Alternet by Stephen Zunes, October 8, 2002
[source no longer available]
Given what is at stake, one would have thought that the administration would have made a stronger case for going to war than President George W. Bush did on Monday evening. The weakness of the administration’s position is apparent in its insistence of repeating stories of Iraqi atrocities from more than 10 to 20 years ago, such as its support for international terrorist groups like Abu Nidal and its use of chemical weapons. It was during this period when the United States was quietly supporting the Iraqi regime, covering up reports of its use of chemical weapons and even providing intelligence for Iraqi forces that used such weapons against Iranian troops. Though the 1980s marked the peak of Iraq’s support for terrorist groups, the U.S. government actually dropped Iraq from its list of states sponsoring terrorism because of its own ties to the Iraqi war effort. Two decades later, in its annual report, “Patterns of Global Terrorism,” the State Department presented no evidence of any current Iraqi support for active terrorist groups, only the granting of sanctuary to some aging leaders of dormant groups…
Author: admin
U.S.-Iraq: On the War Path
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes October 4, 2002 [source]
Key Points
* U.S. support for Saddam Hussein’s regime in the 1980s contributed to Iraq’s emergence as a major regional military power.
* The U.S.-led Gulf War in 1991 forced the withdrawal of Iraqi occupation troops from Kuwait and led to an ongoing U.S. military presence in the region, including periodic air strikes against Iraq.
* War damage from 1991, combined with severe economic sanctions and periodic U.S. air strikes, precipitated Iraq’s severe humanitarian crisis.
Lecture: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (audio)
After President’s Speech, Questions Remain Unanswered
By Erik Leaver, Stephen Zunes, October 1, 2002 [source]
As George Bush prepares to invade Iraq.
At the House International Relations Committee markup of H.J. Res. 114, U.S. Representative Sherrod Brown (D-OH) put forward an amendment that contained a series of questions he argued the administration must answer in order for Congress to fulfill its constitutional responsibility regarding a prospective war, and to gain the confidence of the American people. The address by President George W. Bush on Monday evening failed to provide answers to these critical questions…
United Nations Security Council Resolutions Currently Being Violated by Countries Other than Iraq
Foreign Policy In Focus, October 1, 2002
by Stephen Zunes [source]
(Editor’s Note: In its effort to justify its planned invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has emphasized the importance of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. However, in addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 88 Security Council resolutions about countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. This raises serious questions regarding the Bush administration’s insistence it is motivated by a duty to preserve the credibility of the UN…)
The Case Against War
The Nation, September 30, 2002, by Stephen Zunes [source]
Despite growing opposition, both at home and abroad, the Bush Administration appears to have begun its concerted final push to convince Congress, the American people and the world of the need to invade Iraq. Such an invasion would constitute an important precedent, being the first test of the new doctrine articulated by President Bush of “pre-emption,” which declares that the United States has the right to invade sovereign countries and overthrow their governments if they are seen as hostile to American interests. At stake is not just the prospect of a devastating war but the very legitimacy of an international system…
Swing to the Right in U.S. Policy Toward Israel and Palestine
Middle East Policy: Stephen Zunes, December 17, 2002
Also at OnlineLibrary.Wiley.com and ResearchGate.net
Bush’s United Nations Speech Unconvincing
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes
September 1, 2002 [source]
The last time–and only time–the United States came before the United Nations to accuse a radical Third World government of threatening the security of the United States through weapons of mass destruction was in October 1962. In the face of a skeptical world and Cuban and Soviet denials, U.S. ambassador Adlai Stevenson presented dramatic photos clearly showing the construction of nuclear missiles on Cuban soil. While the resulting U.S. military blockade and brinksmanship was not universally supported, there was little question … the threat was real…
Why Not to Wage War with Iraq
Foreign Policy In Focus, August 27, 2002
by Stephen Zunes [source]
Despite growing opposition, the Bush administration is pushing for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Before the public and Congress allow such a dangerous and unprecedented use of American military power, they should seriously consider the following seven facts…
Don’t Blame the Jews for Cynthia McKinney’s Defeat
Common Dreams August 25, 2002 by Stephen Zunes
With the defeat of five-term Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in the August 22 Democratic primary in Georgia, the U.S. House of Representatives will soon be losing one of its most outspoken progressive voices. This is very bad news for those of us who support peace, human rights, and social justice. It would be even worse news, however, if the blame for her defeat is placed primarily upon the Jewish community [source is no longer available].
Seven Reasons to Oppose a U.S. Invasion of Iraq
Foreign Policy In Focus August 1, 2002, by Stephen Zunes [source]
The United States still appears determined to move forward with plans to engage in a large-scale military operation against Iraq to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. In the international community, however, serious questions are being raised regarding its legality, its justification, its political implications, and the costs of the war itself. Such an invasion would constitute an important precedent, being the first test of the new doctrine articulated by President George W. Bush of “preemption,” which declares that the U.S. has the right to invade sovereign countries and overthrow their governments if they are seen as hostile to U.S. interests…
A Bush Plan For Mideast Disaster
Alternet by Stephen Zunes, June 25, 2002 [source]
President George W. Bush’s speech on Monday actually represents a setback for Middle East peace. On the one hand, it is reassuring that, after thirty years of rejecting the international consensus that peace requires the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel, an American president now formally recognizes that need. The bad news is that President Bush is simply perpetuating the unfair assumption that while Israel’s right to exist is a given, Palestine’s right to exist… is conditional…
Fallacies of U.S. Plans to Invade Iraq
Foreign Policy In Focus, June 1, 2002
by Stephen Zunes [source]
There is no evidence of Iraqi links to Al Qaeda
In the months following the September 11 terrorist attacks, there were leaks to the media about alleged evidence of a meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence officer and one of the hijackers of the doomed airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center. Subsequently, however, both the FBI and CIA have declared that no such meeting occurred. It is unlikely that the decidedly secular Baathist regime–which has savagely suppressed Islamists within Iraq–would be able to maintain close links with Bin Laden and his followers…
Aiding the War Effort
Alternet May 10, 2002 by Stephen Zunes
[source is no longer available]
The violence of the past year and a half between Israelis and Palestinians has left more than 2,000 people dead, torpedoed the peace process, and turned the streets of the West Bank and Gaza Strip into battlefields. As the U.S. reconsiders its role in promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace, the prospects for a final settlement that recognizes the security needs of Israel and the legitimate political rights of Palestinians seem worse than ever…
Challenging the Myths about the Failure of the 2000 Camp David Talks
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, May 10, 2002
[source is no longer available]
1. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations, along with leading members of Congress of both parties, have deliberately misrepresented what happened in the peace process before, during, and after Camp David, as well as what has transpired since the outbreak of the second intifada in late September 2000. This has served to justify a policy of supporting an increasingly repressive occupation army…
Congress Attacks Human Rights
Alternet by Stephen Zunes May 3, 2002
[source is no longer available]
On Thursday, both the House of Representative and the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed resolutions defending the policies of right-wing Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon in the occupied territories. Human rights activists are alarmed, both at the strong Congressional support for a repressive military occupation and the fact the resolutions are being widely interpreted as an attack on the credibility of Amnesty International and other human rights groups. Last month, Amnesty International published a detailed and well-documented report…
Congress Ignores Human Rights Groups In Pro-Israel Resolution
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, May 1, 2002
[Source] Republican Right and congressional liberals join together to show support for Sharon government despite reports by Amnesty and Human Rights Watch detailing gross human rights abuses. Despite new public opinion polls showing rising public concern about unconditional U.S. support of Israel, recently the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed resolutions defending the policies of right-wing Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon in the occupied territories. Human rights activists are alarmed..
Why the U.S. Supports Israel
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, May 1, 2002
[Source] In the United States and around the world, many are questioning why, despite some mild rebukes, Washington has maintained its large-scale military, financial, and diplomatic support for the Israeli occupation in the face of unprecedented violations of international law and human rights standards by Israeli occupation forces. Why is there such strong bipartisan support for Israel’s right-wing prime minister Ariel Sharon’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territories?…
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, April 12, 2002
[Source is no longer available] The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of competing nationalist movements battling for a homeland on the same territory. It is not a religious or ethnic conflict at its root. The conflict is not intractable: the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians are willing to accept territorial compromise and share historic Palestine in two states side by side in return for peace and security. The root of the present war is Israel’s 34-year occupation of Palestinian lands…
A New Path to Peace
Alternet by Stephen Zunes, February 12, 2002
[Source] The tragic events of September 11 have created unprecedented challenges for the peace movement, anti-interventionist forces, and other progressive activists. For the first time in the lives of most Americans, the U.S. has found itself under attack. After more than fifty years of fabricated and exaggerated threats to national security put forward by the U.S. government, academia, and the media to justify military interventionism abroad…