>From: Momodou Camara <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: FWD:iac: The last emperor >Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 06:43:52 -0500 > >Comment > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >---- >The last emperor > >One thing was made crystal clear yesterday: there is no other authority than >America, no law but US law > >Polly Toynbee Friday September 13, 2002 The Guardian > >There he stood, this unlikely emperor of the world, telling the UN's 190 >nations how it is going to be. The assembled nations may not be quite the >toothless Roman senate of imperial times, but at the UN the hyperpower and >its commander-in-chief are in control as never before: how could it be >otherwise when the US army is the UN's only enforcer? This is, President >Bush said, "a difficult and defining moment" for the UN, a challenge that >will show whether it has become "irrelevant". He pointed his silver-tongued >gun with some delicacy and a certain noblesse oblige, but there was no >doubt he was holding it to the UN's head: pass a resolution or be bypassed. >It was a fine and gracious speech that might have been borrowed from better >presidents in better times. He spoke of a just and lasting peace for >Palestine. He promised a surprise return by the US to Unesco. He spoke of >the tragedy of world poverty, disease and suffering, of offering US aid, >trade and healthcare. Earnest and uplifting, it was very like the speech he >made soon after the twin towers attack last year. But how long ago that >suddenly seemed. Back then the world tried hard to believe him, full of >sympathy and hope that this earth-quake had indeed turned him >internationalist. But this time belief was stretched beyond >breaking. The skills of the best speech writer could not blot out the gulf >between last year's rhetoric and the reality that followed. > >Maybe it was the cut-away to Hamid Karzai in his green striped coat of many >colours sitting in the chamber. It came as a sharp reminder of America's >failure to invest in serious nation-building in Afghanistan, failure to >send in enough troops to stop the old warlords seizing power again, the >paucity of aid and the brazen carelessness once war was won. So Bush's >conjured images of a postwar Iraq, peaceful and democratic, sounded like >empty phantasms. War in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban was necessary - but >so was investing in long-lasting security and prosperity if he wanted to >prove how democracy wins over fundamentalist fury. From Kyoto and >Johannesburg, to the ICC, steel tariffs, NMD and nuclear testing, too much >has happened (or not happened) since last year's speech to take this one at >face value. > >Even so, good words are still preferable to bad ones. It was, after all, >remarkable that the president was there in that chamber at all. A month ago >the strident voices coming out of the White House would have none of it. The >Rumsfeld/Cheney axis of war was in the ascendant, the UN was for wimps. The >hawks would never have let their emperor stand there soliciting UN support >in dulcet tones. It would be nice to believe that Tony Blair played some >part in strengthening the arm of the Colin Powell internationalists who won >the argument on the need for UN legitimacy. Sadly, he features hardly at >all in US commentators' accounts of the internal Republican rows that >finally brought Bush to the UN. For a very little influence, Blair has paid >a frighteningly high price: the split with the rest of Europe, weakening >his own influence by becoming Bush's tool, never again an independent >honest broker. At home there is angry puzzlement among many more in his own >party than the usual suspects. >Was it worth so much damage? Only if in the end this war is successfully >averted. > >Even now, the drafters are working at a UN resolution to square (or fudge) >the needs of the US war party with French and Russian hesitation. Deals are >brokered, poor countries' arms are twisted with aid and trade while Russia >may be allowed to kill a few more Chechens. But a deal there must be. The >only ones who hope the UN fumbles are the Rumsfeld/Cheney warriors who want >no straitjacket, no option for Saddam to avoid the war now sharpening its >knives on his borders. Moving command headquarters from Florida to Qatar >could hardly send a louder message: America wants war, America means war. > >The only hope of avoiding it is that Saddam takes fright at a security >council resolution with a firm time limit for the weapons inspectors to >return - any time, any place or else, no run-around or obstruction. The >message that the US means war has been conveyed to him forcefully by >everyone who has his ear, including former weapons inspector Scott Ritter. >The US sabre is out of its scabbard: just let him look Cheney and Rumsfeld >in the eye. The world will hold its breath and hope he blinks or, better >still, that he is overthrown by others who see what's coming. > >For those who supported the wars in Afghanistan, Kosovo and Sierra Leone, >the enslaved peoples of Iraq are no less just a cause. Once legitimised by >the UN and international law, there is no moral difference in the need to >liberate Iraqis and relieve the potential threat Saddam poses to his >neighbours. None would mourn his passing from power. The difference is >pragmatic, not moral. >There were very good reasons why Bush senior did not march on Baghdad in >1991, reasons that remain unchanged. Saddam's elite troops around Baghdad >would inflict very heavy casualties. In his death throes, he would >certainly use anthrax and nerve gases. Iraq might fall apart, with Shi'ite >lands defecting to Iran, strengthening another vile regime, destabilising >others. If Afghanistan cannot hold US attention for one short year, how >would far more complex Iraq be nurtured long term? Fermenting terror, >recruiting generations of terrorists to come, the cure looks worse than the >disease. > >Curiously, the louder Bush and Blair call for an end to this villain, the >less convincing it sounds. Why now? That remains the perplexing question. >Containment works well: few observers think Saddam can launch anything under >present no-fly, daily bombing pressure. What is Bush's obsession? It >remains a mystery. It is not a vote-winner in the US where the danger looks >not clear and present, but cloudy and distant. The risks are frightening >and the costs staggering. Petrol prices rise while stock exchanges fall at >the prospect. Oil say some, but if US companies want Saddam's oil, an oil- >driven cynical administration could make peace not war and help themselves >to fat contracts. > >No, it appears to spring from a new ideology, a neo-conservative dream which >Charles Krauthammer, guru of the right, calls the US's "uniquely benign >imperium". Hyperpower is not enough unless it is exerted so forcefully that >no state ever again challenges benign US authority. One thing was made >crystal clear yesterday - there is no other source of authority but >America, and that means there is no other law but US law. What the US >wants, the UN had better solemnise with a suitable resolution - very like >the Roman senate and one of its lesser god-emperors. But this is not the >real America. A small cultish sect is battling for the "imperium" within >this bizarre administration, resisted by mainstream Republicans - so what >is Tony Blair doing in there with them? > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface >at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html >To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: >[log in to unmask] > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~