No Long March...

The World Food Program of the U.N. organized a yearly walk on May 13 in several countries around the world to “End Child Hunger by 2015”, a very lofty aim if there ever was one.

A walk was also planned in Beijing, with marchers gathering in the Beijing World Park. But people had to register in advance AND the registration limit was set at 1,000. Well, 30,000 turned up and the police canceled the walk for safety reasons.

What is so frightening about 30,000 people marching? The Beijing Public Security Bureau is still afraid of mass gatherings, because they want to be in the majority. Five policemen for every marcher so everything can be controlled.

Flashback to the Cultural Revolution: one million Red Guards saluting Chairman Mao in Tiananmen Square! Today, the authorities cannot even control a march of 30,000 people! Are they afraid of the power of the masses? Have they forgotten Chairman Mao's words “Follow the mass line”? Why only allow 1,000 people to march to protest the fact that millions of children are still hungry today, at a time when Bush wants to turn grain into petrol so the U.S. will become less dependent on a Middle East he himself set aflame?

The Chinese authorities are kowtowing to the God of Calm. They are afraid to tolerate a little protest.

Out of chaos, order will emerge, but without chaos, there can only be a false impression of calm. When will Beijing see another march of a million?

More useless sanctions

On Saturday, New York time, the United Nations Security Council once again unanimously adopted a resolution imposing additional sanctions on Iran because it refused to halt its uranium enrichment program.

Let's put a few things straight:

1) Under the NPT, Iran has the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Without proof that it is making the bomb, there is no justification to demand that it stops its uranium enrichment program.

2) The proposed sanctions are mild and won't hurt Iran too much. Tougher sanctions could never have been passed unanimously.

3) Still, the sanctions resolution is wrong. The U.N. Security Council is acting more and more as a rubber stamp council for the U.S. administration. China, Russia and France do not object for their own selfish reasons. The non-permanent members are bullied to go along.

4) As a result, resolutions of the Security Council can no longer be considered to be the expression of the will of the international community.

5) Iran will not be swayed by the sanctions, they will have the opposite effect: less cooperation with the IAEA and perhaps, like in the case of North Korea, leaving the NPT.

Meanwhile the stand-off involving the 15 British sailors is continuing. And Blair is threatening a “different phase”. The old gunboat diplomacy once again. The British have only themselves to blame, because they shouldn't have been their, nor in Iranian, neither in Iraqi waters. Again, they claim to have the mandate of the U.N., a mandate manufactured in Washington, not the expression of the will of the peoples of the world.

A piece of torn paper

U.N. Security Council resolutions indeed look more and more like pieces of torn paper, fig leafs to justify imperial aggression. Far from embodying the will of the international community, the Security Council is acting as the talking shop of the White House's war cabinet.

The Security Council decided 'unanimously' to impose sanctions on Iran. Because in the distorted imagination of the neocons, Iran is building the bomb. No proof needed, just the words – the lies – of the neocons. Russia, China and France put up some weak opposition, but in the end - again - followed Uncle Sam. The ten non-permanent members didn't dare to go against the Five Big Brothers.

WMD in Saddam's Iraq – none; collaboration with Al Qaeda – none; nuclear weapons in Iran – none. Once again a UN Security Council resolution is paving the way for the U.S. to invade a sovereign UN member country.

The Security Council is well on the way to become irrelevant. Unjust resolutions can achieve nothing because the people will oppose them. They achieve the opposite of what was intended. Shame on the 'diplomats'. Can't they come up with something that perhaps may achieve its intended purpose?

Israel wants to create conditions conducive to complete the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. To be able to do that, Iran has to be wiped of the map. Moreover, Iran is the principal obstacle to Western imperial ambitions in the Middle East.

As David Lindorff wrote on the CounterPunch website, “an attack on Iran would be an unmitigated disaster” and “there is no way the U.S. could hope to conquer Iran” (Crime of the Century). And again, the war mongers in Washington will try the unthinkable. 

'Almost' Mr. Annan?

Anybody with the flimsiest knowledge of what is going on in Iraq agrees by now that the country is in a civil war. Even columnist Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post has to admit as much. Of course the White House keeps on denying that is has created a horrible mess in Iraq.

So here comes the Secretary General of the United Nations, his Excellency Kofi Annan procrastinating that perhaps, maybe, if nothing happens pretty soon we are almost there.

“Asked by reporters at the U.N. if Iraq is in a civil war now, Annan replied, "I think given the developments on the ground, unless something is done drastically and urgently to arrest the deteriorating situation, we could be there. In fact we are almost there.” (CNN: Annan: Iraqis 'almost' in civil war).

By invading Iraq, the U.S. trampled underfoot all the principles of the United Nations, which was created precisely to prevent such a blatant aggression. Three years ago, Kofi Annan didn't even raise his voice. He is still keeping quiet, although he is at the end of his term and doesn't need reelection.

Of course the U.S. is the largest contributer to the U.N. budget. So there can be only one conclusion: Kofi Annan is a mercenary of U.S. imperialism. He doesn't care about the people of Iraq as long as he can keep the occupant of the White House happy... 

Another ignominious veto

John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador at the UN, is on the way out. With a Democrat majority in Congress there is no way he is going to get confirmed once his recess appointment expires at the end of the year. Even some Republicans now admit he is the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But before leaving the Security Council with his tail between his legs, he had to raise his dirty hand again to veto a UN resolution condemning the massacre of 19 Palestinians at Beit Hanoun by the Israeli Zionists.

According to Bolton the resolution was “unbalanced and politically motivated”. What about the resolution condemning North Korea’s nuclear test? Wasn’t it also “unbalanced and politically motivated”?

Following the September 11 attacks, Bush said he would make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them. The Palestinians are equally entitled to make no distinction between the Zionists murdering their women and children and the U.S. backing them all the way.

The U.S. gave the green light to the Zionists to perpetrate more massacres. Can anyone blame the Palestinians if they plan to hit American targets? By its despicable foreign policy the U.S. is raising and nurturing what it prefers to call ‘terrorists’ every day, every hour, every minute. 

UN no world government

Today is United Nations Day. Most countries agree that the system of the United Nations has to be thoroughly reformed. The world can’t do without the UN, but on the other hand the organization is fatally flawed because it is dominated by a few big countries. A reform of the Security Council alone won’t solve the problem.

The organization should be made more democratic, with a drastic expansion of the powers of the General Assembly to begin with. One meeting a year is not enough. Let the ambassadors of all the countries work the whole year round.

And give dissenting voices who don’t agree with the ‘consensus’ of the Big Five a fair hearing. Failure to do this risks making the UN an accomplice of the U.S., because since the fall of the Soviet Union and the ‘harmonious’ international policy of China, the U.S. basically gets what it wants. Yes, its demands are watered down in Security Council resolutions, but sanctions on North Korea and Iran for example are precisely what the U.S. wants. If the UN is perceived as being an ally of the U.S., its role will be finished. 

35 years after UN-2758

35 years ago, in October 1971, the People’s Republic of China was finally admitted to the United Nations. The role of China on the international scene has changed dramatically.

In 1971, the Chinese government believed that a third world war was inevitable and revolution would herald a new tomorrow.

In 1974, then vice-premier Deng Xiaoping pledged at the UN General Assembly that China would never seek hegemony. He defended the concept of the Third World.

In 2000 China started to participate in UN peacekeeping operations. Today it advocates a multipolar world and aims to make international relations more democratic.

But as a so-called ’stakeholder’, China increasingly refrains from firmly criticizing U.S. foreign policy. The pendulum has swung from war and revolution to dialogue and reconciliation. China could lead the Third World countries and many countries of Europe against the imperial machinations of Washington, but it refrains to do so. The pendulum has swung too far…

In September 2005, president Hu Jintao attended the summit to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the UN. He called on all countries to build a “harmonious world of lasting peace and common prosperity”. That will remain a dream as long as imperialism is not defeated. Harmony in Iraq, anyone? 

Belgium in the UN-SC

Belgium has been elected to a fifth two-year term on the United Nations Security Council.

Congratulations? Perhaps, but only if Brussels is capable of some independent diplomacy. That remains a big question mark.

While Belgium has already won the vote, the battle between Venezuela and Guatemala is still undecided. And guess for whom Belgium voted? Guatemala of course, so they both can vote for their masters in Washington.

An independent, anti-imperialist vote is sorely needed in the Security Council. Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela is a good candidate. Let their be some real discussion and dissenting voices in the Security Council. Not those 15 to 0 silly votes like on the North Korea resolution. Do they really believe they are representing the ‘international community’ or just following the tune of the war criminals in the White House.

Let’s keep an eye on how Belgium will vote in the future.