www.globalresearch.ca
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation

Iraq: How US Policies made the UN a Target

by Sara Flounders

Workers World, 4 September 2003
www.globalresearch.ca 30 August 2003

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FLO308C.html


Whoever bombed the United Nations headquarters at the Canal Hotel in Baghdad on Aug. 19, killing 23 and injuring over 100, mostly UN personnel, the act has raised questions about the UN's role in Iraq.

The Bush administration has tried to use the bombing to deepen its hold on Iraq. The White House is already working on new UN Security Council resolutions to pressure many countries to commit troops to this criminal occupation.

But the UN bombing also exposed the occupation's weakness. This may undercut U.S. efforts to bribe other governments to send the foot soldiers Washing ton needs as additional cannon fodder.

Though this may come as a surprise to some, the UN hardly played a humanitarian role in its recent history in Iraq. Its own former officials will testify to how the UN has made itself hated among Iraqis.

UN ROLE IN IRAQ

Dennis Halliday, a former assistant secretary general and senior UN official in Iraq, resigned in 1999 rather than administer the UN blockade. He is a predecessor of Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN special representative killed in the Aug. 19 bombing.

Halliday, who was nominated for the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize, described the UN role in Iraq:

 "The West sees the UN as a benign organization, but the sad reality in much of the world is that the UN is not seen as benign. The UN Security Council has been taken over and corrupted by the U.S. and U.K., particularly with regard to Iraq, Palestine and Israel.

"In Iraq, the UN imposed sustained sanctions that probably killed up to 1 million people. Children were dying of malnutrition and water-borne diseases. The U.S. and U.K. bombed the infrastructure in 1991, destroying power, water and sewage systems against the Geneva Convention. It was a great crime against Iraq.

"Thirteen years of sanctions made it impossible for Iraq to repair the damage. That is why we have such tremendous resentment and anger against the UN in Iraq. There is a sense that the UN humiliated the Iraqi people and society. I would use the term genocide to define the use of sanctions against Iraq. Several million Iraqis are suffering cancers because of the use of depleted uranium shells. That's an atrocity. Can you imagine the bitterness from all of this?" (Sunday Herald, Aug. 24)

Hans von Sponeck, a former assistant secretary general and the senior UN official in Iraq who replaced Dennis Halliday, also resigned in protest of the UN role in 2000. On Aug. 20 Von Sponeck said on the radio show "Democracy Now" that while the attack on the UN was horrible it could be "expected" because the Iraqis were so provoked by the U.S. occupation.

The UN exists in a world where the capitalist market ruthlessly decides political and economic relations. It is a body that almost exclusively represents capitalist governments that do not represent the people or their interests. The United States, as the undisputed military and economic super-power, has overwhelming influence.

The UN's humanitarian agencies provide assistance to war refugees, food to famine victims and medical care to people in impoverished countries. These agencies' thousands of civil servants may be deeply committed to providing emergency relief. But the UN budget for humani tarian assistance is not even a band-aid.

To put it in perspective: Socialist Cuba, a relatively poor country with only 11 million people, provides more free doctors and medical teams to developing countries than the UN World Health Organization.

1991 WAR AND SANCTIONS

One of the greatest crimes against humanity--the 1991 bombing of Iraq and the 13-year starvation sanctions levied against that country--was carried out as a UN-authorized action.

Based on resolutions that the United States pushed through the UN Security Council, the devastating 42-day bombing of Iraq in 1991 took place under the UN flag. The bombs reduced Iraq's earlier accomplishments of free education, free health care, electrification and modern infrastructure to rubble.

Then 13 years of devastating sanctions were implemented through the UN Security Council. The sanctions caused the death of more than 1.5 million Iraqis.

U.S. veto power kept the sanctions ruthlessly in place once the UN Security Coun cil had voted for them. For the people of Iraq there is little perceived difference.

As an international movement arose to demand an end to the sanctions, the United States implemented--again through the Security Council--the Oil for Food Program. This program allowed UN sanctions to continue while allowing Iraq to sell a severely restricted amount of oil. The controls were so onerous that they drove both Halliday and von Sponeck to resign.

The entire sanctions regime was an effort to totally destroy Iraq, based on the now exposed myth that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

The UN Security Council, through UNSCOM, carried out more than 9,000 intrusive weapons inspections. Vital Iraqi industries were systematically destroyed because the sanctions program judged countless industrial processes to have a potential dual military-civilian use.

The entire UN inspections program was later exposed as a thinly veiled U.S. spy operation. The UN weapons inspectors were always based at the Canal Hotel.

It was only in March 2003 that the UN Security Council refused to pass a vote authorizing U.S. bombing and invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless, the Bush administration rushed ahead with a war that was unprovoked, criminal and illegal against a sovereign but defenseless country.

A month after the Pentagon blasted its way into Iraq and the sheer brutality of the war had overwhelmed the mass movement, the same UN member states that had refused to authorize the war voted, with the exception of Syria, for a resolution that gave the United States and British military occupation full "authority."

This was the most sweeping authorization for colonial domination in UN history.

After the Baghdad government collapsed there was a growing effort to again make the UN part of the U.S.-British occupation machinery and to line up countries to send foot soldiers, while keeping total U.S. command and control.

On Aug. 14, the UN Security Council passed a resolution welcoming Washing ton's handpicked "Iraqi Governing Coun cil." The UN vote established the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq, called UNAMI.

UNAMI sent 300 advisors to Iraq to work on such "humanitarian" missions as training a new Iraqi police force.

In the Aug. 20 British Independent news paper, reporter and Middle East expert Robert Fisk wrote that the Aug. 19 bombing of the UN building "proves that no foreign organization, no NGO, no humanitarian organization, no investor, no businessmen can expect to be safe under America's occupation."

WHO ARE THE FOREIGN TERRORISTS?

Virtually all the U.S. and British corporate media claim foreign forces are pouring into Iraq to fight the U.S. occupation. They accuse the Al Qaeda network, the Ansar Al-Islam group, Syrians, Saudis and Iranians of slipping across the border. The Financial Times speculated that 3,000 Saudis volunteers had infiltrated Iraq from the north--although the Saudi border is on Iraq's south.

These unsubstantiated reports are a feeble attempt to downplay the breadth and depth of Iraqi resistance. Iraqis are skilled, highly educated, have military training and are furious over the U.S. occupation. They can organize their own resistance.

A guerrilla struggle has quickly developed using a diverse range of tactics involving ambushes, land mines, trip wires, car bombs, drive-by shootings and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

Today, Iraqis consider the more than 140,000 U.S. troops and 10,000 British troops to be the main foreign terrorists in Iraq.

Meanwhile the Bush administration is in a wild scramble to increase foreign inter vention in the service of the U.S. occupation. Through bribery and heavy political arm-twisting

Washington has forced others to pledge support.

Forty-four countries have agreed to send some military forces to operate under the Pentagon's command. Five other countries are discussing the possibility. Although few troops have actually arrived, approximately 22,000 are pledged.

UN UNDER U.S. COMMAND

Less than 48 hours after the explosion at the UN offices in Baghdad, Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the UN to press for a new resolution that would convince member states such as France, Russia, India, Pakistan and Turkey to provide troops for a proposed multinational force.

Powell made it clear that the United States is unwilling to give the UN authority in Iraq. The other imperialist powers, which are in competition with U.S. corporate power, seek some "authority"-- meaning some say in the multi-billion-dollar reconstruction budget and in contracts for oil exploration, development, pumping, transport and sales.

According to Philip Gordon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, a U.S. think tank, the Bush administration has decided after weeks of internal debate to refuse to transfer any significant authority to the UN, a strategy he considers an error. (Aug. 20 International Herald Tribune)

But the UN bombing undercut U.S. efforts. The most immediate fallout from the attack is the decision by Japan to postpone "until next year" sending 1,000 troops.

Poland immediately scaled back its unpopular decision to send its troops. Polish troops were to be stationed in the central area between the British and U.S. forces.

Ukrainian troops were to operate under Polish command. This would have freed up thousands of U.S. troops. Polish Foreign Minister Cimoszewicz stated that access to Iraqi oilfields "is our ultimate objective."

In a rerun of the old Spanish Empire, Spain's troops were to command troops from El Salvador, Honduras, the Domin ican Republic and Nicaragua. Today these countries are all U.S. neo-colonies. The death of a Spanish civilian at the UN headquarters has opened a new debate and renewed opposition within Spain.

The decision in The Netherlands to send Dutch troops is already under dom estic attack because of the radiation danger due to the U.S. use of depleted-uranium weapons.

Italy's commitment of troops was already unpopular and is expected to meet new resistance.

Adding to the problems, the UN, while declaring that it will remain in Iraq, is cutting its staff more than in half. The International Monetary Fund has withdrawn its staff.

Within the U.S. ruling class there is a growing split over the involvement of the UN. Some in the Bush administration are determined to go it alone. Others are increasingly concerned about the mounting crisis, the vulnerability and isolation of the U.S. position. Clearly the U.S. occupation is in crisis.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, touring Iraq on July 20, made the incredible statement: "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq."

Wolfowitz, a key architect of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, should realize that only by bringing the U.S. troops home now could his statement come true.


Copyright Workers World Service 2003  For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement .


[home]