US Dollars Yielded
Unanimous UN Vote
Against Iraq
by Thalif Deen
Friday's unanimous vote in the U.N. Security Council supporting the
U.S. resolution on weapons inspections in Iraq was a demonstration of
Washington's ability to wield its vast political and economic power,
say observers.
''Only a superpower like
the United States could have pulled off a coup like this,'' an Asian
diplomat told IPS.
It would be a tragedy if
a war were to be declared based on such pressure.
James Abourezk
former U.S. Senator
The unanimous 15-0 vote, he said, was obtained through considerable
political and diplomatic pressure. The lobbying, he added, was not done
at the United Nations, but in various capitals.
Besides its five veto-wielding
permanent members - the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia
- the Security Council also consists of 10 non-permanent, rotating members
who hold office for two years.
France, China and Russia,
in almost a single voice, said they decided to back the resolution because
of assurances by the United States that it would return to the Security
Council before launching a military attack on Iraq. The resolution,
they argued, does not provide the United States with the automatic use
of military force.
But the 10 non-permanent
members - Cameroon, Guinea, Mauritius, Bulgaria, Colombia, Mexico, Singapore,
Norway, Ireland and Syria - voted under heavy diplomatic and economic
pressure from the United States.
Nine votes and no vetoes
were the minimum needed to adopt the resolution. Of the five big powers,
Britain had co-sponsored the U.S. resolution. In a worst-case scenario,
U.S. officials were expecting the other three permanent members - Russia,
China and France - to abstain on the vote.
That meant the votes of the
10 non-permanent members took on added significance. Of the 10, the
two Western nations, Ireland and Norway, were expected to vote with
the United States.
Syria, a ''radical'' Arab
nation listed as a ''terrorist state'' by the U.S. State Department,
was expected to either vote against or abstain.
So the arm-twisting was confined
mostly to the remaining seven countries, who depend on the United States
either for economic or military aid - or both.
All these countries were
seemingly aware of the fact that in 1990 the United States almost overnight
cut about 70 million dollars in aid to Yemen immediately following its
negative vote against a U.S. sponsored Security Council resolution to
militarily oust Iraq from Kuwait.
Last week, Mauritius' U.N.
ambassador, Jagdish Koonjul, was temporarily recalled by his government
because he continued to convey the mistaken impression that his country
had reservations about the U.S. resolution against Iraq.
''The Yemen precedent remains
a vivid institutional memory at the United Nations,'' Phyllis Bennis,
a fellow at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, told
IPS.
Bennis said that just after
that 1990 vote, the U.S. envoy turned to the Yemeni ambassador and told
him that his vote would be ''the most expensive 'no' vote you would
ever cast''. The United States then promptly cut the entire 70 million
dollar U.S. aid budget to Yemen.
The latest incarnation of
that reality, Bennis said, came from the island nation of Mauritius,
which joined the Security Council last year under U.S. sponsorship.
The U.S. aid package to the
impoverished country, authorised by the U.S. African Growth and Opportunity
Act (AGOA), demands that the aid recipient ''does not engage in activities
contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests''.
Fear of being accused of
acting contrary to U.S. foreign policy interests plays a role ''not
only for Mauritius, but also for any country dependent on U.S. economic
assistance'', added Bennis.
Colombia, one of the world's
leading producer of cocaine and an important supplier of heroin to the
U.S. market, received about 380 million dollars in U.S. grants under
the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) programme
this year. The proposed amount earmarked for 2003 is 439 million dollars.
Under the same programme,
Mexico received about 10 million dollars last year and 12 million dollars
this year. It also received 28.2 million dollars in U.S. Economic Support
Funds (ESF).
Guinea, another of the non-permanent
members in the Security Council, received three million dollars in outright
U.S. military grants last year and is expected to get 20.7 million dollars
in development assistance next year.
Cameroon is not only entitled
to receive free surplus U.S. weapons but also receives about 2.5 million
dollars in annual grants for military education and training.
After Colombia, the largest
single beneficiary of U.S. aid is Bulgaria, which received 13.5 million
dollars in outright military grants (mostly to buy U.S. weapons systems)
last year and an additional 8.5 million dollars this year. The amount
earmarked for 2003 is 9.5 million dollars.
Additionally, Bulgaria has
received 69 million dollars in aid under a U.S. programme called Support
for East European Democracy (SEED). Next year's proposed grant is 28
million dollars.
Besides Syria, Singapore
is the only country in the Security Council that does not receive economic
or military aid from the United States.
But the United States is
the biggest single arms supplier to Singapore, selling the Southeast
Asian nations weapons worth 656.3 million dollars last year and an estimated
370 million dollars this year.
Could any of these countries
easily stand up to the United States or refuse to fall in line with
their benefactor or military ally?
James Abourezk, a former
U.S. Senator, said he seriously doubts that any country receiving U.S.
government aid could withstand the economic pressure to vote for a U.S.
resolution at the Security Council.
''It would be a tragedy,''
he told IPS, ''if a war were to be declared based on such pressure''.
Copyright © 2002 IPS-Inter
Press Service