MOSCOW—tThe road to a genuinely
co-operative, democratic and peaceful new
world order was never supposed to be easy.
There is little doubt it will be long and
winding, with more than a few pitfalls and
tough contradictions along the way. How-
ever, late last month, under the magisterial
chairmanship of U.S. Secretary of State
James Baker, and with a wave of agreement
from .a weary-looking Eduard Shevard-
nadze, the Security Council veered off that
Toad altogether and headed, without com-
pass, into the dark and dangerous thickets of
war.

Security Council Resolution 678 is not a
Tetum to the lofty vision of the UN founders,
nor does it contain any provision for the joint
military command and collective respon-
sibility envisioned by them. Rather, it is a

‘Fred
Weir

FROM
MOSCOW

:

throwback to nastier days, in the early his-

tory of the organization, when one imperial

power basically dominated proceedings, ex-

eine legitimation for what it intended to
o,

Shevardnadze stoutly maintains that he
Voted not for war, but for a “peace pause.”
Resolution 678 has been passed, he says,
“specifically to avoid a military solution. It
will stabilize the situation to a certain extent
and will enable Iraq and others to take a
decision in a calmer atmosphere.

“Law presupposes obligatory protection
from encroachment on it. I voted for its
firmness. And this does not contradict my

_ beliefs as a convinced opponent of violence.
a my hand not for force, but against
it.

What the Security Council voted for
looks suspiciously like a blank cheque. Pre-
sumably, after Jan. 15, unspecified “states”
may use “all necessary means” against Iraq,
without further consultation with the
Security Council. So, just fill in the cost in
death and destruction: the UN has already
sanctioned it.

The verbiage surrounding this resolution
is not very thick, and there is no excuse for
not plainly seeing what it signifies. Of all
countries, it is only the United States which
— out of considerations relating to its
“world leadership” and economic worries
over the flow of oil — has an urgent, even
violent interest in ending the Kuwait affair
quickly and at any cost.

The U.S. has set the agenda from the

beginning, with a rapid build-up of forces in
the region, by now far exceeding anything
necessary to defend Saudi Arabia or enforce
the embargo. And it is the U.S. — no one
else — which will decide to “save” Kuwait
by carpet-bombing it after Jan. 15, if Sad-
dam Hussein hasn’t obliged by folding
before that.

Indeed, once things have been built up to
this artificial climax, could any other step be
conceivable?

History will record that only the repre-
sentatives of two tiny nations, Cuba and
Yemen, made dissenting statements. The
ambassador of Yemen offered an eloquent,
courageous and moving address to the
Security Council. He began by condemning
the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and noting that
Yemen has suffered perhaps more than any
other country for its adherence to the sanc-
tions.

Why, he went on to ask, after just four
months of the toughest, most airtight embar-
go inhistory, is there suddenly a push toward
a war whose consequences for the region
may be catastrophic?

Why, when great powers had always
counselled “patience,” “caution” and even
“constructive engagement” in the past,
when the object of sanctions was Rhodesia
or South Africa, is a mere four months now
considered long enough?

And why is the Security Council pre-
pared to give carte blanche for military ac-
tion against Iraq when it never would have
considered, much less granted, such licence
against other offenders, say South Africa or
Israel? It is, he said, “‘a classic case of auth-
ority without accountability.”

For having the gall to talk like this, for
raising the plain, self-evident questions
about the relationship between oil, power
and principle, little Yemen has been branded
“an Iraqi ally” by the world media. Heaven
forbid that the Soviet Union, France, the
United States, and all those who built Sad-
dam Hussein into what he is should have to
suffer that sort of abuse.

In other forums, Shevardnadze too has
spoken of the modest successes of collective
security. For instance, sanctions against
South Africa, as meagre as they were, played
an important role in helping to liberate
Namibia. Unfortunately, on Nov. 29, She-
vardnadze said nothing about any of that and
voted, effectively, to cut short community
pressure, to forego collective control and
responsibility, and to give one self-inter-
ested superpower a licence to kill.

Beyond the cynical verbal blandishments
of James Baker and George Bush, “new
world order” has no meaning whatsoever in
this context.

Many progressive people are going to
judge the USSR harshly for the way it voted
in the Security Council last month. This
includes a few who have been shouting

A

SEASON'S GREETINGS

to aur friende and supporters from

CANADA-USSR
FRIENDSHIP
SOCIETY

c/o 3751 Selkirk St., Vancouver, B.C. VGH 2Y3. 731-3048

“betrayal” in Moscow’s direction, whatever
the issue, for as long as memory cells record.
But there are also many who listened
with hope to the message of new thinking,
and had expected more in the way of moral
leadership from the Soviet Union.

There is no question that the USSR has
turned inward, and is deeply absorbed with
its own pressing problems. It really has very
little energy to project onto the global stage,
and almost no ability left to influence events
independently.

It should also be noted, in fairness, that
the Soviet Union has made extensive efforts
to use diplomatic channels. Even the Iraqi
UN ambassador, in his angry — and pro-
foundly hypocritical — speech before the
Security Council, noted that only the Soviet
Union and China had made any serious at-
tempt to engage Iraq in dialogue.

Nevertheless, if it is mere impotence that
lies behind the Soviet collapse of principle
in the Security Council, then surely a more
dignified route would have been to abstain
on Resolution 678, as China did.

Economic pressures upon Moscow have
also been mentioned as possible explana-
tions. Indeed, shortly after the vote, Presi-
dent Bush offered some hopeful noises
about possibly “waiving” the Jackson-Vanik
amendment, and finally normalizing U.S.-
Soviet trade. But that, after all, is a very
small move several years too late.

How is it that five years after perestroika
began, trade relations are still distorted and
inhibited by such typically cold war legisla-
tion anyway?

In fact, promises of U.S. assistance for
the troubled Soviet economy amount to little
more than hot air. Sure, Moscow is filled
with American advisers these days — some
official, some self- appointed — all eager to
teach the Soviets how to copy such winning
American institutions as private banks,
family farms and stock markets.

But genuine, solid assistance on the

EDUARD SHEVARDNADGZE ... ‘I voted
for firmness ... not for force but against
it.’

ground, whether technical, financial or
otherwise, is dramatically absent.

If there is any truth to the charge that the
Soviets were seduced by U.S. economic en-
ticements, then it looks like Washington
bought the Soviet vote for the diplomatic
equivalent of junk bonds.

Then there are rumours. It is suggested,
for instance, that the Soviet Union acquired
American assurances that Washington
would leave Cuba and Afghanistan alone in
return for a Soviet vote in favour of Resolu-
tion 678. It is also given out that Soviet
pressure is largely responsible for Bush’s
current peace overtures to Iraq. That is all
very well, but didn’t we have reason to
believe that “new thinking” meant secret
diplomacy and under-the-counter deals
were going into the dustbin?

Gorbachev’s vision of a new, co-opera-
tive, peaceful world order is still great, and
worth working for. The Soviet Union has
done much to bring it into being in recent
years, and undoubtedly will do much in
future.

Ironically, however, it is growing num-
bers of ordinary people in the United States
and other countries who are expressing
those principles most eloquently and effec-
tively today. Perhaps that is as it should be.
New thinking, by definition, carries no par-
ticular citizenship or official status.

Association of United
Ukrainian Canadians

Greets our members and friends.during
this festive season. A healthy, happy and
prosperous New Year to you all.

May 1991 see the people of the world
live in peace and friendship.

You are invited to our “Malanka” (Ukrainian New Year).

Saturday, January 19, 1991. Location: Ukrainian Cultural Centre,

805 East Pender St. Cocktails: 6 p.m. Dinner: 7 p.m.

Sumptuous 22 course traditional Ukrainian feast, two orchestras.
Admission: $25 each. Advance tickets: 253-3032, 879-2089 or 298-6191.

Pacific Tribune, December 17, 1990 15

ee