Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines

POLITICS: U.S. Livid at U.N. Resistance to Iraq Resolution

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 10 2003 (IPS) - At a closed-door meeting of the 15-member Security Council last week, a visibly frustrated Western diplomat expressed his anger at Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s decision to virtually reject a new U.S.-sponsored resolution on Iraq because it fell short of expectations.

"Is the Secretary-General exercising a sixth veto?" the European diplomat asked rather sarcastically, in a Council chamber where the privilege of vetoing resolutions is exercised only by the Big Five: the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia.

Annan’s initial reaction to the resolution, which he said was "not going in the direction I had recommended", has also annoyed the United States.

The New York Times quoted unnamed U.S. officials as variously saying that the Secretary-General’s comments were "unusual", "unhelpful" and "surprising."

The resolution, which is co-sponsored by Britain and Spain, reflects a public appeal that U.S. President George W. Bush made before the General Assembly last month urging U.N. member states to help in the reconstruction and development of war-ravaged Iraq..

Additionally, the resolution also urges member states to provide troops for a proposed U.N. mandated multinational military force for Iraq – primarily to relieve pressure on the 130,000 American troops who are dying at an average of about one per day.

Annan, along with most other members of the Security Council, wants the resolution to be more specific about the creation of a new provisional government consisting of Iraqis who will write a new constitution, hold elections and run the civil administration of the country.

The Secretary-General’s stand is being supported by several Council members, including France, Russia and Germany, who are also seeking a more substantive role for the United Nations in Iraq.

"In short, most Council members want the U.S. military occupation to end," an Asian diplomat told IPS. "They don’t want the United Nations seen as part of that occupation."

The United States needs nine votes – and no vetoes – to adopt the resolution in the Security Council. But since it is unsure about the votes, there is speculation that Washington may shelve the resolution.

However, Annan told reporters Friday that discussions on the resolution are still going on. "I don’t think there has been a decision (by the United States) to pull the resolution. We will know in a few days what is going to happen."

Annan’s tough stand on the resolution has surprised many who view him as being too accommodating towards the Bush administration.

Just before the U.S. military invasion of Iraq last March, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad called for Annan’s resignation because the secretary-general was not vociferous in his opposition to the war.

"It is about time that Kofi Annan stood up for the U.N. Charter," Francis A. Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, told IPS.

Up until now, he has basically functioned as "an errand boy for the United States" despite the requirement of the U.N. charter mandating the absolute independence of the secretary-general and the U.N. Secretariat from taking instructions from any member states such as the United States, he said.

Boyle also criticised the U.S. call for multinational troops as spelled out in the resolution. "Foreign troops should stay out of Iraq for any reason whatsoever at the behest of the Bush administration. Otherwise, they too will become legitimate targets of attack from an Iraqi resistance movement to foreign occupation forces," said Boyle, author of ‘Destroying World Order: U.S. Imperialism in the Middle East Before and After September 11.’

He said that "a real and independent U.N. peacekeeping force" should be deployed to Iraq under the auspices not of the Security Council, but of the 191-member General Assembly – as it did in 1950 in South Korea.

Stephen Zunes, associate professor of politics and chair of the peace and justice studies program at the University of San Francisco, told IPS that the United States has certainly pushed ahead with resolutions opposed by secretaries-general before.

"So Kofi Annan’s rejection of this draft resolution can hardly be considered a veto," he said.

In making his statement, however, Annan was both reflecting reservations among other Security Council members and perhaps tacitly encouraging those with veto power to exercise it if the United States decided to move forward anway, Zunes said.

"The secretary-general, who has made his career at the United Nations, recognised that the credibility of the organisation and the safety of its personnel would be at stake if the United Nations was seen to be enforcing an illegal and increasingly unpopular occupation," he added.

Norman Solomon, executive director of the Washington-based Institute for Public Accuracy, said the Bush team is obviously refusing to grant the United Nations substantial and real powers in Iraq.

"Like the aggressive war that preceded it, this occupation is not about democracy. It is about power and plunder," he told IPS.

Solomon also said that the political charade that goes on in Iraq is a superpower version of "to the victor goes the spoils" – economic, military and geopolitical spoils.

"Clearly, the Bush administration has no intention of losing control over Iraq’s oil or its prime real estate in the Middle East," he added.

Solomon said that between the lines, the current message from U.S. officials to the Security Council is: "Might makes right – and we won Iraq, fair and square. Now we’d prefer to get your stamp of approval on our occupation and domination of Iraq."

"But if we can’t get a formal U.N. imprimatur for doing essentially what we want in Iraq, we’d much rather muddle through with some fig-leaf troops from a few countries and miscellaneous humanitarian projects on an ad hoc basis."

Solomon also said that the insistence of unilateral control over Iraq becomes no less transparent when the Bush administration offers limited involvement to the United Nations.

"In effect, U.S. officials want to maintain U.S. command not only in Iraq, but also at the U.N. Security Council," he added.