FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Hypocrisy at the UN

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.

KEVIN BEGLEY lives in Lund, Sweden. He can be reached at: kevin.begley@spray.se

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail