UJ: UNESCO, NATO and U.S
In 2003 U.S decided to invade Iraq. That decision came cooperatively with U.K. The reasons behind the invasion were as follow:
• The governments of both countries claimed Iraq possession of nuclear weapons or as they called it weapons of mass destruction, (Which proved to have no basis since they failed after the war to find any.)
• They also accused President Saddam Hussein of having connections with the Qaeda, (they did not have any evidence to prove that.)
• Following the previous point he was accused of supporting “Palestinian suicide bombers”, (again no clear evidence on that).
• Finally, U.S government claimed that the invasion was due to the Iraqi government abusive regime. They came to spread democracy in Iraq and protect it from any human rights abuse.
Did they? Let us see the consequences of the Iraqi war:
• The numbers of Iraqi refugees increased dramatically along with the numbers of orphans.
• Violence spread in Iraq and strife occurred between Suni and Shia and between other sectarian groups.
• The humanitarian situation in Iraq became one of the most critical in the world.
• Poverty and other social problems.
Recently, the NATO decided to interfere in the Libyan revolution alongside the protesters who called against the Qaddafi abusive regime. The intervention was to protect Libya from this tyrant and from the abuse of human rights. It was not turned to an occupation in Libya’s case. The consequences are not known yet.
Moving to another point; Palestine earns its membership in the UNESCO after a long fight. U.S condemns the vote:
“Today’s vote by the member states of UNESCO to admit Palestine as a member is regrettable, premature, and undermines our shared goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,” Nuland said.
U.S government cuts annual funding it used to offer to UNESCO; as a punishment of taking such step. Taking into consideration UNESCO depends heavily on U.S funding.
Palestine took that step along with its argument that UN should recognize it as a state due to U.S failure as a mediator between Israel and Palestine. Since Israel never executed whatever was agreed upon in any of the peace treaties.
My questions are as follow: what is the exact interest behind U.S interventions in Libya and Iraq? Why Iraq and Libya in specific, Are they the only two countries to suffer from abusive regimes and violations of human rights? Did U.S transform Iraq to a better and democratic country? Do you think the media helped in making the Iraqi war justifiable to people and somehow accepted? As an American citizen what do you think about U.S decision to condemn UNESCO’s vote and decision? Do you agree on describing it as premature and regrettable? What do you think of Palestine? Do you think it deserves to achieve its membership in UN as it is fighting to gain it? What do you think about U.S law which states that funds must be denied to any organization granting the Palestine Liberation Organization “the same standing as member states”?
Leave a reply
Hi there! These are some heavy questions, so I’ll try to help sort through as best I can. First, it must be pointed out that the wars in Libya and Iraq came in two entirely different presidential administrations (Bush and Obama respectively) as well as in two political different eras- Post 9/11 and post-Arab Spring. In regards to Iraq, it’s difficult for even us Americans to determine what the government’s intent with attacking Iraq was. You’ve already raised the pertinent points- the “facts” the government told us to justify the war were, in truth, completely wrong. The best answer I can give is to disregard arguments of morality and look at it from a rationalist perspective: The United States has a vested interest in Gulf assets, and found Saddam’s regime to threaten those interests. In 2002, Ameria’s was riding on not just the authority of the world’s most powerful country, but also as a country that had been savagely attacked. When the administration set its eyes on Iraq, there wasn’t anything to stop it.
Libya is a different case and the debate continues what exactly we’re doing. I think the Obama administration was caught short by the success of the Arab Spring (remember how they supported Mubarak?) and decided to change tactics and help carry the movement’s momentum with the rebels in Libya. Qaddafi was compatible with previous American goals, but he was also a lunatic and in the context of the Arab Spring, a complete liability. Europe was also demanding of intervention, which was significant.
Were Iraq and Libya the only countries with leaders guilty of human rights abuses? No, of course not. If the United States operated under the directive of “invade countries with human rights abuses”, then we’d have to invade ourselves, wouldn’t we? Abu Ghraib will not soon be forgotten. The US has a long history of doing the wrong thing. The 1953 CIA coup in Iran and supporting Augusto Pinochet in Chile are two examples. No, we don’t invade countries on moral grounds. The US government ensures that there is a safe place in the world for US interests. That’s what all strong countries do. Your neighbor across the gulf, Iran, works just as hard to ensure Iranian interests are secure in the region. The US is not unique in that regard.
As to Palestine… that’s a tricky issue. Personally, I support the Palestinian state. It’s nonsense that Israel can mow down Palestinian homes with impunity and build settlements on top of them, let alone all the other horrors the Israelis commit.
Why does Israel get away with that in American eyes? Probably a few reasons. One, the pro-Israel lobby is one of, if not THE most powerful lobby in the United States. APAC has the ear of many powerful Americans. Two, Americans generally believe in the myth that Israel was founded in 1948 as a haven for Jewish refugees from the Holocaust. They don’t understand settlement began in the 1800s. They only see Palestinian “terrorists” waging war against a people who’d already faced genocide. Three, many American Christians believe Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy. Look up “Christian Zionism” for more information on that if you’re interested.
So what you have is a country full of leaders and citizens on both ends of the political spectrum that believe that whatever Israel does is “right.” Their activities are defensive in nature and thus justified. Palestine, on the other hand, is a belligerent “terrorist” nation. This isn’t a universal attitude, of course. Both Bush and Obama supported a two-state solution. There’s just little political will to change the status quo.
Personally, I’d like for the Palestinians to have a home of their home (that’s not occupied by a foreign military). The United States’ treatment of the UNESCO vote result is regrettable, but not surprising. I do think there’s a desire in some government circles to help the Palestinians, but there’s a brick wall of politics between them and achieving that goal. Unless the Israelis do something incredibly direct like carpet bomb Gaza, I doubt the US will ever have the will to actually help.
On a final note, because the US is so hesitant to tread on Israel’s toes even when they disagree with Israel’s actions, it falls to other world actors to help Palestinians. That means the EU, the Arab League, and a United Nations without the support of the United States.