From rfrancis%u.washington.edu@DARTCMS1.DARTMOUTH.EDU Mon Jun 10 16:02:27 1991 Return-Path: <@DARTCMS1.DARTMOUTH.EDU:ACTIV-L@UMCVMB.BITNET> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 91 10:27:46 CST Reply-To: Rick Francis Sender: Activists Mailing List From: Rick Francis Subject: US use of UN (Village Voice: Tomasky & McKerrow) To: Multiple recipients of list ACTIV-L >From _Village Voice_, February 26, 1991. p. 26. "Insecurity Council: America Keeps the UN in Line" By Michael Tomasky & Richard McKerrow After embracing the United Nations to establish the "legality" of the war, the US has shown considerably less interest in the world body since the bombing commenced. Prior to Thursday's closed Security Council meeting, the US had, during the war's first month, actively avoided formal meetings, snubbing requests for convening the group in defiance of the council's rules. At least three of the 15 council members --India, Yemen, and Cuba-- had called for Security Council meetings, requests that must be honored, according to the council's rules of procedure, specifically Rule 2: "The President *shall* call a meeting of the Security Council at the request of any member of the Security Council." The three requests were made (informally by India, in writing by Yemen and Cuba) in January. But the US, backed by Britain and the Soviet Union, blocked any formal meeting --in part by promising Zaire, which in January held the presidency of the council (Zimbabwe now presides), military assistance and partial debt forgiveness in return for its support of the US position. So, while the war that it approved raged for nearly 30 days and 70,000 missions, "the council simply went on vacation," in the words of Ricardo Alarcon, the Cuban ambassador to the UN. The US's stated view is that convening the council would be divisive and send the wrong message to Saddam Hussein. Critics of the current US posture, however, see other, unstated reasons. First and foremost, the US does not want to have to defend its military plans in an open forum. Resolution 678, which permits the use of force, allows the "coalition" to "use all necessary means" to remove Iraq from Kuwait; it does not sanction the destruction of Iraq's economy and infrastructure. That the attacks are doing just that was especially emphasized by Wednesday's bombing of the Baghdad building, killing perhaps 400 people. Second and virtually undiscussed, there exists an all but invisible resolution that could cause the US considerable embarrassment. On December 4, six days after the Security Council passed 678, the General Assembly passed Resolution 45/58 J, which reaffirms the long-standing ban against military attacks on nuclear facilities. The assembly approved it 141- 1, the latter vote cast by the US. Even Israel, even *Kuwait*, supported the move. And what happened on January 17? The US attacked Iraqi nuclear facilities. Bombers flattened the research center at Tuwaitha, about 12 miles outside Baghdad. A five-megawatt thermal reactor provided by the Soviet Union in 1968 and a 500-kilowatt thermal reactor supplied by France in 1987 were located there. Estimates of the possible repercussions differ, but people in the area could well be at risk from radioactive iodine and cesium. When Defense Secretary Dick Cheney trumpeted that these reactors were "gone, they're down, they're finished," he did not say the mission defied articles of the Geneva Convention and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (both of which the US signed), as well as 45/58 J. While General Assembly resolutions are nonbinding, 45/58 J explicitly states that in the event of such an attack, "the Security Council would have to act immediately." Washington does not want this publicly discussed. The delay in calling a Security Council meeting and the flouting of 45/58 J undermine the "legality" given the war by the UN's imprimatur. The US cajoled and bribed the members to get what it wanted and left it at that. There is now no discussion, for example, of the fact that once the councilk concedes the necessity of force, Article 46 of the UN Charter stipulates, "Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council," and not Colin Powell. Furthermore, Article 47 says the council shall establish a "Military Staff Committee," and not truckle to the wisdom of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Other than keeping the UN in line, the US (currently about $566 million in arrears in it UN dues) has no further use for the body. . . . . . . US behavior can be tracked by returning to the US position on Security Council Rule 2. Now it ignores or blocks the rule; yet go back to April 1966 when Britain was worried about the presence of two oil tankers off the coast of Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). The British UN ambassador asked for a Security Council meeting. The meeting was put off, not one month, but one day. Arthur Goldberg, then the US ambassador to the UN, was outraged by the 24-hour delay and fired off a letter tot he council president, citing Rule 2: "The rule is mandatory and does not give the President the choice of convening or not convening the Council when a member so requests." Thomas Pickering, the current US ambassador to the UN, might do well to read Goldberg's letter. ------