Do the Military and Development Mix?
Commentary
Measuring economic development in Afghanistan by the same yardstick as a Pentagon mission is a recipe for disaster.
Commentary
Measuring economic development in Afghanistan by the same yardstick as a Pentagon mission is a recipe for disaster.
World Beat
Hope isn't lost for those who believe that art can transform our world
Commentary
Activists, both in and out of Honduras, continue to work for justice.
Op-Ed
The UN donors' conference is an opportunity to help Haitians rebuild in a manner that respects their humanity and enables them to become more productive.
Between Monday, September 17 and Thursday, September 20, FPIF circulated the following sign-on letter via the Internet. Over 1,800 people, mainly academics and foreign policy experts signed the letter--a remarkable response over a short period of time. We sent out a press release Thursday afternoon, just prior to President Bush's speech to Congress and the country, and distributed the statement to all congressional members. Those who signed included professors from 83 different colleges and universities, students from 40 academic institutions, and people from 18 different countries, ranging from Cameroon to Pakistan to Ukraine. A number of the signers also sent notes and comments.
1. America is living through a tragedy of unprecedented depth. As a nation and as a people we have witnessed and suffered a horrific crime, and we call for a strong, international response. This was a crime against humanity. America's response must be deliberate and determined, and it must uphold our highest moral principles and international norms of conduct.
2. This response must seek justice, not revenge. Our collective response must root out the international terrorism networks responsible for these attacks, not fan the flames of yet more terror.
3. We stand opposed to the massive, widespread, and prolonged military response, as foreshadowed by the militaristic language of the Bush administration officials. Such posturing will not end terrorism. Rather, such a response is likely to result in more civilian casualties, cause greater political violence, and engender new acts of terrorism against innocent people.
4. Instead of waging the first major war of the new century, the U.S. people and government should assert our determination to protect ourselves and all peoples against the threat of terrorism by doing the following in the international arena:
5. At home, we must also act deliberately, strategically, and humanely. Adopting a siege mentality and embracing the politics of war will carry new risks for America. Instead, we should do the following:
Unleashing vengeance through overwhelming U.S. firepower will prove an ineffective and counterproductive response to this new scourge of international terrorism. A "crusade," as President Bush terms it, of American bombers and battleships invading the Islamic world will demonstrate our military might, but it will diminish the chances of finding, dismantling, and punishing these terrorist networks.
We seek victory over these international terrorists. Part of this victory will be measured by the number of terrorists brought to justice, the number of their financial links severed, and the shattering of direct or indirect support for terrorist organizations. But the greater part of victory will come through our government addressing the policies, circumstances, and grievances that spark terrorist responses, particularly against America. Otherwise, for every terrorist network broken, another will take its place. If our response is shaped by wisdom and conviction, we will be able to claim both victory and peace.
Tom Barry, "Foreign Policy In Focus Response to Terrorism Sign-on Statement" (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, August 22, 2005)