From: Progressive Response [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 1:03 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Open-Ended War, Terrorism Agenda, Women, Global Toxics ************************************************************************ Click http://www.fpif.org/progresp/volume5/v5n34.html to view an HTML-formatted version of this issue of Progressive Response. ************************************************************************ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Progressive Response 15 October 2001 Vol. 5, No. 34 Editor: Tom Barry ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Progressive Response (PR) is a weekly service of Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF)--a "Think Tank Without Walls." A joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies, FPIF 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." 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/. **** We Count on Your Support **** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Updates and Out-Takes *** JOB OPENING *** *** AN OPEN-ENDED WAR *** By Michael Klare *** WOMEN AND DEVELOPMENT AID *** By Ritu Sharma, Women's EDGE *** RATIFYING GLOBAL TOXICS TREATIES: THE U.S. MUST PROVIDE LEADERSHIP *** By Kristin S. Schafer *** NEW AGENDA TO COUNTER TERRORISM *** II. Outside the U.S. III. Letters and Comments *** KLARE AND OIL *** *** TAKING OUR CUES FROM THE ROMANS AND "THE PRINCE" *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Updates and Out-Takes *** JOB OPENING *** Communications Director Responsible for planning, coordinating, and expanding outreach for Global Affairs program, mainly the FPIF project. Also assist in planning, coordinating, and expanding outreach for BIOS program and IRC. See http://www.fpif.org/job_announce.html for more information. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** AN OPEN-ENDED WAR *** By Michael Klare (Editor's Note: Excerpted from an FPIF Global Affairs Commentary posted in its entirety at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0110war.html.) Thus far the U.S. war against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban has followed the carefully scripted plan devised by the White House and the Pentagon over the past few weeks: first, air and missile strikes against the few visible expressions of Taliban military power, to be followed by commando-type raids on suspected terrorist hideouts. What is unknown, however, are the steps that will follow. While most Americans will support a relatively short war to crush the Taliban and capture Bin Laden, there are signs that President Bush and associates favor a much longer and more elaborate conflict--one that shows every risk of turning into a Vietnam-like quagmire. The likelihood that we face a long, drawn-out conflict was raised by the president himself in his television address announcing the first U.S. strikes on Sunday [October 7]. "Today we focus on Afghanistan," he told the nation. "But the battle is broader." Any other nation that aids or supports terrorism, he suggested, will also come under attack from the United States. The concept of an ongoing war against terrorist groups and the states that support terrorism has been a consistent theme in White House rhetoric. "This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion," Bush told a joint session of Congress on September 20. "Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any we have ever seen." What, exactly, might such a conflict entail? On this point, we have heard little but hints and allusions from the Department of Defense. From what is publicly known of U.S. troop movements, it appears that the Pentagon is preparing for an extended campaign in Afghanistan aimed at the complete overthrow of the Taliban regime and attacks on every cave and hiding place that might be used by Bin Laden and his associates. This, in turn, is likely to involve close collaboration with the anti-Taliban forces of the Northern Alliance plus the deployment, for some time, of U.S. ground troops in areas once occupied by Bin Laden's forces. But if Bush's statements are to be taken at face value, this is only stage one of the war against terrorism. The next steps, in all likelihood, will include raids on terrorist camps in other countries, along with air strikes against states that are said to aid the terrorists. It is impossible, at this point, to predict which terrorist groups Washington will go after. Likely candidates include Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Islamic Jihad in Egypt, and Abu Sayyef in the Philippines. It is also likely that Washington will step up its indirect war against the guerrilla groups in Colombia. In some cases, these operations may be relatively modest, involving cooperation with local government forces in short-term commando raids. But others could evolve into much larger campaigns, entailing multiple air strikes and the extended deployment of ground troops. Given that these organizations typically operate in remote, inhospitable areas, and have resisted repeated attacks by local government forces, there is a very real danger that American forces could get drawn into costly and protracted conflicts like those once encountered in Southeast Asia. (Michael T. Klare <[log in to unmask]> is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst and a member of the Advisory Committee of Foreign Policy in Focus, online at www.fpif.org.) Also see: Bombing Will Not Make U.S. More Secure By Stephen Zunes http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0110catharsis.html Afghanistan Conflict Profile By Jim Lobe http://www.fpif.org/selfdetermination/conflicts/afghan.html Philippines Conflict Profile By John Gershman http://www.fpif.org/selfdetermination/conflicts/philippines.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** WOMEN AND DEVELOPMENT AID *** By Ritu Sharma, Women's EDGE (Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF policy brief posted in its entirety at http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n33women.html.) Over the past 30 years, study after study by academics, development practitioners, and international agencies has demonstrated the seemingly self-evident fact that women are equal to men, and sometimes surpass men, in contributing to social and economic development. Researchers have also documented the significant economic dividends of investing in women and girls. Studies conducted by the World Bank, United Nations, and various academics have shown that discrimination against women and girls in education, health care, financial services, and human rights dampens overall economic output, productivity, and growth rates. One World Bank report found that gender inequality in education and employment suppresses Africa's annual per capita growth by 0.8%. Beyond direct economic impacts, women's increased access to education, health care, and human rights brings a "virtuous" cycle of enhanced child health, improved food production, lower population growth rates, higher incomes, and, of course, better quality of life for women themselves. In addition to undermining women's potential, discrimination and low status have relegated many women and their children to the ranks of the poor. Women-headed households make up a majority of the poorest of the poor both in developed and developing countries. More than 900 million women live on less than one dollar a day, and the number of rural women living in absolute poverty has risen by 50% over the past 20 years, as opposed to 30% for men. Advocates, academics, and development practitioners have been working hard for more than thirty years to integrate gender roles--that is, the different roles males and females play in a society--into American aid policy and programming. Yet, despite the evidence that women are active in national development and that investing in women and girls yields a multitude of benefits, U.S. international assistance programs and policy have not caught up with the facts. Why, despite congressional action, a law mandating gender integration, committed practitioners within USAID, and years of advocacy, has gender integration not penetrated U.S. development assistance as it has in other nations' bilateral aid agencies, e.g., Canada and the Nordic countries? Foreign policy decisionmakers often cite a reluctance to "impose our culture" when it comes to women's issues, not recognizing that most women's issues are matters of human rights. It is also ironic that policymakers do not voice the same concern in other foreign policy matters that may be equally cultural. Secondly, most decisionmakers and the majority of development practitioners view women (and, by association, gender integration) as just another sector. They do not consider women as a constituency that must be part of every program, nor do they view gender integration as an analytical tool to help programs support women and get better results. In addition, the attention gender integration receives within individual USAID missions, bureaus, or projects depends heavily on the beliefs and commitment of their leadership. The 2000 ACVFA report states that for true integration of gender to take place, "senior leadership, particularly the chief executive, must 'walk the talk'--with vision, commitment built on consensus, requisite resources and training, and clear accountability." The one bureau that received high marks in the ACVFA report was Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Its recipe for success: an assistant administrator and deputy assistant administrator who valued and promoted gender integration, a highly skilled and diplomatic gender expert, who assisted missions and projects in integrating gender; and adequate resources to promote gender integration. In addition to the lack of leadership, there was a paucity of communications from Washington to USAID missions, bureaus, and partners about the existence of past women-in-development policies and, in particular, about the 1996 Gender Plan of Action. Though the administrator announced the GPA, he did so just once and only on the electronic bulletin board, which few personnel read. As one senior USAID official said during the interviews that the ACVFA conducted, "The GPA has been invisible and irrelevant." Another internal obstacle has been the lack of real incentives for integrating gender. The Gender Plan of Action's best tools--evaluating performance on gender integration as part of personnel promotions, and scoring bids for contracts based on the bidder's treatment of gender--were weakened or delayed in their implementation. The gender criteria were only included in evaluating and promoting junior and mid-level employees, not in choosing and monitoring senior management. The procurement regulations were adopted at the very end of the Clinton administration (four years after they were proposed in the GPA), and only because of sustained advocacy by the ACVFA. Because contractors, consultants, and grantees play such a large and growing role in implementing USAID programs, this procurement requirement has the potential to integrate gender like never before, but that remains to be seen. The challenge now is to ensure that contracting officers know how to evaluate the quality of gender integration in proposals and that field staff know how to implement gender requirements in their projects and planning processes. To compound matters, if mission directors, bureau chiefs, or project directors proactively seek to analyze gender and/or target women as part of their work, the Office of Women in Development (WID) lacks the technical staff and resources to adequately assist them. With a budget of $10 million and only 5-7 direct-hire staff, it is essentially impossible for WID to give attention to more than a small fraction of USAID's 200-plus projects with a budget totaling $2.7 billion. Furthermore, foreign direct investment and trade now grossly overshadow USAID's development assistance, and trade and investment are increasingly touted as the alternative to aid. USAID's economic growth portfolio over the last five years has shifted from building nationally based enterprises to assisting developing nations in joining and adhering to international trade pacts and collaborating with the World Trade Organization. In other words, it provides aid for trade. (Ritu Sharma <[log in to unmask]> is co-founder and executive director of Women's EDGE.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** RATIFYING GLOBAL TOXICS TREATIES: THE U.S. MUST PROVIDE LEADERSHIP *** By Kristin S. Schafer (Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF policy brief posted in its entirety at http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n31toxtreat.html.) The international community has, at long last, recognized that there are some toxic chemicals that are just too dangerous to produce, use, and store--put simply, too dangerous to have on the planet. The global treaty resulting from this recognition is an important and welcome international policy milestone that is long overdue. The chemicals in question are persistent organic pollutants--"POPs"--substances that are toxic, persist in the environment, accumulate in the body fat of humans and animals, concentrate up the food chain, and can be transported across the globe. At very low levels of exposure, POPs can cause reproductive and developmental disorders, damage to the immune and nervous systems, and a range of cancers. Exposure during key phases of fetal development can be particularly damaging. Infants around the world are born with an array of POPs already in their blood. Many POPs pervade the environment, even in remote regions such as the Arctic and Antarctic; several have been found at high levels in the blood and breast milk of Inuit women living thousands of miles from the nearest possible source of pollution. POPs are found in today's U.S. food supply, even though many of the chemicals in question have been banned in the U.S. for decades. The global nature of these pollutants led the UN Environment Program (UNEP) to sponsor several years of negotiations that recently culminated in an international treaty. The treaty, now known as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, was signed into formal legal existence in Sweden on May 23, 2001 by 91 countries and the European Community. The treaty identifies an initial list of 12 POPs slated for elimination. Nine of the 12 (aldrin, endrin, dieldrin, chlordane, DDT, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, and toxaphene) are pesticides, all of which have been targeted for elimination by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) around the world since the early 1980s as part of Pesticide Action Network (PAN) International's Dirty Dozen campaign. The other chemicals on the convention's initial list are PCBs, dioxins, and furans. PCBs and all of the nine listed pesticides have been banned in the U.S., some--like DDT--for decades. The U.S. continues to produce dioxins and furans, however, as byproducts of chlorine-based industries and waste incineration. The Stockholm Convention establishes various timetables for elimination of the intentionally produced POPs, which include all the listed pesticides and PCBs. Provisions specific to DDT call for its ultimate elimination but allow interim use of the pesticide for vector control and call for aggressive efforts to develop and implement safe and effective alternatives to combat malaria. The byproduct POPs are also slated for ultimate elimination, with an emphasis on alternative, cleaner production processes rather than end-of-the-pipe controls. The Rotterdam Convention is a complementary treaty providing important controls on international trade of highly toxic chemicals. This convention, signed by 73 nations in 1998, is the formalization of a voluntary Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure, administered jointly by UNEP and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) since 1989. The PIC procedure requires that any country importing pesticides and certain other hazardous chemicals must be informed of bans or severe restrictions on that chemical in other countries. The volume of hazardous pesticides crossing international borders is tremendous--an estimated 2.4 billion pounds per year in 1990. Developing countries often lack the capacity to adequately evaluate and regulate highly toxic chemicals imported from their Northern neighbors. The PIC procedure is the international community's response to this inequity, and it continues to be implemented on a voluntary basis, while the treaty accumulates the needed 50 ratifications to come into force. Although the convention could be strengthened, it represents an important tool for the international community to monitor and control the world's massive trade in dangerous substances. Many NGOs, including PAN International and the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN), are calling for 50 countries to ratify these important conventions by September 2002, when the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio +10) takes place in Johannesburg, South Africa. To date, Canada and Fiji have ratified the Stockholm Convention, and 14 countries have ratified the Rotterdam Convention. The U.S. has not yet ratified either. (Kristin S. Schafer <[log in to unmask]>, Program Coordinator with Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), is coauthor of Nowhere to Hide: Persistent Toxic Chemicals in the U.S. Food Supply (PANNA, 2001). She coordinates PANNA's POPs Elimination program and cofacilitates the IPEN working group on pesticides.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** NEW AGENDA TO COUNTER TERRORISM *** Combating terrorism should not become a crusade that trumps all other policy concerns. Our commitment to environmental protection, human rights, democratic political transitions, economic development, poverty alleviation, disarmament, and gender equality--to name a few stated U.S. policy goals--must remain strong. But neither can counterterrorism just be added to these policy imperatives. The challenge is to construct a counterterrorism policy that demonstrates America's new commitment to protecting Americans and U.S. national security, while at the same time asserting our new commitment to constructing an international framework of peace, justice, and security that keeps terrorists out in the cold--with no home, no supporters, no money, and no rallying cry. Foreign Policy In Focus has formulated an alternative framework to increase national security and counter terrorism, for which it is seeking endorsements for its release to media and policymakers. FPIF Counterterrorism Agenda http://www.fpif.org/justice/tobedone.html FPIF Sign-On Statement http://www.fpif.org/form_nowar.html Justice Not War: A Policy and Citizen Action Clearinghouse http://www.fpif.org/justice/index.html Also see: International Terrorism By Stephen Zunes http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol3/v3n38terr.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Outside the U.S. (Editor's Note: In the best of times and in the worst of times, it is hard for Americans to remove ourselves from the U.S.-centric view of the world propagated by our media, our government, our schools, and many of our churches. These are certainly among the worst of times--a conjuncture in global affairs that calls for a fundamental reexamination of our perspectives and policies. When searching for the right, smart, and just ways to respond to the threat of terrorism, Americans would do well to listen to those who live outside the United States. FPIF and IRC have two projects that aim to make non-U.S. perspectives more accessible in a world dominated by the U.S. media. These are our Outside the U.S. project http://www.fpif.org/outside/index.html and our South-North Dialogue project http://www.fpif.org/southnorth/index.html We encourage non-U.S. experts and organizations to send us (direct to John Gershman <[log in to unmask]>) their perspectives for inclusion in these pages for dissemination. The following are some links to non-U.S. analysis we have collected on our Justice Not War site http://www.fpif.org/justice/index.html illustrating the often starkly different views of this crisis that come from outside the United States.) "Slaughter of the innocent bolsters view that this is war against Islam," by Robert Fisk, The Independent (October 15, 2001) http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=99519 "Yes, there is an effective alternative to the bombing of Afghanistan," by Tariq Ali, The Independent (October 15, 2001) http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=99442 "September apocalypse: who, why and what next?" by Karen Armstrong, The Guardian (October 13, 2001) http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,568512,00.html "United States: all-powerful but powerless," by Stephen C. Clemons, Le Monde Diplomatique (October 2001) http://www.en.monde-diplomatique.fr/2001/10/02usa "An enemy. At last," by Ignacio Ramonet, Le Monde Diplomatique (October 2001) http://www.en.monde-diplomatique.fr/2001/10/01leader "An enemy with no forwarding address," by Marwan Bishara, Le Monde Diplomatique (October 2001) http://www.en.monde-diplomatique.fr/2001/10/03asymmetry "My country, post Taliban," by Jawed Ludin, The Guardian (October 13, 2001) http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,573220,00.html "A war can only be judged 'just' in retrospect," by Patrick Comerford, Irish Times (October 9, 2001) http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2001/1009/opt3.htm "When the force is with you: On what legal basis can states justify going to war?," by Clare Dyer and Peter Lennon, The Guardian (October 9, 2001) http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,565882,00.html "Now it is war - but for what?," by Mick Hume, Spiked Online (October 8, 2001) http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000002D262.htm "It will take more than bombs to defeat al-Qaeda," Editorial, The Daily Star (Lebanon) (October 8, 2001) http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/08_10_01_a.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Letters and Comments *** KLARE AND OIL *** I think Michael Klare ["Asking Why" http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0109why.html] is wrong about only a few things. The U.S. does not occupy Saudi Arabia to protect it from external attack. Eqbal Ahmad has disagreed with emphasis: (a) Saddam has already been decimated, and (b) the U.S. already proved in the Gulf War that it can mobilize troops from aircraft carriers and adjacent countries to annihilate any foreign invader. The reason that the U.S. occupies Saudi Arabia is to protect it from the kind of internal revolt that toppled the Shah's Iran. The U.S. military extracts a massive price for protecting the royal family from its internal enemies. The major U.S. energy companies are given the best concessions at very good prices, which then allow those energy companies to enjoy super-profits at the pump. Second, the U.S. is able to coerce the royal family to recycle petrodollars in such a way to help U.S. defense companies, to maintain the U.S. stock market, and to maintain the value of the dollar (Saudi Arabia fights against OPEC accepting a basket of currencies). Third, the U.S. can press the Saudis as the swing producer to act in the interests of the U.S. economy. So if world demand drops off and crises of profitability erupt, the U.S. can coerce the Saudis into breaking quotas and thereby lowering the price of oil, even if this ruins the highly populous OPEC countries and turns the terms of trade massively against the OPEC countries. Of course the Saudis have their own interest in this since they make more money off Wall Street than the sale of oil. I do not think the U.S. is there to ensure the flow of oil; the oil will flow no matter what kind of regime is in place. Iran has not held the world over the barrel. It's true that OPEC could become more aggressive with the energy companies but this would not necessarily increase prices unless the energy companies insisted on their super-profits. The U.S. is there not to ensure the flow of oil but to get the best concessions on the best terms, to have petrodollars recycled in its own interests, and to ensure that Saudi Arabia can be used to maintain terms of trade favorable to oil companies and the Western economies at the expense of the raw-material exporting nations. Once this economic exploitation is coupled with the deep sense of humiliation of having lost land over the past fifty years to foreign invaders and foreign invaders then occupying their holiest sites, it's no surprise that the jihadi whom the U.S. once nurtured have now turned on it. I do support the American attempt to annihilate terrorist networks, such as the Egyptian jihadi and al Qaeda and the Taliban (I just don't want Cheney again saying that ANC organizations are terrorist), but we are dealing with a hydra unless--as Michael Klare shows--these regimes are internally democratized. - Rakesh Bhandari <[log in to unmask]> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** TAKING OUR CUES FROM THE ROMANS AND "THE PRINCE" *** "The Prince" has many applications to what is happening in Afghanistan and our military policy. According to Machievelli's theory, Afghanistan would be an easy country to capture but a hard one to maintain. The cruel nature of the existing Taliban government has created factions within the state. There will be no unified resistance to our occupation as in the earlier Soviet invasion. Many Taliban soldiers are already defecting. The Northern Alliance will welcome U.S. troops and as a weaker party would use our forces to gain in domination. The return of the King would again be an easy matter. He would unify all parties and factions under one directive. And depending on his reputation, if he were loved formerly, he may again be loved by the masses. However, once our objectives are achieved, Afghanistan will be difficult to maintain control of. The factions will still exist, and some will rebel. We should exit after our goals are completed. Iraq, however, is a different story. It would be an extremely difficult nation to invade and occupy--as Saddam's central government would offer unified resistance. However, once defeated, it would be an easy nation to occupy and colonize. The death of Saddam, and the elimination of his government, would leave the nation without leadership to offer organized resistance. We should, as the Romans did, establish a colony there and use it as a base to establish our rule in the region. For too long America has made a tragic mistake. We have mixed our personal morality with our political and military policy. There needs to be a separation of the two. We have seen the results of being the good, open, liberal, peace-loving, Christian nation. Now it is time to be like the Romans, establish colonies, destroy opposition and in that way bring a new "pax Romana" to the middle east. Our weakness stems from our national morality. It should not govern our foreign policy. - Peter Valunas <[log in to unmask]> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/form_donate.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. ***** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Progressive Response aims to provide timely analysis and opinion about U.S. foreign policy issues. The content does not necessarily reflect the institutional positions of either the Interhemispheric Resource Center or the Institute for Policy Studies. 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 *************************************************************************************