---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIBERY, BULLYING AND BOMBAST
By Jack A. Smith
The Bush administration is deeply involved in bribery and bullying to secure a UN resolution authorizing war against Iraq and for coercing a variety of nations to support an American invasion in mid-March. Untold billions of dollars are being promised to purchase a fig-leaf of endorsement for President Bush's impending naked aggression.
According to the Feb. 25 Financial times, "It will cost Washington very dear, in hard cash and IOUs, not to mention diplomatic goodwill, to patch together its 'Coalition of the Willing' to enforce regime change in Baghdad."
In addition, the U.S. is threatening to withhold needed support from a number of nations if they refuse to cooperate. For example, it is reported that Washington informed several East European countries seeking entry into NATO that their admission could be stymied unless they backed an invasion.
The multi-billions plus other aid offered to Turkey to enable the Pentagon to invade Iraq from the north as well as the south is just the most obvious example of the crude haggling and browbeating orchestrated by Washington to secure backing for the invasion. In addition to the cash, it is reported the U.S. indicated it might withdraw its sponsorship of Turkey's admission to the European Union unless the country complied.
The Ankara government finally accepted the offer, but the Turkish parliament turned it down, creating grave problems for the Pentagon's invasion plans. According to the New York Times, "As the discussions wore on and tales of American high-handedness spread, Turkish lawmakers and the Turkish public appeared to become more and more alienated." The U.S. is said to be working on other schemes to force Turkey's submission. Opinion polls show that 95% of Turkey's population opposes a war.
Press reports in the last few days suggest that senior U.S. officials have been dispatched to various Security Council countries where they are warning leaders to vote with the U.S. on Iraq or risk severe retaliation. Russia, for example, has been informed that the $8 billion debt owed by Iraq may go unpaid by Bush's post-invasion client government unless Moscow supports "regime-change."
At this stage, Washington's principal objective is to obtain nine votes in the Security Council for a resolution which in essence authorizes the U.S. to launch a devastating war against Iraq. The council consists of 15 members, five of whom are permanent with veto power, and 10 rotating members without a veto. Three permanent members — China, France and Russia — oppose a war. The remaining two, the U.S. and UK, seek a UN mandate to attack Baghdad beginning in the third week of March.
Of the rotating members, only conservative Spain and dependent Bulgaria favor a second war-authorizing resolution. Germany and Syria are staunchly against the resolution, backing the French proposal for strengthened and protracted inspections instead of war. All remaining six members — Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, and Pakistan -- have tilted toward the French view. These countries are all targets for U.S. bribes and threats.
The U.S. is reported to be exerting extreme pressure on Mexico and Chile, both within the traditional Yankee sphere of influence. The Associated Press quoted a Mexican UN diplomat (who requested anonymity) as saying last week that "They actually told us, 'Any country that doesn't go along with us will be paying a very heavy price.'" The three poor African countries are also targets for pay-offs and threats. A diplomat from destitute Angola noted that the U.S. is suddenly paying attention to its needs after years of indifference.
Washington's arm-twisting is so blatant that reporters laughed out loud Feb. 28 during a press briefing when Ari Fleischer rejected suggestions that the U.S. was applying pressure to obtain votes. The White House spokesman then walked out of the briefing.
If the Bush administration manages to dragoon nine votes to support war, it will probably ignore a veto by France, Russia, or China, arguing that a majority of the council backs war, and that's good enough for Washington. If the White House cannot obtain a majority it still plans to launch a war, but this may create severe political problems for its crazy quilt coalition partners, all of whom face strong popular antiwar opposition at home.
Bush was prepared to totally ignore the UN, as did President Bill Clinton in 1999 when he ordered the illegal and unjust U.S./NATO 78-day bombing campaign against a virtually defenseless Yugoslavia. But he was prevailed upon to request a second, authorizing resolution by his loyal valet, Tony Blair of Great Britain, as well as the leaders of Spain and Australia -- each of whom must contend with angry antiwar movements. They hope to neutralize these politically troubling movements by obtaining a UN mandate for aggression, the semblance of a pro-war coalition, and so murderous an initial assault upon Iraq that victory is swift.
The U.S. plans to call for a Security Council vote authorizing war soon after weapons inspector Hans Blix makes his report March 7. Few analysts doubt that Bush will plunge ahead with his war even without UN backing. He could simply declare the world organization irrelevant and press the button activating the most lethal war machine in history. In doing so, the U.S. will substantially weaken the world body. But in unleashing its dogs of war against UN wishes, the Bush administration will also be fostering the growth of its opposite — an unprecedented movement of international outrage against American unilateralism and military ferocity.