Distant Voices Read online

So came about the dawn of what is celebrated by Western commentators as the United Nations’ ‘new age’. In fact, it was one of the most shameful chapters in the organisation’s history. For the first time, the full UN Security Council capitulated to the War Party and abandoned its commitment to advancing peaceful and diplomatic solutions. Throughout the crisis, the UN Security Council ignored and contravened its own charter; it merely served up the appearance of international legality, a truth that became spectacularly clear when the bombing began in January. It was then that the United States withdrew its embrace of the United Nations and actively, and illegally, prevented the Security Council from meeting.

  But this degree of control was possible only through a campaign of bribery, blackmail and threats. It is no secret that rewards were provided to certain Arab states for their participation in the ‘coalition’. US News and World Report, in an article entitled ‘Counting on New Friends’, described how James Baker had ‘cajoled, bullied and horse-traded his way’ to get Resolution 678 through the Security Council. Several of the larger deals – for example, the ‘inducements’ to Egypt and China – were widely publicised.95

  Some commentators even expressed moral qualms about ‘distasteful bargains’ with the ‘butchers of Beijing’, the ‘loathsome Assad’ and other unsavoury clients, although the concern was clearly that such deals might impede the course of US war policy; the tactics themselves were barely questioned. Thus, the full extent of the deals has remained secret. For the record, I offer here a beginner’s guide to the greatest bribes in history.

  Turkey. Right from the beginning the Turkish regime knew that it was on to a winner. Based just across the border, American planes could bomb Iraq with impunity. By November 3, 1990, the promised booty was pouring in and President Turgut Ozal celebrated in a public address. ‘In a way,’ he said, ‘we have benefited from this crisis and made very significant progress towards our goal of modernising and strengthening our armed forces.’96

  Ozal boasted that Turkey received at least $8 billion worth of military gifts from the United States, including tanks, planes, helicopters and ships. According to Steve Sherman of Middle East International, the United States also pledged to speed up the delivery of Phantom bombers delayed by the pro-Greek lobby in Washington; and the US Export Import Bank agreed to underwrite the construction of a Sikorsky helicopter factory in Turkey: itself worth about a billion dollars to the Turkish regime.97

  In his November 3 speech President Ozal said: ‘We are on the brink of finding new markets for Turkish goods and Turkish industry.’ Five days later Turkey was told that its quota of US textile exports would increase by 50 per cent. At Washington’s urging, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) ‘freed-up’ some $1.5 billion in low-cost loans to Turkey and dropped the initial condition that the government would have to cut subsidies. George Bush personally promised to back Turkey’s application to join the European Community, which still has questions about Turkey’s human rights record.98

  There were ‘human rights pay-offs’ too. Just because Bush and Major suddenly adopted, and almost as quickly dropped, the Iraqi-battered Kurds did not mean they would show concern for the treatment of Turkish Kurds. The routine persecutions carried out by the Turkish regime continued unnoticed; and continue today.

  Egypt. In 1990, Egypt was the most indebted country in Africa and the Middle East. According to the World Bank, the government of President Mubarak owed nearly $50 billion.99 Baker offered a bribe, or ‘forgiveness’ of $14 billion. Under pressure from the United States, other governments – Saudi Arabia and Canada among them – ‘forgave’ or postponed most of the balance of Egypt’s debt.100

  Syria. The main exchange in the deal with President Hafez Assad was Washington’s go-ahead for him to wipe out all opposition to Syria’s rule in Lebanon. To help him achieve this, a billion dollars’ worth of arms aid was made available through a variety of back doors, mostly Gulf states.101 Although on America’s list of ‘sponsors of terrorism’, Assad and his Ba’athist fascists – not dissimilar to Saddam Hussein’s fascists – were given a quick paint job in time to support America’s war. ‘Photo opportunities’ were arranged with Baker and Bush; the locked smiles told all, as ‘old friends’ were reunited.102

  Israel. The ‘pacification’ of Israel was vital if the United States was to preserve its Arab ‘coalition’. The regular $5 billion America gives to Israel clearly was not going to be enough; and Israeli Finance Minister Yitzhak Modai told US Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger that Israel wanted at least another $13 billion. Israel agreed to a down-payment of $650 million in cash, and to wait for the $10 billion loan guarantees until later. This partly explains why the Israelis appear not to give a damn about current American ‘warnings’ as they expel still more Palestinians and build still more homes for Russian Jews in the occupied territories.103

  Iran. In return for Iran’s support in the blockade of Iraq, America dropped its opposition to World Bank loans. On January 9, Reuter reported that Iran was expected ‘to be rewarded for its support of the US . . . with its first loan from the World Bank since the 1979 Islamic revolution’. The Bank approved $250 million the day before the ground attack was launched against Iraq.

  Last November, Britain restored diplomatic ties with Iran, in spite of the fact that the death sentence on Salman Rushdie, a British citizen, had just been reaffirmed. reaffirmed.

  Soviet Union. With its wrecked economy, the Soviet Union was easy prey for a bribe – even though President Gorbachev strongly preferred sanctions. The Bush administration persuaded the Saudi Foreign Minister, Sa’ud al-Faysalwe, to go to Moscow and offer a billion dollar bribe before the Russian winter set in.104 Once Gorbachev had agreed to Resolution 678, another $3 billion materialised from other Gulf states. The day after the UN vote, Bush announced that the United States would review its policy on food aid and agricultural credits to the Soviet Union.105

  The Soviet Union’s impotence in the face of this degree of American pressure was illustrated when an American reporter, Phyllis Bennis, cornered the Soviet ambassador to the United Nations, Yuli Vorontsov, in a lift the night the American bombing started. She asked him if he was concerned that a war was being fought in his government’s name. He replied with a sigh: ‘Who are we to say they should not?’106

  China. In exchange for China’s vote on Resolution 678, the United States arranged China’s return to diplomatic legitimacy. The first World Bank loan since the Tiananmen Square massacre was approved. On November 30, the day after the UN vote, Foreign Minister Qian Qichen arrived in Washington for a ‘high profile’ meeting with Bush and Baker. More photo opportunities; more frozen smiles. Within a week, more than $114 million of World Bank money was deposited in Beijing.107

  The impact of the bribes inside China was explained by the scholar Liu Binyan. ‘For quite some time’, he said, ‘there has been much talk of formal charges and trials being brought against the dissidents, but the pressure from abroad prevented it. Since August, however, Beijing has skilfully manipulated the Iraqi crisis to its advantage and rescued itself from being the pariah of the world.’108

  The vote of the non-permanent members of the Security Council was crucial; and the following bribes and threats were successful. Within a fortnight of the UN vote, Ethiopia and the United States signed their first investment deal for years; and talks began with the World Bank and the IMF. Zaire was offered US military aid and debt ‘forgiveness’ and in return acted for the United States in silencing the Security Council after the war began. Occupying the rotating presidency of the council, Zaire refused requests from Cuba, Yemen and India to convene the Security Council, even though it had no power to refuse them under the UN Charter.109

  Only Cuba and Yemen held out. Minutes after Yemen voted against the resolution, a senior American diplomat was instructed to tell the Yemeni ambassador, ‘That was the most expensive “no” vote you ever cast.’ Within three days, a US aid programme of $70 million
to one of the world’s poorest countries was stopped. There were suddenly problems with the World Bank and the IMF; and 800,000 Yemeni workers were expelled from Saudi Arabia. The ‘no’ vote probably cost Yemen about a billion dollars, which meant inestimable suffering for its people.110

  The ferocity of the American-led attack far exceeded the mandate of Resolution 678, which did not allow for the destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure and economy. The lawlessness did not end there. Five days after 678 was passed, the General Assembly voted 141 to 1 reaffirming the ban on attacks on nuclear facilities. On January 17, the United States bombed nuclear facilities in Iraq, including two reactors twelve miles from Baghdad.

  When the Security Council finally convened a meeting in February, the United States and its allies forced it to be held in secret, one of the few times this has ever happened. And when the United States turned back to the United Nations, seeking another resolution to blockade Iraq, the 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, whose foreign minister had earlier described the resolution as ‘a violation of the sovereignty of Iraq’, finally voted in favour after he was reminded that in a few weeks’ time he was due to meet potential IMF donors in Paris. Neighbouring Zambia has had great difficulty negotiating IMF loans – in spite of democratic reforms. Zambia opposed the resolution.111 The punishment was most severe against those impoverished countries that supported Iraq; Sudan, though in the grip of a famine, was denied a shipment of food aid.112

  The other day I interviewed Ramsey Clark, whose war crimes commission has sought to establish the illegality of the Gulf War. ‘Not only were the articles of the United Nations disregarded,’ he said,

  but every article of the Geneva Convention was broken. Of course it is not easy to persuade people to stand up against power: but when they do, there are successes. During the Vietnam War the issue of legality prevented military personnel going who did want to go, and defended the publication of the Pentagon Papers, which gave us much of the truth about the war. What we need urgently is a permanent international tribunal, independent of the UN and similar to the International Court of Justice. Without that, we shall always have victor’s justice, the perpetrators of crimes will never be called to account and there will be more and more illegal wars.

  None of these issues was widely debated before, during or after the Gulf War. Getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait skilfully and without putting to death thousands of people – the same people who were oppressed by him – was only of marginal interest to the Western media. Censorship was, always, less by commission than omission. As Peter Lennon later wrote in the Guardian:

  War engenders corruption in all directions. As the broad-casters were arranging the terms of the stay in Saudi Arabia, Amnesty published an account of torture, detention and arbitrary arrests by the Saudis. Twenty thousand Yemenis were being deported every day and up to 800 had been tortured or ill-treated. Neither the BBC nor ITV reported this . . . It is common knowledge in television that fear of not being granted visas was the only consideration in withholding coverage of that embarrassing story.113

  Other media people who sat red-eyed in studios dropped the last veil of their ‘impartiality’. Who can forget, on the first day of the bombing, the Sir Michael and David Show on BBC Television? There sat David Dimbleby with Sir Michael Armitage, former head of Defence Intelligence, as if they were in their club. Sir Michael’s distinguished career made him an expert on black propaganda in the cause of Queen and Country; and here he was being offered up as source of information to the British people. The British, opined Sir Michael, were super and brave, while the Iraqis were ‘fanatics holding out’.

  For his part, Dimbleby could barely contain himself. He lauded the ‘accuracy’ of the bombing as ‘quite phenomenal’, which was nonsense, as we now know. Only a fraction of the bombs dropped on Iraq hit their target. Where was the broadcaster’s professional scepticism?

  Growing ever more excited, Dimbleby interviewed the American ambassador to Britain and declared that the ‘success’ of the bombing ‘suggests that America’s ability to react militarily has really become quite extraordinary, despite all the critics beforehand who said it will never work out like that. You are now able to claim that you can act precisely and therefore – to use that hideous word about warfare – surgically!’ Thereupon Dimbleby pronounced himself ‘relieved at the amazing success’ of it all.114

  Fortunately, there are some journalists who see their craft very differently. Thanks to Richard Norton-Taylor, David Pallister, Paul Foot, David Hellier, Rosie Waterhouse, David Rose and others, we can now comprehend the scale of the duplicity and hypocrisy that underpinned the ‘famous victory’.

  We now know that the British Government allowed British firms to break the embargo against Iraq: to continue producing vital parts for the famed ‘supergun’ and other weapons supplied to Iraq only months before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. We now know that shells for the guns that were trained on British troops came from British-made machines. We now know that, in spite of an investigation by a House of Commons Select Committee, there was and remains a cover-up of ministerial wrong-doing.115

  This no more than mirrors the cover-up by those who ran the war in Washington. Thanks mostly to one maverick Congressman, Henry Gonzalez, chairman of the House Banking Committee, we now have detail of how George Bush, as president and vice-president, secretly and illegally set out to support and placate Saddam Hussein right up to the invasion. According to classified documents, Bush personally directed the appeasement of Saddam and misled Congress, and US intelligence was secretly fed to Saddam. ‘Behind closed doors,’ says the Gonzalez indictment,

  Bush courted Saddam Hussein with a reckless abandon that ended in war and the deaths of dozens of our brave soldiers and over 200,000 Muslims, Iraqis and others. With the backing of the President, the State Department and National Security Council staff conspired in 1989 and 1990 to keep the flow of US credit, technology and intelligence information flowing to Iraq despite repeated warnings by several other agencies and the availability of abundant evidence that Iraq used [US bank] loans to pay for US technology destined for Iraq’s missile, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes.116

  It is clear that in the summer of 1990 George Bush believed that Saddam Hussein – his ‘man’, the dictator he backed against the mullahs in Iran and trusted to guard America’s interests – had betrayed him. It also seems clear Bush believed that if his appeasement of Saddam ever got out, the invasion of Kuwait might be blamed on him personally – hence the magnitude of his military response. To cover himself, the price was carnage, which he described as ‘the greatest moral crusade since World War Two’.

  January 17, 1992 to May 1992

  WHAT IS PARLIAMENT FOR?

  DURING THE FIRST session of Parliament following the 1992 general election Britain is threatening to take part in an attack on two countries with which it is not at war. This has provoked almost no interest at Westminster, prompting the serious question: What is Parliament for? It is a question I shall return to. Meanwhile, some background:

  Prime Minister Major has told President Bush that the United States is free to use British air bases to attack Libya, and that Britain will take part in a renewed American assault on Iraq ‘if necessary’.117 The contingency for these attacks is justified with a UN resolution whose legitimacy rests on Article 51 of the UN Charter. This says that a member can defend itself, but in no sense does it endorse a prolonged campaign of counter-attack. Since the Gulf War, the United States and Britain have used the United Nations to conduct a campaign of attrition against Iraq, bleeding it; the sufferers have been primarily children, whose death-rate is said to have increased by an estimated 400 per cent.118

  Now the United States and Britain are on the verge of bombing Iraq on the pretext that Iraq refuses to destroy its ‘weapons of m
ass destruction’ – when, in fact, Iraq has asked that some of its military industry be converted to civilian production laid waste by Allied bombing. The bombing would probably finish off Iraq’s industrial base.

  A similar attack is likely against Libya. American and British domination of the United Nations on this issue has produced yet another ‘high noon’ deadline by which Libya must surrender two men accused of the Lockerbie bombing, or face sanctions and worse. That the evidence against the two is, at best, circumstantial, and their prospects of a fair trial in Scotland or the United States remote, are not considered relevant factors.

  The Scottish Prime Minister (John Major) has told Parliament that the accused Libyans are ‘the perpetrators’ of the outrage. Alex Carlile, MP has similarly described them as ‘these two mass murderers’, who should be brought here for ‘a fair trial’.119 As numerous fitted-up Irishmen can bear witness, the fairness of British justice can no longer be guaranteed.

  The American campaign against Libya, like its counterpart against Iraq, relies on the obsolescence of history. In the United States this is guaranteed by a standard assumption that the Libyans are guilty, thus providing the Bush administration with the kind of support it needs in an uncertain election year.

  Few can doubt that Colonel Gaddafi runs an odious autocracy. However, if this was justification for blockading and bombing his country, most of the regimes propped up by the United States would be awaiting a similar fate. The truth is that Libya has been stitched up on several occasions since Libyan oil was nationalised in 1969 and Gaddafi refused to behave like the American client his predecessors used to be. In 1981, he was accused of sending a team of assassins to America, armed with surface-to-air missiles and led by ‘East German terror experts’ under orders from the colonel to kill Ronald Reagan, the secretary of state and secretary of defence. The Soviet Union was said to be behind it. Comic-book sketches of the would-be assassins were published.120