Analysis

GMA Boards 'Coalition of the Coerced' 
Lawyers say Macapagal-Arroyo could be tried as a "war criminal"  

Airstrike in Baghdad

President Macapagal-Arroyo joins the U.S. president's "coalition of the willing" in the war against Iraq which has been described throughout the world as illegitimate, illegal and a war against humanity. In exchange for a pittance of sub-contracts and a possible expanded market for cheap labor in the post-war reconstruction of Iraq - assuming that Bush will win the war - the Philippine president faces the prospects of being tried as a "war criminal" along with Bush and fellow superhawks.

By Bobby Tuazon 
Bulatlat.com

When President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was asked Thursday night on the live TV "Debate" what benefit her government will get from supporting the U.S. war in Iraq, she faltered, groped for words and then, in characteristic irritation, said "post-war reconstruction." The implication was that, after the war to which her government has pledged unequivocal support, some Filipino companies including engineers, construction workers and other skilled workers, could be sent to help in the reconstruction of Iraq after it has been devastated and tens of thousands of its people killed. And that could mean dollar remittances for an economy that is nursed by overseas Filipino workers’ (OFWs) salaries.

In a speech at the Philippine Military Academy the following day, the president also took pride in saying that she had been informed by Pentagon ahead of the start of U.S. bombing of Iraq with missiles and bombs, suggesting that this was because the Philippines had become part of George W. Bush's "coalition of the willing."

The president practically aped the rhetoric of Bush, that the war is between “good and evil” and that the goal is to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein’s tyranny. In support of that goal, she also practically endorsed the U.S. war of aggression on Iraq, which has led to more than a million civilian deaths over the past 10 years. Most members of the Philippines Congress, which has the sole power to declare war, seemed to have noticed this.

While Macapagal-Arroyo was beating the war drums hundreds of anti-war activists were being dispersed and beaten up by police armed with M-16s and machineguns at the U.S. embassy in Manila. There were battle fumes and venom in her speeches while millions of people all over the world were taking to the streets to protest Bush's unilateral war against Iraq.

As a member of the "coalition of the willing," the Macapagal-Arroyo government says it has given political and moral support to the war. The truth, however, is beyond this: the president committed the country's air space for U.S. war flights and logistical support. Yet weeks earlier, top officials of her government were assuring the nation particularly war critics that whatever decision the president will make will be based on United Nations action. The UN has given no such mandate to wage war against Iraq, however.

Malacañang admitted that the National Security Council itself remained divided over what action to take, with Vice President Teofisto Guingona strongly opposed. And all over the Philippines, surveys have shown an overwhelming opposition to the war and any kind of participation by the country.

No matter, the president seemed to have thought, because Bush assured her the Philippines will have "the first crack at the development efforts," to quote her spokesman.

"Coalition of sub-contractors"

But what is this Bush's "coalition of the willing?" It is turning out to be nothing but a "coalition of the coerced" or, in the case of countries like the Philippines, a "coalition of sub-contractors." Or if you will, a “coalition of war criminals.”

Bush officials claim that 44 countries have signed up for the coalition and that at least 10 more have expressed support on condition they not be identified. We don't know for sure whether such expression of support by these governments also remains a secret to their own people. And why in the first hide such support if these governments believe they are right?

Late last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters: "The coalition against Iraq...is large and growing. This is not a unilateral action, as is being characterized in the media. Indeed, the coalition in this activity is larger than the coalition that existed during the Gulf War in 1991."

That, of course, is a complete farce.

Compared to the 1991 Gulf War where, it was claimed, some 100 nations sent military and logistical support to George Bush Sr.'s forces against Iraq, today's number of coalition members if true is a far cry - and definitely constitutes a minority in the international community's 200 or so member-states. Coalition member-countries represent only 10 percent of the global population.

Twenty-one of the 34 countries that sent troops or materials to the 1991 Gulf War - including France, Canada, Germany, Norway, Pakistan and Syria - either have refused to support the war this time or have asked not to be named because of strong anti-war sentiments among their people, aside from other reasons. France contributed 17,000 troops in 1991.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which strongly supported the 1991 Gulf War, remains split with Belgium which hosts the NATO headquarters refusing to give military support without UN sanction.

Kuwait, which hosts 150,000 U.S. troops now invading Iraq, is the only country in the Middle East that supports the war. The Arab League of Nations has warned that the aggression on Iraq would turn the Middle East into a cauldron of more wars and anti-Americanism.

Tiny coalition

In truth, Bush's "coalition of the willing" is mainly a coalition of only American and British forces, totaling nearly 300,000, with the United States contributing 85 percent of the troops (75 percent in the 1991 "Operation Desert Storm").

Despite the unprecedented strong resistance at home and with his political future at stake, Prime Minister Tony Blair committed British troops at least for two reasons. The Middle East is a prime market for British arms suppliers and a new regime in Iraq will open a new lucrative market for UK-made weapons of mass destruction. Aside from this expected bonanza, British petroleum firms will be joining as junior partners of U.S. oil companies or oil-related service firms such as Halliburton for a private takeover of the state-controlled Iraqi oil fields. Halliburton was where U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney sat as chairman.

Strong anti-war resistance at home has pressured Australian Prime Minister John Howard to send only 2,000 troops plus 14 Hornet fighter jets and transport ships.

The rest of the coalition members have reportedly committed only political or logistical support. Most of them joined the coalition only for the post-war reconstruction and "peacekeeping" efforts. Outside the United States and United Kingdom, the "coalition of the willing" is an eclectic mix of small nations who have boarded the war effort for a mix of reasons.

According to the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), most members of the coalition were herded by the Bush administration through "bullying, coercion and bribery." And this was especially true during the war preparations or when the Bush administration was tightening pressure on the United Nations Security Council to back its war plan, IPS said.

In relation to the smaller members of the coalition like the Philippines, new export quotas, free trade deals and some economic and military aid have been dangled by Bush in exchange for their support. Arm-twisting is also the rule as far as former Soviet allies are concerned: U.S. support for membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is contingent on their support for the war.

"It's hardly a new phenomenon for the U.S. to use bribes and threats to get its way in the UN," IPS said. "What's new this time around is the breathtaking scale of those pressures -- because this time around, global public opinion has weighed in, and every government leaning Washington's way faces massive opposition at home."

Costly vote

Back in 1990, Yemen voted "no" to the U.S. resolution that sought UN Security Council mandate to declare war against Iraq. "That," the head of the American delegation warned the Yemeni delegate minutes after the voting, "would be the most expensive vote you'd cast." Three days later, U.S. aid to this poor nation was cut. Years later, U.S. missiles struck Yemen.

In recent months of Security Council proceedings on Iraq, Turkey and other smaller states being goaded by the U.S. government to support its war became targets of American espionage. Part of the objective was to gauge their positions on the issue and to determine how and where U.S. power levers would be effectively used, IPS also noted. Their offices at the UN headquarters in New York were also reportedly bugged.

Regardless of claims about the potency of the "coalition of the willing," the fact remains that Macapagal-Arroyo's jumping over the war vessel of Bush brings with it the baggage of unpopularity, illegality and immorality. That the invasion constitutes an aggression and is therefore illegitimate has been said so by no less than UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Pope John Paul II, Nelson Mandela, many world leaders as well as Church leaders, Philippine legislators and many Filipinos.

Two days ago, the reputable Public Interest Law Center (PILC), stated that the U.S. war on Iraq and the support extended by Macapagal-Arroyo are a "naked display of power, flaunting all the principles and norms of international law which regulate the use of force, illustrating that the U.S. places itself above the law. There is absolutely no justification under international law for the U.S. invasion of Iraq."

PILC, which is headed by Romeo T. Capulong, UN Ad Litem Judge for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTFY) based in The Hague, said all governments which support the U.S. invasion including that of Macapagal-Arroyo, incur international accountability and are criminals under international law particularly Article 5 of the General Assembly Resolution 3314.

Foreseeing this possibility, and after receiving signals from Bush, Macapagal-Arroyo refused to endorse for ratification the International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty. ICC would have been the proper court where the president - along with Bush and fellow superhawks - could be chained and taken away to face trial as a war criminal. Bulatlat.com

We want to know what you think of this article.