Like father like son

In the coming weeks a new UN Resolution may be passed authorizing military force against Iraq. This will be triumphantly hailed by Bush as a move towards multilateralism. What goes on behind the scenes, will be rather different.

How the Bushes bribe the world](http://pilger.carlton.com/print), John Pilger, The New Statesman, 19 September 2002
[For details regarding Pilger’s biography, check out his website’s biographical section].

The making of a United Nations fig leaf, designed to cover an Anglo-American attack on Iraq, has a revealing past. In 1990, a version of George W Bush’s mafia diplomacy was conducted by his father, then president. The aim was to “contain” America’s former regional favourite, Saddam Hussein, whose invasion of Kuwait ended his usefulness to Washington.

Forgotten facts tell us how George Bush Sr’s war plans gained the “legitimacy” of a United Nations resolution, as well as a “coalition” of Arab governments. Like his son’s undisguised threats to the General Assembly, Bush challenged the United Nations to “live up to its responsibilities” and condone an all-out assault on Iraq. On 29 October 1990, James Baker, the secretary of state, declared: “After a long period of stagnation, the United Nations is becoming a more effective organisation.”

Just as Colin Powell, the present secretary of state, is busily doing today, Baker met the foreign minister of each of the 14 member countries of the UN Security Council and persuaded the majority to vote for an “attack resolution” - 678 - which had no basis in the UN Charter.

It was one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the United Nations, and is about to be repeated. For the first time, the full UN Security Council capitulated to an American-led war party and abandoned its legal responsibility to advance peaceful and diplomatic solutions. On 29 November, the United States got its war resolution. This was made possible by a campaign of bribery, blackmail and threats, of which a repetition is currently under way, especially in countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In 1990, Egypt was the most indebted country in Africa. Baker bribed President Mubarak with $14bn in “debt forgiveness” and all opposition to the attack on Iraq faded away. Syria’s bribe was different; Washington gave President Hafez al-Assad the green light to wipe out all opposition to Syria’s rule in Lebanon. To help him achieve this, a billion dollars’ worth of arms was made available through a variety of back doors, mostly Gulf states.

Iran was bribed with an American promise to drop its opposition to a series of World Bank loans. The bank approved the first loan of $250m on the day before the ground attack on Iraq. Bribing the Soviet Union was especially urgent, as Moscow was close to pulling off a deal that would allow Saddam to extricate himself from Kuwait peacefully. However, with its wrecked economy, the Soviet Union was easy prey for a bribe. President Bush sent the Saudi foreign minister to Moscow to offer a billion-dollar bribe before the Russian winter set in. He succeeded. Once Gorbachev had agreed to the war resolution, another $3bn materialised from other Gulf states.

The votes of the non-permanent members of the Security Council were crucial. Zaire was offered undisclosed “debt forgiveness” and military equipment in return for silencing the Security Council when the attack was under way. Occupying the rotating presidency of the council, Zaire refused requests from Cuba, Yemen and India to convene an emergency meeting of the council, even though it had no authority to refuse them under the UN Charter.

Only Cuba and Yemen held out. Minutes after Yemen voted against the resolution to attack Iraq, a senior American diplomat told the Yemeni ambassador: “That was the most expensive ‘no’ vote you ever cast.” Within three days, a US aid programme of $70m to one of the world’s poorest countries was stopped. Yemen suddenly had problems with the World Bank and the IMF; and 800,000 Yemeni workers were expelled from Saudi Arabia. The ferocity of the American-led attack far exceeded the mandate of Security Council Resolution 678, which did not allow for the destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure and economy. When the United States sought another resolution to blockade Iraq, two new members of the Security Council were duly coerced. Ecuador was warned by the US ambassador in Quito about the “devastating economic consequences” of a No vote. Zimbabwe was threatened with new IMF conditions for its debt.

The punishment of impoverished countries that opposed the attack was severe. Sudan, in the grip of a famine, was denied a shipment of food aid. None of this was reported at the time. By now, news organisations had one objective: to secure a place close to the US command in Saudi Arabia. At the same time, Amnesty International published a searing account of torture, detention and arbitrary arrest by the Saudi regime. Twenty thousand Yemenis were being deported every day and as many as 800 had been tortured and ill-treated.

Neither the BBC nor ITN reported a word about this. “It is common knowledge in television,” wrote Peter Lennon in the Guardian, “that fear of not being granted visas was the only consideration in withholding coverage of that embarrassing story.” When the attack was over, the full cost was summarised in a report published by the Medical Education Trust in London. More than 200,000 people were killed or had died during and in the months after the attack. This also was not news. Neither was a report that child mortality in Iraq had multiplied as the effects of the economic embargo intensified. Extrapolating from all the statistics of Iraq’s suffering, the American researchers John Mueller and Karl Mueller have since concluded that the subsequent economic punishment of the Iraqis has “probably taken the lives of more people in Iraq than have been killed by all weapons of mass destruction in history”.

Today, the media’s war drums are beating to the rhythm of Bush’s totally manufactured crisis, which, if allowed to proceed, will kill untold numbers of innocent people.

Little has changed, and humanity deserves better.

Like i said before, with the US govt there is no sense of Morality. No sense of good and wrong. Heck the Devil is more moraly inclined than the US.

They bribe who they want. They kill who they want. They prop up who they want. Accept it and pray they suffer the same kind of treatment. Just like they bribed the UNSC for the ICC and got a 1 year exemption. They are immoral.

I've got work to do here, I haven't got time to keep deleting your personal squabbles so stick to the topic.

:hehe::hehe:^^^^ cute,…very cute…

now to the serious side…we do not call it bribe anymore..these are negotiations…

an insight into Saddams mind follows…and I trust BBC totally.

go to latest programme if u r logging in right now..or look for the prog on saddam

Refering to BUSH and BUSH or Israel and USA?

As usual.. pointing fingers..

Has anyone ever stopped to think who the US is bribing? They are not Americans.. they are your fellow countrymen.

The US does nothing 'immoral'.. it just wants to buy and there are plenty of Muslims/Arabs/ ready to sell their mothers for a quick buck.

What country is worst, the one that offers the deal or the one that accepts the deal?

Is there anyone here that honestly believes that such alleged acts are only done by the U.S.? If so then it's time for a reality check.

With that said all such acts should be spoken out against, but just bashing one doesn't seem all that fair, does it?

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat????

its a two way process..you scratch my back.............:)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
As usual.. pointing fingers..

Has anyone ever stopped to think who the US is bribing? They are not Americans.. they are your fellow countrymen.

The US does nothing 'immoral'.. it just wants to buy and there are plenty of Muslims/Arabs/ ready to sell their mothers for a quick buck.
[/QUOTE]

Are you quoting yourself PA?

Shame on those who do so and where is the link to the sick minded government of UR States? Oh I Understand....

I would like to see a reply made to this thread by the Guppie, Real Deal. He worked in the international "political stock" exchange.

As Michale Moore said recently: "Reagan, Bush Sr, and Jr are in the same cabal".
So it makes perfect sense to compare the present administrations policies with those the Reagan and Dad.
Also, Dad had a bogeyman by the name of Saddam, and now Junior has
obviously picked that agenda up again. Bogeyman #1, OBL is no where to be found, dead maybe, who knows, US Foreign Policy moves on to bigger and better pastures.

Why do i always manage to get into everyone's bad books:-( Anyways, for the umpteenth time, the purpose of my life is NOT to cast the US as the Evil Satan. i'll leave that task to Bush, he is doing a pretty good job of that himself (a JOKE, please no one take it seriously). In a serious vein, yes, i wholly realize that the US admin. is certainly not alone in undertaking acts such as these.

On Gupshup, i remember more than once where i have criticized Muslim governments for their policies, for their inactions. Quite a while back, there was a Burj al Arab thread (regarding the world's most luxurious hotel in Dubai), where i criticized Arab governments quite a bit for their laziness and rhetoric. Much to the anger of my fellow Pakistani Guppies, i have also criticized the Pakistani government's historic and current roles in Afghanistan.

Why do i focus on the US? Simply because the actions of the US administration affect a far greater number of individuals (and more often than not they happen to be the least privileged and most dispossessed in terms of representation, of the lot) than the actions or inactions of any other country. This is manifestly due to its overwhelming military and economic power. i have also come across various statements, at diverse and numerous occasions, when the US admin. extols the virtues of freedom, justice and democracy - apparently, if i'm accurately interpreting the message being disseminated, then freedom, justice and democracy are the embodiments of the US. Fair enough. It would be nice, however, if the noble words of the most powerful, corresponded with its actions.

The US is unarguably the most powerful nation in the world vis-a-vis its financial and military sectors. With greater power, one - (for whatever reasons) - also places greater responsibilities. If the US admininstration were seen to be genuinely adhering to international laws (and treaties), and not undertaking illegal backroom manuevres (such as the ones it utilized to pressure Security Council members back in 1990), then perhaps that would send a loud and clear message to other nations as well to adhere to international laws? If even the most powerful nation in the world is seen to act as though it is above and beyond the reach of the law, then what expectations should one harbor of nations that are less principally committed to freedom and democracy?

:rolleyes:

If it makes you guys feel better that someone is ‘anti-American’ rather than actually try to analyze the reasons for why anyone might be critical of US foreign policy - then go ahead by all means and reduce the issue to its simplest, most inaccurate level.

I think, Nadia, that the charge of “anti-American” comes because of the use of inflammatory language and huge leaps of logic wherein discussions begin with the most pejorative words being used to describe American conduct. This thread starts with the assumption that the US utilized “bribery, blackmail and threats” to persuade the world to resist Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. Unless you want to concede that all human relationships boil down to “bribery, blackmail and threats,” that’s just not a fair charge.

When a bride promises to “love, honor and obey,” that is a bribe. Giving a child $1 for every A on his/her report card is a bribe. Warning your child that you will suspend his/her driving privileges if he/she gets a ticket is a threat. A neighborhood carpool is mutual bribery. Offering to pay a salary, wage or other compensation to someone if they will perform work for you is a bribe.

All of these things are designed to influence another person’s behavior in a way you desire through the offer of incentives or the threat of suspending some benefit that they already are receiving. Every person does this in their everyday lives and every country does this in their interactions with their own citizens and with other countries. It seems to me that it is only objectionable and wrong if you are somehow trying to deny the person you are trying to influence some benefit that they are already somehow legally entitled to receive and/or that you have no legal right to withhold.

What it comes down to is this. Neither you nor Pilger agree with the behavior the US is trying to promote or has promoted AND it really bugs you that we have the resources to offer as incentives that are sufficient to motivate people to act as we want. When some other country does the same thing with respect to conduct you like, hey, everything is fine. When it’s the US, that conduct becomes “bribery, blackmail and threats.”

And BTW :flower1:

Nadia,

I have been spending a lot of time lately flogging myself and regreting the decay of my morality. Just for you Nadia!

I think what you are objecting to is that the US has indeed become and "Imperial" power. When we move about the world we do it with the feet of a giant. Nothing dainty or sophisticated in the way that we do business. If you asked an American, we would all tell you, to a man, that we believe we are a force for good in the world. (pardon me while I duck.) If there is an elephant in the room it cannot be ignored.

Iraq, unfortunately, is a good example. Saddam is a cancer on his people. but frankly his risk to the US is pretty minimal. On the other hand no one else has the military or political clout to effect change in Iraq. Do we think that Saddam will go willingly? I have heard the US blamed for Saddam and his kind. The US has had bad judgement in a few cases. In the case of Saddam, we realized the mistake and tried to contain him.

Let's stretch an analogy. Wealthy parents take in a foster child. They live in a tough neighborhood, so they teach the child to defend itself. Soon the child grows, and he is no longer being beaten up by the neighborhood bully, he has become the neighborhood bully! The parents had benign intent, and indeed expended considerable effort to tame the now wild child. Eventually they offer to hunt down and kill the child when it becomes clear that the child has become a sociopathic killer, and is holding a section of the neighborhood captive and in terror.

So answer me this:

Should the parents not have taken in the child, and simply let him run wild in the streets? Would things have really turned out differently? Should the parents have just hid in their palacial house and ignored the tough neighborhood? Or perhaps just given away their money?

Is the child not responsible for his own fate, or must the adoptive parents bear the full responsibility?

If the child poses a threat to the neighbors, and possibly the parents, and is a proven killer, why would the neighbors prevent his removal?

And on to one other topic, that posed by Pilger. Do you imagine that the "payoffs" posed by Pilger are simply the US walking around flinging dollars about? Or do the countries in question hold their votes hostage, perhaps put them up for auction? Are the "receivers" of the bribes so noble and are you absolutely conviced that the money withheld from various nations was not being skimmed and used by those in power for their own enrichment? Of course Pilger assumes that the US is the obvious villan without looking at the other side of the transaction. Funny, bribes and "baksheesh" are virtually unknown in the US, but not so in other parts of the world....

MyVoice,
Thanks for your detailed reply.

i think i have not frequently used “inflammatory language” and “huge leaps of logic” when the subject’s focus has been US policies. You are somewhat accurate in stating that this thread initiates with the assumption that the US utilized “bribery, blackmail and threats” - however, the thread does not rest alone upon that assumption. It backs up its assumption with tangible evidence - and one does not have to reply upon the works of John Pilger, an Australian journalist, to derive this information. It is widely accessible on the internet from a multiplicity of sources. The article i have posted is not based solely upon an “assumption” - ample evidence is available to perceive the information above as facts.

>>Unless you want to concede that all human relationships boil down to “bribery, blackmail and threats,” that’s just not a fair charge.<<
Yes, i realize that the majority (although not all) of human relationships boil down to these qualities. i might be wrong, but i think that your analogies of the bride, child, carpool, and an employee are - (while i understand the relationships between all the analogies) - somewhat dissimilar than this Iraq scenario. The difference is that – in MY opinion, the US compelled through a policy that has had severe adverse consequences upon an entire society. While it did this in 1990, it is bent on repeating the same action again in 2002.

Your analogies make perfect sense, and i comprehend their significance here; i acknowledge everyone utilizes bribes and threats in some manner in their relationships. i’ll offer to take care of my younger sibling over the weekend in return for something from my mom. Fair enough. But, IMHO, there is a slight difference when a nation forcibly implements a particular policy knowing that it will have severe lasting damages upon another, entirely different society comprised - entirely - of millions of innocent civilians. Remember that document that was unearthed by Georgetown professor, Thomas Nagy, regarding the US government’s being aware, PRIOR to the initiation of the Gulf War, of Iraq’s vulnerabilities if its water supply was contaminated? And how, during the Gulf War (the war was forcibly pushed through by the US through the cover of the UN Security Council), the US and its coalition set out precisely to target Iraq’s sewage and water infrastructures. This is different than my acts of utilizing threats or bribery to attain a particular objective - in those scenarios, i am not attempting to wipe out or cause irreparable damage to an entire society comprised of millions of innocent children.. as well as their future generations.

>>Neither you nor Pilger agree with the behavior the US is trying to promote or has promoted AND it really bugs you that we have the resources to offer as incentives that are sufficient to motivate people to act as we want.<<
No. What REALLY bugs me is not that the US possesses the power to force others to act as the US wishes. It is, simply, that the US possesses the power to force others to do as the US wishes AND those actions, invariably, tend to possess negative consequences for others (typically, the most unprivileged - peasants in East Timor; children, mothers and the elderly in Iraq, refugees in Afghanistan). If the US administration possessed the power to force others to act as they desire AND the policies it forced through were for the betterment of others, then you would never hear a word of grumbling from me. i realize that NO country on earth is truly altruistic and nor will it ever be. But, neither does that mean that we forego our principles and accept the state of affairs as is - just because no country is ever truly (and never will be) altruistic does not signify that we should allow nations to run rampant forcing through devastatingly inhumane policies that cause irreparable damage to civilians! At least, first do no harm, primum non nocere, Hippocrates’ oath.

>>When some other country does the same thing with respect to conduct you like, hey, everything is fine.<<
When have i ever stated that some act of bribery that another country committed, was fine? i don’t believe i have ever stated that on Gupshup or have i? i realize we make mistakes, especially Muslim governments… You know me better, or at least i would have hoped so, to realize that i am not the type to heap praises upon Muslim dictatorial governments when NONE are deserving.

Strangely enuf, Pakistani Guppies are mad at me because i am not pro-Pakistani enough, and American Guppies are mad at me because i am not pro-American enough - so i guess i must be doing something right. :-/

And BTW :flower1: <<
:slight_smile: Thank you. Right back at you :flower1:

Nadia writes:
“Strangely enuf, Pakistani Guppies are mad at me because i am not pro-Pakistani enough, and American Guppies are mad at me because i am not pro-American enough - so i guess i must be doing something right.”

I’m never mad at you because you are not pro-American. I’m frustrated by my own inability to bring you out of your darkness and into the light. J

Your most recent post makes the point I am arguing. Because you view certain policies of the US as having negative repercussions, you choose to label the tactics used in getting coalition and/or world-wide support for them to be “bribery, blackmail and threats.” Such words always carry with them the negative connotation that the person engaging in them is bad, criminal, etc.

Yet, if the same tactics were used to secure coalition and/or world-wide support for a policy you might agree with (world-wide disarmament with cost savings being used to feed the African continent???), you would not use such descriptive words.

In my mind, the same tactics are deserving of the same label regardless of differences in the policy they are designed to promote. If it is bribery in one case, it is bribery in another. All I ask is that you be consistent in your use of such terms in describing conduct. When you call something “bribery, blackmail and threats” in one context when the US engages in it, don’t call the same thing “effective diplomacy” when it is used in a context that you happen to agree with.

Bush’s Iraq Stance Hints at a Bid to Settle Old Score
By EDWIN CHEN, TIMES STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON – As President Bush seeks to mount an anti-Iraq coalition, his rhetoric against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein suggests that his desire for a “regime change” in Baghdad includes a strong dose of personal enmity.

And that would not be surprising, given Bush has shown that personal considerations can influence his words and deeds, whether it’s rewarding friends or punishing foes.

With his recent condemnations of Hussein as not only a dictator who poses “a grave and gathering danger” to the world but also someone who tried to assassinate Bush’s father, the president has added to the perception that he is out to settle an old score.

“After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time,” Bush told an audience in Houston last week. He also referred to the 1993 Iraqi assassination attempt during his Sept. 12 address to the U.N. General Assembly. And the elder Bush declared in a recent CNN interview: “I hate Saddam Hussein.”

White House aides dismiss talk of a Bush family grudge. “Look, obviously, one doesn’t want to appear to personalize this,” one senior administration official said.

… (rest in link)

[QUOTE]
**Originally posted by 5Abi:

"After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time," Bush told an audience in Houston last week. He also referred to the 1993 Iraqi assassination attempt during his Sept. 12 address to the U.N. General Assembly. And the elder Bush declared in a recent CNN interview: "I hate Saddam Hussein."**
[/QUOTE]

The personal element in Bush's war mongering is very strong, and cannot be denied. Bush has clearly eluded to it. In fact US foreign policy has always emphasised personalities more than regimes or governments, let alone the people in the firing line. Castro, Khomeini, Gadhaffi, Aideed, Osama and Saddam. None of which they have managed to capture, but have left a trail of destruction in their path anyway.

Yesterday I met an ignorant Yank who went "We should bomb Iraq and make it our own state", just when I was about to lash out at him, one of my Pakistani friends from behind when "Then you should bomb us too!"