With a unanimous vote, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution October 16 legitimizing the U.S.-run regime in Iraq and asking UN member states to contribute military forces and funds for the reconstruction of the country.

The next day, the U.S. Congress approved with large bipartisan majorities the $87 billion requested by the Bush administration to finance the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Days earlier, Tokyo had pledged more than $5 billion and additional troops for Iraq, marking progress in the White House push to draw other governments into the U.S.-led occupation of the country. Such progress was further registered at a U.S.-organized “donors” conference in Madrid, Spain, October 23-24, where government representatives from 77 countries promised $19 billion in loans and debt relief for Iraq’s reconstruction.

At about the same time, the Iranian government also capitulated under pressure from Washington and its imperialist allies, announcing it would allow full, surprise UN inspections of its nuclear facilities (see article in this issue).

In the middle of these developments, the U.S.-led NATO military alliance announced the launching of a standing rapid reaction force capable of being deployed anywhere in the world within five days.  
 
Unanimous vote by UN Security Council
The October 16 UN Security Council resolution codified the existing fact of the U.S. protectorate in Iraq. The document said that the “Coalition Provisional Authority”—that is, the U.S.-imposed regime in Iraq—will exercise government authority in the country “until an internationally recognized, representative government” of Iraqis is established. Rejecting French and German proposals to amend the resolution to set a timetable for putting such a government in place, the document did not impose a time limit on the U.S.-run authority. The resolution also “urges Member States to contribute assistance under this United Nations mandate, including military forces.”

Some 147,000 U.S. troops occupy Iraq now, backed up by 11,000 British soldiers. Smaller deployments from 30 other countries total about 13,000 troops.

The Security Council resolution states that the Iraqi governing council—comprised of 25 Iraqi politicians hand-picked by Washington’s top “civilian” administrator, Paul Bremer—“embodies the sovereignty of the State of Iraq during the transitional period” leading to an Iraqi government. The UN has a “vital role,” states the document, in providing aid and promoting reconstruction and “representative government.”

Among those voting for the resolution were the representatives of Paris and Berlin. Both had expressed disagreements with the U.S.-led invasion. Loans, trade, and investment deals with Saddam Hussein’s regime under the previous UN sanctions delivered lucrative returns to the wealthy of both countries, and promised further riches.

Paris, however, voted for a May 19 UN Security Council resolution that lifted the UN sanctions on Iraq and recognized the Coalition Provisional Authority. Since then, the German government has shifted tack, taking a less critical stance toward the U.S.-led occupation than its French ally.

The most stunning vote in favor of the U.S.-sponsored resolution came from the Syrian government. Only 12 days earlier, on October 4, Israeli jets had bombed a target near Damascus, claiming that it served as a training ground for Palestinian “terrorist” organizations. “I have consistently said that Israel should defend itself,” said U.S. president George Bush in response to Tel Aviv’s attack—the first by Israeli forces on Syria since a war in 1973. As Israeli leaders refused to rule out more such assaults, Washington threatened to veto a resolution the Syrian delegate presented to the UN Security Council condemning the raid, effectively sinking the proposal by Damascus.

This turn of events emboldened the Zionist rulers of Israel to extend their attacks on Palestinians. Four days after the October 16 UN Security Council resolution, Israeli forces killed 11 people in a series of air attacks in the Gaza Strip. Tel Aviv has dismissed a UN General Assembly resolution condemning its construction of a wall between Israel and the West Bank, on a zigzag path that cuts deeply into Palestinian lands. On October 25, Israeli officials announced that they are building almost 300 new housing units in the West Bank—a calculated slap in the face to the Palestinians, whose land is gobbled up by such settlements.  
 
Congress approves $87 billion
The day after the Security Council vote, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly approved Bush’s request for $87 billion to fund the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush had said that 75 percent would cover “ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.”

The vote at the House of Representatives was 303-125. At 87-12, the Senate margin was even wider.

After these two victories, U.S. officials increased pressure on other governments to pony up with funds and troops.

At the October 23-24 Madrid “donors’ conference,” the Japanese government confirmed its pledge of $5 billion over four years, making Tokyo the biggest bankroller of Iraq’s occupation after Washington. Tokyo will also send 600 troops to serve under U.S. officers by January. Other imperialist powers pledging funds include London, at $496 million; Madrid, with $300 million; and Rome and Ottawa, $230 million each.

U.S. officials racked up promises of money from a number of semicolonial governments in the Mideast, including Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. The latter pledged $1 billion in loans and aid, and stated it was ready to negotiate a reduction in Baghdad’s $24 billion debt.

The Iranian government said it would allow the occupation regime to export Iraqi oil through its ports, and would send electricity and gas the other way.

Faced with these victories, opinion columnists from liberals writing for the New York Times to rightists like Patrick Buchanan bended to the White House course on Iraq, even if grudgingly.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff, who spoke against the U.S. conduct of the war, wrote October 15, “I believe that President Bush was wrong to go into Iraq, but he’s right about staying there.” His column was titled “Holding Our Noses.”

Buchanan, the ultrarightist politician and commentator, dramatically personified this shift in attitudes toward the Bush administration’s course. Writing on October 15, he scoffed at the alleged impact of Washington’s “shock and awe” strategy. “Iran and North Korea appear undeterred by our smashing of Iraq and even more resolved to acquire atomic weapons,” he said.

“The imperial project” of Bush’s advisers, he continued, “to erect an American empire in Arabia and impose democracy on reluctant Muslims—is dead.”

Five days later, after the UN and Congressional votes, Buchanan changed tune. “George W. Bush seems to have weathered his summer squall and to be well-positioned to do what his father failed to do: win a second term,” he said. “A consensus seems to be emerging. Those who opposed the war do not want to cut and run and leave Iraq to chaos and civil war…. The consensus appears to be this: America will not send fresh new divisions to fight a 5- or 10-year war. Iraq will be helped onto its feet and power transferred as soon as possible.”  
 
NATO launches intervention force
NATO inaugurated its rapid-reaction force one day before the Security Council vote. The so-called Response Force will be comprised of 20,000 highly trained troops ready to respond immediately to orders from the NATO command, which is dominated by Washington. This was the second major step toward expanding NATO’s jurisdiction beyond Europe and around the world. The first was when the Atlantic imperialist military alliance took control of Afghanistan’s occupation earlier this year, a move sanctioned by the UN Security Council October 13.

The announcement was preceded by NATO’s ministerial war-game meeting at Colorado Springs. “We need real, deployable soldiers, not paper armies,” NATO secretary general George Robertson told that gathering.

The Response Force will start with 9,000 troops, the largest number coming from Spain, who will begin maneuvers in Turkey in November. Other contributors are Paris, Berlin, and Washington, which will send 300 soldiers along with a ship and aircraft. British general Jack Deverell will head it up.

According to the International Herald Tribune, NATO’s top commander, U.S. Marine officer Gen. James Jones, said the force would “insert military forces into a deteriorating situation earlier in a crisis, with more speed, at greater ranges, with more sustainability than ever before.”

Washington will now push other NATO governments to adopt American speed in deploying their forces under U.S. command to fight “terrorism.” Although these governments “have moved swiftly to set up the force,” the Tribune continued, “NATO officials say some now need to streamline political procedures to prevent delays in deployment,” which is supposed to be done as quickly as within five days. “They are particularly concerned by rules in Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands and Turkey, which require parliamentary approval to send troops into action.”

The move will intensify interimperialist competition, as it counters the French-German initiative for a European Union-based rapid-reaction military force. It increases the likelihood that divisions among the main competing imperialist powers could deteriorate to an armed conflict in the future.
 
 
Related articles:
Top Pentagon general says U.S. is waging war on terrorism as a ‘Christian nation’ against ‘Satan’
EU powers squeeze Iranian gov’t to allow nuclear inspections  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home