By Foreign Policy In Focus and Common Dreams, June 30, 2005
By Stephen Zunes [source]
The Bush administration, like its predecessors, has frequently taken advantage of the idealism and values of the U.S. citizenry to justify foreign policies that most Americans would otherwise find morally unacceptable. The recent emphasis on justifying Washington’s imperial goals in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East in the name of spreading liberty and democracy is a case in point. The fact that the United States is the world’s principal supporter of autocratic Middle Eastern regimes is conveniently overlooked…
Category: FPIF Commentary
FPIF Commentary
Bush Administration Support for Repression in Uzbekistan Belies Pro-Democracy Rhetoric
Foreign Policy In Focus and Antiwar.com June 25, 2005.
By Stephen Zunes [source]
Recent revelations that the United States successfully blocked a call by NATO for an international investigation of the May 13 massacre of hundreds of civilians by the government of the former Soviet Republic of Uzbekistan serves as yet another reminder of the insincerity of the Bush administration’s claims for supporting freedom and democracy in the Islamic world and the former Soviet Union…
Bush Administration Attacks on Amnesty International: Old Wine, New Bottles
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, June 6, 2005
By Stephen Zunes [source link’s no longer online]
In what appears to be a concerted effort to discredit independent human rights advocates, the Bush administration and its allies in the media have been engaging in a series of attacks against Amnesty International, the world’s largest human rights organization and winner of the 1977 Nobel Peace Prize… [source not available]
Undermining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—It Didn’t Start With the Bush Administration
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, June 1, 2005
Stephen Zunes [Source link is no longer available]
Most of the international community and arms control advocates here in the United States have correctly blamed the Bush administration for the failure of the recently completed review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In the course of the four-week meeting of representatives of the 188 countries which have signed and ratified the treaty, the United States refused to uphold its previous arms control pledges, blocked consideration of the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, refused to rule out U.S. nuclear attacks against non-nuclear states…
President Bush’s Foreign Policy Discussion in the 2005 State of the Union Address
Foreign Policy In Focus, October 3, 2005
By John Gershman, Stephen Zunes [source]
The foreign policy segments of President George W. Bush’s February 2 State of the Union address spoke to values and concerns that resonate with the majority of Americans from across the political spectrum. Unfortunately, much of what was said during his speech was quite misleading. Below are excerpts from the speech, followed by a short critical analysis…
Reading Harry Reid: New Democratic Leader in Senate Unlikely to Oppose Bush Administration’s Foreign Policy Agenda
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS November 19, 2004 by Stephen Zunes [source is no longer online]
The overwhelming selection of Nevada Senator Harry Reid as minority leader of Congress’ upper house shows that the Democrats are still willing to give their backing for the Bush administration’s reckless militarism and contravention of international legal norms. Despite evidence that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, WMD programs, or offensive delivery systems, Reid voted in October 2002 to authorize a U.S. invasion…
Arafat Was the Excuse, Not the Reason, for the Failure of the Peace Process
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, November 11, 2004
by Stephen Zunes source
While there are many negative things one can say about the late Yasser Arafat, he was not the primary reason for the breakdown in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. At most, he was the excuse. This is not to say that Arafat did not make quite a number of stupid and unethical choices in his lengthy career which set back hopes for peace and badly hurt the Palestinian cause. In recent years, however, the late Palestinian leader?s negotiating position regarding the outstanding issues of the peace process?such as the extent of the Israeli withdrawal, the status of Jerusalem, and the fate of the settlements?was actually more moderate, more consistent with international law, and more in line with UN Security Council resolutions, the positions of America’s leading allies, and the policies of previous U.S. administrations than the current Israeli or American positions…
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…
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…
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…
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.”…
Interview of Bush Reveals Dangerous Assumptions Behind U.S. Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy In Focus/Institute for Policy Studies,
March 1, 2004, by Stephen Zunes [source no longer available]
A number of critiques have been written about President George W. Bush’s responses to Tim Russert’s questions in the February 8 edition of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” primarily regarding his shifting rationale for the invasion of Iraq. More problematic, however, was the fact that President Bush made a number of assertions that were patently false or–at the very least–misleading. The failure of Mr. Russert to challenge these statements and the ongoing repetition of such rationales by the administration and its supporters make it all the more imperative that such assertions not be allowed to go unquestioned. The implications of Bush’s statements are quite disturbing, since they involve such fundamental issues as international terrorism, the United Nations, weapons of mass destruction, and the policy of preemption…
Annotate This! Misleading Rhetoric in 2004 State of the Union Address
Foreign Policy In Focus/Institute for Policy Studies,
January 1, 2004, by Stephen Zunes [source is no longer available]
Tonight, hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women are deployed across the world in the war on terror… Though no one should question their commitment, their missions of invading and occupying foreign countries and engaging in high altitude bombing and urban counterinsurgency operations that kill civilians, has brought more fear than hope. And it has delivered more violence than justice, and created an unprecedented level of anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world and beyond that has actually made America less secure…
Somalia as a Military Target
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, January 11, 2002
[Source] The east African nation of Somalia is being mentioned with increasing frequency as a possible next target in the U.S.-led war against international terrorism. Somalia is a failed state–with what passes for the central government controlling little more than a section of the national capital of Mogadishu, a separatist government in the north, and rival warlords and clan leaders controlling most of the remainder of the country. U.S. officials believe cells of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network may have taken advantage of the absence of governmental authority to set up operation…
U.S. Policy on the UN Conference Wrong
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, August 1, 2001 [source]
The United States, the self-described leader of human rights, effectively decided to boycott the UN conference against racism in Durban, South Africa. The U.S. could have made a strong, positive impression by sending its African-American Secretary of State, a descendent of slaves, and making a forceful stand against racism. Instead, it chose to send a low-level delegation. What allegedly prompted the U.S. position were two relatively minor agenda items…
UN Betrayal of Western Sahara
Foreign Policy In Focus, June 1, by Stephen Zunes [Source & Global Policy Forum]
When a country violates fundamental principles of international law and when the UN Security Council demands that it cease its illegal behavior, one might expect that the world body would impose sanctions or other measures to foster compliance. This has been the case with Iraq, Libya, and other international outlaws in recent years. One would not expect for the United Nations to respond to such violations by passing a series of new and weaker resolutions that essentially allow for the transgressions to stand…