In 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco at the United Nations Conference on International Organization to draw up the United Nations Charter. Those delegates deliberated on the basis of proposals worked out by the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States in August-October 1944. The Charter was signed on June 26th, 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries (Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became one of the original 51 Member States) and the United Nations officially came into existence on October 24th, 1945, when the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, and by a majority of other signatories.

The name "United Nations" was devised by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and was first used in the "Declaration by United Nations" of January 1st, 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers (Nazi Germany, Italy, Japan). The creation of the U.N. was set against the bloody backdrop of the close of World War II. For those that supported the concept, of a “United Nations” the general hope was that the existence of such an organization would prevent future wars by serving as a meeting place where nations, particularly the major imperialist powers could settle their disputes without taking up arms. However, before we deal with today’s situation and how it relates to the UN and “international community”, it’s necessary to give a brief Pre-UN history lesson. I know this may not be the fun part but bear with me, as the old saying goes, “those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it!”

Before there was a United Nations there was “The League of Nations”. The League of Nations was established 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I, "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security." Like its successor, the United Nations,the League was a product of World War I in the sense that, that conflict convinced most nations of the necessity of averting another such cataclysm. It should be noted that the United States never joined the League of Nations. Although, American President, Woodrow Wilson, was one of the principal motivators behind the League, the US Senate rejected the treaty that had led to its creation. Despite The League of Nations stated goals which on paper, were quite lofty and noble, it would find itself dissolved in approximately 20 years and unable to stop World War II. How did this happen?

The League’s collapse was a steady process marked by a number of high and low profile failures, intensified in the 1930s by international economic crisis and conflict between the major imperialist powers of the time. The League of Nations was forced to stand by powerlessly in the face of the French occupation of the Ruhr (1923), Italy's occupation of Kérkira [a.k.a. Corfu] (1923), and other medium scale transgressions, but the 1930s would feature larger incidents similar to these that would truly set the stage for the League’s collapse.

When Japan invaded China in 1931, under the explanation that they were responding to an alleged terrorist incident (sound familiar?), China appealed to the League of Nations to intervene. But the Japanese rejected all mediation. The other major imperialist powers, particularly Britain and France (but also the U.S. even though not part of the League), saw no reason to confront imperial Japan at this point since none of their interest were directly or seriously affected by Japan’s assault on a weak China (Japan later withdrew from the league in 1933, as did Germany that same year).

Only a few years after Japan’s offensive in China, an even more notorious invasion would take place, when Ethiopia was attacked by Fascist Italy in October 1935. Italy’s invasion, which the dictator Benito Mussolini ordered for the purpose of reinvigorating his declining regime with the illusion of military conquest, was possible because of the behind-the-scenes acquiescence of the membership of the League, particularly Britain and France, who still hoped to win Mussolini’s support against the far more threatening Nazi regime. Besides it’s not as if the French and British governments cared about a few thousand dead Africans. However, France and Britain underestimated Mussolini’s ambitions of conquest and the unprovoked invasion of Ethiopia eventually placed strains on Italy’s relationship with France and Britain. Italy insisted that it had the right to take whatever actions it saw fit in Ethiopia, “since this question affects vital interests and is of primary importance to Italian security and civilization” (this type of thinking would logically extend outside of Ethiopia too).

After growing more uncomfortable with Italy’s aggression Britain and France orchestrated a meaningless condemnation of the invasion of Ethiopia by the League of Nations. The condemnation was meaningless because nothing was done to translate the condemnation into action, because none of the major imperialist powers had any real interest in defending the independence of Ethiopia. The limited economic sanctions that The League approved did not include an embargo on oil exports to Italy, which Mussolini’s military machine depended on, and the United States doubled its oil exports to Italy during the Ethiopian war. The Emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie, appealed to the League of Nations for its support in an “unequal struggle between a Government commanding more than forty-two million inhabitants, having at its disposal financial, industrial and technical means which enabled it to create unlimited quantities of the most death-dealing weapons, and, on the other hand, a small people of twelve million inhabitants, without arms, without resources...” – but to no avail. The Ethiopian failure left the League of Nations badly damaged but the final blow would come soon after.

In March of 1938, under the guise of "self-determination" for the German populations in the surrounding countries, Hitler began to implement his plan for "living room in the east" (German expansion a.k.a. “Move bitch! Get out the way!”). This plan began with the annexation of Austria by Germany. Hitler's attention then focused on Czechoslovakia, which had a large German-speaking population in the Sudetenland region. With Hitler’s backing factions in Sudetenland demanded autonomy from the rest of Czechoslovakia under terms that would essentially destroy the country. Under intense British and French pressure, the Czech government conceded full autonomy to the Sudetenland, but the offer was rejected on by the group seeking autonomy, who then broke off all relations with the Czech government. In September 1938 Hitler issued an ultimatum that the Czechs accept German territorial claims which Britain and France presented to the Czech government, while making clear their support for the German claims. Less than 2 weeks later a “four-power summit” was convened in Munich, Germany involving representatives of Britain, France, Italy, and Germany - representatives of the Czech government were barred from attending and forced to await the outcome. The Munich Agreement allowed for the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany and gave Hitler everything he wanted, and more. This process is often referred to historically as "appeasement"; to the Czech government at that time it meant that Czechoslovakia lost all its border fortifications, and vast amounts of territory, when they reluctantly agreed to this ultimatum in September 1938.

From there Nazi Germany’s troops marched into Prague in March of 1939, and turned Bohemia and Moravia into protectorates of their regime. Next, in September, Germany invaded Poland and annexed Danzig. And from there - as they say on the streets – it was on! - World War II had begun.

Fast forward to 2003, Iraq, the U.S., and the United Nations. In several desperate attempts to build support for an U.S. orchestrated invasion of Iraq, British and American officials have repeatedly attempted to draw a very faulty analogy between the current situation and what happened to The League of Nations prior to World War II. In their analogies brutal dictators and strongmen who have apparently outlived their usefulness to U.S. imperialism such as Saddam Hussein, and before him Slobodan Milosevic, are painted as budding Hitlers. Although the current situation bears some parallels to the situation in the 1930s, it does NOT do this is the manner in which Britain and the U.S. would like, and if they were more honest about history they would steer clear of this analogy. The League of Nations did not “fail” because weak and underdeveloped countries such as China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, and now Iraq refused to abide by international law. Instead, it collapsed because there didn’t exist a way in which the major imperialist powers (Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain, the U.S., France, etc. and now the U.S., again) could be compelled not to pursue, what they perceived to be their interests, through outright violence! Under the Capitalist world order that is based on imperialism, there was simply no way to get a major power to subordinate whatever it considered to be its national interests to an international consensus – and this is the situation we are once again faced with today.

Many people are placing far too much faith in the U.N. to avert an American lead assault on Iraq. As an organization, the U.N. is a great concept, and it has done and continues to do some very important humanitarian work, however, it is far from an unbiased and fair arbitrator of international disputes especially when it’s positions may run counter to the interest of the major imperialist powers – particularly the U.S. It must be understood that political considerations, rather than considerations of justice remain most important for the membership of the council. This is illustrated by an analysis of the November 2002 UN resolution 1441 on Iraq, which was passed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council, a close look at the membership of the security council at the time of the resolution, and what it likely will be if there is another vote.

With the passing of U.N. resolution 1441, the U.S. was given nearly everything it wanted, except a clear authorization for a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq in the event of an Iraqi “material breach”, however, both sides were free too interpret the language as they saw fit since the document did not expressly prohibit a U.S. unilateral attack either. Major players such as France, Russia, and China left the original meetings patting themselves on the back as if they had done something substantial, when in fact they at best may have bought themselves some more time to formulate strategy. From the outset it was clear that resolution 1441 was filled with triggers that the U.S. could use to try and justify an unprovoked attack on Iraq that was planned well before George Bush Jr. even occupied the White House.

The resolution sets out with the premise that Iraq “has been and remains in material breach” of its obligations under prior UN resolutions regardless of what weapons inspectors would find upon reentering Iraq. The document set out a timetable of only 30 days for Iraq to provide an “accurate, full and complete declaration” of not only its alleged weapons programs, but also all nonmilitary chemical, biological and nuclear research programs or facilities, which many UN officials warned could not be met. This timetable and other measures included in the resolution even compelled former assistant general secretary of the U.N., Dennis Halliday (who resigned his position over the economic sanctions practice in Iraq which he deemed “genocide”), to remark “Even if the Iraqis wanted to comply, and I am not clear that they do, I doubt that they could comply with this resolution”. It goes on to state that if the Iraqi regime is found to have made “false statements” in its report, it is deemed in “further material breach” of UN resolutions and subject to “serious consequences” (military attack).

Other measures approved by the resolution were so excessive that it seemed there only purpose was to offer a pretext for a U.S. attack. Resolution 1441 called for Iraq granting weapons inspectors “immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records and means of transportation.” It allowed inspectors to declare no/fly-no/drive zones around any facility that they wish to enter, excluding people, vehicles and planes from the area and “sufficient UN security guards” to protect them, which could easily amount to a foreign occupation. The resolution demanded that Iraq turn over any scientists or other officials whom the inspectors wished to interview and authorized UN inspection agencies to “at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside Iraq….facilitate[ing] the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq” – where they would undoubtedly be set upon by British and American officials making a mixture of threats and bribes to extract statements of questionable accuracy, to justify a military attack. The documents also inhibited Iraq from combating U.S./British aggression, making shots fired against US and British planes bombing Iraqi targets (which is not sanctioned by the U.N.) a further pretext for war. Aside from the obvious multiple triggers, it seems that the hope was that the resolution would so thoroughly humiliate the Hussein’s regime that it could cause a military coup in Iraq by making Hussein seem powerless, or better yet, that he would outright reject it. Maybe Saddam had learned a little something from years of being an agent of U.S. imperialism or it was simply the reality of not having a choice, but he accepted the resolution.

It’s safe to say that the overwhelming majority of the world’s people are against a U.S. led war on Iraq. In addition, it appears most of the world’s governments are opposed or at least have serious reservations. So one has to ask, how did this resolution pass in this form, how did the situation get here, and where is it heading? For some of those answers we have to look at the membership of the Security Council and what’s at stake.

The United Nations Security Council is made up of 15 nations. Of the15, Only The U.S., Britain, Russia, China, and France are permanent member and have the ability to veto a resolution that comes through the council. Britain co-sponsored resolution 1441 with the U.S., meanwhile France, China and Russia, 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 other 10, non-permanent, members are on a rotating basis and hold office for two years. For a resolution to pass nine votes without a veto vote is the minimum needed. Back in November of 2002 when the U.N. issued Resolution 1441, the non-permanent members included Cameroon, Guinea, Mauritius, Bulgaria, Colombia, Mexico, Singapore, Norway, Ireland and Syria. At the time Ireland and Norway were expected to vote with the U.S. but of the remaining 7 countries only Syria, who is listed as a ''terrorist state'', by the U.S. State Department were not dependant on U.S. economic and/or military aid.

Back in 1990 the United States, almost overnight, cut the entire 70 million dollar U.S. aid budget to Yemen following its negative vote against a U.S. sponsored Security Council resolution to militarily oust Iraqi troops from Kuwait. According to Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, 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 7 nations whose votes were in question, no doubt were aware of Yemen’s ‘No’ vote history. Back in November of 2002, a rundown of the countries in question revealed many of them could have found themselves in similar situations.

The impoverished island nation of Mauritius, was scheduled to be receiving an aid package authorized by the U.S.’s African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which by the way, demands that the aid recipient ''does not engage in activities contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests''. Colombia, one of the world's leading producer of cocaine and an important supplier of heroin to the U.S. market has been the leading recipient of US arms and training in the Western Hemisphere. The amount of U.S. aid Columbia receives is substantial and explained in terms of fighting the drug war. Mexico is also heavily reliant on American Aid, however, this aid, pales in comparison to the importance of Mexico maintaining a positive business and military relationship with their superpower neighbor. Guinea had just received several million dollars in outright U.S. military grants in 2001 and was slated to get another 20.7 million dollars in development assistance in 2003. Cameroon was 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. Bulgaria, had just received 13.5 million dollars in outright military grants (mostly to buy U.S. weapons systems) in 2001, received an additional 8.5 million dollars in 2002, and had another 9.5 million dollars earmarked for 2003. Additionally, Bulgaria was receiving millions of dollars in aid under a U.S. program called Support for East European Democracy (SEED) with at least 28 million dollars proposed for the 2003 grant. Besides Syria, Singapore was the only country in the Security Council whose vote was in question, that was not receiving economic or military aid from the United States. However, the U.S. is the biggest single arms supplier to Singapore, selling the Southeast Asian nations weapons worth 656.3 million dollars in 2001 and an estimated 370 million dollars for 2002.

As far as the permanent, veto-wielding membership of the Security Council, France, Russia and China have all opposed a unilateral war against Iraq from the standpoint of their own substantial interests in the Iraq’s oil resources and/or political considerations at home. Iraq owes Russia at least 8 Billion dollars of Soviet-era debt and Russia’s Lukoil has the largest interest—a 23-year, $3.5 billion contract to develop the huge West Quormah oilfield. The French state-owned TotalFinaElf is close to completing negotiations on a deal to exploit the Majnoon oilfield, with reserves estimated at up to 30 billion barrels. China National Petroleum Corp., meanwhile, has a contract to develop part of the Rumaila area.

For the upcoming vote, add to the mix, non-permanent Security Council member, Germany, who also has had extensive business dealings with Iraq and who recently assumed the presidency of the council. From the outset the U.S. has made clear that anyone who attempts to block or fails to assist their war drive in Iraq, risk having any agreements or deals with a pre-assault Iraq cancelled by the pro-American post-assault Iraq government. In other words you help pull off this heist or we do it without you, and you get no cut. James Woolsey, the former CIA director and US corporate adviser who has emerged as a leading cheerleader for a speedy war against Iraq, bluntly spelled out this approach in an interview with the Washington Post. “It’s pretty straightforward,” he said. “France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we’ll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them.” But, he added, “If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them.”

The men representing the governments of the permanent members of the security council are not fools and all recognize that this has absolutely nothing to do with alleged “weapons of mass destruction” and that a US invasion will have as its central aim the consolidation of US control over Iraq’s oil reserves (second in the world to only those of Saudi Arabia) and an will be an extension of America’s hegemonic control of that region. In addition, Germany and France especially, are faced with a massive public opposition to the war at home. Germany’s current President, Gerhard Schroeder, was elected in large part because of his opposition to the war. For the leadership of either nation to back an American aggression could be an act of political suicide. Furthermore “opposition”, particularly that of Germany and France is attached at the hip – in that any, change of course by the major players would likely force others to follow suit, because none have any interest in the distinction of being the only nation that voted against the U.S. war plans. France and Germany recently exposed the true motivations behind there positions when a joint plan they had come up with was leaked. According to German newspaper, Dar Spiegel, the plan called “Project Mirage” contained seemingly benign measures like tripling the number of arms inspectors and appointing a permanent U.N. coordinator of arms inspections. However, it would leave the 150,000 plus troops currently surrounding Iraq in place, intensify the genocidal sanction policy, and extend the “No-Fly” zone to the whole of Iraq; essentially turning Iraq into a U.N. protectorate and completely surrendering any claims to independence – predictably the Iraqi regime rejected the proposal.

If the U.N. Security Council is forced to reconvene for a second vote on Iraq, in addition to the permanent membership, the non-permanent members will this time include. Germany, Guinea, Mexico, Pakistan, Spain, Syria, Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, and Chile. It’s pretty clear what the non-permanent members who voted for resolution 1441 will vote, but can anyone see this new motley crew of nations voting ‘No’ to U.S./British war plans. Spain’s pro-American government and Bulgaria have already pledged their loyalty to Washington. Pakistan is eager to show it’s allegiance to the U.S. in the “war against terror”. Who will vote against America’s war resolution? Impoverished, aid-dependent nations like Angola? Or Guinea? Or Chile, who is geographically and economically in the U.S.’s back yard? It’s possible, but in theory, so is the Easter Bunny.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan recently warned the United States about attacking Iraq on its own, arguing collective action under a U.N. umbrella would have “greater legitimacy and better odds of success”, going on to state that if the U.N. Security Council concludes, after a key report by U.N. inspectors due on Friday (February 14th, 2003), that Iraq is not disarming as required by council resolutions, "the council must face up to its responsibilities." Annan continued, "When states decide to use force, not in self-defense but to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations Security Council, …When there is strong U.S. leadership, exercised through patient diplomatic persuasion and coalition-building, the United Nations is successful -- and the United States is successful." Annan warned that war "is always a human catastrophe" and said the entire international community -- including "first and foremost the leaders of Iraq itself -- have a duty to prevent this if we possibly can." He then said, to my personal disgust, that Secretary of State Colin Powell had made a "strong" presentation to the council last Wednesday on Iraqi arms programs that had "undoubtedly strengthened" the hand of chief inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed El-Baradei and that "Our (U.N.) founders were not pacifists. They knew there would be times when force must be met by force".

Of course Annan’s address failed to mention that from the outset the vast majority of the U.S./British have been based on lies, previously discounted claims, and highly improbable scenarios. Of course it failed to mention that previous inspections teams found that the overwhelming majority of Iraq’s biological and chemical weapons and the facilities to make them, approximately 95%, had been expended in previous wars, destroyed in the 1991 Gulf War, or destroyed by past inspection teams – and since no credible evidence has been presented that Iraq has restarted any of it’s previous weapons programs, it makes the argument that this is about “disarming Iraq” less than believable. And of course it failed to mention that Colin Powell’s “strong”, February 5th, presentation turned out to be one of the most sloppy and shameful acts of public deceit in the history of modern conflict. Colin Powell’s presentation was supposed to make the U.S.’s case for war. It was supposed to be an up to the minute analysis of Iraq’s violations of the weapons inspections and support for terrorism, collected by recent British and American Intelligence. Within a day it was found that the dossier on Iraq, was based on extensive plagiarism by the British “Labour” government, of just 2 articles and the thesis of an American graduate student, much of it containing information that is more than 11 years old!

Then we have the fact that due to the junior high school, cutting and pasting job, many of the references to terrorist organizations and their leadership are out of place and context. For instance, some of the main evidence presented by Powell was a satellite photo of an outpost, allegedly linked to Hussein and al-Qaeda and which allegedly was producing chemical weapons. However, the camp is outside the area controlled by Hussein and is in the Northern Kurdish region protected by U.S. and British warplanes. It is run by the Islamic fundamentalist group Ansar al-Islam, which has a history of opposing both the secular Hussein and his secular Kurdish rivals. In addition, the camp was visited and found to empty and lacking electricity and indoor plumbing. Powell’s performance before the world is even more embarrassing when taking into account that the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) had obtained and leaked a top-level report from British intelligence that stated flatly that there were no current ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. According to London’s Independent newspaper, "The classified document ... said there had been contact between the two in the past, but it assessed that any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideologies".

For those of us seriously opposed to the war, the UN process should offer very little encouragement and one would be foolish to attach their position to it. A second UN resolution authorizing force would go a long way towards making many people feel better and that the attack on Iraq was part of some “international consensus”. It may also make Americans feel a little safer by dissipating some of the likely reprisals, and anger that many people, especially those of Islamic faith, may feel. A second resolution however will not make war more just or more moral or more legal. In fact, article 51, chapter VII of the UN charter is quite clear on this last point. UN members, it states, have "an inherent right of individual or collective self-defense". But it goes on to make clear that such a right applies only "if an armed attack occurs against a UN member". Iraq obviously has not, isn’t capable, and presumably has no plans to attack America.

So what happens now? What will happen after the U.N. comes back with it’s latest report this Friday February 14th (Valentine’s Day, how ironic) and what will the report say? At this point it’s not really clear but the Washington Post is reporting that according to U.S. and U.N. officials, National security adviser Condoleezza Rice “flew to New York the morning of February 12, to press chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix” to issue a damning report on Iraq. In the event that the permanent Security Council members don’t buckle and the U.N. option fails the U.S. has already begun attempting to use NATO (North American Treaty Alliance) to assist an attack on Iraq, where they have been hassled and tripped up once again by France and Germany, and this time Belgium. If the U.S. in unable to string together a NATO based attack then they will likely go with a so-called “coalition of the willing”, which will likely include the likes of Britain and Israel of course, as well as Australia, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, some former Soviet Republics, and a reluctant Turkey.

Although international public pressure against the war has been far more successful than I expected, ultimately it may not be enough. In America, so much time, energy, and faith has been put into orchestrating this barbaric attack that it is hard to imagine there not being a war. Like the Jamaican bobsledding team, there just seems to be too much momentum. Heads may literally roll if the “Warhawks” were to turn back now. 

We now know that by the summer of 1945, near the end of World War II, Americans had broken the Japanese code and were intercepting their communications. It’s entirely possible, if not likely, that the U.S. knew that the Japanese were near surrendering even in the Russians did not enter the war as an American ally. The only condition to their surrender that the Japanese asked was that The Emperor, a semi-holy figure to them, was allowed to stay in place as a figurehead. On August 6, 1945 the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima killing 100,000 people almost immediately and probably tens of thousands more with radiation. Three days later another atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki killing perhaps 50,000 people immediately, and causing an immediate Japanese surrender. Was it necessary? Was it racism? Was it part experiment since one bomb was plutonium based and the other uranium based? Some argue it was done because the momentum and resources put into creating the atomic bomb were so great that the American leadership felt it had to be dropped. Others say that it was done to force an immediate surrender and end the possibility that the Japanese would surrender to the Russians, instead of the Americans. You can draw your own conclusions about that, but what I do know is that I will be in the streets of New York, this Saturday, February 15th, 2003. And after that I will continue being active, organizing, and spreading information. I will NOT be placing my faith in the Democrats, the Republicans, or U.N. What will you be doing?

 
Released February 13th, 2003

Suggested Reading:

The Twentieth Century: A People's History by Howard Zinn

America Besieged by Michael Parenti

Suggested Websites:

http://www.wsws.org

http://www.internationalanswer.org

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/

http://www.warresisters.org

Reference Materials

Sherwin, Martin  A World Destroyed: The Atom Bomb and the Grand Alliance New York: Knopf, 1975.

Blackett, P. M. S.  Fear, War, and the Bomb: Military and Political Consequences of Atomic Energy. New York: MxGraw-Hill, 1948.

Alperovitz, Gar.  Atomic Diplomacy. New York: Vintage, 1967.

The views and opinions expressed herein by the author do not necessarily represent the opinions or position of Playahata.com.