High time for a train wreck. The U.S. has presented a draft resolution to the UN asking that most trade restrictions and all oil-for-food sanctions be lifted from Iraq, the Guardian/UK reported.
Googling around the Internet, brings up little opposition to the idea -- probably because everyone wants the Iraqi people finally to escape that horrible situation the UN sanctions created. You know, that sanctimonious embargo that killed some 500,000 Iraqis -- human beings -- according human rights watchdogs.
Only a cynic would ask this: But wouldn't justice be better served all around if UN members decided NOT to lift the sanctions, all the better to force the U.S. and its jury-rigged "coalition to act alone in peace as it did in war. Pay for their party now they have canned the Piper and killed his monkey.
Keeping the sanctions would cause the most pain for the Iraqi and American peoples, to be sure. Things will only get worst for the Iraqis. That's not good.
But, if the U.S. does have to divert more and more of its own treasure to reconstruct Iraq into the accommodating puppet -- Flatbush East, so to speak -- it seeks, regular Americans will soon start feeling the pinch. Maybe even feel it enough to bring about their own regime change at home.
So it is very tempting to wish that the Russia, France and others in the UN will hold tight and force Bush's hand. Make him pay, pay until it hurts. Only this, maybe, will make the right-wing regime in power think twice about any future adventures. Better yet, drive them from power.
True, this is train-wreck thinking -- i.e., the best way to get a new train set for Christmas is to break the one you got last year -- but it may work. And the neocons who have so strenuously argued that "ends justify means," why, they could hardly complain about it, could they?
The US and its allies today asked the UN security council to approve a resolution lifting 12-year-old sanctions on Iraq and giving them control over the country's oil revenue.Australian's SundayTelegraph best states the purpose of the resolution:
US ambassador John Negroponte officially introduced the eight-page resolution in a closed meeting of council members. It envisions the US and Britain running the country as "occupying powers" for at least a year, and probably much longer.
The resolution would also give them control over Iraq's oil money to finance the country's reconstruction. The UN would be limited to a largely advisory role.
Lifting sanctions immediately and phasing out oil-for-food over four months will take Iraq's oil wealth out of the hands of the United Nations and put it under the control of Washington and London.The Guardian's Simon Tisdall says all things considered, probably better to lift them and mend fences than to stonewall the U.S., no matter how richly they deserve it. Both sides need each other, and the U.S. needs to admit it:
All the signs are that the anti-war countries are ready to mend fences. What they want, and in this they should be supported, is frank acceptance by the Bush administration that the UN, acting collectively, does have a vital and indeed symbolically leading role to play in Iraq, as in other international crises - and that attempts to deny it will only lead to even greater divisions and disputes now and in the future.While Rahul Mahajan of Alternet says "Don't lift the sanctions yet."
The draft resolution being currently circulated would give the United States very open, explicit control over Iraq's oil industry and the money derived therefrom. Then, instead of being forced to disburse USAID funds to corporations like Bechtel that are closely tied to current and past administration figures in closed bidding processes with no foreign corporations allowed, the United States will be able to use Iraq's money to pay off mostly American corporations.The only serious opposition, according to the AP (and others), comes from France and Russia
In the process, it will try to escape the legal obligation it shares with the United Kingdom: Since they committed an illegal, aggressive war (with no Security Council authorization) against Iraq, they are financially responsible for the reconstruction.
Googling around the Internet, brings up little opposition to the idea -- probably because everyone wants the Iraqi people finally to escape that horrible situation the UN sanctions created. You know, that sanctimonious embargo that killed some 500,000 Iraqis -- human beings -- according human rights watchdogs.
Only a cynic would ask this: But wouldn't justice be better served all around if UN members decided NOT to lift the sanctions, all the better to force the U.S. and its jury-rigged "coalition to act alone in peace as it did in war. Pay for their party now they have canned the Piper and killed his monkey.
Keeping the sanctions would cause the most pain for the Iraqi and American peoples, to be sure. Things will only get worst for the Iraqis. That's not good.
But, if the U.S. does have to divert more and more of its own treasure to reconstruct Iraq into the accommodating puppet -- Flatbush East, so to speak -- it seeks, regular Americans will soon start feeling the pinch. Maybe even feel it enough to bring about their own regime change at home.
So it is very tempting to wish that the Russia, France and others in the UN will hold tight and force Bush's hand. Make him pay, pay until it hurts. Only this, maybe, will make the right-wing regime in power think twice about any future adventures. Better yet, drive them from power.
True, this is train-wreck thinking -- i.e., the best way to get a new train set for Christmas is to break the one you got last year -- but it may work. And the neocons who have so strenuously argued that "ends justify means," why, they could hardly complain about it, could they?
<< Home