Eight Arguments Against Going to War With Syria
An opinion piece by Dr. Stephen Zunes highlighting 10 reasons why the U.S. should not attack Syria
Expert Analyst: International Politics, Middle East & Nonviolent Action
Obama Administration
An opinion piece by Dr. Stephen Zunes highlighting 10 reasons why the U.S. should not attack Syria
Dr. Stephen Zunes’ article in the National Catholic Reporter on the extradition of Edward Snowden
Wisconsin Public Radio
89.3 KPCC (NPR)
Dr. Stephen Zunes talks about Syria and how the situation should be handled
The vast majority of Egyptians killed since the coup have been unarmed protesters struck down with American-made weapons by soldiers transported in American-made vehicles provided by the American taxpayer.
Uprising Radio August 12, 2013: Obama has escalated the U.S. unspoken war on the Gulf Arab state of Yemen with 9 drone bombing raids in 10 days killing about 3 dozens Yemenis… apparently in response to an Al Qaeda terrorist…
United For Peace and Justice
[Santa Cruz Sentinel & Transnational.org, Also National Catholic Reporter,May 31, 2013, updated Sept. 11, 2018While there are contending factions vying for the country’s relatively weak presidency, the narrow ideological spectrum within which candidates are allowed to run offers little hope…
Dr. Stephen Zunes talks about why there is nothing the U.S. can do about the Syrian situation
An op-ed piece published on Truthout.org about Israel’s attack against Syria on May 6th, 2013
Hillary Clinton leaves her position as Secretary of State with a legacy of supporting autocratic regimes and occupation armies, opposing enforcement of international humanitarian law, undermining arms control and defending military solutions to complex political problems. She was appointed to her position following eight years in the US Senate, during which she became an outspoken supporter of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, lied about Iraq’s military capabilities to frighten the public into supporting the illegal war, unleashed repeated attacks against the United Nations, opposed restrictions on land mines and cluster bombs, defended war crimes by allied right-wing governments and largely embraced Bush’s unilateralist agenda.
President Obama’s selection of John Kerry as the next secretary of state sends the wrong signal to America’s allies and adversaries alike. Kerry’s record in the United States Senate, where he currently chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, has included spurious attacks on the International Court of Justice, unqualified defense of Israeli occupation policies and human rights violations, and support for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, thereby raising serious questions about his commitment to international law and treaty obligations. Furthermore, his false claims about Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” and his repeated denials of well-documented human rights abuses by allied governments raise serious questions about his credibility.
The Obama administration’s reaction to last month’s Israeli onslaught on the Gaza Strip is emblematic of the contradictions in its foreign policy seen throughout its first term.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice’s announcement that she would withdraw her name from consideration to be the next secretary of state is a mixed blessing.
Up until the mid-20th century, Western attitudes regarding national freedom was that the independence of white Western nations was a given, but independence for nonwhite, non-Western nations could only be under conditions granted by the occupying powers.
For those of us who hoped that President Barack Obama would usher in a new era supporting international law, the United Nations, and Israeli-Palestinian peace, 2011 proved to be a profoundly disappointing year.
The formal withdrawal of US troops from Iraq this month has led to a whole series of retrospectives on the invasion and the eight and a half years of occupation that followed as well as a host of unanswered questions, including – given the tens of thousands of Americans and others on the US government payroll, many of whom are armed, who are remaining in Iraq – just how total the withdrawal might actually be.
An ad on my Facebook page from barackobama.com reads, “Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich say they would start foreign aid to Israel at zero. Reject their extreme plan now!”
This struck me as odd for two reasons:
First, it is disingenuous and misleading. The actual position taken by these Republican presidential candidates is that all foreign aid should initially start at zero as means of reducing the deficit, to be immediately followed by the resumption of aid on a case-by-case basis. As they themselves have acknowledged, they would immediately resume aid to Israel and perhaps even increase it. Ironically, U.S. “aid for Israel” goes almost exclusively to U.S. arms manufacturers, with which the Republican candidates have a close relationship.
The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, in a move initiated by the Obama administration, has voted to waive Bush-era human rights restrictions on military aid to the Islam Karimov dictatorship in Uzbekistan, one of the most brutal and repressive regimes on the planet. The lifting of the restrictions, now part of the Foreign Operations bill, is before the full Senate and appears to have bipartisan support. The Obama administration has indicated that it intends to provide taxpayer-funded military assistance to Uzbekistan once the legislation passes both houses of Congress.