Month: January 2003

Addressing Iraqi Repression and the Need for a Change of Regime

Posted on

As the administration’s rationales for invading Iraq–such as Baghdad’s alleged ties to al Qaeda and claims of an imminent nuclear threat–have crumbled under closer scrutiny, the administration and its allies in Congress and the media are increasingly emphasizing a point that cannot be disputed: the repressive nature of the Iraqi regime.

While the threat from Iraq has been greatly exaggerated, the nature of the Iraqi regime has not. President Ronald Reagan’s claim that Sandinista Nicaragua was a “totalitarian dungeon” was hyperbole in the extreme, but it is not an inaccurate description of Baathist Iraq.

Comparisons put forward by proponents of a U.S. invasion of Iraq between Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler are misleading for several reasons: Germany was the most advanced industrialized country in the world during Hitler’s reign and was part of an axis of other major military powers. Iraq, by contrast, is an internationally isolated Third World country whose military and civilian infrastructure was severely damaged in a devastating six-week U.S.-led bombing campaign in 1991 and has been under the toughest international sanctions in world history ever since. Unlike Nazi Germany, the ability of Iraq to do much damage beyond its borders in the foreseeable future is extremely limited.

At the same time, Iraq under Saddam Hussein is arguably the closest approximation in the world today of a genuine fascist state. The level of repression, militarization, cult of personality, forced mass political mobilizations, and ethnic chauvinism are all hallmarks of a fascist system.

The level of brutality of the Iraqi regime has declined markedly since the 1980s, not due to any lessened ruthlessness of the regime, but because the ability of the government to oppress opponents–particularly those in Kurdish regions–has been significantly reduced. In addition to impact of war damage, sanctions, and inspections on lessening the machinery of repression, the internationally backed autonomy for the Kurdish regions has also limited Saddam’s bloody reach. It is noteworthy, however, that at the height of Iraq’s repression during the 1980s, the United States not only refused to call for Saddam Hussein’s overthrow but provided the regime with military and economic assistance that supported the repression. Furthermore, when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to massacre thousands of Kurdish civilians in Halabja and elsewhere during this period, the U.S. government tried to cover it up by falsely claiming that it was the Iranians–then the preferred enemy–who were responsible. Therefore, Bush administration claims that a U.S. invasion of Iraq is necessary because Saddam Hussein “gassed his own people” cannot be taken seriously.

In addition, the United States has no credibility as a proponent of democracy in the Middle East. For decades, both Democratic and Republican administrations have supported authoritarian regimes throughout the region. Yet despite the U.S. role as the primary backer of the Mubarak government in Egypt, Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank, Moroccan occupation forces in Western Sahara, the family dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, the medieval sultanate of Oman, the military regime of Pakistan, and the crypto-communist rulers of Uzbekistan, the Bush administration self-righteously claims that it has the right to invade a sovereign nation and overthrow its government because the Iraqi people, in President Bush’s words, “have the right to choose their own leadership,” the very right the U.S. government has helped deny to hundreds of millions of others in the region.

Furthermore, the leading candidates the Bush administration has put forward as possible replacements for Saddam Hussein in a U.S.-installed Iraqi government are former generals of the dictator who have been implicated in war crimes during the 1980s.

Saddam Hussein’s government does not hold the record of modern dictatorships in terms of massacres of civilians. That dubious honor belongs to the Khmer Rouge regime that ruled Cambodia in the late 1970s, which was responsible for up to two million deaths. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in early 1979 and overthrew that genocidal regime, the United States denounced the Vietnamese as aggressors and successfully led international efforts to impose sanctions on Vietnam. For more than a decade, both Democratic and Republican administrations insisted that the Khmer Rouge thugs, whose control had been reduced to remote jungle hideouts near the Thai border, were the sole legitimate rulers of Cambodia and blocked the recognition of the Vietnamese-installed government. The reason, according to U.S. officials, was that no matter how repressive a regime may be, it does not give another country the right to invade that country, topple its government, and install one of its own choosing. Clearly, the U.S. government does not believe such rules apply when it is the one doing the invading and regime changing.

Another government whose body count far surpasses that of Saddam’s Iraq was that of the Suharto regime in Indonesia, responsible for at least a half million deaths of suspected leftists in the aftermath of the general’s seizure of power in a 1965 coup and of another 200,000 East Timorese following his invasion of that island nation in 1975. Suharto’s primary military and economic backer during his 34-year reign of terror was the United States. At the height of the repression in the mid-1960s, the New York Times referred to Indonesia as “the bright spot in Asia” while, as late as the mid-1990s when the scale of atrocities in Indonesian-occupied East Timor became widely known, a top Clinton administration official referred to Suharto as “our kind of guy.”

In short, until the United States ceases its current military, economic, and diplomatic support for repressive regimes and formally apologizes for its support of such regimes in the past, it has no right to unilaterally launch a devastating war in the name of liberating a people from repressive rule.

So-called “humanitarian intervention”–where outside military force is utilized to end particularly egregious cases of repression by ousting repressive regime–may, under certain extreme circumstances, be justifiable. Such interventions, however, will have little credibility unless they are done through the United Nations or some other legally sanctioned international mechanism. If it is instead led by a government like the United States, with its record of supporting repressive regimes around the world and growing dependence on imported natural resources located within the country in question, it will be seen–rightly or wrongly–not as an act of humanitarianism but an act of imperialism.

Still, Saddam Hussein’s regime–like all such repressive regimes–must not remain in power. The growth of democratic rule that has swept Eastern Europe, Latin America, and parts of Asia and Africa over the past two decades must come to include Iraq as well.

How has the downfall of scores of such autocratic regimes in the past twenty years been accomplished? In no case was it done through foreign invasion. In only a handful of cases was it done through internal armed revolution. In the vast major of cases, dictatorships were toppled through massive nonviolent action, “people power” movements that faced down the tanks and guns and swept these regimes aside. Some succeeded in a dramatic contestation of public space that toppled dictators in a matter of days or weeks, such as those that brought down the Communist regimes in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, overthrew Southeast Asian strongmen like Marcos and Suharto, and ousted military juntas from Bangladesh to Bolivia. Other pro-democracy movements engaged in more protracted struggles that eventually forced dramatic democratic reforms in such countries as Poland, South Korea, South Africa, Kenya, Brazil, and Chile. In the fall of 2000, nonviolent action by the people of Serbia did in a matter of days what eleven weeks of NATO bombing a year and half earlier could not: oust the regime of Slobodan Milosevic.

Why hasn’t this been successful in the case of Iraq? Most of these successful nonviolent pro-democracy movements have been centered in the urban middle class. In Iraq, however, thanks to the devastation to the country’s civilian infrastructure during the U.S. bombing campaign twelve years ago and the resulting sanctions, the once-burgeoning middle class has been reduced to penury or forced to emigrate. It has been replaced by a new class of black marketeers who have a stake in preserving the status quo. Furthermore, with sanctions forcing the Iraqi people to become dependent on the regime for rations of badly needed food, medicine, and other necessities, people are even less likely to take the already extraordinary risks of challenging it.

Many Iraqis believe that if United States had pursued a more rational policy over the past two decades, regime change would have taken place years ago as a result of initiatives of the Iraqi people themselves. The sanctions have not only had serious humanitarian consequences–resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children from malnutrition and preventable diseases–but have actually strengthened Saddam Hussein’s grip on power.

The key to regime change without the horrific consequences of war, then, rests in the United States allowing the United Nations to lift the economic sanctions that primarily impact ordinary Iraqis while maintaining military sanctions and strict monitoring of dual-use technologies that strengthen the hand of the regime.

The bottom line is this: While the repressive nature of the Iraqi government is all too real, it must not be used to justify increasing the suffering of the Iraqi people through war.

http://www.fpif.org/articles/addressing_iraqi_repression_and_the_need_for_a_change_of_regime

An Annotated Overview of the Foreign Policy Segments of President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address

Posted on

“This threat is new; America’s duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility.”

The attempt to put Baathist Iraq on par with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia is ludicrous. Hitler’s Germany was the most powerful industrialized nation in the world when it began its conquests in the late 1930s and Soviet Russia at its height had the world’s largest armed forces and enough nuclear weapons to destroy humankind. Iraq, by contrast, is a poor Third World country that has been under the strictest military and economic embargo in world history for more than a dozen years after having much of its civilian and military infrastructure destroyed in the heaviest bombing in world history. Virtually all that remained of its offensive military capability was subsequently dismantled under the strictest unilateral disarmament initiative ever, an inspection and verification process that has been resumed under an even more rigorous mandate. By contrast, back in the 1980s, when Iraq really was a major regional power and had advanced programs in weapons of mass destruction, the United States did not consider Iraq a threat at all; in fact, the U.S. provided extensive military, economic and technological support to Saddam Hussein’s regime.

“America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm.”

There is nothing in the UN Charter about the unilateral disarmament of a member state. By contrast, articles 41 and 42 of the Charter ( reiterated in the final article of UN Security Council 1441 ) make clear that the UN Security Council alone has the authority to authorize the use of force to enforce its resolutions. It should also be noted that there are over ninety UN Security Council resolutions currently being violated by governments other than Iraq, most of them by such U.S. allies as Morocco, Israel and Turkey. The United States has blocked the United Nations from enforcing these resolutions, however.

“We’re strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world.”

The IAEA has received very little support from the Bush Administration. For example, the U.S. has blocked the United Nations from enforcing UN Security Council resolution 487, which calls on Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the IAEA. In addition, administration spokespeople have repeatedly belittled the organization and its effectiveness.

” We’re working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction.”

The Bush Administration has actually blocked efforts to strengthen international treaties preventing the spread of biological and chemical weapons and successfully instigated and led an effort to remove the highly-effective director of an international program overseeing the destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles around the world. In addition, the Bush Administration has cut funding for programs to remove nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union and rejected a proposed treaty by Russia that would have destroyed thousands of nuclear weapons, insisting that they instead simply be put into storage. Finally, the Bush Administration has rejected calls for a nuclear-free zone for all the Middle East.

“We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny — and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom.”

It was the United States, through its Central Intelligence Agency, that overthrew Iran’s last democratic government, ousting Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. As his replacement, the U.S. brought in from exile the tyrannical Shah, who embarked upon a 26-year reign of terror. The United States armed and trained his brutal secret police ( known as the SAVAK ) which jailed, tortured and murdered tens of thousands of Iranians struggling for their freedom. The Islamic revolution was a direct consequence of this U.S.-backed repression since the Shah successfully destroyed much of the democratic opposition. In addition, the repressive theocratic rulers that gained power following the Islamic Revolution that ousted the Shah were clandestinely given military support by the U.S. government during the height of their repression during the 1980s. As a result, there is serious question regarding the United States’ support for the freedom of the Iranian people.

“Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated framework to keep North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know that that regime was deceiving the world, and developing those weapons all along. And today the North Korean regime is using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek concessions. America and the world will not be blackmailed.”

Indications are that North Korea kept its commitment during the 1990s but ceased its cooperation only recently. It is widely believed that North Korea decided to renege on its agreement as a direct result of last year’s State of the Union address, when President Bush declared North Korea to be part of an “axis of evil” along with Iraq and Iran. Seeing the United States prepare to invade Iraq and increase its bellicose rhetoric against Iran and themselves, the North Koreans apparently decided that they needed to create a credible deterrent in case they were next. They have offered to end their nuclear program in return for a guarantee that the United States will not invade them.

“America is working with the countries of the region — South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia — to find a peaceful solution, and to show the North Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation, and continued hardship. The North Korean regime will find respect in the world and revival for its people only when it turns away from its nuclear ambitions.”

Actually, the United States has been at odds with North Korea’s neighbors, taking a far more hard-line position toward the communist regime than those who have far greater grounds for concern about any potential threat. Perhaps more significantly, given that the United States has good relations with other countries that have developed nuclear weapons in recent years ( such as India, Pakistan and Israel ) and has demonstrated hostility toward North Korea well prior to the start of its nuclear program, the North Koreans may have reason to doubt that curbing their nuclear ambitions will make much of a difference.

“Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States.”

There was a very real threat of Iraq dominating the region in the 1980s. During this period, however, the United States provided Saddam Hussein’s regime with military, economic and technological assistance, even as it invaded Iran and its internal repression and support of terrorism was at its height. Now that the country is only a fraction of its once formidable military prowess and it has little direct access to its oil wealth, it is hard to imagine how it could realistically dominate the region again, much less threaten the United States.

“Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq’s regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed.”

UNMOVIC director Hans Blix and IAEA director Mohamed El-Baradei have expressed concerns that Iraq was not sufficiently forthcoming in some potentially key areas, though they also noted areas where there had been a high level of cooperation in some other areas. This is far short of “utter contempt.” Similarly, their mission is far from being a scavenger hunt, given the extensive records from the eight years of UN inspections during the 1990s. It is noteworthy that the UNSCOM inspectors did not find any more hidden materials during their last four years of operations despite expanding the scope of their searches. Though these inspectors were withdrawn under pressure from President Bill Clinton in late 1998 before they could complete their job, satellite surveillance and other intelligence gathering since then has given this new round of inspections ( which have an even tougher mandate regarding the timing and extent of their searches ) a good idea of where to look and what to look for. Furthermore, they have equipment that can detect radioactive isotopes and other telltale signs of WMD development at a great distance from their source. It is noteworthy that after insisting that Iraq’s four-year refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors to return was cited as grounds for an invasion, the Bush Administration has suddenly challenged the inspectors’ effectiveness since they resumed inspections. Furthermore, the United States has yet to put forward any proof that Iraq currently has any banned weapons.

“The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax — enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it. The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin — enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure.”

This is like saying that a man has enough sperm to impregnate several million women. Theoretically true, but if you don’t have sufficient delivery systems, it simply cannot be done. There is no evidence that Iraq has any delivery systems that can effectively disseminate biological weapons in a way that could endanger large populations.

“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He’s not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.”

This figure is far higher than most independent estimates. The former chief weapons inspector for UNSCOM stated that at least 95% of Iraq’s chemical weapons had been accounted for and destroyed by 1998. With the embargo preventing the import of new materials, satellites eyeing possible sites for new production, and the return of UN inspectors, it is highly dubious that Iraq could develop an offensive chemical weapons arsenal, particularly since virtually all of their ballistic missiles capable of carrying such weapons have also been accounted for and destroyed. In addition, if Saddam Hussein’s possession of chemical weapons is really such a major concern for the U.S. government, why did the United States send Iraq tons of toxic chemicals during the 1980s, even when it became apparent that they were being used for weapons?

“The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.”

True. What the president failed to mention is that in 1998 the International Atomic Energy Agency also reported that Iraq’s nuclear capability had been completely dismantled. More recently, IAEA director El-Baradei, in his January 27 report to the UN Security Council, reported there was no evidence to suggest that Iraq had resumed its nuclear program.

” Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”

As “60 Minutes” and other independent investigations have revealed, these aluminum tubes also have commercial applications. The IAEA has investigated the matter and has reported that there is no evidence to suggest they were intended for a nuclear program.

“Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack”

This is hardly the “only possible explanation.” The most likely reason for a country in a heavily-armed region within missile range of two nuclear powers to pursue weapons of mass destruction is for deterrence. Even the CIA has reported that there is little chance that Iraq would use WMDs for offensive purposes in the foreseeable future. By contrast, so says this CIA analysis, there is a far greater risk that Saddam Hussein would use whatever WMDs he may possess in the event of a U.S. invasion, when deterrence has clearly failed and he no longer has anything to lose.

“And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.”

Reports from the State Department, the CIA and other intelligence agencies have found no credible proof of any links between the Islamist al Qaeda movement and the secular Iraqi government. In fact, they have been at odds with each other for many years. Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism peaked in the 1980s, when the U.S. dropped Iraq from its list of states sponsoring terrorism in order to make the regime eligible to receive U.S. military and technological assistance. Furthermore, most biological weapons ( the only WMDs threat that Iraq realistically might possess at this point ) do leave fingerprints and could easily be traced to Iraq.

“Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans — this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.”

Again, there is no evidence of any connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, who has called the Iraqi dictator “an apostate, an infidel, and a traitor to Islam.” Iraq has never threatened nor been implicated in any attack against U.S. territory and the CIA has reported no Iraqi-sponsored attacks against American interests since 1991. It is always easy to think of worst case scenarios, but no country has the right to invade another on the grounds that the other country might some day possess weapons that they might decide to pass on to someone else who might use these weapons against them.

“The dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages — leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained — by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.”

The use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi armed forces against Kurdish villages took place in the 1980s when the U.S. was backing Saddam Hussein’s government. The U.S. even covered up for the Halabja massacres and similar atrocities by falsely claiming it was the Iranians ( then the preferred enemy ) who were responsible. Human rights organizations have indeed reported torture and other human rights abuses by the Iraqi regime and did so back in the 1980s when the U.S. was supporting it. As a result, one can only assume that this professed concern about human rights abuses is insincere, particularly since the Bush Administration is currently sending military and police aid to repressive regimes such as Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Colombia, Egypt and others that are guilty of similar human rights abuses. If President Bush really thinks that this constitutes evil, why does he support governments that engage in such crimes?

“We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him”.

To invade Iraq without authorization of the United Nations Security Council would be direct violation of fundamental legal norms and would make the United States an international outlaw. A unilateral U.S. invasion and the repercussions of such an act of aggression would be a far greater threat to the safety of Americans and the peace of the world than maintaining the current UN strategy of rigorous inspections, military sanctions and deterrence.

“Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you.”

No doubt the thousands of armed forces personnel currently assembling in that region do believe in America. Hopefully, America will believe in them enough to not abandon them as they did the veterans of the previous war against Iraq who suffer the debilitating effects of Gulf War Syndrome without the support and recognition of the government that sent them into combat. It is also ironic to hear such high praise of the men and women readying for combat from a man who ( despite his support for the Vietnam War ) refused to fight in it, instead using family connections to get into a National Guard unit from which he was AWOL for much of his time of service. In addition, it is Orwellian to claim that an army poised to bomb and invade a sovereign nation are there to “keep the peace.” The best way American servicemen and servicewomen can keep the peace would be to refuse to obey any illegal orders of their commander-in-chief that command them to fight in an illegitimate war.

“We seek peace. We strive for peace… If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means — sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military — and we will prevail.”

The palpable eagerness of the Bush Administration to go to war belies any claims of seeking peace. Iraq has neither attacked nor threatened the United States, so it cannot be said that war is being forced upon the country. Virtually all of America’s allies oppose this threat of war. In the United States, the Catholic bishops and every mainline Protestant denomination have gone on record declaring that a U.S. invasion would not constitute a just war, a sentiment echoed by religious leaders around the world. The U.S. record of sparing the innocent in its recent wars has been quite poor, with upwards to 5000 civilians killed in the first Gulf War, an estimated 500 civilians in Yugoslavia and approximately 3000 civilians in Afghanistan. Most scenarios predict a far higher level of civilian casualties in a U.S. invasion of Iraq, particularly should American troops have to seize Baghdad ( a city of five million ) by force.

“And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies — and freedom”.

The United States has spent only a miserly amount of money for food, medicine and other humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan relative to the billions of dollars spent to bomb that country. Despite greater political pluralism in Afghanistan under the post-Taliban regime, most of the country is not enjoying freedom, but is subjected to the abuse of war lords, opium magnates and ethnic militias that have gained in power since the U.S. intervention.

“Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.”

The character and resoluteness of the American people is worthy of praise. Unfortunately, the United States government has frequently used its military and economic power to suppress liberty, such as supporting the overthrow of democratically-elected governments in countries like Guatemala and Chile while backing scores of dictatorial regimes throughout the world. The United States has also used powerful international financial institutions to force poor countries to weaken environmental and labor laws to enhance the profits of U.S-based multinational corporations.

“Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.”

What would God think of a government that supplies more weapons, training and logistical support to more dictatorships and other human rights abusers than any other? If freedom and liberty are indeed the will of God, the foreign policy of the Bush Administration is nothing short of blasphemy.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0129-09.htm

Pelosi and Sharon

Posted on

On Jan. 29, Israeli voters will face perhaps the most crucial vote in their nation’s history, between the right-wing incumbent prime minister Ariel Sharon of the Likud Bloc and the more moderate Amram Mitzna from the Labor Alignment.

The reelection of Sharon – who has refused to negotiate with the Palestinian leadership, pledged never to withdraw from the bulk of the occupied Palestinian territories, and whose Likud Bloc is on record opposing Palestinian statehood – would set back any prospects for peace in the near future. By contrast, Mitzna, a former general and mayor of Haifa, has pledged to support a withdrawal of Israeli forces from the bulk of the occupied territories in exchange for security guarantees.

In short, an election victory by Labor would likely mean that the long-sought peace between Israelis and Palestinians might be at hand. A victory by the Likud, on the other hand, would mean continued bloodshed on both sides.

And San Francisco’s congressional representative, Nancy Pelosi, now the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, is effectively supporting Sharon. Consider:

* Pelosi has not only supported sending $3 billion a year in direct aid to the Israeli government – money that many experts say is crucial to Israel’s ability to sustain the expensive occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights – but she’s also refusing to demand human rights conditions for a new loan guarantee that has significant political implications for the future of Sharon’s government.

A lot of Israeli political observers say that former president George Bush’s decision to withhold a $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel prior to its 1992 election was a key factor in the defeat of the incumbent Likud government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and the election of the late Labor Party leader Yitzhak Rabin. (Rabin went on to negotiate the Oslo Accords and win the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts before being gunned down by an Israeli rightist.)

Although Pelosi – like the administration and most members of Congress – has not formally stated her position on the proposed loan guarantee, she has refused to support calls from the peace and human rights community, including church groups and liberal Jewish organizations, to condition the loan guarantees on a freeze of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories or other actions by Sharon that would move the peace process forward.

* Pelosi has actively helped cover up the Sharon government’s widespread and systematic human rights abuses.

In October 2002, Amnesty International released a thoroughly documented 80-page report detailing war crimes by Israeli occupation forces during its offensive in the West Bank last March. This followed up on a preliminary report issued during the incursions that noted how “the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] acted as though the main aim was to punish all Palestinians. Actions were taken by the IDF which had no clear or obvious military necessity.” The report went on to document unlawful killings, destruction of civilian property, arbitrary detention, torture, and assaults on medical personnel and journalists, as well as random shooting at people in the streets and in houses.

These observations were confirmed by Human Rights Watch and other reputable human rights groups, including Israeli peace and human rights organizations such as B’Tselem, Rabbis for Human Rights, and Yesh G’vul.

In response, then-assistant House majority leader Tom DeLay introduced H.R. 392, “A Resolution Expressing Solidarity with Israel’s Fight Against Terrorism,” which claimed that “Israel’s military operations are an effort to defend itself … and are aimed only at dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas.”

Who would the Democrat from San Francisco believe – the right-wing fundamentalist Republican congressperson from Texas or the Nobel Peace Prize-winning human rights organization? She sided with DeLay, voting in favor of his resolution, a vote widely interpreted as an attack on the credibility of Amnesty International and the human rights community as a whole.

Pelosi was by no means the only Democrat who supported H.R. 392 – but three of her colleagues in the Bay Area delegation, people with whom she is often allied, refused to do so. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) and Rep. Pete Stark (D-Hayward) voted against the resolution. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) voted “present,” essentially abstaining, as did Rep. Sam Farr (D-Monterey).

With her vote, Pelosi put herself on record as validating President George W. Bush’s contention that increased arms transfers – not arms control – is the key to security in the Middle East.

* Pelosi has long insisted that the Palestinians’ 1993 decision to recognize Israeli control over 78 percent of historic Palestine was not enough, and has consistently blamed the Palestinians exclusively for the violence and for the breakdown in the peace process. On Oct. 25, 2000, Pelosi voted for House Concurrent Resolution 426, by Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-New York), which put the entire blame for the violence on the Palestinian leadership. Pelosi has never, to my knowledge, condemned violence on the Israeli side.

(Repeated calls to Pelosi’s office seeking comment were not returned.)

On April 23, 2002, in the thick of Sharon’s attacks against the West Bank’s civilian infrastructure, Pelosi spoke at the annual convention of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a right-wing lobbying group with close ties to Sharon’s government, praising Sharon’s policies and condemning the Palestinians. Pelosi insisted that “for Arafat to become a viable partner for peace, he must renounce violence” – but again, she said not a word about the need for an end to violence or the military occupation on the Israeli side.

Many Democratic members of Congress – in fact, many prominent Democrats all over the country – have supported the Bush administration’s positions on Israel, just as most Democrats have so far backed the president’s sabre rattling and preparations for war in Iraq.

But Pelosi represents one of the most liberal districts in the country – and many of her constituents don’t support Bush’s and Sharon’s policies.

I have no doubt that, had Pelosi taken similar positions on Central America or even East Timor, there would have been noisy protests at her public appearances and sit-ins in her downtown office until she changed her position.

Perhaps that needs to happen now.

Remembering the Real Martin Luther King

Posted on

Twelve years ago, at a forum honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., some participants wanted to take the opportunity to make a statement opposing the Gulf War that had just broken out in the Middle East. The organizers objected, saying they did not want to detract from the message honoring King’s memory. Few who ever knew King and his work, however, could miss the irony of the organizers’ objections, for there is no question that had King still been alive he would have forcefully spoken out against the war, as he did all war.

As we celebrate his birthday on what may be the verge of another Gulf War, it is important to recognize that King (who would have turned 74 last week) would have unquestionably been on the forefront of the burgeoning movement opposing a U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Most people who learn about Martin Luther King. in school learn about Montgomery, Birmingham, Selma, the march on Washington and his other great accomplishments in leading the movement to end legal racial segregation in the South. Yet King saw that Jim Crow laws were but one manifestation of injustice in American society. King also opposed the de facto segregation in housing and other manifestations of racism in the north; he challenged the draining of our national resources for the military; he passionately opposed the Vietnam War and other aspects of U.S. foreign policy. He also questioned the very economic system which allowed for such enormous poverty in the midst of such great wealth. He died while planning the Poor People’s March, where he was to lead thousands of poor Americans (black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Indians) to Washington, DC to demand not just racial justice, but economic justice.

Perhaps it was no accident that he was murdered not during his campaign to end segregation, but when he began to challenge the foundations of American capitalism, militarism and imperialism.

In a sense, King’s right-wing critics were more on target than many of his liberal supporters today: King was a radical. Unlike recently-retired Senator Jesse Helms and others alleged, however, King was never a Communist. His deep religious faith made any adherence to the materialist values of Marxist-Leninism impossible. He was, however, a democratic socialist, a Christian socialist, who firmly believed that meeting the basic needs of the poor was a higher priority than ensuring profit for the few. He could never accept the communist dictum that “the end justifies the means;” indeed, central to his beliefs was the recognition that the means and the ends are inseparable.

For, even as he moved to the left later in his life, he never wavered on his firm commitment to nonviolence. To King, nonviolence was actually more radical than violence, which simply perpetuated the oppression of one group against the other. He believed that nonviolence was not just a tactic nor was it just a personal ethos; it was both. This gave King, like Mohandas Gandhi, the stature of being both a great moral leader and a brilliant political strategist. He recognized that nonviolence was strategically the only realistic option for oppressed African-Americans to achieve justice as well as the fact that violence would simply polarize the races and make true justice and reconciliation impossible.

While many liberal pacifists tend to overlook structural violence and many Marxists tend to overlook problems associated with behavioral violence, King saw that it was important to address both pathologies. Indeed, King recognized that structural violence could truly be overcome only through the bold and creative application of nonviolent action. He recognized that it would be naive to put too much faith in the electoral process or the judiciary to bring justice; he knew that real change must come from below. At the same time, he recognized it would also be naive to believe that violence could ever bring real justice. For, in his words, it was no longer a question of violence versus nonviolence, but nonviolence versus non-existence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0120-08.htm

A US Invasion of Iraq Can Be Stopped

Posted on

Despite increased preparation for war, there is a growing perception that a U.S. invasion of Iraq can be stopped.

There is little question that were it not for the anti-war movement, the United States would have gone to war against Iraq already. It was the strength of opposition to plans for a unilateral U.S. invasion that forced the Bush Administration to go to the UN in the first place. So far, Iraqi compliance with the United Nations weapons inspectors has made it extremely difficult for the administration to proceed with its war plans.

UN Security Council resolution 1441 – written by and pushed through by the United States to strengthen the power of UN inspections and weaken the ability of Iraq to evade them – was modified before passage so that military action to enforce the resolution is possible only with explicit Security Council authorization. In order for such authorization to go forward, Iraq would have to do something rather brazen and stupid which – while it certainly cannot be ruled out – has thus far forced a reluctant Saddam Hussein to cooperate with the new inspections regime.

This does not mean that the Bush Administration – which has repeatedly shown its contempt for international law – would not proceed with an invasion anyway. In October, the U.S. Congress, with support of both the Republican and Democratic leadership, granted President Bush the authority to invade Iraq without UN Security Council authorization. This war resolution was illegal, however, since such an invasion would violate the United Nations Charter, which was signed and ratified by the United States; Article VI of the U.S. Constitution declares such international treaties as “supreme law.”

The Bush Administration has demonstrated, however, that they do not have great respect for the Constitution either. What, then, might be able to stop an invasion?

Again, it would be the strength of anti-war opposition.

Already, a number of Democrats who supported the war resolution are now advising the administration to avoid a rush to war, fearing that a resurgent Green Party – which, unlike the Democratic Party, opposed authorizing an invasion of Iraq – could capture enough liberal votes to cause their defeat in the next election.

Some top military brass and career officials in the Department of Defense are quietly but firmly expressing their opposition to the war, recognizing that an invasion of Iraq would be the most complicated and bloody U.S. military operation since Vietnam. This, in turn, would strengthen anti-war opposition further. The Vietnam War taught the U.S. military that it should not fight in any major war without the backing of the majority of the American public. Currently, the U.S. military is one of the most respected institutions in America. They do not want to go back to the days when military recruiters could not even show up on college campuses without demonstrations breaking out. As military officials, they will certainly obey the orders of their commander-in-chief if called into combat. However, the more anti-war forces grow, the greater the U.S. military will be concerned about its own institutional self-preservation.

The intelligence wing of the Central Intelligence Agency – unlike the operations wing – is composed largely of professionals whose concerns are less ideological than they are with protecting American security. Their studies have not only failed to hold up most of the administration’s efforts to portray Iraq as a threat to the United States, their cost/benefit analyses have shown that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would threaten rather than protect American interests.

In effect, we have the ironic situation where the most significant allies of the peace movement in Washington, DC are the Pentagon and the CIA. They are very influential actors in foreign policy decision-making and could potentially allow cooler heads to prevail.

Indeed, they are joined in their opposition by top foreign and defense policy officials from former Republican administrations, including Lawrence Eagleburger, Brent Scowcroft and Anthony Zinni.

There is also the international factor: While a number of America’s key European allies are willing to grant rights to use bases on their soil for re-supply and provide other logistical assistance for war against Iraq in the event of United Nations authorization, there is considerable skepticism regarding a unilateral U.S. invasion. Despite this, these European governments, particularly those who still feel indebted to the United States for the role of American forces in liberating them from Nazism during World War II, are sensitive about appearing anti-American for speaking out against a unilateral war.

The more European governments and other allied governments see a visible American anti-war movement, however, the more they will recognize that opinion is so divided that it would be harder to view such opposition to the war as anti-American. For example, in response to an internationally-broadcast disruption of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s speech at Ohio State University in 1998 advocating war with Iraq, Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak observed that if the administration could not even convince Ohio, how could they be expected to convince Egypt?

Public opinion polls have consistently shown that while the majority of Americans are supportive of the idea of a U.S. invasion of Iraq to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein, only a minority would support such a war if it came without authorization of the United Nations, without the active participation of allied militaries, or if it resulted in high American casualties. Since all three of these appear very likely at this point, it is not unreasonable to assert that the majority of the American public opposes the Bush Administration’s plans to unilaterally launch a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. Indeed, polls have shown support for war declining.

The anti-war movement is strong and is growing. Already, the major national demonstrations against a U.S. invasion of Iraq – which hasn’t yet happened – have been larger than those against the Vietnam War during the first three years of heavy fighting by American soldiers. Anti-war activities on college campuses are also significantly greater than during that same period. This is particularly significant since this comes despite the fact that today’s college students are not living in fear for their personal safety through the draft.

The Roman Catholic bishops and virtually all major Protestant denominations have come out against a U.S. invasion, whereas it was not until the last few years of the Vietnam War that so many churches came out with an anti-war position. While the U.S. labor movement was hawkish to the bitter end of the Vietnam War, several major labor unions are also now on record in opposition to a U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The economic impact of an invasion of Iraq – which could costs upwards to $200 billion and could be significantly more should there be a long-term U.S. military occupation and administration – has raised serious concerns among economists and business leaders. As the federal deficit grows, domestic programs cut, and states are struggling with unprecedented deficits, the economic impact of the war could be staggering. On January 13, a group of Republican businessmen took out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal denouncing the war and a number of governors facing huge budget shortfalls have joined the ranks of administration critics.

Today’s anti-war movement is far more diverse in terms of women and people of color in positions of leadership. Increasing numbers of poor and working class people are becoming involved in anti-war activities, recognizing that it is their loved ones who will be doing most of fighting and dying and it is they who will be disproportionately affected by the inevitable cutbacks in social programs made necessary by this incredibly expensive military adventure. The diverse age range of the anti-war movement is also a significant indicator of its strength, blending the experience of activists from the 1960s and earlier with the energy and creativity of younger activists.

Despite all this, the Bush Administration may still decide to forge ahead with its planned invasion. It is far from inevitable, however, and there are increasing signs that this war can indeed be stopped before it starts.

U.S. Declares Open Season on UN Workers

Posted on

In yet another example of the Bush Administration’s contempt for international law, the United States vetoed an otherwise-unanimous UN Security Council resolution on December 20 that criticized the Israeli government for a series of attacks by its armed forces against United Nations workers and facilities in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The first incident cited in the resolution was the November 21 slaying of Iain Hook, who was working for the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) inside a well-marked UN compound in a Palestinian refugee camp in the northern West Bank. A UN investigation revealed that, despite Israeli claims to the contrary, there was no gunfire from the compound where Hook was shot three times. In addition, Israeli forces initially blocked an ambulance and emergency medical team from coming to his aid in time to possibly saved him. Hook, who was British, had been the director of a project to rebuild homes of Palestinian civilians that had been destroyed by Israeli occupation forces during previous military operations.

The second incident took place on December 1, when Israeli occupation forces destroyed a building in the Gaza Strip used by the World Food Program (WFP), another UN agency. The warehouse contained hundreds of tons of badly-needed food destined for Palestinian families. Malnutrition has skyrocketed in the occupied territories as multiple sieges by Israeli forces have brought agricultural activity to a virtual halt, leading most of the population to rely on the WFP and private voluntary organizations for basic necessities. According to officials from the WFP, Israeli occupation forces entered and searched the three-story structure and ( despite the absence of any apparent military usage ) planted a series of explosives, destroying the building and most of its contents minutes later.

The third incident involved the killing of two more UNRWA workers by Israeli occupation forces in a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip on December 6. Six other civilians were also killed during the overnight raid.

U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte, in justifying his veto, claimed that the resolution was geared more toward “condemning the Israeli occupation than ensuring the safety of UN personnel.” Not only is this claim untrue ( the wording of the resolution referred only to these recent attacks against UN personnel and facilities ) it underscores how the United States, virtually alone in the international community, sees the military occupation of one country by another as something which should not be criticized.

In effect, the United States has declared open season on UN workers and facilities in conflict areas where a strategic ally is involved. By contrast, Bush administration officials have declared that any attacks against UN personnel or facilities by Iraq would automatically lead to a U.S.-led war to overthrow the Baghdad government.

All three of the Israeli attacks took place within territory from which Israeli forces were supposed to have withdrawn under a series of disengagement agreements under the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and Palestine. Despite the United States’ role as the guarantor of those agreements, the Bush administration has not only refused to demand that Israel pull back its forces, it has actually increased its military and economic assistance to the right-wing Israeli government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Sharon was an outspoken opponent of the peace framework when it signed by the more moderate Israeli government of the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn in 1993.

Over the past three decades, the United States has used its veto power on forty occasions to protect Israel from criticism by the UN Security Council. This is more than all vetoes cast by all other members of the Security Council on all other issues during this same period combined. Nearly half of these vetoes have been in regard to Israeli violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention and related human rights covenants pertaining to the humanitarian obligations of occupying powers. As a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, the United States is legally obliged to support their enforcement.

The Bush administration has also blocked enforcement of dozens of other UN Security Council resolutions that previous administrations allowed to pass that also call upon Israel to come into compliance with such international law.

This is in addition to the scores of times when the threat of a U.S. veto has led to a weakening of a resolution’s language or the withdrawal of the proposed resolution prior to coming before the Security Council as a whole for a vote. For example, in March of 2001, the Bush Administration scuttled a series of proposed resolutions by European nations by threatening to veto any resolution that used the term “siege” in reference to Israeli occupation forces surrounding and shelling Palestinian towns, or said anything in relation to Israel’s illegal settlements, the Geneva Conventions or international law.

In effect, while the United States argues that it has the right to unilaterally invade Iraq to protect the credibility of the United Nations, the U.S. has routinely blocked the world body from criticizing the actions of its strategic allies, even if it is in the context of condemning both sides in a conflict. For example, in December of 2001, the United States vetoed an otherwise-unanimous UN Security Council resolution strongly condemning Palestinian terrorism because it also criticized Israeli policies of assassinating Palestinian activists and imposing collective punishment against civilian populations.

It is particularly disturbing that the Bush administration’s open contempt for the Fourth Geneva Conventions and other principles of international law ( as well as its abuse of the United Nations to advance its ideological agenda ) is not only supported by the vast majority of Republicans in Congress but by the vast majority of Congressional Democrats as well. No Democratic leader has criticized any of the Bush administration’s UN vetoes and related actions in support of Israel’s occupation.

Indeed, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is on record praising President Bush’s “leadership” in supporting Ariel Sharon’s policies in the occupied territories. Pelosi has gone as far as claiming that ( contrary to reports by Amnesty International and other reputable human rights groups documenting widespread Israeli attacks against civilian targets ) the massive Israeli assaults against Palestinian population centers last spring and the resulting re-occupation were in “self-defense” and were aimed “only at the terrorist infrastructure.” Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle has expressed similar backing for unconditional U.S. support for the right-wing Israeli leader, now facing a serious challenge in the upcoming election from the more moderate Labor Party, now led by Amram Mitzna.

Whatever their differences on fiscal policy or abortion, the Democrats and Republicans are in agreement on one thing: When you are the world’s sole remaining superpower, you can decide who has to abide by international law and who does not, even if it comes at the cost of the lives of humanitarian workers and the integrity of international institutions designed to maintain world peace and security.