OpenLetterOnline.com, January 22, 2005
by Stephen Zunes [source link’s no longer available]
On January 4, Congressional Democrats re-elected California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi as minority leader in the House of Representatives. This comes despite that, since assuming her current leadership position two years ago, Pelosi has not only disappointed her liberal San Francisco constituency, but the majority of Democrats nationally as well, through her support for President George W. Bush’s policies toward Iraq…
Search Posts Chronologically
Some Potentially Positive Developments from a Disastrous Election
January 21, 2005 by Stephen Zunes [source is no longer online]
No progressive should be happy with the results of the presidential election. However, it is hard to predict what the longer-term impact on American politics of a particular presidential election result might be. For example, it would have felt terrible at the time if ‘ despite Vietnam and Watergate ‘ Gerald Ford had managed to defeat Jimmy Carter in the close election of 1976. However, if Ford had stayed in office for another four years, the Republicans would have been blamed for the recession and the Iranian hostage crisis of subsequent years and the Democrats would have almost certainly won in 1980, thereby sparing the nation and the world the consequences of the eight years of the Reagan administration…
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…
Missing Explosives Cache Emblematic of Bush Administration Failures in Iraq
November 1, 2004 by Stephen Zunes [source is no longer online]
Whether news about the 380 tons of powerful explosives found missing from a major weapons depot in Iraq will have any impact on the presidential election remains to be seen. Democrats hope that these disclosures have given a last-minute boost to John Kerry’s presidential campaign, which is depicting this debacle as illustrative of President Bush’s failure of leadership. Since the Democratic Party decided to nominate presidential and vice-presidential candidates who, like the incumbent president, falsely claimed that Iraq had ‘weapons of mass destruction…
Despite the Lies about Iraq and the Resulting Disaster, Bush Still Maintains Strong Support
Common Dreams, October 29, 2004
by Stephen Zunes [source is no longer available]
Even putting aside the many important legal and moral questions about the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq, it has been a disaster even in practical terms. Mainstream to conservative strategic analysts and retired generals ‘ along with the majority of career professionals in the State Department, Defense Department, and CIA ‘ recognize that the invasion and occupation has made America less secure rather than more secure…
Bush Administration Disasters Depicted as Triumphs
By Foreign Policy In Focus, October 29, 2004
By Stephen Zunes [source]
Even putting aside the many important legal and moral questions about the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq, it has been a disaster even on practical terms. Mainstream to conservative strategic analysts and retired generals–along with the majority of career professionals in the State Department, Defense Department, and CIA–recognize that the invasion and occupation has made America less secure rather than more secure. Still, the Bush administration continues to defend its actions and public opinion polls still show that a majority of Americans trust George W. Bush more than John Kerry to defend America….
Presidential Election Offers Little Choice for Israeli-Arab Peace
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, October 26, 2004
By Stephen Zunes [source link is no longer available]
Earlier this month, in a widely quoted interview in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Dov Weisglass–Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s senior adviser–acknowledged what most independent observers have known all along: that the Israeli government is not actually interested in a peace agreement with the Syrian government or the Palestinian Authority. Israel has occupied the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights since these territories were seized by the Israeli armed forces in 1967, expelling thousands of Arabs and then colonizing these territories with Jewish settlers in contravention of international law…
The U.S. Invasion of Iraq: The Military Side of Globalization?
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, October 26, 2004
By Stephen Zunes [source link is no longer online]
The major justifications for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq—Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi ties to the terrorist al-Qaida network—are now widely discredited, and Washington’s claims that its efforts are creating a democratic Iraq are also highly dubious. Although economic factors did play an important role in prompting a U.S. invasion, the simplistic notion that Iraq’s makeover was undertaken simply for the sake of oil company profits ignores the fact that even optimistic projections of the financial costs of the invasion and occupation far exceeded anticipated financial benefits…
Why We Must Prevent the Re-election of Senators Who Supported the Invasion of Iraq
October 15, 2004, by Stephen Zunes [source is no longer online]
It has been just over two years since Congress took its fateful vote to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. This came despite the fact that such an invasion was a clear violation of the United Nations Charter, which, as a formal treaty signed and ratified by the United States, is — according to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution — to be treated as supreme law. Since that time, as of this writing, over 1100 Americans have been killed and 7500 wounded. Most estimates indicate that at least 20,000 Iraqis have been killed, more than two-thirds of them civilians, and more than 40,000 have been injured. The war has thus far cost the American taxpayer over $150 billion…
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…
The Most Misleading Foreign Policy Statements Made by the Candidates in the Vice-Presidential Debate
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, October 6, 2004
by Stephen Zunes [source link’s no longer available]
Listed below is what I consider to be the sixteen most misleading statements made by Vice-President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards during the foreign policy segment of their debate of October 5, followed by my critiques. This is a non-partisan analysis: eleven of the misleading statements cited are from Cheney and five are from Edwards. The quotes are listed in the order in which they appear in the transcript…
Misleading Foreign Policy Statements Made by the Candidates in the Vice Presidential Debate
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, October 6, 2004
by Stephen Zunes [source link’s no longer available]
The list below contains what I consider to be the sixteen most misleading statements made by Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards during the foreign policy segment of their debate of October 5, followed by my critiques. This is a resolutely non-partisan analysis: eleven of the misleading statements cited are from Cheney and five are from Edwards. The quotes are listed in the order in which they appear in the transcript…
While Criticizing Implementation, Kerry Endorses Bush’s Unilateralist Agenda
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, by Stephen Zunes October 5, 2004
[source is no longer available]
Democratic nominee John Kerry’s foreign policy speech at New York University has been widely hailed as a long-overdue effort to place some daylight between himself and President Bush regarding Iraq. In his September 20 address, the Massachusetts senator appropriately took the president to task for launching the war prematurely, mishandling the occupation, misleading the American public regarding the deteriorating situation on the ground, and pursuing policies that have weakened America’s security interests. However, the speech also contained a number of disturbing elements…
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…
Is Kerry Really More Open than Bush to Alternative Foreign Policy Perspectives?
Common Dreams, September 15, 2004
by Stephen Zunes [source is no longer available].
Some progressive supporters of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry have argued that, despite his support for the invasion of Iraq and other neoconservative-driven foreign policies of the Bush Administration, at least a President Kerry – unlike the incumbent president – would be more willing to listen to the views of those with more moderate perspectives than himself. A President Kerry, so goes this argument, while likely to take a number of foreign policy positions more hawkish than most Democrats could support, would at least be more open to hearing a number of competing assessments and policy options before choosing military solutions to foreign policy problems. Unfortunately, while a President Kerry would almost certainly be less ideological and impulsive… the Massachusetts senator appears to be just as unwilling to listen to alternative viewpoints regarding foreign affairs as the incumbent president…
International Law, The U.N., and MIddle Eastern Conflicts
Professor Stephen Zunes prepared this paper to present at the 2003 convention of the State Bar Association of Arizona, September 9, 2004. However, two weeks before the event, SBA president Ernest Calderon banned the presentation following complaints that Zunes, who had been invited to prepare it six months earlier– was “anti-Israel” and “anti-American.” At no point was Zunes given an opportunity to defend himself and challenge these charges… Access the full paper [tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1040265042000278513] or see the summary image below.
How Kerry’s Foreign Policies Leave Him Vulnerable to Republican Attacks
Stephen Zunes, Posted Sept. 3, 2004 [source no longer available]
The only people who could possibly be swayed by the unfair and misleading attacks on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry put forward by speakers at the Republican National Convention (particularly Vice-President Dick Cheney and Georgia Senator Zell Miller) would be those with little understanding of contemporary strategic issues and modern diplomatic history. Unfortunately, that probably includes the majority of eligible American voters…
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…
Rightward Ho!
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, August 10, 2004
[source no longer available]
Against the backdrop of ongoing death and destruction in Iraq as a result of the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation, the Democratic Party formally adopted their 2004 platform on July 28 at their convention in Boston. The platform focused more on foreign policy than it had in recent years. It represented an opportunity to challenge the Republican administration’s unprecedented and dangerous departure from the post-World War II international legal consensus forbidding aggressive wars, as well as a means with which to offer a clear alternative to the Bush Doctrine…