Thursday, February 27, 2003

It is fascinating to see the media circus here in the United States regarding the proposed invasion into Iraq. I only see the press, radio and web side of it, but I guess the TV coverage is at least as one-sided.

Day after day, the various so-called 'news' media will pump out stories about how strange France and Germany are, not to want this invasion to take place. These two countries are portrayed as weird and isolated. Their motives are questioned. The French are even called ungrateful, because they 'owe' it to the US to look the other way since the US rescued them during WWII! No mentioning that the US acted like WWII was none of their concern until the attack on Pearl Harbour took place... But, I digress.

Not once have I read or heard anybody in this 'news' media circus refute this nonesense. The fact of the matter is that during the discussion in the UN's Security Council, a pitiful minority of nations supported the invasion. Currently, the US does not have the required 9 out of 15 votes needed in the council. Not by a long shot. More importantly though, the discussions in the council have revealed that a vast majority of those that spoke there is against the invasion. The only place I could find any reference to this fundamental fact, was in the online version of The Washington Post. There, buried in a piece called US, Britain Push UN Resolution Despite Opposition you could find this snub recount of the real news: "Of the 27 envoys who spoke on Tuesday, only four supported the U.S. position -- Australia, Japan, South Korea and Peru."

The piece goes on to make the very dubious claim that "[a]mong the 36 delegates who spoke on Wednesday, Washington received varying degrees of support from about half, including Macedonia, Albania, Uzbekistan, Iceland, Serbia and Montenegro, Latvia, Nicaragua, South Korea, the Marshall Islands and Georgia". This is slanted journalism, at best. Take for example Iceland, and the speech made by that country's ambassador at this session. In it, the representative states that although Iraq must disarm in accordance with UN resolution 1441 and "firm pressure must be maintained", still "the inspectors should be given more time". The ambassador also states that "UNMOVIC and IAEA have our full support, and we commend the able leadership of Drs. Blix and El Baradei". Finally, the representative stated that the "use of force must always be the last resort for the Security Council" and only pursued if other measures have failed.

Now, in all fairness, which position does this appear to be closer to, the US - or the French? Would you describe this as a declaration of Iceland's "support for Washington" in this matter?