The Forthcoming War and the United Nations
hatchet.job at virgin.net
Sat Jan 25 05:44:36 MST 2003
The favourite line in the British Labour Party between the gung-ho Blairites
and the genuinely anti-war elements is that there must be a United Nations
Security Council meeting to make any decision on further action against
Iraq, and that the UN inspectors must be given more time. There is are some
major problems with this.
Firstly, it considers that Iraq is a problem and that it must be dealt with.
How that can be done without military force is not stated, or the proponents
of this view accept that some day force must be used. In short, US military
power by itself (or, rather, with some puppets in tow) is wrong; US military
power with the sanction of the UN is OK.
Secondly, tying themselves to the UN, what happens if the USA gains the
acquiescence of Germany, France, Russia and China? I think that this is
likely, and that France, Russia and China will not use their vetos against
the USA should the whole issue go the UN Security Council (abstention is
likely), because this would basically bust up the UN as an institution once
the USA with Britain in tow go it alone against Iraq. None of these nations
would want the UN go break asunder, and will not oppose the USA over Iraq if
using a veto puts the UN in jeopardy.
Thirdly, by merely looking at Iraq, they are ignoring that the nature of
Iraq's regime and the question of its weaponry is only an excuse used by
Washington to start a war that is the beginning of a quest to extend its
power over the Middle East and more broadly over the world as a whole. The
whole reasoning behind the 'Axis of Evil' is surely to put forward the idea
that once the first member is done away with, the others will follow. The
forthcoming war is just the start of a US campaign to impose itself on a
The 'no war without UN sanction' is a trap.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism