     Miskiin-Macruuf-Waryaa® | Monday, January 08, 2001 - 10:20 am
Salama...
by Enver Masud
October 1991, The Wisdom Fund
_____________________________
The haste with which the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 678 authorizing the use of force against Iraq, and its actions since the end of this round of fighting in the Gulf, leave little doubt as to who is setting U.N. policy and objectives.
The U.N. actions in the Gulf contrast sharply with U.N. inaction on other long-standing disputes such as those over Cyprus, Kashmir, and Palestine, which have been allowed to fester despite the passage of U.N. resolutions. To an unbiased observer it should be obvious that a double standard is at work where the U.N. and the United States are concerned.
The prostitution of the U.N. to the wishes of one superpower, endangers the very foundation on which the U.N. was conceived. It inspires little confidence in less powerful nations when one sees the worlds nuclear superpowers, which among them have over forty thousand nuclear warheads, rail sactimoniously against weaker nations such as Iraq, India, and Pakistan for even attempting to build a single nuclear warhead.
And nothing is said of the State of Israel, imposed upon the Middle East by the colonial powers of the West, which is the major source of instability in the Middle East. Israel's nuclear arsenal is not even acknowledged, while a Muslim nation is humiliated by the U.S. led U.N. searching for evidence of Iraq's nuclear program.
Of course the U.S. has always had a powerful voice in the U.N. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union the system of checks and balances, without which no organization can function effectively, has also collapsed. The U.N. Security Council has become little more than an extension of the U.S. Department of State.
That may be good for the U.S. in the short run. But in the long run, the transformation of the U.N. into a new United Nations of America may not serve the needs of any nation.
________________________
Nabadeey!! |
| MAD MAC | Monday, January 08, 2001 - 11:47 am
MMW
Please don't tell me that you'd like to see a nuclear armed Iraq?? What are you nuts?? Who do you think would be the target of such a weapon (were Hussein stupid enough to use it)?? You think he would target Israel????? If he did that Iraq would be completely destroyed in nuclear retatliation. But he wouldn't do that. If he would use it at all he would use it against his fellow Muslims - probably just as blackmail, not actually delivering it.
As for US domination of the UN - a lot of US politicians believe that the US gets the short end of the stick at the UN. The US pays over 30% of the operating costs and countries like Cuba use it as a bully pulpit.
Personally I think the UN is of limited usefulness, but does create a body, if an ineffective one, for countries to air grievances. That's better than no forum at all. Because the five post war powers (France and England were tokens) would not sign an agreement without a veto. You can call it what you want - hypocracy, unfair, etc. I say, yet another blatant example of States operating with national interest first and formost. Minor states participate because it gives them a voice, major states because it sometimes gives legitimacy in action - such as the Gulf War.
BTW Iraq got spanked not because of it's weapons of mass destruction threat, but because it was threatening oil supplies. You want to get your ass kicked quickly, that's the way to do it. |
| Miskiin-Macruuf-Waryaa® | Monday, January 08, 2001 - 12:48 pm
Salama...
Basicly, in other words:
"United Nations of America."
What I am talking about is how important is 'Resolution.' It works when U.S. interest plays, if not, then it doesn't. Case closed, and take a blatant example for Isra'iil for UN's recent condemnation about them.
Did it work?
Every child knows it, if it did or not.
_______________________
Nabadeey!! |
| MAD MAC | Monday, January 08, 2001 - 11:08 pm
Resolutions are legal cover fire - nothing more and nothing less. The United Nations is not a government. Although it likes to pretend it is a world governing body, of course there is no world governing body. US supported resolutions are more effective (not totally effective or adhered to) because the US puts its muscle behind them. The US is not one among equals. The US is a super-power, the proverbial 800 pound gorilla. But it prefers to operate with UN sanction as a method of giving a legal impression to its operations. Remember Sahib, the world is anarchic. The reason the US enforces its will is the same reason that a dog licks his balls - because he can. |
| Miskiin-Macruuf-Waryaa | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 07:33 am
So, again, in other words:
United Nations of America?
Why don't you simply admit it. Come on. If the U.S. of 'A' plays the ball, it will win.
Take a recent nominations of Security Counsil. Sudan was candidate to represent the continent of Africa in three years term. Almost all every nation was supporting it, but U.S. of 'A' strongly muscled, and of course, it won against the humble Sudan getting that position.
"Who it {U.S.} supported?":
Mauritania.
"Why not Sudan?"
Ask every average grade one student. |
| MAD MAC | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 11:23 pm
MMW
Why not Sudan?? Is this a serious question? The Sudan is one of our chief antagonists, that's why. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure tht out. What did you think was going to happen? You think Madeleine Albright was going to get up and start singing we are the world with the Sudanese (oh I'm sorry, they don't sing with women)?
The US occupies a permanent seat on the security council. If it does not actively support a resolution then someone else with muscle has to for it to succeed - that means a regional power. Calling it the United Nations of America is over-stating your case. But certainly the US has a strong, if not dominant position there. But so do the other permanent members. The big difference is that when a resoultion is passed that the US is pushing, the US has the resources to execute the resolution and turn it into reality. Like I said it's legal cover. Don't expect anyone to actually get up and say the emporor has no clothes. Throughout this post you make it sound like you are revealing something new. All the players know the rules. If there were no UN, the US would still kick ass when as where it felt appropriate. That isn't going to change. And if the UN rules against our interest - we might well ignore it. That ain't gonna change either. Remember what I said about that gorilla. |
| wanaagsanse | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 11:40 pm
What about somalia?....I think, we should not waste our precious time by debating an issue, that is irrelevant for somalis....What about our own country somalia??????.....
I for one, don't care whether Iraq, israel or the US have nuclear hegemony.....
I have noticed that we somalis are "experts" in world politics but rather un-clever when it comes to debating their own problems.
Is there a difference between nuclear weapons and kalashinkov, hunger and illetracy for a somali person?
What is a UN-resolution? whether it is 242 or 599 it is irrevlant.
Or Am I wrong? |
| MAD MAC | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 03:40 am
Wanaagsanse
You are definately not wrong. |
| LEILA | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 04:41 am
MAD MAC
Tell no lies the US controls the UN. So it is not an exaduration to sa "the united nation of america."
At the time where the palestines were attacked by the israel Europe condemed them including the Brittish people but the US supported. appropiate action was not taken to protect the inoccent (who defended themselves with stones against flying bullets
Is it because the big powers of america are jewz (God curse them)i thiink sooo! such an unfair world.
The reason US pay more in to the UNis because They can have world power so everybody depends on them. in fact they were threatened by Sadam Hussein thats they put sanctions on iraq. they said Saddam kills his on people and they need protection what sort of protection did they provide by bomming schools and children and woman were killed a day before ramadan.
LEILA |
| Waryaa-Miskiin-Macruuf | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 09:01 am
Salama...
Again, and again, and again that the token is:
United Nations of America.
Simply, why don't you admit it. Because, you are saying in other words U.S. of 'A' controls it, extinguishes its interests, does what it does best.
So, other words might be:
United Nations of America. And no wonder its centre located at New {Old?} York City. Try not to give a 'good' reason how/why it had been chosen this city.
I know.
_________________
Wanaagsane:
If we unfold the problems of Soomaaliya, you know, we will re-open the old problems than to re-solve the new ones. I hope you undertood it. Yacni, to talk the current issues of our beloved country cannot survive without someone 'bringing' the topic of Qabiil-Qabiil. And when this comes, you know, how it is going to explode.
That is the distance we are keeping. To erase our celebral centres from that word. And we hope it will work.
However, I disagreed that we 'don't' care about how damn U.N. gives about Ciraaq. We sure should concern. They, nevertheless, are our brothers. How mean West portrays their leader, we don't care that. They are our brethen who are starving to die because of the sanctions.
Who did it?
United Nations of America. Yes, that is right. U.S. of A's interest is crucial, it thus plays it vigoriously.
_____________________
Mac-Salaama!! |
| Araweelo | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 10:36 am
I do not think I can contribute to this topic but let me say something very quickly.
I think there is nothing wrong to concern about Iraq. not only Islamically but a better Iraq it is also an advantage for Somalia. Indeed a better Middle east and African politics work the advantage for somalia. So I personnally curse the Amarican policy againsgt Iraq as it is aganst me.
However, I think we should not avoid our problems because of clan. We should not be afraid to say so and I think we should use our faith to destroy the evil that lives inside us '' loving our clans whatever they up to'' we should start telling ourselves hey would that benefit me. I will give you an example, many times the poeple who you share clan with can be hurtful, so why not we should start this individualistic things like me me me ( as long it does not go againsgt Islam)
Your's ever
Aro |
| MAD MAC | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 11:59 pm
Leila / WMM
Look, you are looking at this in a much too conspiratorial way. Keep things simple. The US does not "control" the UN. The US does have veto power as a sitting member of the security council. So does China, so does Russia. That means that not all US sponsored resolutions make it through. the same can be said of other nations. HOWEVER, if the US can get a resoultion passed, they have far better means to implement it. China and France are occasional antagonists on the security council, but they are willing to negotiate. What happens there isn't some big secret. There's not a lot of smoky back room deals. It's pretty straight forward stuff. The bottom line is the US (along with 4 other countries) has permanent veto power. The US has the means to implement its resolutions - a lot of other countries don't. The US doesn't always get its way in the UN, so it would be a mistake to draw that conclusion. But the US is not one amongst equals, and it doesn't claim to be other. The US is the worlds sole remaining superpower - it gets its way more than other states. This is the law of nature and railing against it is as futile as railing against gravity.
Arawello
I too oppose US policy vis-a-vis Iraq, but not for the same rationale as you. You see I believe if you want to tople a bad guy like Saddam Hussein, you get closer to him. Allow business investment, allow tourism, etc. etc. That way he can't maintain an effective propaganda machine with his own populace. It keeps getting undermined as they have access to the world-wide media. But an aggressive, war-mongering Iraq (which is what an Iraq led by Hussein is) is not good for the Middle East or Somalia. It threatens its Muslim neighbors. Hussein wants Arabi hegemony. Remember that. He's not your friend or a friend of Islam. |
| wanaagsane | Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 12:54 am
wariyaa miskiin macruuf : I am not un-aware of the Iraqi plight,,,Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere..
But, don't you think we should clean our own house first? I would like to quote a famous somali poet in this regard : "Angola aan xoreyn anagoon xur ahayn waa arrin cajiib ah"....
To talk about somalis as you have stated means that old-wounds are rekindled but by those who wish somalis to stay behind i human civilization. If we don't tackle taboos like tribalism who will do it?.
True, the Iraqis are suffering but their suffering has much to do with their leader ( A mad man) who hides behinds an arab and religious veil...just like our leaders did in somalia.
I am not however, blind of the suffering caused by americans sanctions....and any human being of resonable intelligence will surely condemn it... But I see a partern arabic and african leaders inorder to keep their critiques at bay embark on a policy of pointing the fingers at "outsiders" in this case america, for the suffering which they themselves inflicted on their people.
A challenging question in this regard is: DO YOU THINK THAT OUTSIDERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMALIA'S PROBLEM?..
mahadsanidiin |
| Arawello | Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 05:19 am
Madmac,
I do not like Saddam or any current Arab political leaders as they do not serve the good for Islam. My key word was a better politic in Africa and Middle east. When I enclude Middle east countries does not mean that I feel I am an Arab, though, I do not hate them. What I am saying is that both the contenents are very important to each other because of their geographically situtaed as well as religion in regard to some West and East African popolation.
I also think no-one likes Saddam including his poeple but this US policy keeps him to stay the power. It allows him to gain the confidence of his poeple and sometimes the muslims. It sometimes makes me to think ( and I think it is true) the Us and its allies want him to stay the power lest his overthrown would lead a new government that supports the Islamic view. |
| Axoow (Axoow) | Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 01:14 pm
WMM
Bro, I don't think US can dictate to UN, if they can do it......USA will never allow to arrive their country the Father of all dictators Fidal castro
Araweelo
Sis, I agree with u the point u raise that if USA overthrow The Mad Man(Siddam Hussien) that will lead Islamic Revolution.By the same token, they also scare it will broke down ethnic cleansing worst than the Balkans and they don't wanna face that catastrophe. |
| MAD MAC | Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 11:42 pm
Arawello / Axoow
I have a sneaking suspicion that our leaders aren't that clever. But it is very Machiavellian. I would like to think you're right, or at least believe our leaders could think a problem at least that far through. However, even if they did, this is also a miscalculation. For every action there is a reaction. Muslims are notoriously xenophobic. We need to develop a policy that keeps American military presence in the Gulf minimal or non-existent. Our presence and our application of military force develop sympathy not only for Husseins regime, but militant Islamic movements which view the US as an enemy of Islam. The US support for Israel, combined with the US conflict with Iraq, give ammunition to militants who are trying to gain control of states like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. Militant Muslims will work to undermine US interests becuase they think they have a sacred duty to do so. It's on this basis I think our policy in the gulf is mis-placed and, should the Saudi government collapse, it could cause a full scale US intervention to secure oil supplies. I hate Saudi Arabia and would really prefer not going back. |
| Miskiin-Macruuf-Waryaa | Friday, January 12, 2001 - 10:10 am
Salama...
Wanaagsanoow:
I told you as per se that this topic of our lands, people indeed will explode not only to talk about the epitome premises of our prone-trouble people concerning of clan affiliation with their full faithfulness. In us, or in our blood, to talk the circumstantial situation in Soomaaliya without avoiding the inevitable Qabiil, is like to feed a hungry dog a small amount of meat. Only we will get more troubled, deeper unresolved ones than to talk its nature. Like the dog, we will get more to down-root the Qabiil-Qabiil situation.
The situation of Soomaaliya, in or out, without bringing the topic of Qabiil is indespensable. It is vital that Qabiil will come up. And you know, some of us are too extremist to handle that. I am not a Qabiil-Qabiil guy, and I never thought Qabiil makes any sense besides that we 'would know one other.' Agreeing with the Glorious Quraan, we should know one another with Qabiil, not one another to despise to commit ethnic cleansing, or the big word, genocide.
With that, we've to take strong voice when we are rooting our political situation--to avoid as much as that word. And that is Qabiil.
Speaking of your last question:
I don't think that I do think for outsiders are primarily accountible for our burning situation. Yes, within exception of our close neighbours--vis. Itoobiya and Kiinya.
Itoobiya, as you know, are fighting to defend their 'internal integrity.' Kiinya, as well. I believe--and I consider they are not outsiders--that they are the vehicle behind the broken deals of peace in the last decade. They have proposed with their main interests--and all what they have proposed failed utterly. We know they do even have dillema.
To support or not to support a particular function leader.
To make peace or not to make peace with their neighbour country that they may rest for worrying about the inundated refugees in their country.
They have to make those choices. Now, it even become clear that there is no more secret that who do they support and why do they support.
That is our case, and they are not outsiders as long as we exist and they exist that they have our 'lands' of Soomaaliya Galbeed and those in Kiinya.
_________________
Mac-Salaama!! |
