An interesting piece of reading that made me really uneasy. I am interested by comments of US citizen about it.
================================================== ===============
STRATFOR'S GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT
http://www.stratfor.com
9 May 2003
================================================== ===============
* New Resolution Would Solidify U.S. position as Global Hegemon
.................................................. .................
Today's Featured Analysis
New Resolution Would Solidify U.S. Position as Global Hegemon
Summary
The United States has presented a resolution to the U.N. Security Council that would suspend the sanctions regime and transition the oil-for-food program in Iraq into a different form. The resolution is an attempt to get a U.N. stamp of approval on coalition efforts in Iraq -- which in reality will continue regardless of the Security Council's actions. But more than that, it is a challenge to every state that opposed U.S. policy in Iraq and a threat to those who might do so again.
Analysis
The United States presented a new resolution to the U.N. Security Council on May 9. At its core, the resolution would lift all sanctions against Iraq, legalize Iraqi oil sales, give the coalition de facto control over revenue from those sales for reconstruction purposes, and grant international approval to coalition efforts, both past and present.
But the resolution has a second implication. The Bush administration is giving countries that opposed its efforts in Iraq a Last chance to acquiesce to U.S. policy, or suffer the consequences of being in the bad graces of a global hegemon.
The Resolution
First and most important, the resolution would extend the legal cover granted by the oil-for-food program for another four months as the program is slowly phased out. This would allow Iraq to sell oil without the risk that proceeds could be seized by Iraq's numerous international creditors.
Second, income from Iraq's oil would flow into an Iraqi Assistance Fund instead of its oil-for-food escrow account -- which is controlled by the United Nations. Although the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank would hold seats on an advisory board that oversees the fund, the coalition ultimately would decide when and how to spend the money. This authority would apply retroactively to the existing oil-for-food program, making it unlikely that, for instance, the $1.6 billion in contracts currently held by Russian companies would ever generate revenue. This also would provide the legal basis for the World Bank and IMF to return to Iraq. Currently, since there is no recognized government, the two organizations have no legal standing to assist in the country's reconstruction.
Third, there would be no role for U.N. weapons inspectors, whose job would be formally taken over by the coalition.
Fourth, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan could appoint a coordinator to assist in reconstruction efforts. This coordinator would have, at best, moral authority and the ability to offer recommendations. But the day-to-day presence of a representative of the U.N. Secretariat would grant international approval, both de facto and de jure, to future coalition actions.
Fifth, the resolution declares that all products originating in Iraq and the proceeds from their sale "shall be immune from judicial, administrative, arbitration or any other proceedings arising in relation to claims against Iraq or the Authority [the coalition]." In other words, this means Iraq and its resources would belong to the coalition. All legal claims against the past and current government by countries that received oil contracts from the Hussein government, were owed debts by Hussein or lost business because of the coalition's actions would be null and void. The coalition's aim appears to be to protect future coalition government actions from any and all legal suits.
Finally, the resolution would lift all sanctions against Iraq except those prohibiting the import of weapons.
In short, the resolution touches on all of the issues to which the coalition of states that opposed U.S. efforts in Iraq object. It would retroactively legitimize U.S. actions, eject all non-coalition interests from Iraq and enshrine U.S. hegemony. The language of the resolution is crafted in a confrontational and at times almost condescending manner -- in a way that leaves little, if any, room for compromise.
The Meaning
The timing is close to perfect. The world is still stunned by the speed at which the United States conquered Iraq, and the anti-war coalition is quite spectacularly disorganized. Should the United States delay too long, there is a chance that the opposition could coalesce again into a coherent political force.
It is simply too early at this point to project how individual powers will react to the resolution. Many states -- including France, Germany and Russia -- this week have sounded notes of compromise on many aspects of recent U.S. policy, particularly in regard to the lifting of sanctions against Iraq. The new resolution, however, would take the U.S. position in Iraq light-years beyond what the anti-war states were willing to consider -- and even the United Kingdom, Washington's staunchest ally, cannot be happy with its wording.
That was precisely the intent.
The United States is generating a moment of crisis for the countries that opposed its Iraq policy to this point. The war in Iraq was not just about fighting al Qaeda or intimidating the Arab world into acquiescence; it was also about showing that the United States could not and would not be constrained by the international community or international law.
When viewed in this light, the new resolution is not merely the next logical step in U.S. efforts to secure Iraq, but also a blunt ultimatum to those who have opposed Washington over the past several months.
The rest of the world has seen clearly that the United States can and will use its full military strength to achieve its foreign policy goals. Washington is now presenting them with a choice : they can capitulate to American power and play Washington's game by Washington's rules, or they can continue to resist and freeze relations into a cycle of hostility.
With the proposed U.N. resolution, the Bush administration in essence is saying that it can accept that the stance of the anti-war coalition to this point was based on principle -- or greed. However, if the positions of anti-war states do not change, then their past opposition will be viewed as policy -- not as a fluke -- and will not go unpunished. Washington expects to be respected as global hegemon.
The resolution will not be popular. But Stratfor does not expect debate to be vociferous. The governments of each state on the Security Council -- once they stop fuming -- will have some serious thinking to do about their relationship with the United States. Stratfor already has detected a sort of frantic rush in national capitals as world leaders come to grips with this new American move.
In Washington's view, it is time for all of them to reassess their policies and find a means of fitting into the U.S. paradigm -- or to set their opposition to the United States in stone and suffer the consequences.
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Linear Mode
