The casting of a crucial vote- one way or the other- could also antagonise longtime friends and trigger animosities among neighbours. The moral of the story is that if you cannot stand the heat, as the old saying goes, keep out of the kitchen. Perhaps the 10 non-permanent members who hold seats in the Council this year- particularly the developing nations- may feel the same judging by the heavy pressure from the US during the last few weeks which aggressively sought their votes for the resolution against Iraq adopted yesterday. The ten countries - Cameroon, Guinea, Mauritius, Bulgaria, Colombia, Mexico, Singapore, Norway, Ireland and Syria- had little or no choice. With the exception of Ireland and Norway, the pressure was most intense on the developing countries in the Council.

Can they afford to oppose the US? How much do they stand to lose if they cast a negative vote? Can Iraq afford to compensate their losses? In a world with a single superpower, who will come to their rescue if the US cuts off aid? Syria was perhaps the exception because, as the only Arab country in the Council, it continued to take a strong stand supportive of Iraq.

Additionally, Syria was never considered an American ally and a recipient of significant US economic or military aid. For nearly seven weeks, the 10 countries were subject to arm-twisting by the Americans. But in the end most of them perhaps did not vote according to their conscience. Of the 10, at least seven depend on the US either for economic aid or military aid or both.

Or in the alternative they were dependent on the US for military supplies. But all seven were conscious of the fact that in 1991 the US almost overnight cut-off about $70 million in aid to Yemen immediately following its negative vote against a US sponsored Security Council resolution to militarily oust Iraq from Kuwait.

Last week the Mauritius Ambassador to the United Nations was temporarily recalled by his government because he continued to convey the mistaken impression that his country had reservations about the US resolution against Iraq. Anil Gayan, the foreign minister of Mauritius, had to set the record straight last week.

"Mauritius will support the resolution, as it had been decided from the start. Iraq must be disarmed, as it has a track record of using chemical weapons." But then, Mauritius receives an average of about $100,000 in grants for military education and training, is eligible for tariff concessions and duty free exports of its products to the US under the African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA) and can receive surplus American arms at no cost.

Colombia, which is one of the world's leading producer of cocaine and an important supplier of heroin to the US market, received about $380 million in American grants under the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) programme this year. The proposed amount earmarked for 2003 is $439 million.

Under the same programme, Mexico received about $10 million last year and $12 million this year. Mexico also received $28.2 million in US Economic Support Funds (ESF).

Guinea received $3 million in outright military grants last year and is expected to get $20.7 million in development assistance next year. Cameroon is not only entitled to receive free surplus American weapons but is also a recipient of about $2.5 million in annual grants for military education and training. After Colombia, the biggest single beneficiary of US aid is Bulgaria which received $13.5 million in outright military grants (mostly to buy US weapons systems) last year and an additional $8.5 million this year. The amount earmarked for next year is $9.5 million.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster