Search Posts Chronologically

Still No Peace

Foreign Policy In Focus, January 16, 2008 [source]
By John Feffer and and Stephen Zunes
President George W. Bush has been using somewhat stronger language than he has uttered previously about the Israeli-Palestinian situation and has made some optimistic predictions of a peace agreement within a year. Nevertheless, there is little reason to hope that the president is any more serious about or is any more likely to be successful in bringing about a negotiated settlement to the conflict.

Obama and the Middle East: Will He Bring About “Change?”

Alternet January 15, 2008 [source]
The strong showings by Senator Barack Obama of Illinois in the early contests for the Democratic presidential nomination don’t just mark a repudiation of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy and “war on terrorism.” They also indicate a rejection of the Democratic Party establishment, much of which supported the invasion of Iraq and other tragic elements of the administration’s foreign policy.

Lantos’ Tarnished Legacy

Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF.org) January 8, 2008 [source]
Pundits responded to news of the retirement of Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA) at the end of his current term with platitudes and praise. They have focused primarily on his heroic role as a Holocaust survivor and member of the anti-Nazi resistance in his native Hungary as well as his leadership on human rights issues in Congress, serving as the founder and longtime co-chair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus…

John Edwards’ Foreign Policy

Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF.org) December 20, 2007,
by Emily Schwartz Greco and Stephen Zunes [source]
A sizable number of progressive activists, celebrities and unions who, for various reasons, are unwilling to support the underfunded long-shot bid of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich are backing the presidential campaign of former North Carolina Senator John Edwards as their favorite among the top-tier candidates for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Indeed, the charismatic populist has staked out positions on important domestic policy issues, particularly addressing economic justice, that are more progressive than any serious contender for the nomination of either party in many years. On foreign policy, however, his record is decidedly mixed…

The Israel Lobby Revisited

The Israel lobby revisited, Dec. 20, 2007, by Stephen Zunes
Also at theFreeLibrary.org, Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF.org), CommonDreams.org, Proquest.com, Ameinu.net, and Tikkun.
It has been 21 months since John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt published their article “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” in The London Review of Books and four months since their publication of a book by the same name. Their main arguments are that unconditional U.S. support for the Israeli government has harmed U.S. interests in the Middle East and that American organizations allied with the Israeli government have been the primary influence regarding the orientation of U.S. Middle East policy…

Hillary Clinton’s Militarism Exposed

Alternet Dec. 17, 2007, by Stephen Zunes [source]
While much attention has been given to Senator Hillary Clinton’s support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, her foreign policy record regarding other international conflicts and her apparent eagerness to accept the use of force appears to indicate that her fateful vote authorizing the invasion and her subsequent support for the occupation and counter-insurgency war was no aberration. Indeed, there’s every indication that, as president, her foreign policy agenda would closely parallel that of the Bush administration.

Interview: U.S. Intelligence Report Challenges Bush Confrontational Iran Policy (audio)

Between The Lines, Week Ending Dec. 14, 2007
After months of ratcheting up hostile rhetoric against Iran, with the implicit threat of military action, President Bush’s repeated assertion that Tehran was developing nuclear weapons hit a brick wall. On Dec. 3, 16 U.S. intelligence agencies released a National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, that found with high confidence that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 and the program remains frozen.
    While the new intelligence report states the U.S. does not know Iran’s long-term intentions toward the production of nuclear weapons, the declassified paper contradicts a 2005 National Intelligence Estimate, which found that Iran was determined to develop nuclear arms. Responding to the report that directly challenges his aggressive approach to Iran, President Bush maintained his position that all options are on the table for dealing with Tehran — and added that the Islamic nation continues to be a danger if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley stated that the U.S. will continue to pursue sanctions against Iran. Iran has long maintained that its current effort to enrich uranium is designed solely for its civilian nuclear power program.
    Between The Lines Scott Harris spoke with Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and author of the book, “Tinder Box: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism.” He assesses the political fallout resulting from the new intelligence report and whether the NIE’s conclusions about Iran’s nuclear program will reduce the possibility of a U.S. military strike against Tehran.

Hillary Clinton Can’t be Trusted on Iraq

Alternet Dec. 13, 2007, by Stephen Zunes [source]
Public opinion polls have consistently shown that the majority of Americans — and even a larger majority of Democrats — believe that Iraq is the most important issue of the day, that it was wrong for the United States to have invaded that country, and the United States should completely withdraw its forces in short order. Despite this, the clear front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination for president is Senator Hillary Clinton, a strident backer of the invasion who only recently and opportunistically began to criticize the war and call for a partial withdrawal of American forces.

Hillary Clinton on Military Policy

Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS December 12, 2007:
By Emily Schwartz Greco, Stephen Zunes
While much attention has been given to Senator Hillary Clinton’s support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, her foreign policy record regarding other international conflicts and her apparent eagerness to accept the use of force appears to indicate that her fateful vote authorizing the invasion and her subsequent support for the occupation and counter-insurgency war was no aberration. Indeed, there’s every indication that, as president, her foreign policy agenda would closely parallel that of the Bush administration. Despite efforts by some conservative Republicans to portray her as being on the left wing of the Democratic Party, in reality her foreign policy positions bear a far closer resemblance to those of Ronald Reagan than they do of George McGovern. [source]

Hillary Clinton on International Law

Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS December 10, 2007:
By John Feffer, Stephen Zunes [source]
Perhaps the most terrible legacy of the administration of President George W. Bush has been its utter disregard for such basic international legal norms as the ban against aggressive war, respect for the UN Charter, and acceptance of international judicial review. Furthermore, under Bush’s leadership, the United States has cultivated a disrespect for basic human rights, a disdain for reputable international human rights monitoring groups, and a lack of concern for international humanitarian law. Ironically, the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president shares much of President Bush’s dangerous attitudes toward international law and human rights.

Hillary Clinton on Iraq

Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS December 12, 2007, By Stephen Zunes
Public opinion polls have consistently shown that the majority of Americans – and even a larger majority of Democrats – believe that Iraq is the most important issue of the day, that it was wrong for the United States to have invaded that country, and the United States should completely withdraw its forces in short order. Despite this, the clear front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination for president is Senator Hillary Clinton, a strident backer of the invasion who only recently and opportunistically began to criticize the war and call for a partial withdrawal of American forces… [source is no longer available]

The Failure of Annapolis

Foreign Policy In Focus, Dec. 5, 2007, By Stephen Zunes
Also at Antiwar.com and AmericanTaskForce.org
Despite the best efforts by the Bush administration of putting a positive spin on the recently-completed summit in Annapolis to restart the “Performance-Based Road Map to Peace,” there is little reason to expect that it will actually move the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward as long as the United States insists on simultaneously playing the role of chief mediator and chief supporter of the more powerful of the two parties.

Pakistan’s Dictatorships and the United States

Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, December 12, 2007 [source]
In his 2005 inaugural address, President George W. Bush declared that the United States would support democratic movements around the world and work to end tyranny. Furthermore, he pledged to those struggling for freedom that the United States would “not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors.” Despite these promises, the Bush administration—with the apparent acquiescence of the Democratic-controlled Congress—has instead decided to continue U.S. support for the dictatorship of General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president.

The U.S., Bolivia, and Dependency

Americas.org, October 30, 2007, by Stephen Zunes.
Also by America Latina en Movimiento, and Scoop New Zealand
[scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0711/S00220/ScoopNew.htm]
Much to the chagrin of the Bush administration, Bolivian president Evo Morales has been going to great lengths to separate his country from its economic dependence on the United States. His efforts to strengthen the Andean Community of Nations and the recent signing of a “People’s Trade Treaty” with Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba indicate the desire of Bolivia’s Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party government to stand up to Washington by strengthening working economic and political alliances other than direct U.S. influence…

The United States and the Kurds: a brief history

October 25, 2007 [source link is no longer available]
To add to the tragic violence unleashed throughout Iraq as a result of the U.S. invasion of that country, the armed forces of Turkey have launched attacks into the Kurdish-populated region in northern Iraq to fight guerrillas of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK). Taking advantage of the establishment of an autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq, the PKK has been escalating their raids into Turkey, prompting the October 17 decision by the Turkish parliament to authorize military action within Iraq.

U.S. Denial of the Armenian Genocide

Common Dreams, October 22, 2007 [Source link is no longer available]
It continues to boggle the mind what the Democratic leadership in Congress will do whenever the Republicans raise the specter of labeling them “soft on terrorism.” They approve wiretapping without a court order. They allow for indefinite detention of suspects without charge. They authorize the invasion and occupation of a country on the far side of the world that was no threat to us, and then provide unconditional funding for the bloody and unwinnable counter-insurgency war that inevitably followed…

Iraq: Five Years Later, We Can’t Forgive or Forget

Alternet and Foreign Policy In Focus October 16. 2007
Last week marked the fifth anniversary of the congressional vote granting President George W. Bush unprecedented war-making authority to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing. Had a majority of either the Republican-controlled House or the Democratic-controlled Senate voted against the resolution or had they passed an alternative resolution conditioning such authority on an authorization from the United Nations Security Council, all the tragic events that have unfolded as a consequence of the March 2003 invasion would have never occurred…

Support for Iraq Partition: Cynical and Dangerous

National Catholic Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007
and Foreign Policy In Focus, Oct. 12, 2007

The Senate is marking the fifth anniversary of its lamentable vote authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq by advocating a path that would only increase that country’s enormous suffering. On September 26, the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate voted 75–23 in support of an amendment that calls for a “federal” solution to the internal conflicts in their country, which has been widely interpreted as a call for the de facto partition of the country. The resolution, sponsored by Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman and Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Biden of Delaware, was backed by every Democratic senator except Russell Feingold (who voted against it) and Barack Obama (who wasn’t present for the vote.)