Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF.org) December 20, 2007,
by Emily Schwartz Greco and Stephen Zunes [source]
A sizable number of progressive activists, celebrities and unions who, for various reasons, are unwilling to support the underfunded long-shot bid of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich are backing the presidential campaign of former North Carolina Senator John Edwards as their favorite among the top-tier candidates for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Indeed, the charismatic populist has staked out positions on important domestic policy issues, particularly addressing economic justice, that are more progressive than any serious contender for the nomination of either party in many years. On foreign policy, however, his record is decidedly mixed…
Month: December 2007
The Israel Lobby Revisited
The Israel lobby revisited, Dec. 20, 2007, by Stephen Zunes
Also at theFreeLibrary.org, Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF.org), CommonDreams.org, Proquest.com, Ameinu.net, and Tikkun.
It has been 21 months since John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt published their article “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” in The London Review of Books and four months since their publication of a book by the same name. Their main arguments are that unconditional U.S. support for the Israeli government has harmed U.S. interests in the Middle East and that American organizations allied with the Israeli government have been the primary influence regarding the orientation of U.S. Middle East policy…
Hillary Clinton’s Militarism Exposed
Alternet Dec. 17, 2007, by Stephen Zunes [source]
While much attention has been given to Senator Hillary Clinton’s support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, her foreign policy record regarding other international conflicts and her apparent eagerness to accept the use of force appears to indicate that her fateful vote authorizing the invasion and her subsequent support for the occupation and counter-insurgency war was no aberration. Indeed, there’s every indication that, as president, her foreign policy agenda would closely parallel that of the Bush administration.
Interview: U.S. Intelligence Report Challenges Bush Confrontational Iran Policy (audio)
Between The Lines, Week Ending Dec. 14, 2007
After months of ratcheting up hostile rhetoric against Iran, with the implicit threat of military action, President Bush’s repeated assertion that Tehran was developing nuclear weapons hit a brick wall. On Dec. 3, 16 U.S. intelligence agencies released a National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, that found with high confidence that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 and the program remains frozen.
While the new intelligence report states the U.S. does not know Iran’s long-term intentions toward the production of nuclear weapons, the declassified paper contradicts a 2005 National Intelligence Estimate, which found that Iran was determined to develop nuclear arms. Responding to the report that directly challenges his aggressive approach to Iran, President Bush maintained his position that all options are on the table for dealing with Tehran — and added that the Islamic nation continues to be a danger if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley stated that the U.S. will continue to pursue sanctions against Iran. Iran has long maintained that its current effort to enrich uranium is designed solely for its civilian nuclear power program.
Between The Lines Scott Harris spoke with Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and author of the book, “Tinder Box: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism.” He assesses the political fallout resulting from the new intelligence report and whether the NIE’s conclusions about Iran’s nuclear program will reduce the possibility of a U.S. military strike against Tehran.
Hillary Clinton Can’t be Trusted on Iraq
Alternet Dec. 13, 2007, by Stephen Zunes [source]
Public opinion polls have consistently shown that the majority of Americans — and even a larger majority of Democrats — believe that Iraq is the most important issue of the day, that it was wrong for the United States to have invaded that country, and the United States should completely withdraw its forces in short order. Despite this, the clear front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination for president is Senator Hillary Clinton, a strident backer of the invasion who only recently and opportunistically began to criticize the war and call for a partial withdrawal of American forces.
Hillary Clinton on Military Policy
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS December 12, 2007:
By Emily Schwartz Greco, Stephen Zunes
While much attention has been given to Senator Hillary Clinton’s support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, her foreign policy record regarding other international conflicts and her apparent eagerness to accept the use of force appears to indicate that her fateful vote authorizing the invasion and her subsequent support for the occupation and counter-insurgency war was no aberration. Indeed, there’s every indication that, as president, her foreign policy agenda would closely parallel that of the Bush administration. Despite efforts by some conservative Republicans to portray her as being on the left wing of the Democratic Party, in reality her foreign policy positions bear a far closer resemblance to those of Ronald Reagan than they do of George McGovern. [source]
Hillary Clinton on International Law
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS December 10, 2007:
By John Feffer, Stephen Zunes [source]
Perhaps the most terrible legacy of the administration of President George W. Bush has been its utter disregard for such basic international legal norms as the ban against aggressive war, respect for the UN Charter, and acceptance of international judicial review. Furthermore, under Bush’s leadership, the United States has cultivated a disrespect for basic human rights, a disdain for reputable international human rights monitoring groups, and a lack of concern for international humanitarian law. Ironically, the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president shares much of President Bush’s dangerous attitudes toward international law and human rights.
Hillary Clinton on Iraq
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS December 12, 2007, By Stephen Zunes
Public opinion polls have consistently shown that the majority of Americans – and even a larger majority of Democrats – believe that Iraq is the most important issue of the day, that it was wrong for the United States to have invaded that country, and the United States should completely withdraw its forces in short order. Despite this, the clear front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination for president is Senator Hillary Clinton, a strident backer of the invasion who only recently and opportunistically began to criticize the war and call for a partial withdrawal of American forces… [source is no longer available]
The Failure of Annapolis
Foreign Policy In Focus, Dec. 5, 2007, By Stephen Zunes
Also at Antiwar.com and AmericanTaskForce.org
Despite the best efforts by the Bush administration of putting a positive spin on the recently-completed summit in Annapolis to restart the “Performance-Based Road Map to Peace,” there is little reason to expect that it will actually move the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward as long as the United States insists on simultaneously playing the role of chief mediator and chief supporter of the more powerful of the two parties.