are quite shocking, and confirmed by veteran journalists on the
scene (notably R obert Fisk). But it’s the w rong story.
T he basic reason there’s hostility to international institutions
here is that they don’t alw ays do exactly w hat the U S orders them
to do. T he World Court is a perfect example. T he U S government
isn’t going to accept being condemned by it—as it w as in 1986, for
“unlaw ful use of force” against Nicaragua. T he Court ordered the
U S to desist and pay substantial reparations, and ruled explicitly that
no aid to the Contras could be considered “humanitarian.” We don’t
have to w aste time noting how the U S, the press and educated
opinion reacted to this.
T he International Labor Organization is another example. Not
only does it stand up for w orkers’ rights, but it condemned the U S
for violating international labor standards. So it’s dismissed, and the
U S refuses to pay the roughly $100 million ow ed to it.
T he U S has little use for the U N Development Program or the
Food and Agriculture Organization, since they’re mostly concerned
w ith developing countries. U NCTAD (the U N Conference on T rade
and Development) has, to some extent, advocated the interests of
developing countries and has been an expert critical voice opposing
certain Washington policies, so it’s been undermined and tamed as
w ell.
As soon as U NESCO called for opening up the w orld information
system, it w as out of luck. T he U S forced it to abandon its evil
w ays, and significantly modified its role.
T he attack on these organizations is all part of reconstructing the
w orld in the interests of the most pow erful and the most w ealthy.
T here’s lots w rong w ith the U N, but it’s still a somew hat
democratic institution. W hy tolerate that?
T he U S attitude w as expressed rather neatly by Madeleine
Albright in a remark w hich, as far as I know, w asn’t reported. She
w as trying to get the Security Council to accept one of our punitive
actions tow ard Iraq; none of the other countries w anted to go along
w ith it, since they recognized that it w as really just a part of U S
domestic politics. So she told them that the U S w ill act
“multilaterally w hen w e can and unilaterally as w e must.” So w ould
anyone else, if they had the pow er.
T he U S ow es the U N over $1 billion—more than any other country.