Will President Bush act unilaterally against Iraq if he doesn't get the UN cooperation he seeks? And why does the US think it can bypass the Security Council anyway? Read excerpts from today's Arab Press:
"Opponents [of Bush] also see no logic in provoking a fresh crisis of untold consequences in the Middle East, which is already reeling from spiralling Palestinian-lsraeli tensions. In addition, unlike the situation in the wake of Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Washington is keeping the UN at bay. Without handing over the whole case to the world organisation, any military attack against Iraq would be perceived for what it will rightly be: a foreign incursion into a sovereign country. Whether Baghdad complies or not with Security Council resolutions must be the UN business. Still, Bush, itching to topple Saddam and install a loyal regime in his stead, has yet to change his mind about the tough anti-Baghdad line. Except for Britain and Israel, his battle cry against Iraq has impressed no one. Despite his war talk, he would not opt to go to war on his own. At stake are American lives and an already sluggish economy.
"So at the end of the day, he may well be compelled to take his case to the UN Security Council in a desperate bid to wrest a clear-cut mandate to strike et Iraq. If so, it would be up to the agency's other permanent members to induce Washington to take its finger off the trigger and allow bona-fide diplomacy instead to resolve Iraq's long-running tribulations. The Egyptian Gazette"
Israel's rabid ambition of becoming the super-power of the Middle East by destroying Iraq, containing Iran, subjugating the Palestinians and intimidating Arab countries plays against American interests in the region way beyond Israeli-American control. The only hope is for President Bush to resist rushing into a misadventure in Iraq at the behest of Israel and its chickenhawk supporters in Washington. His address before the United Nations General Assembly this week will seek to sound out the international community on a unilateral act of war. He will be brandishing a sabre in a house that was specifically created to ban them. He may not find the kind of welcome he wishes for. Ayman Al Amir, Al Ahram Weekly
Leaving aside the moral question as to why an unjust war would become just if backed by the Security Council, it's perfectly possible for the United States to secure UN Security Council support to invade Iraq. The French could be bribed and the Chinese offered some concessions on Taiwan to secure their abstentions. But Cheney and Rumsfeld clearly regard these methods as abhorrent. They know perfectly well that Anglo-American bombing raids of Iraq of the last 15 years have bypassed the Security Council with impunity. They are the leaders of the world's only empire and they will behave accordingly. Some of the Bush ideologues in the media compare Washington to ancient Rome. It is a permissible fantasy. but they should remember that (a) the Romans never expected to be loved and (b) that Rome, too, fell. Tariq Ali, Al Ahram Weekly
In an interview with Newsweek magazine, Nobel Peace laureate Nelson Mandela criticized the United States for acting unilaterally and undermining the United Nations as a forum for settling international disputes. He said U.S. hardline policies aimed to please American oil and arms companies.
Mandela said some believe racism lies behind Washington's willingness to bypass the UN.
"...when there were white (U.N.) secretaries-general you didn't find this question of the United States and Britain going out of the United Nations, but now that you've had black secretaries-general like...Kofi Annan, they do not respect the United Nations. They have contempt for it," Mandela added.
"Opponents [of Bush] also see no logic in provoking a fresh crisis of untold consequences in the Middle East, which is already reeling from spiralling Palestinian-lsraeli tensions. In addition, unlike the situation in the wake of Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Washington is keeping the UN at bay. Without handing over the whole case to the world organisation, any military attack against Iraq would be perceived for what it will rightly be: a foreign incursion into a sovereign country. Whether Baghdad complies or not with Security Council resolutions must be the UN business. Still, Bush, itching to topple Saddam and install a loyal regime in his stead, has yet to change his mind about the tough anti-Baghdad line. Except for Britain and Israel, his battle cry against Iraq has impressed no one. Despite his war talk, he would not opt to go to war on his own. At stake are American lives and an already sluggish economy.
"So at the end of the day, he may well be compelled to take his case to the UN Security Council in a desperate bid to wrest a clear-cut mandate to strike et Iraq. If so, it would be up to the agency's other permanent members to induce Washington to take its finger off the trigger and allow bona-fide diplomacy instead to resolve Iraq's long-running tribulations. The Egyptian Gazette"
Israel's rabid ambition of becoming the super-power of the Middle East by destroying Iraq, containing Iran, subjugating the Palestinians and intimidating Arab countries plays against American interests in the region way beyond Israeli-American control. The only hope is for President Bush to resist rushing into a misadventure in Iraq at the behest of Israel and its chickenhawk supporters in Washington. His address before the United Nations General Assembly this week will seek to sound out the international community on a unilateral act of war. He will be brandishing a sabre in a house that was specifically created to ban them. He may not find the kind of welcome he wishes for. Ayman Al Amir, Al Ahram Weekly
Leaving aside the moral question as to why an unjust war would become just if backed by the Security Council, it's perfectly possible for the United States to secure UN Security Council support to invade Iraq. The French could be bribed and the Chinese offered some concessions on Taiwan to secure their abstentions. But Cheney and Rumsfeld clearly regard these methods as abhorrent. They know perfectly well that Anglo-American bombing raids of Iraq of the last 15 years have bypassed the Security Council with impunity. They are the leaders of the world's only empire and they will behave accordingly. Some of the Bush ideologues in the media compare Washington to ancient Rome. It is a permissible fantasy. but they should remember that (a) the Romans never expected to be loved and (b) that Rome, too, fell. Tariq Ali, Al Ahram Weekly
In an interview with Newsweek magazine, Nobel Peace laureate Nelson Mandela criticized the United States for acting unilaterally and undermining the United Nations as a forum for settling international disputes. He said U.S. hardline policies aimed to please American oil and arms companies.
Mandela said some believe racism lies behind Washington's willingness to bypass the UN.
"...when there were white (U.N.) secretaries-general you didn't find this question of the United States and Britain going out of the United Nations, but now that you've had black secretaries-general like...Kofi Annan, they do not respect the United Nations. They have contempt for it," Mandela added.