REDWAVE
Urban Jungle Dweller
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2001
- Posts
- 6,013
The goings on at the United Nations are usually pretty boring. Right now, however, they're invested with high drama. I'm not sure whether it's farce, melodrama, or tragedy-- there are elements of all three-- but the upcoming vote on the U.S. backed war resolution on Iraq is providing a great deal of suspense and dramatic conflict.
So far, the only nations on record supporting the war resolution are the U.S., the U.K., Spain, and Bulgaria. (Bulgaria-- a sparkling example of the exciting "new Europe"! Hey-- once a satellite, always a satellite.
) Opposed are France, Russia, China, [all three of which have veto power] Germany, and Syria. (Syria's opposition is highly understandable: they're probably next on the hit parade.) The ground rules are the resolution needs nine votes, and no vetoes, to pass. That leaves the uncommitted six-- Mexico, Chile, Guinea, Cameroon, Angola, and Pakistan-- on the hot seat, in a very uncomfortable position, thrust into the spotlight of world events, besieged by both sides.
Mexico ("so far from God, so close to the United States") probably ultimately has no choice but to line up behind the Yankee imperialist colossus. Chile has a little more breathing room, but likely will be forced by intense U.S. bullying and arm-twisting to do the same. Pakistan is a military dictatorship headed by Gen. Musharraf, and a servile, boot-licking lackey of the U.S. government. The only problem is, its people are overwhelmingly against the war. But the mighty ISI (Inter Services Intelligence, a sinister police state agency built up by massive infusions of U.S. cash) can probably whip the Pakistani multitudes in line, should they rebel. They have so far, at least: Musharraf is still holding on to power by his fingernails.
That leaves the three African nations as the focal point of "diplomatic" efforts by both sides. The irony of the situation is surely not lost on any of them. Normally, they are ignored by the great powers, and as soon as this situation is over, the great powers will go back to ignoring them. But right now, they are practically being torn in half by the U.S. and France, each pulling as hard as it can in opposite directions.
All three countries are desperately poor, and are no doubt being threatened with the cutoff of what paltry aid they do receive from the U.S. if they vote "the wrong way." ("My way or the highway!") The case of Angola is especially egregious. It was devastated for about twenty years by a brutal civil war, caused by the U.S. government's aid and support to Jonas Savimbi, a murderous brute who terrorized the Angolan people ruthlessly. Now the U.S. is leaning on it again, trying to coerce it into voting in favor of the very same nation which tore it apart and ravaged its people.
The stakes are high. The fig leaf of UN sanction, even though obviously obtained by bribing and bullying, and gangster tactics of the lowest sort, will give the Bushies some political cover for their big Iraq attack. On the other hand, a UN vote against them will be a major diplomatic defeat for the U.S. If (as seems certain) it goes ahead and attacks without UN approval, the war will clearly be exposed to everyone who has eyes to see as a predatory war of aggression and mass murder, a crime against humanity of the utmost magnitude.
So far, the only nations on record supporting the war resolution are the U.S., the U.K., Spain, and Bulgaria. (Bulgaria-- a sparkling example of the exciting "new Europe"! Hey-- once a satellite, always a satellite.
) Opposed are France, Russia, China, [all three of which have veto power] Germany, and Syria. (Syria's opposition is highly understandable: they're probably next on the hit parade.) The ground rules are the resolution needs nine votes, and no vetoes, to pass. That leaves the uncommitted six-- Mexico, Chile, Guinea, Cameroon, Angola, and Pakistan-- on the hot seat, in a very uncomfortable position, thrust into the spotlight of world events, besieged by both sides.Mexico ("so far from God, so close to the United States") probably ultimately has no choice but to line up behind the Yankee imperialist colossus. Chile has a little more breathing room, but likely will be forced by intense U.S. bullying and arm-twisting to do the same. Pakistan is a military dictatorship headed by Gen. Musharraf, and a servile, boot-licking lackey of the U.S. government. The only problem is, its people are overwhelmingly against the war. But the mighty ISI (Inter Services Intelligence, a sinister police state agency built up by massive infusions of U.S. cash) can probably whip the Pakistani multitudes in line, should they rebel. They have so far, at least: Musharraf is still holding on to power by his fingernails.
That leaves the three African nations as the focal point of "diplomatic" efforts by both sides. The irony of the situation is surely not lost on any of them. Normally, they are ignored by the great powers, and as soon as this situation is over, the great powers will go back to ignoring them. But right now, they are practically being torn in half by the U.S. and France, each pulling as hard as it can in opposite directions.
All three countries are desperately poor, and are no doubt being threatened with the cutoff of what paltry aid they do receive from the U.S. if they vote "the wrong way." ("My way or the highway!") The case of Angola is especially egregious. It was devastated for about twenty years by a brutal civil war, caused by the U.S. government's aid and support to Jonas Savimbi, a murderous brute who terrorized the Angolan people ruthlessly. Now the U.S. is leaning on it again, trying to coerce it into voting in favor of the very same nation which tore it apart and ravaged its people.
The stakes are high. The fig leaf of UN sanction, even though obviously obtained by bribing and bullying, and gangster tactics of the lowest sort, will give the Bushies some political cover for their big Iraq attack. On the other hand, a UN vote against them will be a major diplomatic defeat for the U.S. If (as seems certain) it goes ahead and attacks without UN approval, the war will clearly be exposed to everyone who has eyes to see as a predatory war of aggression and mass murder, a crime against humanity of the utmost magnitude.
