[A-List] US Building a 'Coalition of the Coerced'?

["Ralph Johansen" <michele@xxxxxxxx>]

Inter Press Service
February 27, 2003

US Building a 'Coalition of the Coerced'?

by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - While U.S. President George W. Bush insists that many
countries are eager to join what he calls a ''coalition of the
willing'', a more apt name may be ''coalition of the coerced'',
according to a report released Wednesday by the Institute for Policy
Studies, a progressive Washington think tank.

While some European leaders appear genuinely committed to
Washington's drive to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein despite
massive public opposition, most of the 34 governments that Bush may
be counting as coalition members appear less than enthusiastic at
best, says the report.

''Almost all, by our count, join only through coercion, bullying,
bribery, or the implied threat of U.S. action that would directly
damage the interests of the country,'' adds the 13-page report.
''This 'coalition of the coerced' stands in direct conflict with
democracy.''

In most nations, including those most closely allied to the United
States, over 70 percent of the public opposes U.S. military action
against Iraq, according to the report, 'Coalition of the Willing or
Coalition of the Coerced: How the Bush Administration Influences
Allies in its War on Iraq'.

The degree to which other countries and the United Nations are
perceived as supporting U.S. policy toward Iraq is considered crucial
to the administration's efforts to rally support at home. A solid
majority of U.S. public opinion has consistently told pollsters over
the past year that while they support military action against
Baghdad, they do so on the condition that Washington has
international support.

Earlier this week a TIME/CNN poll found that 57 percent of the public
said the final decision on invading Iraq should be in the hands of
the U.N. Security Council, not up to Bush.

The administration also hopes for U.N. authorization to enhance its
chances of getting other nations to help cover the huge financial and
peacekeeping costs resulting from a U.S. invasion and occupation.

That is one reason why the United States, Britain and Spain - all
Security Council members that support war - submitted a draft
resolution earlier this week that declares that Iraq has missed its
''final opportunity'' to disarm peacefully, remains in ''material
breach'' of its obligations to the Council, and thus faces ''serious
consequences'', which implies an authorization for military force.

To take effect, any draft resolution must be approved by at least
nine members of the 15-member Council. At the same time, it cannot be
vetoed by any of the permanent members - Britain, China, France,
Russia, and the United States.

Most analysts believe that Washington currently has four supporting
votes, the three co-sponsors plus Bulgaria, while France, Germany,
Russia, China and Syria will either abstain or vote no.

As a result, U.S. pressure - in the form of both carrots and sticks -
is now being brought to bear on the six undecided countries: Mexico
and Chile from Latin America; Angola, Cameroon and Guinea from
Africa; and Pakistan, the lone Islamic country.

While U.S. officials insist publicly that they are not bargaining
over members' votes, this has evoked widespread skepticism - not to
say derision - even from the generally credulous White House press
corps, which broke out in laughter Tuesday after White House
spokesman Ari Fleischer rejected a question that suggested that ''the
leaders of other nations are buyable''.

Indeed, portents indicate that the six undecided members have a great
deal to gain if they throw in with Washington. Turkey, where public
opinion is running 95 percent against co-operating with Washington,
has been offered some 15 billion dollars in immediate aid and loan
guarantees in exchange for providing a northern launching pad for the
invasion, while Israel, Egypt, and Jordan are expected to ask and get
billions more of their own.

But the report points out that dollars and guarantees are not the
only way that Washington can exercise leverage over undecided members
of the Security Council or the broader ''coalition'' it is counting
on for support.

On the military side, it said, the Washington maintains an effective
veto over nations wishing to join the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), a major aspiration of most of Eastern and
Central Europe, which helps explain why Bulgaria has lined itself up
behind the United States so early in the game.

Washington also provides military aid or other forms of military
support or subsidized military sales to well over 150 countries
worldwide. Although French aid programs to Cameroon and Guinea are
substantially greater than what Washington offers, the United States
has recently offered a substantial military training program to
Conakry - which assumes the presidency of the Security Council in
March - to help it fight a Liberia-backed insurgency.

Pakistan has been counting on buying substantial amounts of
subsidized U.S. military equipment since Washington lifted its
10-year ban on weapons sales to Islamabad after the Sep. 11, 2001
terrorist attacks.

On the economic front, U.S. bilateral aid is rarely as significant as
Washington's status as the world's largest economy and export market
and as its influence in major international financial institutions,
including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

U.S. trade officials have substantial discretion in deciding which
countries receive trade benefits under the Africa Growth and
Opportunity Act (AGOA) for example, which requires as one of its
conditions for eligibility that a recipient country does ''not engage
in activities that undermine United States national security
interests''.

The United States represents a huge market for Mexico, Pakistan, and
Chile, in particular, and reports of pressure by Mexican businessmen
on President Vicente Fox to back Bush have already surfaced.

Similarly, the administration enjoys wide latitude in deciding what
countries it should buy oil from in stocking its strategic reserves.
As oil exporters, Cameroon, Angola, and Mexico all stand to benefit.

Given the U.S. Treasury's influence on the World Bank and the IMF,
U.S. officials are particularly confident about bringing the three
African countries around, despite the tight historic relations that
exist between France and francophone Africa, of which Cameroon and
Guinea are a part. U.S. opposition can delay, if not defeat, loans on
which both countries depend. And the government of Angolan President
Eduardo dos Santos, which is in a major fight with the IMF management
over corruption, could gain some protection from a sympathetic
Washington.

The administration is taking few chances, engaging in both direct and
indirect diplomacy. It sent Assistant Secretary of State for Africa
Walter Kansteiner to all three African states just last week, while
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been working the phones.

It has also asked for lobbying help from other allies, including
Japan - which has a large aid program in Africa - and Portugal's
Prime Minister Jose Durao Barroso, a friend of dos Santos.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]