By Foreign Policy In Focus, October 29, 2004
By Stephen Zunes [source]
Even putting aside the many important legal and moral questions about the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq, it has been a disaster even on practical terms. Mainstream to conservative strategic analysts and retired generals–along with the majority of career professionals in the State Department, Defense Department, and CIA–recognize that the invasion and occupation has made America less secure rather than more secure. Still, the Bush administration continues to defend its actions and public opinion polls still show that a majority of Americans trust George W. Bush more than John Kerry to defend America….
Author: admin
Presidential Election Offers Little Choice for Israeli-Arab Peace
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, October 26, 2004
By Stephen Zunes [source link is no longer available]
Earlier this month, in a widely quoted interview in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Dov Weisglass–Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s senior adviser–acknowledged what most independent observers have known all along: that the Israeli government is not actually interested in a peace agreement with the Syrian government or the Palestinian Authority. Israel has occupied the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights since these territories were seized by the Israeli armed forces in 1967, expelling thousands of Arabs and then colonizing these territories with Jewish settlers in contravention of international law…
The U.S. Invasion of Iraq: The Military Side of Globalization?
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, October 26, 2004
By Stephen Zunes [source link is no longer online]
The major justifications for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq—Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi ties to the terrorist al-Qaida network—are now widely discredited, and Washington’s claims that its efforts are creating a democratic Iraq are also highly dubious. Although economic factors did play an important role in prompting a U.S. invasion, the simplistic notion that Iraq’s makeover was undertaken simply for the sake of oil company profits ignores the fact that even optimistic projections of the financial costs of the invasion and occupation far exceeded anticipated financial benefits…
Why We Must Prevent the Re-election of Senators Who Supported the Invasion of Iraq
October 15, 2004, by Stephen Zunes [source is no longer online]
It has been just over two years since Congress took its fateful vote to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. This came despite the fact that such an invasion was a clear violation of the United Nations Charter, which, as a formal treaty signed and ratified by the United States, is — according to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution — to be treated as supreme law. Since that time, as of this writing, over 1100 Americans have been killed and 7500 wounded. Most estimates indicate that at least 20,000 Iraqis have been killed, more than two-thirds of them civilians, and more than 40,000 have been injured. The war has thus far cost the American taxpayer over $150 billion…
A Humphrey-Nixon Redux?
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, October 11, 2004
by Stephen Zunes [source]
No wonder it feels so damn frustrating. It?s like 1968 all over again. The United States is bogged down in a bloody counter-insurgency war on the other side of the globe, a war that the majority of the American people believe we should have never entered. Polls consistently show it is the number one issue on the minds of American voters in the weeks leading up to a close presidential election. The majority of Democrats and independents and a growing minority of Republicans believe that the war is unwinnable and we should get out. Despite that, both Republicans and Democrats have nominated presidential and vice-presidential candidates who have supported the war from the beginning and have pledged to continue fighting it for years to come…
The Most Misleading Foreign Policy Statements Made by the Candidates in the Vice-Presidential Debate
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, October 6, 2004
by Stephen Zunes [source link’s no longer available]
Listed below is what I consider to be the sixteen most misleading statements made by Vice-President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards during the foreign policy segment of their debate of October 5, followed by my critiques. This is a non-partisan analysis: eleven of the misleading statements cited are from Cheney and five are from Edwards. The quotes are listed in the order in which they appear in the transcript…
Misleading Foreign Policy Statements Made by the Candidates in the Vice Presidential Debate
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, October 6, 2004
by Stephen Zunes [source link’s no longer available]
The list below contains what I consider to be the sixteen most misleading statements made by Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards during the foreign policy segment of their debate of October 5, followed by my critiques. This is a resolutely non-partisan analysis: eleven of the misleading statements cited are from Cheney and five are from Edwards. The quotes are listed in the order in which they appear in the transcript…
While Criticizing Implementation, Kerry Endorses Bush’s Unilateralist Agenda
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, by Stephen Zunes October 5, 2004
[source is no longer available]
Democratic nominee John Kerry’s foreign policy speech at New York University has been widely hailed as a long-overdue effort to place some daylight between himself and President Bush regarding Iraq. In his September 20 address, the Massachusetts senator appropriately took the president to task for launching the war prematurely, mishandling the occupation, misleading the American public regarding the deteriorating situation on the ground, and pursuing policies that have weakened America’s security interests. However, the speech also contained a number of disturbing elements…
President Bush’s UN Speech: Idealistic Rhetoric Disguises Sinister Policies
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, September 22, 2004
by Stephen Zunes [source is no longer available]
Commentators in the mainstream media seem genuinely perplexed over the polite but notably unenthusiastic reception given to President George W. Bush’s September 21 address before the United Nations General Assembly. Why wasn’t a speech that emphasized such high ideals as democracy, the rule of law, and the threat of terrorism better received? The answer may be found through a critical examination of the assumptions underlying the idealistic rhetoric of the U.S. president’s message. Below are a number of examples…
Is Kerry Really More Open than Bush to Alternative Foreign Policy Perspectives?
Common Dreams, September 15, 2004
by Stephen Zunes [source is no longer available].
Some progressive supporters of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry have argued that, despite his support for the invasion of Iraq and other neoconservative-driven foreign policies of the Bush Administration, at least a President Kerry – unlike the incumbent president – would be more willing to listen to the views of those with more moderate perspectives than himself. A President Kerry, so goes this argument, while likely to take a number of foreign policy positions more hawkish than most Democrats could support, would at least be more open to hearing a number of competing assessments and policy options before choosing military solutions to foreign policy problems. Unfortunately, while a President Kerry would almost certainly be less ideological and impulsive… the Massachusetts senator appears to be just as unwilling to listen to alternative viewpoints regarding foreign affairs as the incumbent president…
International Law, The U.N., and MIddle Eastern Conflicts
Professor Stephen Zunes prepared this paper to present at the 2003 convention of the State Bar Association of Arizona, September 9, 2004. However, two weeks before the event, SBA president Ernest Calderon banned the presentation following complaints that Zunes, who had been invited to prepare it six months earlier– was “anti-Israel” and “anti-American.” At no point was Zunes given an opportunity to defend himself and challenge these charges… Access the full paper [tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1040265042000278513] or see the summary image below.
How Kerry’s Foreign Policies Leave Him Vulnerable to Republican Attacks
Stephen Zunes, Posted Sept. 3, 2004 [source no longer available]
The only people who could possibly be swayed by the unfair and misleading attacks on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry put forward by speakers at the Republican National Convention (particularly Vice-President Dick Cheney and Georgia Senator Zell Miller) would be those with little understanding of contemporary strategic issues and modern diplomatic history. Unfortunately, that probably includes the majority of eligible American voters…
Attacks Against World Court by Bush, Kerry and Congress Reveal Growing Bipartisan Hostility to International Law
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, August 17, 2004
[source is no longer available]
On July 9, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) determined that the Israeli government’s construction of a separation wall running through the occupied Palestinian West Bank was illegal. Among other things, the ICJ noted that the construction of the first 125 miles of the proposed 450-mile barrier “has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources, the disruption of the lives of the thousands of protected civilians and the de facto annexation of large areas of territory.” The court called on Israel to cease construction of the wall, to dismantle what has already been built in areas beyond Israel’s internationally recognized border, and to compensate Palestinians who have suffered losses as a result of the wall’s construction. The vote was 14-1, a not-unexpected margin…
Rightward Ho!
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, August 10, 2004
[source no longer available]
Against the backdrop of ongoing death and destruction in Iraq as a result of the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation, the Democratic Party formally adopted their 2004 platform on July 28 at their convention in Boston. The platform focused more on foreign policy than it had in recent years. It represented an opportunity to challenge the Republican administration’s unprecedented and dangerous departure from the post-World War II international legal consensus forbidding aggressive wars, as well as a means with which to offer a clear alternative to the Bush Doctrine…
Democratic Party Platform Shows Shift to the Right on Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy In Focus, by Stephen Zunes, August 5, 2004
[source is no longer available]
Against the backdrop of ongoing death and destruction in Iraq as a result of the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation, the Democratic Party formally adopted its 2004 platform on July 28 at its convention in Boston. The platform focused more on foreign policy than it had in recent years. It represented an opportunity to challenge the Republican administration’s unprecedented and dangerous departure from the post-World War II international legal consensus forbidding aggressive wars as well as a means with which to offer a clear alternative to the Bush Doctrine…
The Disappointing Selection of John Edwards, a Foreign Policy Hawk
Foreign Policy In Focus, by Stephen Zunes, July 16, 2004
[source is no longer available]
John Kerry’s decision to select a vice presidential running mate who shares his militaristic foreign policy agenda has once again demonstrated the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s willingness to take the party’s activist core, which overwhelmingly supports human rights and international law, for granted. While bringing Senator John Edwards—a bright and charismatic Southern populist—onto the Democratic ticket might attract some voters, it will likely serve to further alienate the majority of Democrats already disappointed in Kerry’s strident support for President George W. Bush’s illegal and disastrous decision to invade Iraq…
US Christian Right’s Grip on Middle East Policy
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, July 14, 2004
[source no longer available]
In recent years, a politicized and right-wing Protestant fundamentalist movement has emerged as a major factor in US support for the policies of the rightist Likud government in Israel. To understand this influence, it is important to recognize that the rise of the religious right as a political force in the United States is a relatively recent phenomenon that emerged as part of a calculated strategy by leading right-wingers in the Republican Party who – while not fundamentalist Christians themselves – recognized the need to enlist the support of this key segment of the US population in order to achieve political power…
Ronald Reagan and the Cold War: Don’t Credit Reagan for Defeating Communism
Foreign Policy In Focus, October 1, 2004
By John Gershman, Stephen Zunes [source]
Perhaps the most dangerous myth regarding the legacy of the late President Ronald Reagan is that he was somehow responsible for the end of the Cold War. Soviet-style communism was doomed in part because it fell victim to the pro-democracy movement that was also then sweeping Latin America and parts of Africa and Asia during this same period. No credit can be given to the Reagan Administration, which was a strong supporter of many of these right-wing dictatorial regimes, such as the Marcos regime in the Philippines…
President Bush’s May 24 Speech on Iraq: A Critique
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, May 25, 2004
[source is no longer available]
The most striking element of President George W. Bush’s May 24th speech at the Army War College regarding the situation in Iraq was that it could come across as quite convincing as long as you agreed with the following dubious assumptions:
* Only the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq would lead to “the rise of a free and self-governing Iraq.”
* Conversely, if the U.S. forces withdrew, either unilaterally or as part of a transfer to United Nations authority, the result would be a totalitarian government which would “embolden the terrorists, leading to more bombings, more beheadings and more murders of the innocent around the world.”…
Bush Endorsement of Sharon Proposal Undermines Peace and International Law
Foreign Policy In Focus, April 27, 2004
by Stephen Zunes [source is no longer available]
President George W. Bush’s unconditional endorsement of right-wing Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan constitutes a shocking reversal of longstanding U.S. Middle East policy and one of the most flagrant challenges to international law and the integrity of the United Nations system ever made by a U.S. president. By giving unprecedented backing for Israeli plans to annex large swaths of occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank in order to incorporate illegal Jewish settlements, President Bush has effectively renounced UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which call on Israel — in return for security guarantees from its Arab neighbors — to withdraw from Palestinian territories seized in the June 1967 war…