Western governments, analysts and pundits are currently displaying the usual pre-performance nerves we have seen so often before the onset of the ‘show’ in the ‘theatre’ of war. Advisers, analysts and markets are engaged in a daily temperature-taking of the situation: of the Bush administration’s propaganda victories and losses; of the true nature of Saddam’s arsenal; to the effects of the military build up on oil prices and equity markets – as the increasingly fragile Western capitalist system wonders whether its future is now dependent on the emergent US war economy, and the profits it may make from “regime change” in the Middle East; or conversely, whether such action would in fact precipitate widespread political and economic chaos.

With this propaganda war have come some momentous and deeply disturbing developments. In an attempt to justify the pursuit of “regime change” in Iraq, the Bush administration has unilaterally reversed decades of US foreign policy by announcing that from now on, the Americans are fully justified in pursuing pre-emptive strikes on states (or groups) they consider may pose a threat to US interests. The specific threat posed by Iraq has been touted by the publication of the UK government’s much vaunted intelligence “dossier” purporting to prove just how extensive Saddam’s military capacities really are, and intense negotiations are currently underway at the UN to get backing for Bush’s war aims in the event of Iraq failing to comply with the re-admission of weapons inspectors. UN capitulation is absolutely vital for Bush, since not only does it give any action in Iraq the veneer of legality, it could also act as a precedent in effectively legalising the policy of pre-emptive strikes itself. Yet, Iraq’s military capacity is itself the subject of debate: an alternative report circulated among UK Labour MPs for example, has stated that Saddam’s military capacity was all but annihilated by the Gulf War and subsequent inspections teams, and even the UK government dossier concedes Iraq is 5 years from producing nuclear weapons. Moreover, as many commentators have pointed out, even if Iraq does have an extensive military capability, this does not in itself prove any hostile intention – especially to the US, nor does it explain why Iraq should be attacked for having weapons of mass destruction (WMD), when countries such as Israel – or indeed the US - are not. Thus the case for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq has not been made, and if it accedes to the demands of the Bush administration, the UN will effectively concede a fundamental principle of international law. If the UN refuses to back military action as a “last resort” – which is possible, if unlikely - Bush will not have even the trappings of legitimacy to justify invasion. The threat of military action has already provoked widespread protests across the world; if undertaken unilaterally, such opposition, at home and abroad, is likely to increase massively.

This weekend, the US will attempt to kill off the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the multilateral body with responsibility for enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention. In what the activist George Monbiot, in this week’s UK Guardian describes as an international coup, the US this Sunday will finally seek to oust the director-general of the OPCW, a Brazilian called Jose Bustani, after a sustained campaign over the last few months to get Bustani to resign.

Bustani’s record at the OPCW, Monbiot points out, is exemplary. In the five years he has been in the post, two million chemical weapons and two thirds of the world’s chemical weapons facilities have been destroyed; and the number of state signatories to the Convention has risen from 87 to 145. So successful has Bustani been that last year he was unanimously re-elected to the job by member states, and even received a plaudit from Colin Powell over his “very impressive” work. Yet, since January 2002 he has faced charges from the US State Department of ‘financial mismanagement’, ‘demoralisation of his staff’ and, more tellingly, ‘bias’ and ‘ill considered initiatives’.

After failing in March to carry a vote of no confidence in Bustani, the US have finally taken the gloves off. In direct contravention of the Convention, they have called for a ‘special session’ of member states this weekend where they will try and get rid of him, by using familiar US tactics: threatening to withdraw funds unless other member states support them. Monbiot reports Bustani as saying that the Europeans are so scared the US will abandon the Convention they are likely to support US demands, which means the only effective resistance to the US move would come from the UK government. Given Blair’s increasingly sycophantic relationship with Bush, this seems implausible, which means the US are likely to get their way.

US dissatisfaction with Bustani is twofold. First, they are unhappy with the impartiality with which the OPCW examines facilities. Just like Iraq, the US has refused to accept inspectors from countries it considers hostile, and has controlled access to sites to those inspectors it has let in. Perhaps more significantly, it does not want Bustani to succeed in getting Saddam to sign up to the Convention - something Bustani believes is achievable with UN Security Council backing – because Bustani’s success would take away their only excuse for war on Iraq. In Monbiot’s words, “Bustani must go because he has proposed a solution to a problem the US does not want solved”.

As Jim Lobe and Tom Barry point out in a recent edition of Foreign Policy in Focus, the US are increasingly willing to abandon four decades of multilateralism in foreign policy in favour of a self interested ideology that is being driven by fundamentalist right wing think tanks like The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), who have extremely powerful allies within the administration such as Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, and his chief deputy, Paul Wolfowitz.. Such a fundamentalist vision is driven by several core beliefs that include: an almost messianic belief that the US and Israel are the same and face the same enemy; that the PLO is a terrorist organisation and need not be negotiated with; that the war against terror will not be completed until Saddam Hussien has been politically – and like members of Al Qeada probably literally – destroyed; and that diplomacy and moderation have no role in this new world vision.

It is bad enough that the US administration should exercise such double standards, hypocrisy and corruption when it comes to any form of multilateral agreement they do not wish to abide by. As Monbiot says, their attempt to oust Bustani and close down the OPCW means that no multilateral organisation is safe from US bullying. But what is even more worrying is that the US should use such lawless tactics to overtly and actively court the destabilisation of the Middle Eastern region in the name of a fundamentalist agenda. This abandonment of multilateralism means, not only that no organisation is safe from the long reach of US influence – wherever in the world they are based, but that such an agenda should be used to promote regional war, with its own potentially devastating global implications.

George Monbiot: A War Against the Peacemaker:

U.S. Middle East Policy: "Enough is Enough":
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0204pnac.html

As the US and the UK launch bombs on Afghanistan, the victims of terror will now extend far beyond New York City, to innocent people in Afghanistan and beyond. Even before the western bombs began to fall, in a report published last week the World Bank warned that the victims of the September 11 attacks in the US will extend to millions across the world, and in particular to Africa. The report says that the effects of those events alone will sharply hit economic growth in developing countries next year, condemning millions more people to live in poverty, and hampering the fight against childhood diseases, malnutrition and death.

In the words of World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn: "We estimate that tens of thousands more children will die worldwide and some 10 million more people are likely to be living below the poverty line of $1 a day because of the terrorist attacks. This is simply from loss of income. Many, many more people will be thrown into poverty if development strategies are disrupted."

While recent reports from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) sent mixed messages about the ability of African countries to weather the impending global recession as against its ability to make longer term gains against poverty, after recent events there is now little doubt that global trade will be severely damaged, with its inevitable knock on effects for developing economies. In particular, the World Bank report notes, countries especially dependent on commodities, like many in Africa, are likely to be particularly hard hit by the severity of a downturn in global trade. The Bank estimates that Africa will now see possible increases in poverty of 2-3 million people as a result of lower growth and incomes, and a further 2 million people may be condemned to living below $1 a day. About half the additional 20,000-40,000 children worldwide estimated to die because of the US attacks, are also likely to be in Africa.

It is only inevitable now that the numbers of these appalling statistics will be added to as a result of the US decision to begin a war in Afghanistan and perhaps beyond, with the resulting destabilisation of global politics, the increased suffering of Afghan refugees and war casualties, and the loss of perspective and focus for many civil society initiatives.

The events of September 11 and beyond have, however only exacerbated deep-seated trends. As UNCTAD point out, economic growth alone is simply not going to deliver the prosperity that Africa needs. More fundamentally, there needs to be a complete restructuring of global trading terms if the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) of the world are to escape the chronic poverty trap; a restructuring that Western countries have so far successfully resisted. Over the past 50 years, average tariffs in Western markets on manufactured goods have fallen from 40 percent to 4 percent. But for agricultural products – the backbone of the exports of LDCs – tariffs have remained at 40-50 percent. LDC’s were promised greater access to Western markets during the last round of trade talks in Seattle in 1999; but this has so far failed to materialise. As a result, the effects of the current global destabilisation and recession will hit the poor far harder than they will the rich.

The fourth World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference is scheduled to be held in Doha, Qatar, from 9-13 November. It is vital that this meeting goes ahead, and that it provides a venue for Western leaders to demonstrate that the political will exists to finally begin to organise global trade in a more equitable way. The LDCs, who met in Zanzibar in August, are demanding a 'New Deal' on trade, and greater access within the WTO itself in order to argue their case for fairer trading terms. As a result of the likely effects of world events on developing economies, even the World Bank has called for the trading round at the WTO this November to go ahead, and to be a “development round” motivated primarily by a desire to use trade as a tool for poverty reduction and development.

But it remains to be seen how Bush, Blair et al will respond to the impending disaster for millions in poverty across the globe. Before the West’s ‘counter offensive against terror’, it just seemed possible that the tragic events of September 11 could have been the wake-up call so desperately needed for a more equitable approach towards death by poverty, displacement and recession that afflict so many in developing countries. While it is still possible that the promises made at Genoa, and more recently by Blair for a “Marshall Plan” for Africa – and elsewhere – are honoured, the danger is that, as is usually the case, western leaders dig themselves deeper into the bunker than ever before, and in the name of ‘justice’, preside over a dangerous global destabilisation while continuing to block initiatives that would prevent further suffering and further victims of such destabilisation across the world.

Poverty To Rise in Wake Of Terrorist Attacks in US

Economic Development in Africa: Performances, Prospects and Policy Issues
http://www.unctad.org/en/pub/pogdsafricad1.en.htm
'Promises No Longer Enough' Say Countries Seeking Fair Trade
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/policy/papers/doha.html
Africa 'brushed aside' by WTO draft
http://www.attac.org/nonewround/doc/doc02.htm