
approved by the UN for each of the areas in which it has troops
involved, in practice it did not make a lot of difference.
But that means in future it will only be possible for hegemonic forces
to engage in peace making or keeping by permission of a vote in the
security council.
And this plays into Britain's claim to be able to punch above its
weight in international affairs: capable of intervening militarily,
but more multi-lateralist in spirit than the USA, less controversial,
reasonably well trained. Nice chappies.
Including how they murmured sympathetically to the US delegation on
the Security Council about how they had been lobbying but they really
did not think the votes were there, and besides they have now got the
unanimous vote on Iraq. And how they would not make a mention of the
British position in any press briefing.
This is the nature of inter-imperialist contradictions these days.
The resultant of forces is towards a multi-lateral version of Empire.
Chris Burford
- Original Message -
From: Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 11:46 PM
Subject: [PEN-L] hegemony humbled
US backs down in its attempts to win Security Council endorsement of
exemption of its forces from possible redress in International
Criminal Court after strong warning by Secretary General.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/23/us.war.crimes.court.ap/index.html
Compare to how this adminstration was purging UN officials it did
not
like four years ago.
U.S. offers deal if N. Korea halts nuclear program
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/06/23/nkorea.talks/index.html
US has been forced to respond to the audacious demand of North Korea
for a treaty guaranteeing its security, launched just as US was
preparing to invade Iraq.
This is a superpower that has been humiliated into recognising the
limits of its powers, not least its inability to fight more than one
war at once effectively.
Imperialism is still in command but in the face of opposition from
people over the world, unilateralist imperialism has had to cede key
ground to multi-lateralist imperialism. Blair has inched ahead of
Rumsfeld. In the process towards world government the rule of law,
however imperfectly, is being imposed on the incomparably powerful
superstate. This is a tipping point that has tipped. The weakening
of
US dominance may now gather pace a little.
Chris Burford
