Can't say no: how the US got their UN resolution on Iraq - War on Iraq

New Internationalist, Dec, 2002 by Thalif Deen

November's unanimous vote in the UN Security Council supporting the US resolution on weapons inspections in Iraq was obtained through considerable political and diplomatic pressure applied in various capitals.

Besides its five veto-wielding permanent members -- the US, Britain, France, China and Russia -- the Security Council also consists of 10 non-permanent members who hold office for two years. These countries -- Cameroon, Guinea, Mauritius, Bulgaria, Colombia, Mexico, Singapore, Norway, Ireland and Syria -- voted under heavy diplomatic and economic pressure from the US.

Nine votes and no vetoes were the minimum needed to adopt the resolution. Of the five big powers, Britain had cosponsored the US resolution. In a worst-case scenario US officials expected the other three permanent members -- Russia, China and France -- might abstain. The votes of the 10 non- permanent members thus took on added significance. The arm-twisting was confined mostly to seven countries, who depend on the US for either economic or military aid -- or both.

In the week before the vote, Mauritius' UN ambassador, Jagdish Koonjul was temporarily recalled by his government because he continued to convey the mistaken impression that his country had reservations about the US resolution against Iraq.

'The Yemen precedent remains a vivid institutional memory at the United Nations,' Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, explained.

According to Bennis, in 1990 after Yemen voted against a US sponsored Security Council resolution to militarily oust Iraq from Kuwait, the US envoy turned to the Yemeni ambassador and told him that his vote would be, 'the most expensive "no" vote you would ever cast. The entire $70 million US aid budget to Yemen was cut almost overnight.

The island nation of Mauritius, which joined the Security Council last year under US sponsorship, was feeling the heat this time. The US aid package to the impoverished country, authorised by the US African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), demands that the aid recipient 'does not engage in activities contrary to US national security or foreign policy interests'.

Fear of being accused of acting contrary to US foreign policy interests plays a role for any country dependent on US economic assistance. Colombia, one of the world's leading producer of cocaine and an important supplier of heroin to the US market, received about $380 million in US grants under the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) programme this year.

Under the same programme, Mexico received about $10 million last year and $12 million this year. It also received $28.2 million in US Economic Support Funds (ESF).

Guinea received three million dollars in outright US military grants last year and is expected to get $20.7 million in development assistance next year. Meanwhile, Cameroon receives free surplus US weapons and about $2.5 million a year for military education and training.

After Colombia, the largest single beneficiary of US aid is Bulgaria, which received $13.5 million in military grants (mostly to buy US weapons systems) last year, plus $69 million in aid under a US programme called Support for East European Democracy (SEED).

Besides Syria, Singapore is the only country in the Security Council that does not receive economic or military aid from the US. But the US is the biggest arms supplier to Singapore, selling the Southeast Asian nations weapons worth $656.3 million last year and an estimated $370 million this year.

James Abourezk, a former-US Senator, said he seriously doubts that any country receiving US Government aid could withstand the economic pressure to vote for a US resolution at the Security Council. He described any declaration of war based on this kind of pressure as 'a tragedy'.