From: Progressive Response [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 14 November 2002 02:39
To: Progressive Response
Subject: [PR] Reproductive Rights, Front Groups, UN Resolution
************************************************************************
Click http://www.fpif.org/progresp/volume6/v6n35.html to view an
HTML-formatted version of this issue of Progressive Response.
************************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progressive Response 13 November 2002 Vol. 6, No.
35
Editor: Tom Barry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progressive Response (PR) is produced weekly by the Interhemispheric
Resource Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org) as part of its Foreign
Policy in Focus (FPIF) project. FPIF, a "Think Tank Without Walls," is an
international network of analysts and activists dedicated to "making the
U.S. a more responsible global leader and partner by advancing citizen
movements and agendas." FPIF is joint project of the Interhemispheric
Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies. We encourage responses
to the opinions expressed in the PR and may print them in the "Letters and
Comments" section. For more information on FPIF and joining our network,
please consider visiting the FPIF website at http://www.fpif.org/, or email
<[log in to unmask]> to share your thoughts with us.
Tom Barry, editor of Progressive Response, is a senior analyst with the
Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) (online at www.irc-online.org) and
codirector of Foreign Policy In Focus. He can be contacted at
<[log in to unmask]>.
**** We Count on Your Support ****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Updates and Out-Takes
*** FRONTIER JUSTICE: No. 12 | U.S. DECISION REFLECTS PRESSURE OF
ANTI-CHOICE ZEALOTS ***
By John Gershman
*** GOOD COP, BAD COP AT THE UN ***
By Ian Willams
*** A WAR AVOIDED? ***
By Don Kraus and Mark Epstein
*** HOW THE DEMOCRATS BLEW IT ***
By Stephen Zunes
*** COMMITTEE FOR LIBERATION OF IRAQ: ANOTHER RIGHTWING FRONT GROUP ***
By Jim Lobe
II. Letters and Comments
*** HUMANITARIAN ISSUES ***
*** ZUNES REPLIES ***
*** CHRISTIAN FRIENDSHIP ***
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Updates and Out-Takes
*** FRONTIER JUSTICE: No. 12 | U.S. DECISION REFLECTS PRESSURE OF
ANTI-CHOICE ZEALOTS ***
(Editor's Note: Frontier Justice is a weekly column written alternately by
Tom Barry and John Gershman, foreign policy analysts at the Interhemispheric
Resource Center, chronicling instances of U.S. unilateralism and its assault
on the multilateralism framework for managing global affairs. It is part of
the new Project Against the Present Danger. These columns are now indexed on
the www.presentdanger.org site at:
http://www.presentdanger.org/frontier/2002/index.html.)
By John Gershman
The Bush administration continues its assault on reproductive rights and
reproductive health services for women at home and abroad. At a UN
population and development meeting in late October in Bangkok, the United
States threatened to withdraw its support from an international agreement it
had helped formulate eight years ago, because the Bush administration says
some of its terms imply that women have the right to abortion.
The U.S. delegation to the Asian and Pacific Population Conference said the
United States would not reaffirm its support for the program of action from
the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo
unless the terms "reproductive health services" and "reproductive rights"
are changed or removed. At the meeting Louise Oliver, a special assistant in
the State Department's population office, stated unequivocally that the Bush
administration position was non-negotiable.
The administration falsely claims that references in the Cairo Program of
Action promote abortion. In fact, the document is silent on the subject
except to say that in countries where termination of a pregnancy is legal,
the procedure should be done in a safe manner--just as it currently is here
in the U.S. (Other critics of the Cairo Document argue that it is not
explicit enough in its defense of reproductive rights and access to
reproductive health services including abortion). Although not a perfect
framework, the Cairo program of action did shift the world's approach to
reducing rapid population growth away from coercive, numbers-based programs
toward voluntary family planning programs. At their core, such programs are
about empowering women to make choices and have control over their lives.
The Bush administration stance on the Cairo program follows a decision in
July to withhold $34 million in previously approved aid to the UN Population
Fund (UNFPA). Washington claimed the UNFPA helps Chinese government agencies
that force women to have abortions. And at the General Assembly's special
session on children in May, the Bush administration, the Vatican, and some
Muslim countries advocated a policy banning abortions for teenagers and
promoting abstinence as the centerpiece of sex education.
The State Department recently decided to freeze $3 million in funding
appropriated by Congress for the World Health Organization's research on
mifepristone (also known as RU-486 and the "abortion pill"). Rep. Carolyn
Maloney (D-NY), along with eight other members of the House of
Representatives, sent a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell on
November 1 to express their concerns that the State Department is using an
overly broad interpretation of a 1985 law to justify withholding U.S.
funding from international organizations.
The law, commonly referred to as Kemp-Kasten, prohibits U.S. funds from
being used to finance or support abortions abroad. Such a broad
interpretation of this law was the justification of withholding the $34
million appropriated by Congress for the United Nations Population Fund.
In their letter to Secretary of State Powell, Maloney and the other House
members expressed their concern that this overly broad interpretation of the
law could also jeopardize other funding for other international programs
that work with the Chinese health ministry and family planning programs,
including $120 million to the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), $108.1 million
for the World Health organization, and $792.4 million for the World Bank.
"We want to know that the administration is not jeopardizing UNICEF, WHO,
and other important UN programs because of a small group of anti-choice
zealots," said Maloney in a statement released by her office.
(John Gershman <[log in to unmask]> is a senior analyst at the
Interhemispheric Resource Center (online at www.irc-online.org).)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** GOOD COP, BAD COP AT THE UN ***
By Ian Willams
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new Present Danger Global Affairs
Commentary, available in its entirety online at
http://www.presentdanger.org/commentary/2002/0211goodbad.html.)
Resolution 1441 is more an alternative "legal" road to war rather than an
alternative to war itself. Extrapolating from Saddam Hussein's previous
behavior, the Security Council resolution will lead to war as surely as a
position of unilateral U.S. belligerence.
Washington has certainly won its major point at the Security Council.
Regardless of differing opinions heard throughout the rest of the world,
Iraq is the first item on the U.S.-shaped global security agenda--even if no
other Security Council member would rank it so importantly. Even Tony Blair,
the Bush administration's closest ally over Iraq, has been vainly trying to
point out the equal importance of the Israel/Palestine issue, both as a
security issue in its own right and in terms of its potential for coalition
building. The Pakistan-India nuclear stand-off, for example, poses serious
threats to international peace and security. Even in terms of defiance of UN
resolutions, Iraq is far from the worst scoff-law.
The final draft of 1441 echoes the sigh of relief that greeted George Bush's
September 12 speech announcing his new-found devotion to the United Nations.
The alternative was having the world's most important nation flout the UN
Charter and the major principles of international law established in the
wake of the Second World War. It is hardly surprising, then, that so many
were prepared to accommodate U.S. whims in the interests of preserving the
appearance of the international rule of law.
On a slightly more optimistic note, the long resistance and diplomatic
campaign of attrition in the Security Council should send a warning to
Washington--and constitute a rallying point for the rest of the world--that
the United States will not always have everything its own way. After all,
even a superpower needs allies to conduct operations far from home. That's
small comfort for Saddam Hussein, but in the end the resolution does give us
some small hope for a more multilateral future.
(Ian Williams <[log in to unmask]> contributes frequently to Foreign Policy
In Focus (online at www.fpif.org) on UN and international affairs.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** A WAR AVOIDED? ***
By Don Kraus and Mark Epstein
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs Commentary,
available in its entirety online at
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0211waravert.html .)
Perhaps a war has been avoided. The United Nations Security Council's
unanimous passage of an historic resolution gives UN weapons inspectors
"unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to anyone and anywhere
in Iraq that their search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) might lead
them. The resolution gives Iraq a "final opportunity to comply with its
disarmament obligations." Resistance is futile. Saddam Hussein has been
given seven days to confirm his intention to comply.
Optimists and skeptics are certain to view this situation differently. If
one believes the glass is half full, then the Bush administration, pressured
by allies and U.S. public opinion has veered off of its unilateral course
and should be commended for working within the international system and
helping to restore credibility to the United Nations. But the glass is half
empty if one believes this is the logical extension of a shadow dance begun
by the Bush administration this summer after reading polling data clearly
showing a strong American majority against unilateral action in Iraq. After
reviewing this polling data, the Bush foreign policy team may have concluded
additional steps were needed to create adequate window dressing for an
invasion--the illusion of working with allies and the UN system.
Does the U.S. support for the UN resolution demonstrate that the U.S. is
searching for truth, or is the Bush administration on a course for war (and
oil)?
Half full or half empty, it is disconcerting that the credibility and future
of the United Nations might well now rest in the hand of two men, Saddam
Hussein and George W. Bush, the former who has flaunted international law
and the latter whose administration has questioned the very legitimacy of
the international treaty system. Either could bring down the delicate system
of international laws that have developed over the past century.
If international pressure brought to bear by the United Nations and the
United States on Iraq works--if peace is maintained without war--then an
empowered UN system, with appropriate checks and balances, given the degree
of authority and capacity that Security Council Resolution 1441 has granted
to weapons inspectors, could finally delegitimize war as a means of creating
political change. We could live in a world ruled by the force of law rather
than the law of force.
(Don Kraus <[log in to unmask]> is the Executive Director of the Campaign for
UN Reform. Mark Epstein <[log in to unmask]> is the Executive Director of the
World Federalist Association. Kraus and Epstein write for Foreign Policy In
Focus (online at www.fpif.org) on the UN and international law.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** HOW THE DEMOCRATS BLEW IT ***
By Stephen Zunes
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs Commentary,
available in its entirety online at
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0211blewit.html .)
With the country still mired in recession and polls consistently showing
that the Republicans' positions on such basic policy issues as the
environment and the economy are decidedly unpopular, this should have been
the Democrats' year.
Perhaps the biggest mistake was refusing to challenge the Bush
administration's foreign policy. Although most Americans support in general
terms the use of military support to oust Saddam Hussein's regime, most
oppose an invasion without clear authorization of the UN Security Council or
a broad coalition, which is highly unlikely. These polls also indicate
support dropping dramatically in the event of high American casualties,
highly probable in a ground assault on Baghdad.
Making a strong case against the Bush administration's war plans, its
support for repressive governments, and its assaults on well-respected
international institutions would have almost certainly resulted in a
galvanizing of the Democratic Party faithful as well as large numbers of
independents, insuring a Democratic victory. Millions of Democrats have been
alienated by the party leadership's insistence on acceding to President
George W. Bush's demand that he be granted the authority to invade Iraq
without the legally required mandate from the United Nations Security
Council.
It is difficult to shift public attention to domestic issues in times of
international tension. The Democratic leadership should have recognized that
calls for prescription drug benefits for seniors while the nation is
concerned about an illegal, unnecessary, and possibly devastating war simply
did not catch the imagination of the voting public. This was particularly
problematic in that the Democrats were unable to explain how they intended
to pay for such benefits while refusing to reverse the recently enacted tax
cuts and in authorizing a military campaign that will cost up to $200
billion.
Already, Democratic Party activists concerned with peace and human rights
issues are angered by their party leadership's support for last spring's
attacks by Israel's right-wing government against civilian areas of the
occupied West Bank, which Amnesty International has labeled as war crimes.
This rightward drift on human rights concerns by the Democratic leadership
has gone as far as supporting legislation opposing the International
Criminal Court, including authorizing the use of military force to free any
citizen of the United States or an allied nation detained in The Hague for
war crimes.
One hopes the Democrats will learn the lesson for Tuesday's devastating
defeat and decide to replace their discredited leadership with those who
have the integrity and political smarts to return the party to majority
status.
(Stephen Zunes <[log in to unmask]> is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy
In Focus (online at www.fpif.org). He is an associate professor of politics
at the University of San Francisco and the author of the recently released
Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common
Courage Press, 2002).)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** COMMITTEE FOR LIBERATION OF IRAQ: ANOTHER RIGHTWING FRONT GROUP ***
By Jim Lobe
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from Defining the Present Danger analysis,
available in its entirety online at
http://www.presentdanger.org/papers/libiraq.html .)
The "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq" is setting up offices on Capitol
Hill this week, according to its president, Randy Scheunemann, Lott's former
chief national-security adviser who last year worked in Rumsfeld's office as
a consultant on Iraq policy. The chairman of the new Committee, Bruce P.
Jackson, is a former vice president of Lockheed Martin who chaired the
Republican Party Platform's subcommittee for National Security and Foreign
Policy when Bush ran for president in 2000.
Jackson, who also served as chairman of the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO,
which spearheaded a "citizen's" campaign to persuade Congress to ratify
NATO's eastward expansion in 1998, resigned from Lockheed earlier this year
to, in his words, "pursue democracy building projects full-time."
He, Scheunemann, and a prominent Republican fund-raiser who worked with
Jackson on the NATO Committee, Julie Finley, founded the Project on
Transitional Democracies, for which he is now president. He also leads the
U.S. Committee on NATO, a successor to the expansion effort, in which both
Scheunemann and Finley are officers.
The new Committee on Iraq appears to be a spin-off from the Project for a
New American Century (PNAC), a front group consisting mainly of
neoconservative Jews and heavy-hitters from the Christian Right whose public
recommendations on fighting President George W. Bush's "war against
terrorism" and alignment with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the
second intifada have anticipated to a remarkable degree the administration's
policy course.
Both Scheunemann and Jackson have signed a number of PNAC's open letters to
Bush, including one sent just eight days after the September 11 attacks on
New York and the Pentagon, calling for Washington to carry the
anti-terrorist campaign beyond al Qaeda to Syria, Iran, Hezbollah in
Lebanon, the Palestine Authority and, of course, Iraq. Other signers
included Richard Perle, chairman of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board (DPB),
Frank Gaffney, a Perle protege who now heads the Center for Security Policy
(CSP), and several of Perle's colleagues at the American Enterprise
Institute (AEI), including former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, Michael
Ledeen, and Marc Reuel Gerecht.
"The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq will engage in educational and
advocacy efforts to mobilize U.S. and international support for policies
aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein and freeing the Iraqi
people from tyranny," it goes on. It "is committed to work beyond the
liberation of Iraq to the reconstruction of its economy and the
establishment of political pluralism, democratic institutions, and the rule
of law."
Scheunemann told FPIF the group will concentrate its efforts on the media
"both in the U.S. and in Europe." The new committee appears to be the latest
organization used by neoconservatives and other right-wingers in a long line
of similar front groups stretching back over a quarter of a century, first
to the Coalition for a Democratic Majority and then to the more bipartisan
Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), which campaigned against ditente and
arms control treaties during the Carter administration.
During the 1980s, they spawned new groups--consisting mostly of the same
people--such as the Committee for the Free World; Prodemca (Friends of the
Democratic Center in Central America), which supported Reagan administration
policies in Central America; and the Institute for Religion and Democracy
(IRD), which campaigned against the overseas work of mainstream Protestant
churches and liberation theology of the Roman Catholic Church; among others.
Many of the activists in these groups were associated with AEI, the leading
neoconservative think tank in Washington and one whose foreign-policy
positions have never enjoyed as much influence as now. In the lead-up to the
Gulf War 11 years ago, many of the same individuals launched the Committee
for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG), co-chaired by Perle along with
former New York Democratic Rep. Stephen Solarz.
(Jim Lobe <[log in to unmask]> writes for Inter Press Service and is a
member of the advisory committee of Foreign Policy In Focus (online at
www.fpif.org).)
Also see:
Glossary of the Right-Wing Sectors in U.S. Foreign Policy
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0211glossary.html
By Tom Barry (November 4, 2002)
Understanding politics in America and U.S. foreign policy means knowing
about the right wing.
The Men Who Stole the Show
http://www.fpif.org/papers/02men/index.html
By Tom Barry and Jim Lobe (FPIF adviser) (October 2002)
Organizations such as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), the
Center for Security Policy (CSP), and the American Enterprise Institute
(AEI) have supplied the administration with a steady stream of policy advice
and also with the men-and they are virtually all men-to steer the ship of
state on its radical new course.
See FPIF's Focus on the Right Index
http://www.fpif.org/right/index.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Letters and Comments
*** HUMANITARIAN ISSUES ?***
Re: U.S.-Iraq: On the War Path (available online at
http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol7/v7n12iraq.html )
Stephen Zunes raises eloquently all the issues relating to a possible U.S.
invasion of Iraq such as unilateralism, the danger of a preemption doctrine,
etc. What I am wondering is: why aren't humanitarian issues a concern? Why
does the international community support a brutal dictatorship? And, even if
Saddam is not a direct threat to the United States, does that mean we can
simply ignore all of his humanitarian violations? The Gulf War showed how
weak Saddam's regime was when faced with strong opposition. Saddam has
little support, if any, from the Iraqi populace, which is secular, highly
literate, and educated. If the United States were to force a "regime change"
in Iraq, it would mean an end to the Ba'ath and its reign of terror. I agree
that America was wrong to impose economic sanctions and bombardments on the
Iraqi people (which only made Saddam more popular), but why are humanitarian
issues not raised in this discussion of a possible regime change. The
international community, and the American opposition, are right to criticize
Bush's unilateralism, but wrong in assuming that Saddam is a civilized head
of state.
- Michal Zapendowski <[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** ZUNES REPLIES ***
While Saddam Hussein is not nearly the threat that the Bush administration
and its congressional allies of both parties are making him out to be, there
should be no question about the brutal nature of the regime. Unlike the
1980s, however, virtually no one in the international community currently
supports the dictatorial regime or believes he is a "civilized head of
state." But should the international community tolerate its ongoing
existence?
I do support regime change in Iraq. However, the vast majority of regime
change against autocratic governments in recent years has come not from
foreign invasion or even internal armed rebellion but by nonviolent "people
power" revolutions that have toppled dictatorial regimes in East Germany,
Czechoslovakia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Madagascar, Bolivia,
Malawi, and scores of others, including Yugoslavia, where the Serbian people
did nonviolently in a 48-hour period in 2000 what 11 weeks of NATO bombing
in 1999 could not--topple Slobodan Milosovic.
Such a movement has been made difficult by the fact that the urban middle
class--which has traditionally been key in such movements--in Iraq has been
essentially wiped out, reduced to penury, or forced to emigrate as a result
of the sanctions. In its place, a new class of black marketeers has emerged
that has a stake in preserving the status quo. In addition, the sanctions
have made the Iraqi people dependent on the government for rations, making
them even less likely to risk defying the regime. Indeed, if you are
struggling simply to get food and medicine for your family, you are less
likely to get involved politically.
A unilateral invasion by the United States--which has supported regimes as
cruel as that of Saddam Hussein, like the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia,
among others--will not likely bring freedom to Iraq. Remember that the
United States has never supported democracy in the Arab world. The leading
names mentioned as Washington's preferred replacements to Saddam Hussein are
all former Iraqi generals under Saddam who have defected in recent years but
have been linked to war crimes in the 1980s.
Armed humanitarian intervention may have its place in certain special
circumstances if the international community has exhausted all means to
create conditions where the oppressed people of a given country can oust
their oppressive regime themselves. It has at least some international
support if the hold on power by the regime is indeed fragile and the real
goal is to bring freedom to an oppressed people rather than to extend the
hegemony of a superpower over a territory rich in natural resources. This is
not one of those circumstances.
- Stephen Zunes, FPIF Middle East editor
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** CHRISTIAN FRIENDSHIP ***
There's a saying about being in a very difficult position, "between a rock
and a hard place," which originated in ancient Greece. It described a place
along their ocean coast, where a sailing ship had to steer carefully through
a narrow passage, between a jagged rocky island in the water and a steep
bank on the shore. Contact with either was almost certain to impact and sink
the boat--hence the term meant a navigable but extremely dangerous voyage.
The United States government is currently moving along such a very dangerous
path, between Iraq and a hard line, by wanting to start a war to remove
Saddam Hussein. However, the Gulf War under the previous Bush administration
killed some 100,000 Iraqis, and their current poverty is due in large part
to our destruction of their facilities and to our ensuing sanctions against
them. And it cost us some $60 billion and veterans' deaths from Gulf War
syndrome.
What is the real reason that our government wants Iraq? A Newsweek editorial
(Sep. 20) says "Iraq: It's the Oil, Stupid." World oil reserves are not
keeping up with global use. And "With less oil on tap, oil-importing
countries like ours" (60%) "would take a far more aggressive interest in the
Gulf states that run the world's last big reserves." "Iraq contains one of
the planet's largest reserves. President Bush would hardly go after Saddam
for the oil alone, but it's certainly a factor." And it concludes with
saying, "The more we guzzle, the more we're exposed to geopolitical
trouble..."
Actually, President Bush previously made a suggestion about how to get rid
of Saddam that was at least on the right track--but it didn't go far enough.
He said we should put out a "Wanted" poster, like they used to do in our old
Wild West days. But he forgot to add the "Reward" part, which of course is
what motivates people to respond to the request. Specifically, we should
offer a huge donation, like maybe $10 billion to the Iraqi people, if and
when they depose Hussein--and agree to replace him with a leader with whom
we can deal successfully. That would take the form of food, medicine,
housing, energy, etc., delivered to them to create a healthy and peaceful
society. As Jesus said, "Feed the hungry and heal the sick."
By floating a Christian Friendship proposal between the Iraq dictator and
U.S. hard line military threats, it is highly likely that the problem can be
solved peacefully. And it would be far less costly in money and lives than
another "war" against terrorism. Not to mention that it would probably avoid
additional terrorist attacks on American soil.
However, our current Congress doesn't seem to have the will or ability to
resist the warmongers financed by our military-industrial complex. Therefore
it is the responsibility of American citizens to vote this November only for
candidates who truly want to make peace and not war. After all, it would
save many lives and billions of bucks!
- Conrad Golich
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please consider supporting Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF). FPIF is a new
kind of think tank--one serving citizen movements and advancing a fresh,
internationalist understanding of global affairs. Although we make our FPIF
products freely available on the Internet, we need financial support to
cover our staff time and expenses. Increasingly, FPIF depends on you and
other individual donors to sustain our bare-bones budget. Click on
https://secure.webburner.net/fpif/donate/index.html to support FPIF online,
or for information about making contributions over the phone or through the
mail.
***** We Count on Your Support. Thank you. *****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're working to make the Progressive Response informative and useful, so
let us know how we're doing, via email to <[log in to unmask]>. Please put
"Progressive Response" in the subject line. Please feel free to cross-post
the Progressive Response elsewhere. We apologize for any duplicate copies
you may receive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe to the Progressive Response, go to:
http://www.fpif.org/progresp/index.html and follow the instructions.
To subscribe directly, send a blank message to:
[log in to unmask]
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
[log in to unmask]
************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************
|
