| |
THE ROVING
EYE
Coercion, all in the name of
democracy
By Pepe Escobar
CAIRO - Washington will go to war against Iraq
with a coalition of the willing in the event that it
decides to bypass the United Nations. Some are calling
it the coalition of the wanting. Others are calling it
the coalition of the bribed and the bludgeoned. And now
an independent Washington think tank has dubbed it the
coalition of the coerced.
Former US secretary of
state James Baker has admitted many times on the record
that winning support for the first Gulf War in 1991
involved "cajoling, extracting, threatening and
occasionally buying votes". This time it's buying and
threatening all the way. UN diplomats confirm to Asia
Times Online that "regime change is a practically
impossible proposition for most countries to accept".
Washington is trying to "persuade" two different
categories of countries. There are countries mostly in
the Middle East that will have to suffer a series of
extremely negative effects unleashed by the war. And
there are countries that Washington needs for
legitimizing its war, considering the fact that the
overwhelming majority of world opinion is against it.
Israel is getting its own separate megadeal: at
least US$12 billion in new grants and guaranteed loans.
And so are the pro-American Arab regimes of Egypt and
Jordan - a fact that entirely torpedoes Hosni Mubarak's
and King Abdullah's claims that they are trying to
prevent war at all costs. More than 90 percent of the
Egyptian population is against the war. Washington wants
from Egypt at least political support - and the use of
some air bases. In exchange, Egypt will certainly get
more aid beyond its current $2 billion, and is likely to
get a free trade deal with the US similar to the one
already offered to Jordan. Jordan now has hundreds of US
special forces, and collaborates closely with US
intelligence. In exchange, Jordan hopes to get an
additional $1 billion.
On February 26, the
Institute for Policy Studies in Washington released a
devastating study, "Coalition of the Willing or
Coalition of the Coerced", examining in detail the
pressure applied by Washington to each of the 15 current
members of the UN Security Council. The study also
examines how the Bush administration is putting together
the so-called coalition of the willing.
Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been spinning for weeks
that the coalition is probably the largest in the
history of mankind. The Bush administration never
released a full list of the coalition. The institute
did: 34 nations support the US war against Iraq. There
were 33 in the first Gulf War. As it stands, the 34 are:
Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain,
Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan,
Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Oman, the
Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saudi
Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United
Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom.
According
to the study, these 34 nations represent "only about 10
percent of the population of the world's 197 countries.
Subtracting the estimated 70 percent of their
populations that opinion polls show are not in favor of
war, the war supporters in the coalition of the willing
countries make up only about 3 percent of the world's
population." A UN it ain't.
The major
conclusions of the study are instructive:
Although the Bush administration claims
that the coalition of the willing is the basis of
genuine multilateralism, the report shows that most were
recruited through coercion, bullying and bribery.
The populations of the countries in the
coalition of the willing make up only about 10 percent
of the world's population. Opponents of the US position
currently include the leading economies of four
continents (Germany, Brazil, China and South Africa).
Bush could make or break the chances of
Eastern European members of the coalition of the willing
that are eager to become members of NATO. In order for
these nations to join the military alliance, Bush must
ask the Senate for approval.
"The pursuit of access to US export
markets is a powerful lever for influence over many
countries, including Chile and Costa Rica, both of which
are close to concluding free trade deals with the United
States; African nations that want to maintain US trade
preferences; and Mexico, which depends on the US market
for about 80 percent of its export sales." Both Chile
and Mexico are among the so-called "swinging six" -
current non-permanent members of the Security Council
whose vote would be decisive in approving a UN second
resolution. Mexico can't afford to vote against the US.
It would lose aid and trade. If Chile votes against the
US, it won't get the same access to the US market as
Canada and Mexico. Pakistan is also in a terrible spot.
If it votes against the US it follows public opinion,
almost 100 percent anti-war. But then it would lose
untold hundreds of millions of dollars in US aid and
loans it is getting as a frontline state in the war
against terrorism. If Angola votes against the US, it
won't get future loans to develop its oil industry.
According to Phyllis Bennis, Institute for
Policy Studies UN and Middle East expert and one of the
three authors of the study, "It's hardly a new
phenomenon for the US to use bribes and threats to get
its way in the UN. What's new this time around is the
breathtaking scale of those pressures - because this
time around, global public opinion has weighed in, and
every government leaning Washington's way faces massive
opposition at home."
The study examines in
detail whether "allies are supporting the United States
on the merits of the case, or is their support of the US
war effort more a result of coercion, bribes, and
bullying?" The study recalls familiar stories for those
who have been following the UN: "In 1990, for example,
the US government bribed China with post-Tiananmen
Square diplomatic rehabilitation and renewal of
long-term development aid to prevent a veto of the UN
resolution authorizing the 1991 Gulf War. The votes of
several poor countries on the council were purchased
with cheap Saudi oil, new military aid, and economic
assistance. And when Yemen, the sole Arab country on the
council, voted against the resolution authorizing war, a
US diplomat told the Yemeni ambassador, 'that will be
the most expensive no vote you ever cast'. Three days
later, the US cut its entire aid budget to Yemen."
The study conclusively demonstrates that the
coalition of the willing is in fact the coalition of the
bribed and the bludgeoned. "Almost all, by our count,
join only through coercion, bullying, bribery or the
implied threat of US action that would directly damage
the interests of the country. This 'coalition of the
coerced' stands in direct conflict with democracy. In
most nations, including those most closely allied to the
United States, over 70 percent of the public opposes US
military action against Iraq."
"New Europe" is
eager to go to war alongside the US: "The most visible
and vocal members of the coalition are from the region
that US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has dubbed
'the new Europe'. Most are lured by their desire to
enter NATO and to maintain a strategic relationship with
the United States after joining the EU."
What
the study does not say is that they all expect a lot in
return. They expect to host new US military bases. They
want very special treatment - like the recent $3.8
billion US-subsidized loan to Poland to finance the
purchase of a bunch of Lockheed Martin F-16s. Hungary -
where the US is training Iraqi exiles - wants US
military equipment.
The Eastern European arms
deal bonanza will be immensely facilitated by former
Lockheed Martin vice president Bruce Jackson, an old pal
of the Bush administration who happens to be the
chairman of a fuzzy Committee for the Liberation of
Iraq, a lobby with very close ties to the White House.
Diplomats in Brussels want Bruce Jackson's head on a
plate: he was instrumental in the draft of the letter
signed by leaders of former communist Eastern European
countries supporting the war against Iraq.
The
absolute monarchies of the Middle East (Bahrain, Jordan,
Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab
Emirates) are inevitably listed by the study as
supporting the war: "These countries are all dependent
on the United States for help to keep them in power. All
these countries - mostly tiny and all oil-rich - are
militarily dependent on the United States through arms
purchases, training, and the presence of US bases. They
are the closest to Iraq and govern populations strongly
opposed to US war plans.
Reflecting that public
anger, all of them voted in the mid-February unanimous
decision of the Arab League to oppose any Arab country
providing military assistance to any war on Iraq. But
their reliance on the United States was strong enough
that they cast that vote while already providing bases,
overflight rights, and direct staging areas for the
Pentagon's Gulf build-up." After the publication of the
study, last Saturday's summit in Sharm el-Sheikh in
Egypt sealed the demise of an anti-war unified stance by
the Arab League.
The study also compiles an
impressive list of who is not in the American-assembled
coalition. They include the two very influential
veto-wielding opponents of the US in the Security
Council, France and Russia; the 52 African nations
gathered for the Franco-African summit in Paris on
February 20 which issued a statement "opposing war
except as a last resort"; the leaders of the 116 nations
that make up the Non-Aligned Movement, who opposed war
at their summit in Kuala Lumpur on February 25. The
study point out "these nations represent two-thirds of
the members of the United Nations".
And there's
more: Canada, "the United States' No 1 trading partner
and neighbor"; and the "leading economies of four
continents - the countries with the largest GDPs in
Europe, South America, Africa and Asia. These include:
Germany, Brazil, South Africa, and China."
The
study graphically demonstrates that even unparalleled
military, political and economic US leverage is not
enough to convince the world about the war. Since the
study was published, the Turkish parliament has offered
the world a true lesson of democracy, responding to the
fact that 94 percent of the country's population is
against the war. It would be instructive for the Bush
administration to take time out to consider why its plan
to bomb Iraq into "democracy" is being resisted by
democracies all over the world.
(©2003 Asia
Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
