THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

The previous post and quoted article conveniently overlooks the fact that Israel was the only (ONLY) country where a majority favored an attack on Iraq.

Ican - with respect, you're no interrogation expert.

One such expert told me the way to get to the truth is to start them talking and keep them talking - on any subject whatsoever. It's a principle in signal processing also.

HofT wrote:

Ican - with respect, you're no interrogation expert.

One such expert told me the way to get to the truth is to start them talking and keep them talking - on any subject whatsoever. It's a principle in signal processing also.

...and holds true in successful dating, but not marriage.

The Coalition Allies enabled the harboring of al Qaeda in Iraq, and the US government solicited their collaboration according to al Qaeda, whether Saddam tolerated this or not is irrelevant. What is relevant to the safety of your and others' grandchildren is the US' behavior in the world, fomenting violent reaction to the actions it perpetrates towards its own ends.

This month, the United Nations Security Council voted to condemn terrorism. The resolution was introduced by Russia, still grieving over the terrorist attack on a school in Beslan, and perhaps the unanimous vote will give it a measure of solace.

But the convoluted text and the dealings behind the scenes that were necessary to secure agreement on it offer cold comfort to anyone who cares about winning the war against terrorism. For what they reveal is that even after Beslan and after Madrid and after 9/11, the U.N. still cannot bring itself to oppose terrorism unequivocally.

The reason for this failure is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which comprises 56 of the U.N.'s 191 members, defends terrorism as a right.

After the Security Council vote, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John C. Danforth tried to put the best face on the resolution. He said it "states very simply that the deliberate massacre of innocents is never justifiable in any cause. Never."

But in fact it does not state this. Nor has any U.N. resolution ever stated it. The U.S. delegation tried to get such language into the resolution, but it was rebuffed by Algeria and Pakistan, the two OIC members currently sitting on the Security Council. (They have no veto, but the resolution's sponsors were willing to water down the text in return for a unanimous vote.)

True, the final resolution condemns "all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation." This sounds clear, but in the Alice-in-Wonderland lexicon of the U.N., the term "acts of terrorism" does not mean what it seems.

For eight years now, a U.N. committee has labored to draft a "comprehensive convention on international terrorism." It has been stalled since Day 1 on the issue of "defining" terrorism. But what is the mystery? At bottom everyone understands what terrorism is: the deliberate targeting of civilians. The Islamic Conference, however, has insisted that terrorism must be defined not by the nature of the act but by its purpose. In this view, any act done in the cause of "national liberation," no matter how bestial or how random or defenseless the victims, cannot be considered terrorism.

This boils down to saying that terrorism on behalf of bad causes is bad, but terrorism on behalf of good causes is good. Obviously, anyone who takes such a position is not against terrorism at all ˜ but only against bad causes.

The U.S. is not alone in failing to get the Islamic states to reconsider their pro-terror stance. Following 9/11, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan pushed to break the deadlock on the terrorism convention. He endorsed compromise language proscribing terrorism unambiguously while reaffirming the right of self-determination. But the Islamic Conference would not budge.

Far from giving ground on terrorism, the Islamic states have often gotten their way on the issue, with others giving in to them. As early as 1970, for instance, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution "reaffirm[ing] ∑ the legitimacy of the struggle of the colonial peoples and peoples under alien domination to exercise their right to self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal."

Everyone understood that this final phrase was code for terrorism. Similar formulas have been adopted repeatedly in the years since. Originally, the Western European states joined the U.S. in voting against such motions. But in each of the last few years the U.N. Commission on Human Rights has adopted such a resolution with regard to the Palestinian struggle against Israel, with almost all the European members voting in favor.

Danforth may feel that the U.S. position was vindicated in the new Security Council resolution, but that is not what OIC representatives think. As Pakistan's envoy to the U.N., Munir Akram, put it: "We ought not, in our desire to confront terrorism, erode the principle of the legitimacy of national resistance that we have upheld for 50 years." Accordingly, he expressed satisfaction with the resolution: "It doesn't open any new doors."

Who is right? Hours of parsing the resolution won't resolve that question. But in the end it does not matter. As long as the Islamic states resist any blanket condemnation of terrorism, we will remain a long way from ridding the Earth of its scourge. And the U.N., in which they account for nearly one-third of the votes, will be helpless to bring us any closer.

I wonder if there would be sufficient support for a new international body to succeed the UN? For the last many years, the UN has proved to be a mostly toothless organization with little or no clout or respect.

The UN does not have teeth for a reason, it is designed with the intent of being created, and getting recognised, so that it would have any power at all. The UN is only a forum, it channels the will of those countries that operate within it, nothing more.

Well all those blue UN military helmets are mothballed then? And there are to be no more UN peacekeeping missions? If there are no teeth, then what good are the sanctions or channeling the will of those countries that operate within it. If I could wave a magic wand and structure the ideal such organization, it would be an organization of shared goals and one or two rogue nations would not have veto power and there would be no empty threats or meaningless sanctions.

I posted this elsewhere (spreading a little light into dark corners, like I do):

There was the first of a new series of TV programmes broadcast here last night on BBC, which was amazingly good. Entitled "The Power of Nightmares- The Rise of the Politics of Fear" it examines how in the rise of fundamentalist Islam and the new alliance between western neo-conservatism and the evangelical Christian movement, fear is deliberately being used as a political tool. It mentioned the teachings of of Leo Strauss in Chicago? and an Egyptian called Sayyid Qutb, whose work led to the founding of Islamic Jihad.

I wish you all could have seen it/ may see it. Not one to miss. Details can be got from the BBC website.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/listings/programme.shtml?day=yesterday&service_id=4224&filename=20041020/20041020_2100_4224_40078_60