United States' Hegemony Condemned in
UN Debate
Iraq and Cuba attacked United States hegemony as undermining
the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of nations. Their
respective foreign ministers spoke during the General Debate in the UN General
Assembly on September 24 which dealt with questions of sovereignty, the state
system, and the future of the UN.
Mohammed Said al-Sahaf, Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Iraq, said that the doctrine of humanitarian intervention had no place in
international law, for it implied an organised onslaught on the most
fundamental rules of the present international order, such as sovereignty,
political independence, territorial integrity and non-interference. Continued
United States hegemony and governance of the destinies of the world, as well as
international economic and political organisations, placed the United Nations
in the face of the most serious challenge it had encountered since its
establishment.
Felipe Perez Roque, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cuba,
said that in a world dominated by a single military and technological power,
attempts to impose such notions as the limitation of sovereignty and
humanitarian intervention posed a threat to the countries of the third world.
He urged that Security Council veto power be accorded to an expanded more
representative group of permanent members, if it could not be eliminated
altogether.
He added that, given the absolute contempt demonstrated by
the United States towards General Assembly resolutions on its embargo against
his country, the people of Cuba had decided – independently of the battle
that went on in the Assembly – to resort to legal procedures in order to
demand appropriate sanctions in respect of that policy of "genocide".
Felipe Perez Roque said that in a world dominated by a
single military and technological power, attempts to impose such notions as the
limitation of sovereignty and humanitarian intervention posed a threat to the
countries of the third world, must be brought to an end, as they violated the
letter and spirit of the Charter. He proposed increasing the number of
permanent members of the Security Council to include nations from Latin
America, Africa and Asia. Ideally, no one should have the power of veto, but if
it could not be eliminated, it should at least be evenly shared among a larger
number of permanent members. He also suggested that it be restricted to the
power to veto measures proposed under Chapter VII of the Charter.
While the wealthy countries had transnational companies,
which controlled more than a third of worldwide exports, the poor countries
bore the asphyxiating burden of foreign debt, he said. That debt had reached $2
trillion and continued to grow; interest payments devoured almost 25 per cent
of exports. What would the next century's economists say when they realised
that the United States lived with a current account deficit of around $300
billion, without the International Monetary Fund imposing on it a single one of
the severe economic adjustment programmes that were impoverishing third world
nations? he asked. The current international economic system was not only
unjust but unsustainable. An economic system that destroyed the environment
could not be sustained. Nor was it possible to sustain an economic system based
on the wealthy nations' irrational consumption patterns, which were later
exported to the poor countries through the mass media.
If there were ever an eloquent example of what should not
be done in the relations between power nations and small ones, it could be seen
in Cuba, he said. For more than 40 years, Cubans had been subjected to a brutal
policy of hostility and aggression imposed by the United States. The blockade,
shamelessly and euphemistically referred to as an "embargo", had been
progressively intensified. The genocidal policy had reached even more infamous
heights with the Helms-Burton Act, which codified all previous administrative
restrictions, expanded and tightened the blockade and established it in
perpetuity.
For seven consecutive years, the General Assembly had
consistently called for an end to the economic blockade imposed by the United
States on Cuba, he recalled. The world's condemnation had increased visibly
from year to year. Given the absolute contempt demonstrated by the United
States with regard to those resolutions, the people of Cuba had decided –
independently of the battle that went on in the Assembly – to resort to
legal procedures to which they had a right in order to demand sanctions
corresponding to those responsible for those acts of genocide.
In his contribution, Mohammed Said Al-Sahaf said that with
the end of the Cold War, there had been a feeling that the world would see
balanced international relations based on peace, stability and well-being. But
the state of affairs had proved the contrary, as the international imbalance
continued. The most dangerous phenomenon witnessed during the present decade,
which had become an orchestrated endeavour of a group of western States, was
the advocacy of what was called humanitarian intervention. That doctrine, which
had no place in international law, implied an organised onslaught on the most
fundamental rules of the present international order, such as sovereignty,
political independence, territorial integrity and non-interference.
Continuing, the Minister said that in 1998, the Security
Council was discussing the arrangements to conduct a comprehensive review of
the implementation by Iraq of its obligations under Council resolutions, with a
view to consider the lifting of the sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990, he said.
While the Council was convening to discuss the matter, the forces of the United
States and the United Kingdom launched a large-scale military aggression
against Iraq, using the lies and fabrications of Richard Butler as a pretext
for their aggression. In spite of that flagrant violation of the Charter, the
Council remained completely crippled without taking any immediate collective
measure.
While the Council's resolutions had imposed obligations on
Iraq, they had in return imposed a specific obligation on the Council –
that the embargo was to be lifted once Iraq had fulfilled its obligations under
the same resolutions, he continued. The Council had failed to lift the embargo
on Iraq due to the hegemony of the United States on the Council, which had
prevented the proper implementation of the Council's resolutions. Iraq, he said
demanded its clear and legitimate rights, namely the lifting of the sanctions,
in accordance with Council resolutions. It had become clear for all, that the
former special commission had been used by the United States and the United
Kingdom to achieve their aggressive objectives against Iraq's people,
sovereignty and security.
One of the basic pillars of the American-British hostile
policy towards Iraq was the imposition of the two no-fly zones on Iraq, he
said. That was a violation of the United Nations Charter and of international
law. Proceeding from its legitimate right to self- defence guaranteed by all
international covenants, Iraq would not hesitate to counter all the American
and British aggressive acts aimed at violating the inviolability of its
airspace and territory, and threatening its security and territorial integrity.
The policy of the United States had also encouraged Turkey to carry out
large-scale military operations inside Iraqi territory under the pretext of
chasing the elements of the Workers' Party of Kurdestan (PKK). The continued
United States hegemony and governance of the destinies of the world, as well as
international economic and political organisations, has placed the United
Nations in the face of the most serious challenge it has ever encountered since
its foundation.
US and British aircraft have
been continuing their flights over Iraq and carrying out bombing raids. This
was so even while the bombing of Yugoslavia was at its height. According to a
French Foreign Ministry spokesman, for every 100 bombs dropped on Kosova, 70
bombs were being dropped on Iraq.