Posted by Lilly from ? (126.96.36.199) on Friday, November 22, 2002 at 3:36PM :
November 22, 2002
Hypocrisy at the UN
by KEVIN BEGLEY
There must be some god somewhere laughing really hard right now. If it weren't for the deadly consequences of the latest UN security council resolution, i would be having a good laugh as well.
So here's a bit of dark unintended self-satire for you.
The US used it's full diplomatic power (that is, heavy bribery and threats) to get a resolution passed by the UN security council to assure "peace". Peace, of course, is what the UN charter is all about. And that's what the US wants. Right? Yea, right. Here's what you all already know--war is on the way and Bush and his cronies have been doing everything they can to make it happen. In truth, this resolution is the greatest example of appeasement since Chamberlain gave in to Hitler over Czechoslovakia.
Does anyone really believe that world is going to be safer after Bush bombs Baghdad and it's long cultural history into dust? I mean, bombs do make peace don't they? Isn't that why so many of them get dropped on innocent civilians in "strategic locations" around the world?
Well, let me ask you this: Where do you think those suicide bombers get their inspiration from? From US homicide bombers?
But, forget that. Let's take a closer look at the UN security council. Here you have nations like the US, Britain, France, Russia, and China all jumping on the bandwagon with grave concern about the "development of weapons of mass destruction" in another country. Clearly, they are trying to establish a solid international precedence here ... of total hypocrisy. All these nations have not only developed and maintain arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, they continue to develop them and even supply the materials and technology for other nations to do so (as is the case with Iraq who obtained items for their own programs from all these nations). Furthermore, the US, Britain, France, Russia, and China all have post WWII histories of being belligerent towards other nations (see list below). In other words, by there own standards, they are a "threat to regional and global security".
The US has been the "leader" in this regards. Not only do they go around attacking countries on a regular basis, but since WWII they have continually been the nation researching/developing/producing the new cutting edge weapons of mass destruction (not only in nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, but nowadays even in space age weapons--ala Star Wars). US firms have been the major seller of weapons materials and technology around the world. Furthermore, the US refuses to allow inspections by international inspectors of several of its own facilities for the creation of biological and chemical weapons--despite the fact that the US is a signature to treaties that require the US to comply with these inspections. As far as i know, no one is threatening the US with war and invasion, or the assassination of Bush because he refuses to comply.
Then you have Israel and Pakistan--two US allies that have both been actively at war with their neighbors--two US allies that have nuclear weapons and perhaps other weapons of mass destruction. No talk of sanctions or invasions--just lots and lots of military and economic aid.
Really though, why is anyone surprised when nations strive to obtain these weapons, especially nuclear weapons? It's a big shining ticket saying "Join the club with all the big boys!" (who are such inspiring examples). It's status. It's protection. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to realize that nuclear weapons have been made into the ultimate deterrent for scaring off a potential enemy from attacking you. Why do you think that the US and USSR never went to war? Simple. It's called MAD--Mutually Assured Destruction. By some twisted logic of humanity we can only stop slaughtering each other when both sides are on the brink of annihilation (How Comforting!). The problem is, what happens if someone is mad enough to see if MAD really works? I don't think Saddam Hussein is that crazy--unless he feels he has nothing to lose anymore ...
Saddam Hussein is a true killer, and so are his former supporters/current enemies. He invaded Iran (with lots of US encouragement and support) and Kuwait, and has done terrible things to Kurds and Shiites and others in his country. He's developed and used weapons of mass destruction. He's even a threat to the environment. Remember how his troops set hundreds of oil wells on fire in Kuwait and dumped huge quantities of oil into the gulf? Does this justify the US and British governments killing of more than a million Iraqi civilians with their sanctions and bombing since the gulf war? No. Would it justify them invading Iraq and killing huge numbers of civilians in their quest to get Saddam? No. But then, this isn't really about weapons of mass destruction, it's about Empire and Oil.
As for weapons of mass destruction, i would not only be glad if Iraq didn't have any,I would be glad if no one had any. There is this looming aura of destructive insanity about them which will inevitably attract an apocalypse. Global termination isn't really high on my list of future "achievements by humanity".
As for the UN "security" council, it's a grand crooked game. A grand game where the big five have the rules completely stacked in their favor--against the rest of the world. Why should only five nations have a veto right? Why should any nation have a veto right? Ever seen a list over the resolutions these nations have vetoed? Think they use their veto to help assure regional or world peace? Nope, they use that magic veto to protect themselves (or their allies) from UN action whenever they are busy destabilizing and destroying regional and world peace (that is, when they are killing people or helping someone else kill people). Hey, what a surprise!
So, to all you security council members, I've got a question. Now that you are so concerned with weapons of mass destruction, when are you going to pass a resolution requiring ALL countries to destroy their weapons of mass destruction--with well funded, well equipped UN weapons inspectors having full unhindered inspection rights, at any time, in any place on the planet (so that we can all be assured that everyone is fully complying)?
Well friends, don't hold your breath waiting for that resolution ...
As for Saddam Hussein, sure, he should be disarmed by the UN. Then again, so should many other ruthless killers (no shortage of candidates on the current world scene--including the US and Britain). He should also be facing trial for crimes against humanity (like recently arrested former Iraqi Chief-of-Staff, General Nizar Khazraji) at the International Criminal Court--just like many members of the Bush and Blair administrations should.
-- signature .
Post a Followup