US Manipulation of the UN

The following passage will indicate to the reader the manner in which the US manipulates the UN. The selection of quotes given are enough to convince most people about how the UN is the US, and what the US says, goes.

The December 1998 bombings took place under the pretext of UN Resolution 687, which calls for the creation of a 'weapons of mass destruction' free zone in the Middle East. However, the US still refuses to acknowledge Israel's nuclear arsenal, and has been primarily responsible for providing weapons to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel. During the voting on UN resolution 687, which was nothing more than authorizing the use of force, the Yemeni Ambassador Abdallah Saleh Al-Ashtal, had just brought down his hand after voting 'no', one of the US diplomats said to him 'that was the most expensive no vote you ever cast'. In retaliation, the US and other countries cancelled or cut back aid to Yemen, one of the poorest Arab states.

'What we say goes' was George Bush's definition of the New World order during the bombing in 1991. In the Clinton years, US contempt for international law has become even more open and explicit. While she was UN ambassador, Madeline Albright simply told the UN: 'We will behave multilaterally when we can, and unilaterally when we must' i.e. if you don't like it, get lost. Madeline Albright declared in 1997: 'We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with it obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted.' Clinton himself went one step further when he said 'sanctions will be there until the end of time, or as long as he [Hussain] lasts.'

In explaining the 'real' meaning of the 'price' Mrs. Albright thought was worth the deaths of half a million children, James Rubin, the US spokesman said (in an interview to John Pilger) '... in making policy, one has to choose between two bad choices… and unfortunately, the effect of sanctions has been more than we hoped. … Our sense is that, prior to the sanctions, there were serious poverty and health problems in Iraq' - the implications were clear, that the children would have died anyway. UNICEF reports confirm that in fact the opposite was true. It reports that Iraq in 1990, had one of the healthiest and best educated populations in the world, with a child mortality rate one of the lowest as well.

"From previous trips, we knew exactly where to find overwhelming evidence of a weapon of mass destruction. Inspectors have only to enter the wards of any hospital in Iraq to see that the sanctions themselves are a lethal weapon, destroying the lives of Iraq's most vulnerable people. In children's wards, tiny victims writhe in pain, on blood-stained mats, bereft of anesthetics and antibiotics. Thousands of children, poisoned by contaminated water, die from dysentery, cholera, and diarrhea. Others succumb to respiratory infections that become fatal full body infections. Five thousand children, under age five, perish each month." - Kathy Kelly, March 9, 1998.

Back to contents

The US Foreign Policy - "…our interests…" - Bill Clinton

American policy towards Iraq has been described and repeatedly defended as a measure to stop arms proliferation and to prevent use of 'weapons of mass destruction'. Yet, Washington has no problem with countries developing these weapons as long as they are friendly to the West. As an example, take Israel, which has not only been allowed to develop the World's sixth largest nuclear program, but has also collaborated in the nuclear program of apartheid South Africa. They also claim to be defending the Kurds in Northern Iraq by imposing a no-fly zone in the North of Iraq. However Turkey's campaign against the Kurds is acceptable since it plays a critical role in protecting American interests in the region. Apparently the killing of Iraqi Kurds by the Turkish planes is not considered a violation of the no-fly zone. The jets that fly and bomb Iraq so regularly fly from Incirlik in Turkey. 1994 was a peak year in two respects. It was the year when the Turkish terror against the Kurds peaked, and it was also the year in which US aid to Turkey peaked.

During the 1980's, the US Commerce Department approved contracts to provide Iraq with biological weapons material to make Anthrax, E Coli, Botulism and a whole host of other biological diseases. These sales continued even after Saddam used chemical weapons in Halabja against the Kurds in northern Iraq and against Iranian troops on the border. The US came to the rescue once again by increasing subsidized agricultural exports to Iraq [the chemicals had destroyed agricultural areas in the north and the people who lived in them, causing food shortages]. In fact, in December 1989, George Bush took a moment to announce that he was going to increase credits to Iraq to allow it to make purchases from US agricultural and other producers. These subsidies also included dual use equipment [such as helicopters] and equipment that could be used for producing chemical and biological weapons. At the time there was suspicion that Saddam had biological warfare facilities - the US denied it; he was on their side at the time. US commitment to Saddam at the time can be seen by the slap on the wrist he got when, in May 1987, an Iraqi missile struck US destroyer Stark, killing 37 personnel. The Stark was being introduced into the Gulf along with other naval backup to help in the war against Iran. In June 1988, the US warship Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner, which was clearly in a commercial air corridor, killing all 290 people on board. This was done while the Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters.

President Clinton remarked that there are other countries besides Iraq, which possess weapons of mass destruction, but only Iraq has used them. He must think he is talking to an ignorant population, because it is well known that the US has more weapons of mass destruction than any other country, and none has used them with lesser restraint or greater loss of life than the US. The only nation to ever have used nuclear weapons (twice) killed more than 200,000 innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 by dropping atomic bombs on them, and millions in Korea and Vietnam by using 'conventional' weapons.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has reported that the US 'stored 12,000 nuclear weapons and components in 23 countries and 5 American territories during the Cold War', making it by far the World's greatest proliferator of nuclear weaponry.

In explaining Washington's strategy towards Iraq to the Washington Post, a US official boasted ' The longer we can fool around in the [UN Security] council and keep things static, the better.'

Back to contents

The UN Sanctions Committee - Who is incharge?

Peter van Walsum is the Netherlands Ambassador to the UN and also the current chair of the Security Council Sanctions committee. Just like James Ruben, he too seems to believe that Iraq is Saddam, and Saddam is Iraq. The following excerpt from a conversation between John Pilger and Ambassador van Walsum will give an indication of the hypocritical and criminal thinking this 'ambassador of peace' holds and how much he really knows about what is going on:

JP: Why should the population, innocent people, be punished for Saddam's crimes?
VW: It's a difficult problem. You should realize that sanctions are one of the curative measures that the Security Council has at its disposal… and obviously they hurt. They are like a military measure.

JP: But who do they hurt?
VW: Well this, of course, is the problem… but with military action, too, you have the eternal problem of collateral damage.

JP: So an entire nation is collateral damage? Is that correct?
VW: No, I am saying that sanctions have [similar] effects… I…you see… you understand, we have to study this further.

JP: Do you believe that people have human rights no matter where they live and under what system?
VW: Yes.

JP: Doesn't that mean that the sanctions you are imposing are violating the human rights of millions of people?
VW: It's also documented that the Iraqi Regime has committed very serious human rights breaches….

JP: There is no doubt about that. But what's the difference between human rights violations committed by the regime and those committed by your committee?
VW: It's a very complicated issue, Mr. Pilger.

JP: What do you say to those who describe sanctions that have caused so many deaths as a 'weapon of mass destruction', as lethal as chemical weapons?
VW: I don't think that's a fair comparison.

JP: Aren't the deaths of half a million children mass destruction?
VW: I don't think you can use that argument to convince me… It is about the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

JP: Let's say the Netherlands was taken over by a Dutch Saddam Hussain, and sanctions were imposed, and the children of Holland started to die like flies. How would you feel about that?
VW: I don't think that's a very fair question… We are talking about a situation that was caused by a government that overran its neighbor, and has weapons of mass destruction.

JP: Then why aren't there sanctions on Israel [which] occupies much of Palestine and attacks Lebanon almost every day of the week. Why aren't there sanctions on Turkey which has displaced 3 million Kurds and caused the deaths of 30,000 Kurds?
VW: Well, there are many countries that do things that we are not happy with. We can't be everywhere. I repeat, it's complex.

JP: How much power does the United States exercise over your committee?
VW: We operate by consensus.

JP: And what if the Americans object?
VW: We don't operate.

Back to top