Foreign Policy In Focus By John Gershman, Stephen Zunes | December 22, 2005
At a time of year when Jews and Christians are celebrating the spirit of justice and peace inspired by events in the Holy Land many centuries ago, Congress has been working to insure that the Holy Land of today experiences neither. Just prior to the Christmas recess, a bipartisan resolution in the House of Representatives and a letter signed by 73 of 100 Senators put Congress on record that the U.S. government, despite rhetoric to the contrary, does not take Middle Eastern democracy too seriously… [source]
Category: Human Rights
The View From San Quentin Village
Common Dreams, December 14, 2005 by Stephen Zunes
It was kind of surreal: a couple of thousand people jammed onto a normally quiet residential street of pricey bungalows along San Francisco Bay. The crowd and the floodlights made it impossible to see the imposing walls of San Quentin Prison or even the entrance gates just a few yards away. The sound system on the makeshift stage was poor, but the diverse mix of Christians, leftists, community activists, urban youth and other death penalty opponents made a powerful witness late Monday night to the state-sanctioned murder of Stanley “Tookie” Williams… [source link’s no longer available]
Lecture video: Occupation and the Attack on International Law
Talk by Prof. Stephen Zunes on “Occupation and the Attack on International Law” given December 9, 2005 in Seattle [57 mins.]
Karen Hughes’ Indonesia Visit Underscores Bush Administration’s PR Problems
Foreign Policy In Focus, By John Gershman, Stephen Zunes Octobe 28, 2005
It is doubtful that the Bush administration will be very successful advancing America’s image in the Islamic world as long as its representatives have such trouble telling the truth. A case in point took place on October 21, when U.S. Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes was talking before a group of university students in Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country. As she has found elsewhere in her visits to the Islamic world, there is enormous popular opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the ongoing U.S. counter-insurgency war… [source}
Bush Administration Refuses Cuban Offer of Medical Assistance Following Katrina
Foreign Policy In Focus, By John Gershman, Stephen Zunes Oct. 19, 2005
One of the most tragically irresponsible decisions of the Bush administration in the critical hours following Hurricane Katrina was its refusal to accept offers by the government of Cuba to immediately dispatch more than 1500 medical doctors with 37 tons of medical supplies to the devastated areas along the Gulf coast. The Cuban government made its formal offer on September 2, as desperately overworked health-care providers in New Orleans were unable to meet the needs of thousands of survivors due to the lack of medicines, equipment, and personnel. At that time, Senate majority leader and physician Bill Frist, who was visiting that flooded city, stated, “The distribution of medical assistance continues to be a serious problem.” He confirmed reports from Louisiana’s Health Department that scores of people were dying as a result… [source]
Defense of Israeli Assassination Policy by the Bush Administration and Democratic Leaders
Foreign Policy In Focus, By John Gershman, Stephen Zunes Oct. 2, 2005
The U.S. veto of a proposed UN Security Council resolution criticizing Israel’s March 22 assassination of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin has once again placed the United States both on the fringe of international public opinion and in opposition to international legal norms. Despite the proposed resolution condemning “all attacks against civilians,” the United States once again was the lone dissenting vote, marking the 28 th time since 1970 that the U.S. has blocked a Security Council resolution criticizing the actions of its most important Middle Eastern ally… [source]
Rhetoric and Reality Clash in Inaugural Address
Foreign Policy In Focus, By John Gershman, Stephen Zunes Sept. 30, 2005
President Bush’s second inaugural address has received widespread praise for its recognition of the imperative of advancing human freedom worldwide, not just for its own sake, but for America’s own national interest. Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that the United States has long been the number one military, diplomatic, and economic backer of the world’s most repressive regimes in the world, a pattern that has only been strengthened under the Bush administration… [source]
Israeli Human Rights Abuses and the U.S. Attack on the United Nations and the NGO Community
By Foreign Policy In Focus, Stephen Zunes | June 30, 2005
[Also in Common Dreams, but no longer online]
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… [source]
Bush Administration Support for Repression in Uzbekistan Belies Pro-Democracy Rhetoric
Antiwar.com by Stephen Zunes June 25, 2005. Also Foreign Policy In Focus
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… [source]
Bush Administration Attacks on Amnesty International: Old Wine, New Bottles
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, By Stephen Zunes
June 6, 2005 [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]
U.S. Supports Repression in Uzbekistan
National Catholic Reporter, Stephen Zunes | May 1, 2005; Also at TheFreeLibrary.com
In the city of Andijan in the former Soviet republic of Uzbekistan, a large demonstration took place May 13, protesting government corruption, repression and the country’s worsening poverty. Soldiers fired into the crowd, killing more than 500 civilians. Rather than condemning the massacre, the White House called for “restraint” from both sides and claimed that Islamic “terrorist groups” may have been behind the protests that prompted the shootings…
Noble Rhetoric Supports Democracy While Ignoble Policies Support Repression
Foreign Policy In Focus, Stephen Zunes November 17, 2003 [source]
President George W. Bush’s November 6 speech before the National Endowment for Democracy emphasizing the need for greater democracy and freedom in the Arab world, while containing a number of positive aspects, was nevertheless very misleading and all-too characteristic of the longstanding contradictory messages that have plagued U.S. policy in the Middle East. On the positive side, President Bush challenged the racist mythology that Islamic societies were somehow incapable of democracy and recognized that greater political pluralism need not follow a U.S. model…
Time to Question the U.S. Role In Saudi Arabia
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes May 20, 2003 [source]
The terrorist bombings that struck Saudi Arabia on May 12th have raised a number of serious questions regarding American security interests in the Middle East. First of all, the attacks underscore the concern expressed by many independent strategic analysts that the United States has been squandering its intelligence and military resources toward Iraq–which had nothing to do with al Qaeda and posed no direct danger to the United States–and not toward al Qaeda itself, which is the real threat. More importantly, however, the bombings bring to the fore the question of whether U.S. interests have been enhanced or threatened by the cozy American relationship with Saudi Arabia…
The Bush Administration and Congress Join the Coverup in the Murder of Rachel Corrie
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes March 23, 2003 [source]
There has been a real fear in recent months that the right-wing government of Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon might take advantage of the international focus on the U.S. invasion of Iraq to increase its repression in the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Few people realized, however, that one of the first casualties would be a young American. In December 2001, as violent Palestinian protests against the then 34-year Israeli occupation increased along with Israeli repression, the United States vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling for the placement of unarmed human rights monitors in the occupied territories. In response, a number of pacifist groups from the United States and Europe began to send their own representatives to play the role of human rights monitors, even to the point of physically placing their bodies between the antagonists. Among these volunteers was Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old student at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington…
Congress Attacks Human Rights
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 as well as the fact that 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 on the situation in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, noting how “the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] acted as though the main aim was to punish all Palestinians. Actions were taken by the IDF which had no clear or obvious military necessity.” The report goes on to document unlawful killings, destruction of civilian property, arbitrary detention, torture, assaults on medical personnel and journalists, and random shooting at houses and people in the streets.
By contrast, the House resolution, passed by a 352-21 margin, claims “Israel’s military operations are an effort to defend itself . . . and are aimed only at dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas.”
This not only puts the House of Representatives in direct contradiction of reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, but of Israeli peace and human rights groups like B’Tselem, Gush Shalom and Yesh G’vul. These Israeli organizations, which have many IDF reservists in their ranks, have reported that the apparent goal of the Israeli offensive was to dismantle much of the civilian infrastructure of Palestinian society. The Israeli and international news media have graphically shown the wanton destruction of homes, offices, schools and utilities with no connection whatsoever with any “terrorist infrastructure.”
It is perhaps not surprising that the more harshly-worded House resolution, sponsored by Assistant Majority Leader Tom DeLay, was backed by virtually the entire Republican Right. Yet the chief co-sponsor of the resolution was none other than Tom Lantos, the liberal California Democrat who chairs the Human Rights Caucus. Other prominent liberals supporting the resolution included Nancy Pelosi, Robert Matsui, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, Mark Udall, John Lewis, Lane Evans, Barney Frank, Edward Markey, Major Owens, David Price and Patrick Kennedy, among others.
That so many supposedly progressive voices in the House of Representatives would take the word of Tom DeLay over that of Amnesty International is indicative of how little regard there is in Congress for the Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization.
The House resolution also called for an increase over the already more than two billion dollars of annual military aid sent to Israel and praised President George W. Bush for his policies.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate, in a 94-2 vote, passed a similar resolution, again referring to the assault on Palestinian towns and refugee camps as a case of Israel taking “necessary steps to provide security to its people by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas,” with every liberal Democrat voting in the affirmative.
Public opinion polls indicate that most Americans blame both sides for the violence, though the resolutions passed Thursday put the blame exclusively on the Palestinians. More strikingly, a Time/CNN poll revealed the 60 percent of Americans believe the United States should suspend some or all aid to Israel to force them to pull back from their offensive in the West Bank while only 1 percent believed U.S. aid should go up. Yet over 90 percent of the House of Representatives supports just such an increase in military aid.
The huge majorities in support of these resolutions can not be attributed to a need to secure the “Jewish vote” in this election year. American Jews are increasingly divided over the policies of Israel’s rightist prime minister and the vast majority of the resolutions’ Congressional backers are from states or districts with only tiny Jewish populations.
Similarly, most of these resolutions’ supporters are from safe enough seats so as not to need campaign contributions from the conservative political action committees supportive of Ariel Sharon.
For most members of Congress, then, it is simply a reflection of their sincere ideological support for Israel’s occupation policies and their low regard for internationally-recognized human rights standards as well as the failure of the peace and human rights community to mobilize as effectively on the Middle East as they have on other areas of U.S. foreign policy.
With only 17 Democrats in the House and two Democrats in the Senate voting against the bill, perhaps the biggest winner is the Green Party, that has long argued that even on an issue as basic as human rights, there is no difference between the two major parties. Already, there are growing numbers of disaffected Democrats who are beginning to realize they can not support human rights and support the Democratic Party at the same time.
The biggest loser in Thursday’s votes is the struggling Israeli peace and human rights movement and their moderate Palestinian counterparts, whose defiance of their violent leaders and efforts towards reconciliation have once again been sabotaged by the U.S. Congress.
http://www.alternet.org/story/13041/congress_attacks_human_rights/?page=entire
Congress Ignores Human Rights Groups In Pro-Israel Resolution
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, both at the strong congressional support for a repressive military occupation as well as the fact that 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 on the situation in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, noting how “the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] acted as though the main aim was to punish all Palestinians. Actions were taken by the IDF which had no clear or obvious military necessity.” The report goes on to document unlawful killings, destruction of civilian property, arbitrary detention, torture, assaults on medical personnel and journalists, as well as random shooting at people in the streets and houses.
By contrast, the House resolution, passed by a 352-21 margin, claims “Israel’s military operations are an effort to defend itself … and are aimed only at dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas.”
This not only puts the House of Representatives in direct contradiction to reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, but also of Israeli peace and human rights groups like B’Tselem, Gush Shalom, and Yesh G’vul. These Israeli organizations, which have many IDF reservists in their ranks, have reported that the apparent goal of the Israeli offensive was to dismantle much of the civilian infrastructure of Palestinian society. The Israeli and international news media have graphically shown the wanton destruction of homes, offices, schools, and utilities with no connection whatsoever with any “terrorist infrastructure.”
It is perhaps not surprising that the more harshly worded House resolution, sponsored by Assistant Majority Leader Tom DeLay, was backed by virtually the entire Republican Right. Yet the chief co-sponsor of the resolution was none other than Tom Lantos, the liberal California Democrat who chairs the Human Rights Caucus. Other prominent liberals supporting the resolution included Nancy Pelosi, Robert Matsui, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, Mark Udall, John Lewis, Lane Evans, Barney Frank, Edward Markey, Major Owens, David Price, and Patrick Kennedy, among others.
That so many supposedly progressive voices in the House of Representatives would take the word of Tom DeLay over that of Amnesty International is indicative of how little regard there is in Congress for the Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization.
The House resolution also called for an increase of the already more than two billion dollars of annual military aid sent to Israel–and praised President George W. Bush for his policies.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate, in a 94-2 vote, passed a similar resolution, again referring to the assault on Palestinian towns and refugee camps as taking “necessary steps to provide security to its people by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas,” with every liberal Democrat voting in the affirmative.
Public opinion polls indicate that most Americans blame both sides for the violence, though the resolutions passed Thursday put the blame exclusively on the Palestinians. More strikingly, a Time/CNN poll revealed the 60% of Americans believed Washington should suspend some or all aid to Israel to force them to pull back from their offensive in the West Bank, while only 1% believed U.S. aid should go up. Yet over 90% of the House of Representatives supports just such an increase in military aid.
The huge majorities in support of these resolutions cannot be attributed to a need to secure the “Jewish vote” in this election year. American Jews are increasingly divided over the policies of Israel’s rightist prime minister and the vast majority of the congressional backers of these resolutions are from states or districts with only tiny Jewish populations.
Similarly, most of these resolutions’ supporters are from safe enough seats so as not to need campaign contributions from the conservative political action committees supportive of Ariel Sharon.
For most members of Congress, then, it is simply a reflection of their sincere ideological support for Israel’s occupation policies and a demonstration of their low regard for internationally recognized human rights standards.
The biggest loser in Thursday’s votes is the struggling Israeli peace and human rights movement and their moderate Palestinian counterparts, whose defiance of their violent leaders and efforts toward reconciliation have once again been sabotaged by the U.S. Congress.
http://www.fpif.org/articles/congress_ignores_human_rights_groups_in_pro-israel_resolution
The United States and Bolivia: The Taming of a Revolution, 1952-1957
The United States and Bolivia: The Taming of a Revolution, 1952-1957
Latin American Perspectives Vol. 28 No. 5 (September 1, 2001): 33-49.
Also at SAGE Journals, JSTOR, ResearchGate.net,
University of Saskatchewan & FES.DE/bibliothek
Death Squad Democrats
Last Tuesday, Israeli forces murdered Isaac Saada outside of his home in Bethlehem. He was the father of ten and a beloved teacher at Terra Sancta, a RomanCatholic school in that West Bank city. Saada was actively involved with the peace education program of the Israeli-Palestinian Center for Research and Information. The day he was buried, he had been scheduled to take part in a joint seminar with Israeli teachers on improving understanding and cooperation between the two peoples.
The Israeli government claimed Saada was a Hamas terrorist. Everyone who knew this gentle teacher knows that is false, yet the U.S. media repeated the lie that he was among four Hamas terrorists killed by rocket fire from an Israeli helicopter. The helicopter and missile were supplied to Israel by the United States at U.S. taxpayer expense. The Bush administration, with support of leading congressional Democrats, supports increasing military aid to the Israeli occupation forces responsible for the death of Saada and hundreds of other civilians in the past year. Some victims of these Israeli death squads were indeed terrorists. Many, like Isaac Saada, were supporters of peace.
There have also been Israeli civilians killed since the outbreak of fighting last September, through terrorist bombings in Israeli cities and ambushes against settlers illegally squatting on Palestinian land in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, these have been through radical Islamic groups over which the Palestinian Authority has little if any control. By contrast, most of the Palestinian civilians have been killed by the occupation forces of the government of Israel, armed and financed by the U.S. government.
Immediately after Saada’s murder, I called over two dozen Congressional offices, all of them liberal Democrats who belong to the Progressive Caucus and the Human Rights Caucus. None of them were willing to condemn Israel’s death squads, and none were willing to support suspending military aid to Ariel Sharon’s government–or even to send international monitors to enforce a cease fire and protect the civilian population. Nor were they willing to criticize Israel’s ongoing violations of the Geneva Conventions or other international human rights treaties as documented by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other human rights organizations, including the Israeli group B’tselem. These same House members are all on record, however, condemning the Palestinian Authority for violence against Israeli occupation forces.
During the 1980s, erstwhile liberals who provided the necessary votes to advance the Reagan administration’s policies in support of the murderous junta in El Salvador became known as “death squad Democrats.” That same label can now be applied to the Democrats who support President George W. Bush’s policy of support for Ariel Sharon.
Isaac Saada was well-respected for his efforts to teach young people to love and work for peace. He was often heard saying that the worst thing that could happen to the Palestinian people would be if they filled their hearts with hatred.
This man of peace has now been silenced. President Bush and his Democratic supporters have blood on their hands.
The Bush administration, to its credit, has condemned the Israeli government’s use of extra-judicial killings. However, in a recent interview, Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, defended Israel’s use of these assassination squads. That the Democrats would choose as their chief foreign policy spokesman someone who not only rationalizes such severe human rights violations, but also places himself to the right of even the Bush administration is indicative of how limited the foreign policy debate has become in Washington.
http://www.fpif.info/fpiftxt/362
http://www.fpif.org/articles/death_squad_democrats
U.S. Arrogance on Display in UN Human Rights Commission Flap
The decision by the U.S. Congress to withhold $244 million in dues owed to the United Nations only builds upon the growing global perception of U.S. arrogance. In recent days, both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill have placed themselves to the right of even the Bush administration in their sharp anti-UN rhetoric.
The reason for the congressional displeasure is the recent vote of the UN Human Rights Commission in which three European countries were elected to the three slots reserved for Western industrialized nations. It is the first time since the commission’s founding in 1947 that the United States was not elected. Despite some reports to the contrary, countries like China, Libya, and Sudan did not defeat the United States in a head-to-head context. Each country is elected by region. Our allies, therefore, were largely responsible for the U.S. defeat.
Congress has determined that the U.S. won’t pay its back dues until the U.S. is voted back on the commission. This constitutes a dangerous precedent. Countries in the world are voted on and off various UN agencies and commissions with regularity, yet this is the first time a country has withheld funds because it lost a vote. Countries are obliged to pay their UN dues regardless of whether a particular vote goes their way. If every country withheld its dues because of the irritation of losing a vote on a particular agency or commission, virtually all funding for the world body would cease.
In the end, the result of this recent UN-U.S. flap may simply be to confirm that the U.S. is playing the role of the bully, determined to punish those who won’t let Washington get its own way. What most Americans do not realize, however, is that most human rights advocates–while disturbed by the election of some serious human rights abusers to the commission–are quietly pleased by the vote tally. It is widely seen as payback for years of U.S. abuse of the commission and a longstanding display of arrogance in international forums. For over fifty years, the United States has used the Human Rights Commission to advance its ideological agenda, attacking the human rights record of countries America did not like while defending and covering for regimes with as bad or even worse records, that happened to be seen as strategic or economic allies.
Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the U.S. has sent more weapons to oppressive police and militaries around the globe than any other nation. The list of dictatorial client-states supported by the U.S. is a veritable rogues’ gallery of the most serious human rights violators on the planet: Suharto of Indonesia, Mobutu of Zaire, the Shah of Iran, Park of South Korea, Marcos of the Philippines, Pinochet of Chile, and literally dozens of others.
To this day, the U.S. arms and trains Colombian armed forces closely linked to right-wing paramilitary organizations engaged in gross and systematic human rights abuses. The School of the Americas at Fort Benning–despite recently being renamed–continues to train some of the worst human rights abusers in the hemisphere. Meanwhile, in the Middle East, billions of dollars worth of arms flow to the misogynist family dictatorships of the Arab Gulf while Israeli occupation forces use American weapons to rain death upon protesting Palestinian children.
As recently as two months ago, the U.S. cast the sole dissenting vote against a UN Security Council resolution to send unarmed human rights monitors to the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. Despite strong backing by reputable human rights groups from around the world, the resolution was defeated–even congressional Democrats rallied around the Bush administration in support of America’s veto.
Unfortunately, that vote on human rights monitors was not the first time the U.S. has used its veto power to shield allies from criticism at the United Nations. Nor is the Human Rights Commission the only forum where the U.S. has stood out for its opposition to basic human rights: The U.S. is one of the few countries to oppose the international treaty to ban land mines, which, if enacted, would save thousands of children from death and maiming every year. It is the only country in the world besides Somalia–which hasn’t even had a government for years–to refuse to sign an international convention against the use of child soldiers.
As if to underscore its contempt for the UN’s human rights efforts, the Bush administration nominated John Negroponte as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. As ambassador to Honduras during the 1980s, Negroponte covered up widespread human rights abuses by Honduran army units trained and organized by the CIA, and withheld from Congress evidence of large-scale human rights violations by the U.S.-backed government.
Negroponte’s predecessor in the Clinton administration, Richard Holbrooke, was the key figure in the Carter State Department in ordering the release of South Korean troops under U.S. command to repress–and massacre–pro-democracy demonstrators in Kwanju in 1980. Holbrooke also played a major role in the U.S. support for Indonesia’s brutal invasion of East Timor, which caused the deaths of upwards of 200,000 civilians; in congressional testimony, he denied reports by human rights groups that the mass killings were even taking place.
It is not just in the human rights arena that the United States has alienated the international community. The U.S. has refused to ratify the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and has backed away from its commitments under the Kyoto emission control standards that are trying to mitigate the effects of global warming. The Bush administration has vowed to rescind participation in the SALT I Treaty, long considered the cornerstone of nuclear arms control. The U.S. is virtually alone in opposing making cheaper generic AIDS drugs available to the world’s poor. As recently as last week, the U.S. refused to support the nearly universally supported tougher standards to crack down on international havens for tax avoidance by the super-wealthy.
In effect, the chickens have come home to roost. The withholding of UN dues will only make the U.S. less credible and effective in the international community.
http://www.fpif.org/articles/us_arrogance_on_display_in_un_human_rights_commission_flap