| |
Dollar diplomacy and UN
votes
By Thalif Deen
NEW YORK
- The United States is flexing its economic muscle to
round up political support and generate United Nations
votes - both of which it needs for its impending war on
Iraq, according to political experts and diplomats.
"It is widely known that the United States makes
promises to get votes - whether those are foreign aid or
access to Iraq's oil," says Michael Ratner, president of
the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights.
The hefty US$26 billion aid package to Turkey,
which is now the subject of a tug-of-war between the two
military allies, is an example of US checkbook
diplomacy, he pointed out. "Certainly in the 1991 Gulf
War with Iraq, money played a large role in getting
approval for Egypt and other countries [to support the
US-led attack on Iraq]," Ratner said.
Within the
15-member UN Security Council, the US needs nine
positive votes - and no vetoes - to pass a resolution
that would authorize a military attack on Iraq. The
British-US resolution which is expected to be introduced
this week will have four sure-fire "yes" votes: the
United States and Britain (both with veto powers), along
with Spain and Bulgaria.
Syria and Germany are
expected to nix military action against Iraq; France has
threatened to veto the resolution, while China and
Russia, which are also veto-wielding members, may
possibly abstain or even use their vetoes.
The
remaining six countries in the Security Council -
non-permanent members Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, Angola,
Cameroon and Guinea - have not made any public
commitments or openly indicated how they would vote.
The political lobbying, according to one Third
World diplomat, is not taking place at the UN, but at
various capitals where Washington is applying pressure
for votes in its favor. US President George W Bush has
already phoned two heads of state, Pakistani President
General Pervez Musharraf and Angolan President Jose
Eduardo dos Santos, seeking their support for the
resolution.
According to Angop, the Angolan news
agency, dos Santos has also received phone calls from US
Vice President Dick Cheney and French President Jacques
Chirac, who is lobbying the six nations to vote against
the resolution. Angop said that the US has asked
Portugal's Prime Minister Durao Barroso to intervene
because of his close friendship with dos Santos.
"If the United States gets the required nine
votes - and the resolution also gets vetoed by France -
Washington may still claim it has a moral majority on
its side," the diplomat said. The argument, he pointed
out, may appease warmongers. But it is an argument that
the US will not accept when it vetoes any future
resolution against Israel. The last Security Council
resolution against Israel - condemning the country for
the killings of UN humanitarian workers - had 14 votes
in favor but was vetoed by the US, said the diplomat.
"The US argument about a moral majority may come back to
haunt it one fine day," he added.
US officials
regularly assure US citizens that they have widespread
support from numerous partners for an attack on Iraq,
says Natalie Goldring, director of the program on global
security and disarmament at the University of Maryland.
"But they don't tell us how much that support is going
to cost us," she said. Goldring said that potential
partners such as Turkey are "strong-arming" Washington.
"They know we've had a difficult time putting together a
coalition to fight Saddam Hussein. They have leverage
over us, and they are using it effectively. As war
approaches, the packages seem to be getting larger," she
said. "This is political blackmail."
On
Wednesday, the Turkish government rejected the $26
billion aid package - $20 billion in loans and $6
billion in outright grants - as inadequate. Turkey says
that it wants $10 billion in grants, but the US has
refused to sweeten the "take-it-or-leave-it" deal. In
return for the aid package, Turkey was expected to
permit US forces to operate out of its territory in the
event of a war on Iraq.
But if Turkey, which is
not a member of the Security Council, refuses to
cooperate with the US, Washington has threatened to
penalize its long-time ally, which currently receives
about $17.5 million in military grants and $2.7 million
annually for military education and training of Turkish
troops. The country stands to lose all of it, as did
Yemen when it voted against a US-sponsored UN resolution
to invade Iraq in 1991.
In the Security Council
lineup, most of the 10 non-permanent members already
receive substantial US economic or military aid and are
in danger of losing it if they stand up to the US. The
largest benefactor is Bulgaria, which has received about
$31.5 million in US military grants during 2001-2003,
according to the latest Congressional Budget
Justification for Foreign Operations 2003. Under a
program called Support for East European Democracy, the
US has provided an additional $97.1 million in aid
during that period.
After its decision to
cooperate with Washington in the global war against
terrorism, Pakistan is receiving $50 million in outright
US military grants in 2003, compared to nothing over the
past decade. Washington has also waived long-time
restrictions on arms and military assistance to
Pakistan.
Angola now receives about $100,000
annually from the US for military education and
training, and about $19 million in development
assistance, including funds for anti-terrorism
activities and de-mining.
Cameroon receives
about $200,000 yearly for military training and
education and is also eligible to receive surplus US
arms cost-free under the Excess Defense Articles
program. It also receives US trade benefits under the
Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).
The
only two Latin American countries in the Security
Council are Mexico and Chile. The US provides about
$500,000 annually for military training of Chilean
soldiers and awarded the country about $1.5 million in
outright military grants in 2002-2003.
Mexico,
which the State Department describes as "the most
important US foreign policy priority in Latin America",
will take in over $44 million in development assistance
this year, including grants for military training.
In an interview with the British Broadcasting
Corporation, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said
that Washington has no plans to "strong arm" members of
the Security Council. "We present our case. We don't
threaten. We don't suggest that blackmail is in order.
And hopefully, the power of our argument will persuade
them to vote with us."
(Inter Press
Service)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
