It is difficult to comprehend the premises of this h-world net posting
that says that Koffi Aman going to Bagdhad evoke soemthing about appeasing
Quadaffi and/or putting the USA in the position of perhaps turning
'imperialist'.
The fact is that the whole Iraq thing has been a US run and manged
show from the very beginning, which already in 1990-
1991 violated at least a half dozen sections of the UN Charter and which
its then Secretary Genral Perez de Cuellar denounced as being 'not a UN
war but a US war." That was one of its most troubling aspects already
then, and a fortiori it is now that 3 permanent members of the Security
Council are opposed, not to mention most of the rest of the world
including the US allies. At it has been one of the most troubling aspects
of the 'debate', including especially the town meeting yesterday in
Colombus, that the vital issue of US vs. UN is never even raised.
CNN [which after President Bush, whom it just interviewd egain to drum up
support for war] already was the worst war monger in 1990, is at it again
including its sponsorship and airing of the Columbus spectacle. Note that
CNN showed in its opinion poll citations - and the discussants at Ohio
State talked about - US opinion ONLY, as thought that were all that
matters. Even the US sabre/missile [not to mention nuclear] rattling is in
violation of the UN Charter.
Any use of force by one or more member states against another violates the
very UN Charter Article 42 and various of its sections under whose cover
resolution 678 about 'all necessary means' was made in 1990 and used to
make war in 1991. Since according to the Charter
- 1. before these means are used, several sections of Articles 41 and 42
are to be complied with that were not last time around and even less this time
[only one of which is to also satisfy Article 27 Clause 3 that requires
athat all five permanent members of the Security Council must cast an
AFFIRMATIVE vote, which they failed to do last time and certainly will
not do this time]
- 2. It is the Security Council that must DECIDE if and when what means
are necessary, and no member state can decide that on its own within the
Charter, but the US does not want even a Security Council meeting, since
it knows that it would veto US policy, and
-3. It is the United Nations under its Charter, and NOT any member
state/s, that must implement any such Security Council decision, which
was not done in 1991, and is not even contemplated this time, vide that
there has been NO mention of the Security Council deciding anything or the
UN doing anything or not and any US [and or UK or any other member]
decision to act violently against another member state is in total
VIOLATION of the UN Charter, no matter what resolutions may have been passed
by the Security Council even if there were such a resolution, which there
is not [and that is why US argues that the old resolution 678 which violated
international law then is still in force [not to mention il/legal] now
-precisely because the US knows that it can no longer ram through any similar
resolution now].
4. so the entire 'debate' is beside the point of the UN and outside of
international law and the UN. The US government spokesmen' and
women's 'appeal' to any and all UN resolutions as an alledged cover for
US policy is nothing more than the height of cynicism and alas the
denigration of the very UN whose mantle the US seeks to use.
So whether the US Congress and/or public supports or not military action
vs Iraq is totally beside the point of the respect for and implementation
of international law and the UN Charter, to which the US formally
subscribes while it actively circumvents and emasculates it [and does not
even PAY for it!]
[another verysignificant case was the transfer of decision making about the former
Yugoslavia and Bosnia from the UN Security Council to NATO].
Now the transfer of world decision and military action is to be simply to
the White House, with or without congressional War Act approval [which
makes even the US constitutionality more than dubious] - and the total
DISregard for all UN Charter and international conventions, which no
longer even receive any public mention in Columbus, Washington, the media
or anywhere.
Beyond the long suffering people of Iraq, it is the people of the whole
world, including those of the United States, that do and will SUFFER this
loss of international law, which is as great as the deadly silence about
it.
respectfully submitted
andre gunder frank
On Thu,
19 Feb 1998, whitney howarth wrote: Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:36:53 -0500
> From: whitney howarth <whowarth@lynx.dac.neu.edu>
> Reply-To: H-NET List for World History <H-WORLD@h-net.msu.edu>
> Subject: Is Saddam Pulling a "Qaddafi"?
>
> From: Edward Brown II
> Digital-Diary@classic.msn.com
>
> UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's trip to Iraq gives me great concern. The
> reason is the Iraqi Government is using him. Annan's trip reminds me of
> the Libyan situation of the mid-eighties, Muammar al-Qaddafi, during his
> confrontation with the lame-duck Reagan Administration, invited Rev. Jesse
> Jackson (Mr. "Keep Hope Alive") to negotiate a peace treaty amongst the two
> countries. The US media criticized Jackson for "embarrassing the
> President." Political analysts opined that Qaddafi was hoping to use
> Jackson's Rainbow Coalition race politics to drum up support against
> "arrogant Anglo-(American) imperialism." The much-hyped Qaddafi/Jackson
> situation was diffused by American spin-doctors that said "that Jackson was
> playing partisan politics" (which could not be denied since Jackson was
> campaigning for the next Presidential election).
> However, Annan has not any apparent hidden agendas similar to Jackson,
> therefore Saddam can and will exploit the racial/cultural situation (masked
> by the issue concerning weapons of mass destruction), a situation Qaddafi
> so much wanted to exploit. Since the UN is an international/global
> institution that is in the interest of protecting human rights, and is
> looking to broker successfully an diplomatic agreement with Saddam, the
> Iraqi Government may decide to bow to Annan (the UN) with conditions that
> are just short of US demands. Saddam, by bowing to the UN, will expect the
> "arrogant Western power" to do the same. The soon-to-be lame-duck
> President Clinton has already played his cards by saying (as Reagan did),
> "No compromise!"
> Hoping that Annan will play his "part" in brokering peace, Saddam will be
> successful in his standoff with the US if he can make the Clinton
> Administration bow to the UN (thus the creation of a NOW, placing the UN as
> the leader of global peace). If the Clinton Administration does not bow to
> the UN, Saddam hopes that those countries that have invested interest in
> the UN will then begin to question the actions of the US (especially if
> bombing occurs). Then the US has placed itself in the imperialistic role
> of "World Police" (thus the creation of a NOW, placing the US in an
> imperialistic role). With the US already dominating popular culture in the
> west (with a tentative acceptance in the east), Saddam hopes to rally a
> (counter-culture) regime against the US, regardless of whether the
> counter-culture is pro Iraqi or not. In these two scenarios, Saddam has
> obtained a win-win situation.
>
> Saddam Hussein just wants to go into the history books as being the David
> that slew the 21st century Goliath-not with weapons of mass destruction,
> with the stone-throwing masses.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andre Gunder Frank
University of Toronto
96 Asquith Ave Tel. 1 416 972-0616
Toronto, ON Fax. 1 416 972-0071
CANADA M4W 1J8 Email agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca
My home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/whc/resrch&curric/gunder.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~