|
|  |
Dutch cowards and the Iraq War
FPF/HR - 17.02.2003 17:16
IRAQ WAR : Participation after "nasty undertones" ? Dutch RIGHT-WING - SOCALLED 'CARE TAKER' GOVERNMENT - DOESN'T CARE !
IRAQ WAR : DUTCH AND DOUBLE-DUTCH
FPF/HR - While - according to the polls - seventy-five percent of the Dutch population of 16+ million is against the planned war in Iraq, the now infamous Dutch right-wing 'care taker'-cabinet already secretly has taken part in the U.S. wars. The Dutch ambassador in Washington, van Eenennaam, as quoted by the Washington Post* said : "that State Department officials with a "nasty undertone" contacted him to make sure the Dutch recognized Bush's gesture."
With other words : Do as we say, or...!
Without a declaration of war Dutch F-16's are bombing human beings under american supervision. Which is illegal and thus a war crime. American troops and war materials have been transported with planes, trains and in convoys to and from airports and harbors in Holland where at Dutch Air Force base Volkel nuclear bombs are stored, contrary to the law. Secret deals with Israel and the US concerning the 'under cover'-use of the main airports like Schiphol and Dutch air space, have existed for decades, and are at present of course very useful to the asocial right-wing Dutch politicians in charge.
The policy of the socalled 'social democratic party' (PvdA) has nothing to do with either 'social' nor
'democracy' - they support the troop transports and want to work with the right-wingers in the coming coalition.
Many of the PvdA-partymembers are furious about the fact that former Prime Minister Wim Kok - who claimed to be a social democrat - immediately after quitting was offered posts on the Board of directors of SHELL (see "Nigeria +Ogoni), and the multinational ING Bank; an aberration that speaks for itself. 'Soc-dem. party' leader Melkert went to the World Bank by the way, another ill famed institution. especially in Third World countries.
But all those Dutch politicians very cowardly never protested when the Bush Government and the U.S.
Congress concocted the "Hague Invasion Act", threatening to invade Holland if the Dutch government
didn't comply with the present U.S-doctrine "Might makes Right ! ",
Nasty US-undertones and the 'Hague Invasion Act'
This unfriendly - to say the least - "Invasion of the Netherlands Act" was attached to the House version
of a State Department authorization bill that blocked US money for the UN. Blackmail with billions,done as usual by the US's UN-representation. The 'Hague Invasion Act' was designed to undermine the 1998 treaty creating ' the International Criminal Court ' now seated in The Hague. It is a World Court to judge large-scale Human Rights abuses - and the treaty was signed by President Clinton in his last days in office.
Only terror states - afraid of having to answer to accusations of large-scale human rights abuses - did not sign the treaty. Unique in American history : president Bush revoked the signature by the U.S. as signed earlier by president Clinton.This totalitarian 'Hague Invasion Act' would also prevent any US government agency from cooperating with the court and would block military aid; to any non-Nato state which ratifies the ICC treaty, which has been signed by more than 140 governments in the United Nations..
The result of all the U.S. blackmail, bribes, 'offsets' and arms twisting, is that some NATO countries, such as the Netherlands, were already forced or willing to collaborate, even without a United Nations or NATO decision. The right-wing Dutch government has been a key ally of Washington's, and a defense spokesman today said that four of the country's Patriot anti-missile batteries, manned by about 400 Dutch soldiers, had already been shipped to Turkey on a bilateral basis and would be operational by early March.
Still, Dutch ambassador van Eenennaam in the Washington Post said that "he is concerned about a
monopoly of power without checks and balances. Self assertiveness and an arrogance of power [among some U.S. officials], that is a troubling thing."
This umpteenth US war again is a dangerous rape of International Law, Human Rights and conventions by the present government - NOT the people - of the United States and it's few scared, ignorant, bribed and bullied allies. After the planned Iraqi genocide, the "pariah status" in the rest of the world for all those taking part - will lead to further terrorism by States and individuals; death and destruction. And make it for many a very small world to live and travel in.
The Bible- and Qoran-command : "Thou shalt not Kill" is not only valid for Saddam Hussein, but even for the present government of the United States as well.
Henk Ruyssenaars / The Netherlands
The Foreign Press Foundation has been sounding the alarm about the threat posed on a global scale to democracy, since most of the 'media' decided to abandon journalism and pour all their persuasive powers into winning a war, being globally waged over oil, and in this case also the water in the Middle East.
* The Dutch author worked globally for 40 years as an independent journalist/foreign correspondent for many international printed and A/V-media. From Scandinavia to Vietnam, as correspondent in Latin America, (Chile '71-'74), and 10 years in North/South Africa and the Middle East. While being accredited as N-Africa & M-East correspondent - based in Tunisia for ten years, sometimes reporting for the BBC too. Because of journalistic research declared "Persona non Grata" five times by different governments in East and West.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST !
FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
 forpressfound@netscape.net
Editor : Henk Ruyssenaars
The Netherlands
fpf@chello.nl
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed by the Foreign Press Foundation under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information".
 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
 Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A...
|
| aanvullingen | | | Hier is het weggehaalde artikel in de WP | Henk Ruyssenaars - 30.10.2003 18:38
The NL ambassador and the Wash-Post
by FPF/HR :
Betreffende artikel verdween uit het web korte tijd nadat ik eraan refereerde, maar hieronder dus wel de tekst :
22 Feb 2003 -- Modified: 11 Aug 2003
Since this WP - article which is referred to, seems to be difficult to get hold of, here's the full text :
washingtonpost.com
Forceful Tactics Catch Up With U.S.
Efforts to Build Support on Iraq Stymied by Two Years of International Resentment
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 16, 2003; Page A26
Months of painstaking efforts by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to win international consensus for military action against Iraq have been complicated by a growing resentment over what many foreign diplomats regard as the Bush administration's heavy-handed and bullying tactics over the past two years.
Those tensions boiled over at the Security Council on Friday to a degree rarely seen in the U.N. chamber. Although Iraq's cooperation with weapons inspectors was the official subject at hand, U.S. behavior became an important subtext of the debate as the audience broke U.N. rules and applauded French and Russian demands that the rush to war be slowed down.
Earlier in the week, when the United States tried to force NATO action to shield Turkey from an Iraqi attack, France and Germany rebelled, leading to a standoff that some regarded as one of NATO's gravest crises in a half-century. And although the United States finally succeeded in putting the issue of North Korea's nuclear weapons program before the Security Council, Russia, China and South Korea made clear that they strongly disagree with the administration's refusal to meet directly with the North Koreans.
Now, as the Bush administration readies a final push toward war -- and tries to win diplomatic support for its policy of isolating North Korea -- the diplomatic blowback is affecting relations with some of the United States' closest allies and complicating the administration's foreign policy goals. As U.S. officials try to forge an agreement at the United Nations or a "coalition of the willing" to confront Iraq, they must not only win converts to their policies, but also deftly manage the resentments that led to the current impasse.
"There have been really aggressive battles that have got people's backs up," said a diplomat from a country that publicly supports the U.S. position on Iraq. "The U.S. team often acts like thugs. People feel bullied, and that can affect the way you respond when someone makes a request."
Experts and diplomats said international backing for a strike on Iraq remains weak. Some smaller countries have signaled support not because they believe in attacking Iraq, but because they want loans, business deals and a chance to join Western institutions. Other allies are swallowing hard and joining the campaign in part because they fear the administration is willing to shred long-standing international institutions to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the administration has pursued an especially muscular foreign policy, but foreign officials say anger at the administration's style set in almost from the moment President Bush took office. The administration's rejection of the Kyoto treaty to stem global warming and Bush's abrupt dismissal of South Korea's "sunshine" policy toward North Korea set the impression that the administration was not interested in listening too closely to the concerns of its allies, diplomats said. The administration exacerbated tensions by refusing to join the International Criminal Court, withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and announcing a doctrine of fighting preventive wars that surprised and concerned allies.
"The administration seems to believe that if you push hard enough, everyone will give in," said a senior European diplomat. "This hardball presentation is part of the reason this Iraq thing has been hard to sell in a number of European countries. Many policymakers felt their concerns were not adequately taken into account. You're not going to be successful when you threaten and bully them into coming closer to your position."
U.S. officials have dismissed such complaints, saying they regularly consult with other nations. Officials note that Bush took the Iraq question to the United Nations last September, and since then the administration has strived to build support in the Security Council for aggressive inspections and possible military force. But, they say, that does not mean the United States should shy from a fight if it fails to achieve consensus.
"Because we are the most powerful, that places an obligation on us to listen and to use power with care and with understanding and with restraint," Powell said last week. "I think we are mindful of the views of others, considerate of the views of others, but we have principles we stand on, and we have things we believe in strongly and feel strongly about."
Powell acknowledged that the Iraq debate "has caused strains within NATO and within the United Nations." But, he said, "whatever strains exist now, I think they are strains that can be managed, and in due course, because there is such a need for these two strong powerful institutions that we'll get through these troubled times."
******Boudewijn van Eenennaam, the Dutch ambassador to the United States, said it was a significant concession for Bush to go to the United Nations in the first place. "We always said, 'Don't go it alone.' The president complied," van Eenennaam said, adding that State Department officials with a "nasty undertone" later contacted him to make sure the Dutch recognized Bush's gesture.
******Still, van Eenennaam said, he is concerned about a "monopoly of power without checks and balances. Self-assertiveness and an arrogance of power [among some U.S. officials], that is a troubling thing."........
Foreign officials -- and even some administration officials -- say they are concerned that the White House and other officials have responded to the diplomatic setbacks by putting even more pressure on U.S. allies to fall back in line. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, contrasting the reluctance of "Old Europe" with the instinctive pro-Americanism of "new Europe," seemed to suggest a significant shift in orientation by the United States, away from the traditional center of Europe and toward the nascent democracies in the East created by the breakup of the Soviet empire.
"There are people here who are trying to destroy institutions that have served us well since World War II -- and still have some utility -- and they have no obvious replacement but raw American power," complained a senior administration official.
Rumsfeld's comments drew a tart response Friday by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin at the Security Council, who remarked as he made the case for more inspections: "This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known war, occupation, barbarity."
U.S. officials note that although France and Germany have objected to an invasion of Iraq, 18 other countries in Europe have signed letters in support of the U.S. position. At NATO, 16 of the 19 members backed the U.S. request to defend Turkey. So, in the administration's view, it is France and Germany that are isolated, not the United States.
"Who is breaking up the alliance? Not the United States," Powell said. "The alliance is breaking itself up because it will not meet its responsibilities."
But Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser for President Jimmy Carter, said this attitude is shortsighted. "A united Europe is a more serious partner for the United States," he said. "To have a splintered Europe with by far the weakest part of Europe on our side, is that a bargain?"
Brzezinski said that even in countries that have pledged support, "in not a single one is public opinion in favor of a solitary war." He said "this enormous gap in outlook" is the result of conviction overseas that "disarmament is essentially a charade for removal of Saddam" Hussein.
Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign policy and defense studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said there is "a lot of room for criticism on how they've [the administration] sold their case," especially in not making enough effort to swing public opinion overseas. But she said many analysts were misinterpreting the roots of the dispute.
"All of this is about the European Union, and it has nothing to do with the United States," Pletka said. "France and Germany are desperately trying to define the EU, and the only thing they can define it as is anti-American."
Indeed, the criticism from overseas appeared to have strengthened support for the administration's policy at home.
"I am shocked and outraged at the behavior of France, Germany and Belgium," said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), when those countries blocked NATO aid to Turkey. Biden, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, continued: "I could easily give an emotional response, but I will not descend to the level of caricature and vitriolic insults that, unfortunately, one increasingly hears from Western European America-bashers."
*****************************************************************************
The Foreign Press Foundation has been sounding the alarm about the threat posed on a global scale to democracy, since most of the 'media' decided to abandon journalism and pour all their persuasive powers into winning a war, being globally waged over oil and the water in the Middle East.
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed by the Foreign Press Foundation under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information".
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
HR
**********************************************************************************
Website: http://tinyurl.com/mif6
| |
| aanvullingen | |
