Jan 31 2003
Give a man a peace prize and look what happens
Nobel Peace Prize winner (1993) Nelson Mandela lambasted the U.S. and U.K. policy on Iraq yesterday. During a speech at the International Women’s Forum, he claimed that the U.S. was “arrogant” and called George W. Bush “a president who can’t think properly and wants to plunge the world into holocaust”.
CNN’s coverage of the story pointed out an apparent error in Mandela’s speech in which he claims “…because Iraq produces 64 percent of the oil in the world. What Bush wants is to get hold of that oil.” CNN corrects the statistic by saying “In fact Iraq contributes to only 5 percent of world oil exports.” However, CNN is (perhaps deliberately) missing the point. “Exports” are not the issue (they are low because of the U.S. sanctions against Iraq). The important fact is that Iraq has the second largest reserves of oil in the world, according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Transportation Technologies.
The CNN story ended with this nice quote from White House Spokesman and unapologetic lap dog Ari Fleischer: “The president will understand there are going to be people who are more comfortable doing nothing about a growing menace that could turn into a holocaust. He respects people who differ with him. He will do what he thinks is right and necessary to protect our country.”
The BBC’s coverage of the story placed more emphasis on what Mandela said, without feeling the need to make unnecessary corrections and rebuttals.
Mandela did, however, get one thing wrong. He wondered (as reported in both stories) if the U.S.’s unabashed willingness to undermine the United Nations was because the current secretary-general of the U.N. (Kofi Annan) is a black man. The BBC story added this further statement of Mandela’s “They never did that when secretary generals were white.”
That’s where Mandela is wrong. The U.S. has been undermining the United Nations for decades. For example, it has vetoed more resolutions than any other country — many having to do with Israel’s actions in Palestine. Specifically, the U.S. vetoes any resolution against terrorism that makes a statement supporting the “right to self-determination” because such resolutions undermine U.S. and Israeli anti-Palestinian actions.
When the U.S. “dismissed with contempt” (Chomsky) the World Court’s ruling in favor of Nicaragua after the devastating physical and economic war that the U.S. waged against that small country in the 1980s, Nicaragua took the matter to the Security Council. The Council tried to pass a resolution calling on all member states to observe international law. The U.S. (alone) vetoed the resolution. So Nicaragua went to the U.N. General Assembly with the same request. This time the resolution passed, but three countries opposed it: the U.S., Israel, and El Salvador (at the time a puppet of the U.S. that was used as a staging ground for the U.S.’s illegal war against Nicaragua).
It goes on, but there is, however, little doubt that U.S. contempt for the U.N. is at an all-time high. Europe, on the other hand, with its long and bloody history of warring with itself — climaxing in the 20th century with the two world wars — treats the U.N. with the respect it deserves. Since the creation of the U.N. there has been no war in Europe among U.N. members (the former Yugoslavia and its offshoots were not members). Europe has learned the value of diplomacy and international law.
The U.S., however, still rules by the gun, which is at the heart of the reason why the U.S. goes along with the U.N. when it suits them, and uses its strong veto power when it doesn’t.
