NEW YORK-- As the New York Times put it, there are two superpowers in the world today: the United States and world public opinion.
' And last week, world public opinion won by an overwhelming majority -- judging by the millions of anti-war demonstrators in the streets of London, Berlin, Paris, Rome, New York and Madrid.

Clearly, the world's only superpower couldn't ask the world's silent majority to shut up.

Ironically, the largest gatherings were in London, Rome and Madrid whose governments are the most supportive of a US-led war on Iraq.

The demonstrations proved that these governments were far removed from their voters who brought them to power -- and will eventually bring them down.

But still, neither US President George W. Bush nor British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the two warlords bent on launching a military attack on Iraq, was willing to concede defeat.

The focus has now shifted to the Security Council where the US and Britain are trying desperately to garner nine out of 15 votes -- and no vetoes -- to adopt a resolution justifying war.

The British-American resolution, which is expected to be introduced next week, will have four surefire votes: the US and Britain (both with veto powers), along with Spain and Bulgaria.

Syria and Germany are expected to vote against military action against Iraq. France has threatened to veto the resolution while China and Russia, which are also veto-wielding members, may possibly abstain.

The remaining six countries in the Security Council -- Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea -- have not made any public commitments or indicated how they would vote. The US needs five of those votes to get the required total of nine.

The political lobbying and arm-twisting are not taking place at the United Nations, but at various capitals where American political pressure is on for the five votes.

The ambassadors at the United Nations may pontificate on the rights and wrongs of an impending war, but the crucial decisions will be made next week in Santiago, Mexico City, Islamabad, Luanda, Yaounde and Conakry.

If you are a recipient of US economic and military aid -- or hope to benefit from future goodies -- the man cracking the whip is sitting in the White House in Washington DC.

Last week, Bush phoned two heads of state: Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos seeking their support for the resolution.

According to the Washington Post, US Secretary of State Colin Powell is a proponent of "speed-dial diplomacy": he talks to foreign ministers mostly by phone, rather than visiting capitals.

At times, on any single day, Powell puts through as many as 100 calls, says the Post, just to keep tabs on foreign policy issues.

As it launches an aggressive campaign to get the nine votes it needs, the US is using its economic muscle to round up political support and generate UN votes.

"It is widely known that the United States makes promises to get votes -- whether those are foreign aid or access to Iraq's oil,'' says Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights.

"Certainly in the 1991 Gulf War with Iraq, money played a large role in getting approval for Egypt and other coun

tries (to support the US-led attack on Iraq)", says Ratner.
Last week the US was embroiled in a heated argument with one of its closest allies Turkey (which is not a member of the Security Council) whose military support it needs for an attack on its neighbour Iraq.

On Wednesday, the Turkish government rejected the whopping $26 billion US aid package -- $20 billion in loans and $6 billion in outright grants -- as inadequate. Turkey says it wants $10 billion in grants, but the US has refused to sweeten the "take-it-or-leave-it" deal.

As part of the package, Turkey was expected to permit US forces to operate out of Turkish airbases in the event of a war on Iraq.

But if Turkey refuses to cooperate with the US, Washington has threatened to penalise its longtime ally which currently receives about $17.5 million in military grants and about $2.7 million annually for military education and training of Turkish troops.

Turkey stands to lose all of it, as did Yemen when it voted against a US-sponsored UN resolution to invade Iraq in 1991.

As he continues his campaign for war, Bush also challenged the political virility of the UN because of its reluctance to authorise military force against Iraq, and chided the world body for failing to enforce Iraqi compliance with 17 resolutions the Security Council has adopted since the 1991 Gulf War.

But the US stand came under heavy fire at an open meeting of the Security Council on Tuesday.

Iranian Ambassador Javad Zarif told delegates that "for months, we have repeatedly heard that the United Nations should show 'backbone and courage' or else become 'an irrelevant debating society,'''

"While we fully agree with the need for effectiveness, we cannot accept that the priorities of one power could provide the criteria for the effectiveness and relevance of the United Nations," he added.

Zarif said there are dozens of Security Council resolutions explicitly demanding an end to Israeli occupation of Arab lands that have remained unimplemented for decades.

"We don't need to name the only major power that has enabled Israel to contemptuously flout the will of the international community," he added.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

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