So, while Iraq, with its comparative miniscule military resources was confronting the awesome, frightening fire power of the greatest military-industrial complex on earth, one of President George Bush's eloquent hawks was doing his own propaganda thing:

Richard Pearle, chairman of the defence policy board and member of the advisory panel to the Pentagon, was pouring his scorn on the United Nations in an opinion article in last Friday's 'Guardian' newspaper of London headlined: `Thank God for the death of the UN’.

Described by 'Time' magazine as the `Prince of Darkness’, when he originally surfaced as one of the `advisors’ to Bush, Pearle, said that the UN's "abject failure gave us only anarchy. The world needs order". He predicts that Saddam Hussein "will take the UN down with him..."

It is such damnable perspectives that would have contributed to President Bush's post-September 11, 2001 memorable display of arrogance when he warned the entire global community: "You are either with us, or against us".

Bush, of course, would have known that when it comes to combating terrorism, there was no need to lecture the international community, certainly not the Caribbean Community, given the responses to initiatives then already underway through the United Nations system.

In keeping with the Bush administration's unilateralist approach on international issues of importance to the world and contempt for the UN when it cannot have its way, it set about targetting both the UN Security Council and the wider, all representative General Assembly, from standing in its way - on Iraq.

Not unexpectedly, therefore, our own Caribbean region is very much on Washington's agenda to frustrate any post-Iraq initiative of international significance that could further result in its diplomatic embarrassment or humiliation.

New Strategy
Consequently, having failed to get Latin American nations like Chile and Mexico, or even more vulnerable ones in Africa, such as Angola and Cameroon, to buckle under pressure to win a desperately sought after majority vote in the 15-member United Nations Security Council on war on Iraq, Washington was quick to pursue another plan.

The new strategy is designed to prevent the convening of a special session of the UN General Assembly to address the implications of the war on Iraq for international peace and security and in particular for member nations of the Non-Aligned Movement that chose to call for such a meeting at the recent Non-Aligned Summit in Malaysia.

In the 191-member General Assembly, the sovereign states of the world, like those of the Caribbean Community, are free, as superpower USA itself, to exercise their right to freedom of speech and to vote as they think fit.

But the new 'empire’ and self-ordained `protector’ against regimes that must be changed by force of arms, is anxious to avoid a UN General Assembly special session on the war against Iraq that could result in a condemnatory vote against the USA.

UN Secretary General Kofi Anan has himself openly questioned the "legitimacy" of war against Iraq without the endorsement of the UN. Others, including former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who dramatically announced his resignation last week in the House of Commons, was quite explicit in denouncing both the illegality and immorality of the decision made in Washington for "regime change" in Baghdad.

The USA knows of our individual and even collective vulnerabilities as small states and poor mainland countries in the Caribbean. It is also smart enough to recognise that neither our small size or scarce resources have precluded the region in the past from successfully influencing allies in international and hemispheric organisations and agencies to adopt principled positions in defence of sovereignty and the right to self-determination.

I happen to know that even as diplomatic choreography in "damage control" was taking place in some regional capitals, indecent pressures were being exerted on at least three governments of CARICOM last week to oppose a special session of the General Assembly and/or publicly express some kind of support to justify America's war on Iraq.

It is understandable why some government spokesmen would wish to publicly state that they have not been "threatened". But we are dealing here with diplomatic language that even those skilled neither in the art of diplomacy nor governance politics should have difficulties in comprehending.

Paragraph two of the diplomatic note of March 18, 2003, a copy of which I obtained, and which some government spokesmen may well not have seen at the time of disclosure last week, states:

"We urge you to oppose such a session (of the UN General Assembly) and either to vote against or abstain if the matter is brought to a vote...."

Paragraph six then went on to state: "Given the current highly charged atmosphere, the United States would regard a General Assembly session on Iraq as unhelpful and as directed against the United States. Please know that this question as well as your position on it is important to the United States..."

The Reality
Significantly, this "note" to "advise" or "urge" (sic) sovereign Caribbean states against participation in the proposed General Assembly session - worse, to either vote against or abstain - since to do otherwise would be viewed in Washington as being "unhelpful" and "directed against the United States", was forwarded on the very day President Bush gave his 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to disappear with his family from Iraq or face war.

Well, war came, with all the seismic force that had been threatened by the current boss man of superpower USA.

Now, after what people around the world have been witnessing, there were those who wanted to know precisely the meaning of "superpower", or when might is right, Bush's America has demonstrably provided that answer in war on Iraq.

He would be quite happy to achieve "regime change" in Baghdad as well as having reduced the power and influence of the United Nations itself, much to the delight of his "advisors likes Richard Pearle.

At least, this may be their current thinking. The reality should prove differently, as time will tell, with Europe divided and the entire Islamic world calling for a 'jihad' or 'holy war' against America.

Especially if small and poor states in regions of the world like our own are willing to show that being small and poor will not preclude them from standing up with courage and dignity against the bullyism of the authors and enforcers of the new, dastardly doctrine of "regime change" by military force.