World
Wayne Madsen
April 26, 2014
© Photo: Public domain

The March 27 passage by the UN General Assembly of Resolution 68/262, which resolved that the United Nations does not recognize any alteration in the status of the former Ukrainian autonomous republic of Crimea and the city of Sebastopol, was passed with 100 countries voting in favor. Although the vote appears, at first glance, to be lopsided in favor of the United States and other Western nations that sponsored the resolution, the 100 yes votes do not represent an absolute majority of UN members. In fact, although 11 nations voted against the resolution, 58 nations abstained while the remaining member states were absent from the vote.

In many ways, the neo-conservatives who lauded the vote pulled a page from the record book of UN General Assembly votes during the Cold War. In those days, American militarists often condemned the United Nations General Assembly for passing lopsided votes against U.S. and other Western imperialist actions by overwhelming majorities consisting of non-aligned nations supported by the socialist camp. Often, the United States found its positions only supported by a handful of NATO and other allies, mostly a collection of right-wing dictatorships installed by the CIA. The American militarists thundered on about the United States leaving the United Nations in response to successive votes against Washington’s interests. Some American militarists spitefully suggested that the United States should expel the United Nations headquarters from New York.

Cold War critics of the United Nations complained loudly that the UN was made up of Third World dictatorships and Soviet satellite nations. Two of the examples cited by the forerunners of today’s neo-conservatives were the Ukrainian and Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republics, both constituent republics of the Soviet Union but full members of the UN. UN critics complained that the USSR was always assured of three votes in the General Assembly on any issue, its own and those of the two “SSRs.”

Today, it is the United States that commands some 100 votes in the General Assembly, including three votes from so-called independent states in “free association” with the United States. These are the Pacific island states of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau, former trusteeship territories previously under Japanese control that were awarded to the United States after World War II. Today, these three countries rarely deviate from their voting instructions issued by the U.S. State Department through the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, a building that dominates the block across the street from UN headquarters.

With four votes in its hip pocket, the United States, during the last two decades since the fall of the Soviet bloc and the influence of the non-aligned nations, has been able to cobble together a voting bloc of around 100 to 120 votes, just shy of the 130 two-thirds majority needed for passage of a “Uniting for Peace” resolution, a contrivance of the United States during the Korean War to bypass a Soviet veto in the UN Security Council. Today, the United States sees such Uniting for Peace resolutions as possible ways to bypass Russian and Chinese vetoes in the Security Council in order to provide UN authorization for U.S. and NATO troop deployments around the world…

UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262 was sponsored by nations that respond to every dog whistle from Washington: Canada under the corporate- and Zionist-controlled government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper; the outgoing corrupt Costa Rican government of President Laura Chinchilla, who is married to a Canadian national; Germany, which is known to be a Third Party to the U.S. National Security Agency’s FIVE EYES alliance; Lithuania, which had a U.S. citizen, Valdas Adamkus, twice serve as its president; Poland, the Foreign Minister of which, Radek Sikorski, is married to former Washington Post editor and leading neo-conservative polemicist Anne Applebaum; and Ukraine, the UN seat of which is occupied by representatives of a coup d’etat junta in Kiev that seized power from a democratically-elected government.

If one looks at the United States, its three controlled votes, and the six nations that sponsored the Ukraine resolution, one finds a collection of nations that are either virtual colonies of the United States or ruled by a collection of ideological servants to the cause of neo-conservatism and vulture capitalism.

The remaining 90 nations that gave Washington its “magic 100” in the General Assembly are similar to the core ten. Eight are micro-nations whose combined populations do not equal a couple of neighborhoods of Moscow: Andorra, Kiribati, Liechtenstein, Maldives, Malta, Monaco, Samoa, and San Marino. Others are tourist destinations that are totally beholden to wealthy Westerners to pump in much-needed tourist dollars: Bahamas, Barbados, Bhutan, and Seychelles.

Among the “U.S. 100” are nations where George Soros-financed CIA front organizations and media outlets have convinced the voters that Russia represents some sort of Soviet-like “threat.” These nations have been manipulated into joining NATO and the European Union. They include Albania, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro (which has become a virtual playground for the Rothschild banking family), Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Throw in the NATO countries; other U.S. military allies like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Thailand; nations still suffering from the legacy of U.S. colonialism: Liberia, Philippines, Haiti, Honduras, Colombia, Dominican Republic, and Panama; as well as non-aligned countries now under the boot heels of the U.S. military: Bahrain, Benin, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Kuwait, Madagascar, Malawi, Niger, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Togo and a few neutral nations beholden to the dictates of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and you reach the magic 100.

Arrayed against this American voting bloc are the nations that voted against 68/262, a resolution spun out of whole neo-con cloth in the sewing room of U.S. ambassador to the UN Samantha Power. Those countries opposed to the resolution for the neo-con contrivance that it is included the Russian Federation, Armenia, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. All are facing varying degrees of neo-con overt or covert subterfuge. At the same time these “independent ten” stood against 68/262, it was discovered that Cuba was subjected to a U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)-financed fake Twitter (Zun Zuneo) operation and that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was falsely accused by the corporate media of ordering all men in North Korea to sport his style of haircut. Of course, the corporate media was continuing its non-stop propaganda barrage against the leaders of Venezuela, Syria, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. In addition, the Soros/USAID propaganda machine claimed that Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan won re-election in February of this year as a result of fraud, the same machination that was used to undermine Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

But ignored by those who were jubilant over 68/262’s passage were the 82 members of the UN who abstained or were absent from the vote. These include many of America’s supposed “friends” who have grown wary of the “new world order” imposed by the neo-cons. In addition to the most surprising absentee, Israel, always a sure vote for the U.S. and vice versa, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Pakistan, Oman, Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Lebanon, Belize, Paraguay, Uruguay, South Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia, Brazil, and Botswana either abstained or were absent.

Although the United States and the neo-con dominated governments around the world may believe they have a workable majority in the UN General Assembly, the numbers do not lie. From the “no” votes and abstentions and not voting blocs, a new majority, able to re-establish independent control over an increasingly corporate-dominated United Nations not only seems plausible but likely within the near future.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.
Washington’s “Magic Majority” of 100

The March 27 passage by the UN General Assembly of Resolution 68/262, which resolved that the United Nations does not recognize any alteration in the status of the former Ukrainian autonomous republic of Crimea and the city of Sebastopol, was passed with 100 countries voting in favor. Although the vote appears, at first glance, to be lopsided in favor of the United States and other Western nations that sponsored the resolution, the 100 yes votes do not represent an absolute majority of UN members. In fact, although 11 nations voted against the resolution, 58 nations abstained while the remaining member states were absent from the vote.

In many ways, the neo-conservatives who lauded the vote pulled a page from the record book of UN General Assembly votes during the Cold War. In those days, American militarists often condemned the United Nations General Assembly for passing lopsided votes against U.S. and other Western imperialist actions by overwhelming majorities consisting of non-aligned nations supported by the socialist camp. Often, the United States found its positions only supported by a handful of NATO and other allies, mostly a collection of right-wing dictatorships installed by the CIA. The American militarists thundered on about the United States leaving the United Nations in response to successive votes against Washington’s interests. Some American militarists spitefully suggested that the United States should expel the United Nations headquarters from New York.

Cold War critics of the United Nations complained loudly that the UN was made up of Third World dictatorships and Soviet satellite nations. Two of the examples cited by the forerunners of today’s neo-conservatives were the Ukrainian and Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republics, both constituent republics of the Soviet Union but full members of the UN. UN critics complained that the USSR was always assured of three votes in the General Assembly on any issue, its own and those of the two “SSRs.”

Today, it is the United States that commands some 100 votes in the General Assembly, including three votes from so-called independent states in “free association” with the United States. These are the Pacific island states of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau, former trusteeship territories previously under Japanese control that were awarded to the United States after World War II. Today, these three countries rarely deviate from their voting instructions issued by the U.S. State Department through the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, a building that dominates the block across the street from UN headquarters.

With four votes in its hip pocket, the United States, during the last two decades since the fall of the Soviet bloc and the influence of the non-aligned nations, has been able to cobble together a voting bloc of around 100 to 120 votes, just shy of the 130 two-thirds majority needed for passage of a “Uniting for Peace” resolution, a contrivance of the United States during the Korean War to bypass a Soviet veto in the UN Security Council. Today, the United States sees such Uniting for Peace resolutions as possible ways to bypass Russian and Chinese vetoes in the Security Council in order to provide UN authorization for U.S. and NATO troop deployments around the world…

UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262 was sponsored by nations that respond to every dog whistle from Washington: Canada under the corporate- and Zionist-controlled government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper; the outgoing corrupt Costa Rican government of President Laura Chinchilla, who is married to a Canadian national; Germany, which is known to be a Third Party to the U.S. National Security Agency’s FIVE EYES alliance; Lithuania, which had a U.S. citizen, Valdas Adamkus, twice serve as its president; Poland, the Foreign Minister of which, Radek Sikorski, is married to former Washington Post editor and leading neo-conservative polemicist Anne Applebaum; and Ukraine, the UN seat of which is occupied by representatives of a coup d’etat junta in Kiev that seized power from a democratically-elected government.

If one looks at the United States, its three controlled votes, and the six nations that sponsored the Ukraine resolution, one finds a collection of nations that are either virtual colonies of the United States or ruled by a collection of ideological servants to the cause of neo-conservatism and vulture capitalism.

The remaining 90 nations that gave Washington its “magic 100” in the General Assembly are similar to the core ten. Eight are micro-nations whose combined populations do not equal a couple of neighborhoods of Moscow: Andorra, Kiribati, Liechtenstein, Maldives, Malta, Monaco, Samoa, and San Marino. Others are tourist destinations that are totally beholden to wealthy Westerners to pump in much-needed tourist dollars: Bahamas, Barbados, Bhutan, and Seychelles.

Among the “U.S. 100” are nations where George Soros-financed CIA front organizations and media outlets have convinced the voters that Russia represents some sort of Soviet-like “threat.” These nations have been manipulated into joining NATO and the European Union. They include Albania, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro (which has become a virtual playground for the Rothschild banking family), Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Throw in the NATO countries; other U.S. military allies like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Thailand; nations still suffering from the legacy of U.S. colonialism: Liberia, Philippines, Haiti, Honduras, Colombia, Dominican Republic, and Panama; as well as non-aligned countries now under the boot heels of the U.S. military: Bahrain, Benin, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Kuwait, Madagascar, Malawi, Niger, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Togo and a few neutral nations beholden to the dictates of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and you reach the magic 100.

Arrayed against this American voting bloc are the nations that voted against 68/262, a resolution spun out of whole neo-con cloth in the sewing room of U.S. ambassador to the UN Samantha Power. Those countries opposed to the resolution for the neo-con contrivance that it is included the Russian Federation, Armenia, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. All are facing varying degrees of neo-con overt or covert subterfuge. At the same time these “independent ten” stood against 68/262, it was discovered that Cuba was subjected to a U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)-financed fake Twitter (Zun Zuneo) operation and that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was falsely accused by the corporate media of ordering all men in North Korea to sport his style of haircut. Of course, the corporate media was continuing its non-stop propaganda barrage against the leaders of Venezuela, Syria, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. In addition, the Soros/USAID propaganda machine claimed that Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan won re-election in February of this year as a result of fraud, the same machination that was used to undermine Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

But ignored by those who were jubilant over 68/262’s passage were the 82 members of the UN who abstained or were absent from the vote. These include many of America’s supposed “friends” who have grown wary of the “new world order” imposed by the neo-cons. In addition to the most surprising absentee, Israel, always a sure vote for the U.S. and vice versa, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Pakistan, Oman, Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Lebanon, Belize, Paraguay, Uruguay, South Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia, Brazil, and Botswana either abstained or were absent.

Although the United States and the neo-con dominated governments around the world may believe they have a workable majority in the UN General Assembly, the numbers do not lie. From the “no” votes and abstentions and not voting blocs, a new majority, able to re-establish independent control over an increasingly corporate-dominated United Nations not only seems plausible but likely within the near future.