In today's Salon [Premium] and Observer, there are articles on a U.S. plan to conduct surveillance of UN Security Members to see how they're planning to vote.

Reports of this have caused an uproar throughout the rest of the world, particularly in Russia, Australia, and France, but it's receiving almost zero coverage here in the U.S. According to both Salon and Observer, the plan is only increasing anger and disgust at the U.S.'s diplomacy, and may help to harden opinions against Bush and the war against Iraq.

What do you think?

As a former teacher of mine used to say, "At least [the U.S.] is being consistent."

You know.....what are the implications of this kind of agressive bullying, in this decade alone?

It may be that the world, in general (and specific nations, in particular) is too smart to go for policy that does not serve them - and the powers that be in any given nation has the history (and its analysts) to prove it.

Hence, the new millenium approach (meshed, no doubt, with a little bit of the tried and true): I N C E S S A N T B U L L Y I N G . :mad: :mad:

[ March 06, 2003, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

I always assumed that pretty much everyone at the U. N. was under routine surveillance. They certainly should be. So many nations use their missions to plant spies in the country that I should think you'd almost be required to do this for security reasons. Numerous individuals associated with U. N. diplomatic missions have been expelled over the years on a fairly regular basis. Intelligence activities are nothing new at the U. N.

Given that routine surveillance would already be in place, that the U. S. might now be using these operations to figure out where countries stand on the Iraq issue wouldn't really surprise me, outside the fact that it seems wholly unnecessary. Most Security Council members have been pretty open about where they stand on the issue and why. I suppose there might be "supplementary" information that could be useful.

Of course, one can't assume the reports are true just because the Observer says they are. Given Britain’s gennnnnerally low standards of journalism and the Observer’s way-left-of-center editorial stance, there’s an equal likelihood they're not.

I suppose the U. S. papers didn’t pick-up the story because there were some credibility issues and because most Americans would have had a “who cares” reaction.

I suppose the “message” delivered by U. S. (bullying) tactics would be that the issue is very important to the administration and that those who don’t side with us will pay the price, which they certainly will. France, Germany, Russia and others are likely to be frozen out of any post-war reconstruction (i.e., lucrative reconstruction and oil contracts), NATO will be sidelined for the foreseeable future if not indefinitely, the U. N. may well fall victim to elements in the U. S. who have wanted to be rid of it for some time.

Instead of wringing your hands about future implications in all this for the U. S., I’d be more worried about what it means for the rest of the world. The U. S. will, after all, probably have it’s war in Iraq. In the Middle East that really only leaves Syria (I suspect they’ll be next on the hit list), Yemen, and the terrorist clique (Iran, Libya). Europe will be divided and its influence impaired and a common foreign policy forestalled for years to come. NATO will exist largely on paper and will cease to be the framework through which the U. S. works (and through which European allies have had any ability to influence U. S.). The U. N. will once again be reduced to little more than a talking shop, losing the last thirty years of progress made toward becoming something useful.

All this for a vain, if principled, stance against war in Iraq. A proposition that by any account would be a mixed blessing. The Bush administration has done the worst possible job of handling this situation – except for just about every other player in the game.

Good points, Torgauer. One element that isn't discussed, though, is the issue of the euro versus the dollar. Iraq's provocation last fall of pegging its oil prices to the euro also plays into Bush, Perle's and others' plans. Then there is the deepening and broadening global alienation of many countries (including now China) to the U.S. behavior; the EU alone has a wealth of arguments with the U.S. over a range of policies (from genetically altered foods and farming subsidies to the current Iraq confrontation). The result could be that more countries might to turn to the euro as opposed to the dollar, which would gravely harm our economy in the short term, and possibly the long term, as the foreign investment and borrowing capacity that W. is planning on to sustain us would collapse. I think this really a truly dangerous situation, and all its ramifications and repercussions are not being placed before the American people, whether or not a left-wing or a right-wing news organ puts them forward.

When did John Poindexter become part of our U.N.
deligation?

Bluebird....... what does that mean exactly? I tried reading that phrase (like other posts of yours) slow, fast, upside down even and can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say.

are you writing this in australia after a night of drinking in Sydney?

[ March 06, 2003, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: ung ]

Oh well, it doesn't matter now, does it? China is saying it's against us too, and so those paltry votes from the Africans won't matter. Powell and others are already writing the UN off. A very bad state of affairs that is going to come back to haunt us when we least expect it.

More fallout from this mess: a British woman has been arrested for possibly violating British law in conjunction with the U.S.'s UN surveillance.

GCHQ Arrest over Observer Spying Report

"An employee at the top-secret Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has been arrested following revelations in The Observer last weekend about an American 'dirty tricks' surveillance operation to win votes at the United Nations in favour of a tough new resolution on Iraq. "

"Gloucestershire police confirmed last night that a 28-year-old woman was arrested last week on suspicion of contravening the Official Secrets Act. The woman, from the Cheltenham area, has been released on police bail pending further inquiries. More arrests are expected. "

[ March 10, 2003, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]