The Progressive Response
Volume 6, Number 4
February 7, 2002
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/.
Tom Barry, editor of Progressive Response, is a senior analyst with the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) www.irc-online.org and codirector of Foreign Policy In Focus. He can be contacted at <tom@irc-online.org>.
Editor: Tom Barry (IRC)
Table of Contents
I. Updates and Out-Takes
NEW CONJUNCTURE: SOURCES OF OUR POWER
By John Cavanagh
WORLD SOCIAL FORUM RETROSPECTIVE
By Martha Honey
WHAT'S NEW FROM SELF-DETERMINATION IN FOCUS
II. Outside the U.S.
EMERGING ALTERNATIVES IN PALESTINE
By Edward Said
III. Letters and Comments
I. Updates and Out-takes
(Editor's Note: Foreign Policy In Focus is a "think tank without walls" in the sense that it relies on the electronic networking of policy analysts and advocates around the world. But FPIF also differs from traditional think tanks in that it is embedded in citizen movements. Part of its mission is to help promote and advance citizen agendas--ones that rise from grassroots protest and mobilization. Although embedded in progressive movements, FPIF is independent and often convenes meetings--actual and virtual--to reflect on different approaches to foreign policy reform and on the state of citizen movements concerned with global affairs. In this issue of the Progressive Response, we offer perspectives about the state of the progressive response to the changing prospects of the antiglobalization movement, while in the next issue we will look at the progressive response to 9-11 and the new climate of militarism. In the Outside the U.S. section, there's an except of a new analysis on the state of organizing among Palestinians.)
NEW CONJUNCTURE: SOURCES OF OUR
POWER
By John Cavanagh
(Editor's Note: The following is excerpted from a presentation at a FPIF forum on "The Future of the Global Justice Movement," at http://www.fpif.org/discussion/0201globalization/index.html.)
Post-September 11, where is the global justice movement? I think we're in a kind of stalemate Let me try to give a little bit of a score-card on the movement by looking at what were its sources of power pre-9-11 and just comment on each of these sources of power in terms of what 9-11 means. First, we were powerful because we were able to influence events (the victories I just mentioned). Now, can we still do that? I think I won't say anymore than what Thea Lee laid out very articulately. I do think the two big fights since September 11--the World Trade Organization in Doha and fast track--I think we would've won them had it not been for September 11. I don't think they would've won. Yet, the enormous effort and power that was put together to create roadblocks to the corporate globalization agenda are significant. As I've been with corporate people and government people in debates on the radio and other things since September 11, they don't refer to fast track as a victory for their side. They say, regarding the fast track vote, that this country is deeply divided about trade and globalization. So I think we are still strong in our ability to influence real events, but not quite as strong as before September 11.
Second piece of the score card; our ability to get visibility, to get on the front pages. A lot of the mainstream media is, of course, about entertainment. And certainly the giant protest in Seattle, which included a bit of property destruction, provided some great entertainment; and I will not question the fact that it helped greatly raise the visibility of this movement. And, clearly, September 11, for at least the short term in North America, not the rest of the world but in North America, there is no question that the ability to have large-scale demonstrations has decreased for the moment. I don't think that weakens the movement. It does weaken the visibility of the movement.
The third source of our power was basically summed up in two words: Seattle Coalition. We were powerful because we had a remarkable coalition of many different sectors: labor, environment, students, religious, women, health activists, indigenous activists. That's quite a movement. As Thea alluded, some are suggesting that this has been shattered since 9-11, partly because in this country different parts of that movement came down differently on the war. Student groups and religious groups joined peace movements. The labor movement did not. I think that, again, that argument has been greatly overstated. Thea helped convene, on a weekly basis after September 11, meetings that brought that entire Seattle Coalition together again to fight fast track. People who perhaps disagreed on specifics of how they felt about the war in Afghanistan came together as strongly as ever to fight against a common enemy. And I do think that this coalition remains strong, but a lot of it is battered more by recession than by September 11. The labor movement is hurt by recession and job loss. So I would say we're a bit weaker, but not because of September 11.
The fourth indicator of our power in this country, and in many other countries, was also rooted in the fact that the public, on most of the issues, was with us. Public opinion polls in the U.S. have shown overwhelmingly for several years that the vast majority of the public--three-quarters--believes that large corporations have too much economic and political power. And then, if you single out segments of corporate power--Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Polluters, Big Insurance companies, as Al Gore singled out in his brief rise to popularity after his convention speech--then 90% of the American public is with you. And polls show that the public is still with us on those key issues; we haven't lost that. And that is, again, when you are sitting down with corporate people and government people, this facet of our power makes them more nervous than ever. They're happy that September 11 changed the topic of conversation for awhile, but they are still aware that on those key issues they don't have the public with them.
Our power, too, is strength when things go badly for the other side. And I need say no more, than what Alejandro Bendana said about Argentina and what Kristin Dawkins said about Enron to suggest that this is a period of deep crisis for the other side. Both of those expose such great flaws--Argentina, in terms of the whole approach of the IMF and the World Bank; Enron, in terms of the whole notion of deregulated liberalized markets, which has been at the centerpiece of the alternative model. Both have deep, deep implications for the ability of the other side to gain momentum.
(John Cavanagh is director of the Institute for Policy Studies and a member of FPIF's Advisory Committee.)
WORLD SOCIAL FORUM RETROSPECTIVE
By Martha Honey
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs Commentary available in its entirety at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0202portoalegre3.html .)
While Davos/New York represents, as Jeff Faux, president of the Economic Policy Institute, put it, the political party and the agenda for the world's elite, Porto Alegre should be viewed as the party and the agenda for the rest of us. But while "they" seem to have their act together, ours is still a very mixed bag. While the WSF focused on economic globalization, the clearest and strongest organizing appears to be taking place around a handful of issues, including the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), external debt cancellation, and the Tobin Tax.
Far too many of the Forum's 700-odd workshops were rambling, repetitious, off-the-cuff presentations with little audience participation. There is a growing assessment that, next time, workshops should be more closely linked to major papers and presentations given at plenary sessions and that workshop discussions should be fed back into plenaries in order to hammer out a common WSF platform.
In addition, there was not enough attention paid to the ties between U.S. military reach, national armed forces, and globalization. The WSF, for instance, offered surprisingly little discussion (only 3 or 4 workshops) of the role of the U.S. military--even though Brazil borders on Colombia, where the U.S. is deeply involved in the hemisphere's hottest war. Any holistic understanding of corporate-led globalization needs to incorporate an analysis of the role of military power, as well as of institutions and mechanisms for conflict prevention and peacekeeping.
While deeper analysis is called for in terms of content, more breadth is needed in terms of composition. Woman were prominent (though still not equal as panelists and organizers), but people of color were a tiny minority. The Institute for Policy Studies and some other organizations helped bring African-American and Latino organizers from the U.S., and there were a handful of delegates from Africa, Asia, and indigenous and Afro-Caribbean communities in Latin America. But this peoples' gathering hardly looked like the globe. Even the venue, the state of Rio Grande do Sul, is the "whitest" part of Brazil, populated largely by descendants of German and Italian immigrants who wiped out the indigenous population.
As plans begin to be laid for the World Social Forum's next round, many are asking if it will become a serious political platform or merely a street party. No people is better qualified than Brazilians to teach us the importance of living and enjoying life to the fullest. The solution is not to cut out the fun, the sun, the music, dancing, jugglers, puppeteers, and capoeira. Rather it is to use our serious time more seriously to educate ourselves about the tasks at hand, to lay plans for the struggles ahead, and to map out and reach consensus on the alternative agendas.
(Martha Honey <martha@ips-dc.org> is codirector of Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org).)
We invite you to respond to the assessments and strategic pointers raised by FPIF analysts at our forum on "The Future of the Global Justice Movement" as part of creating a broader dialogue addressing the challenges facing the global justice movement. In framing your responses, it would help if you could refer to specific comments by the presenters with which you (dis)agree.
Here are some (merely suggestive) questions to spark debate:
- Is the term global justice movement a useful way to describe the movement? What about the antiglobalization movement or other label? What do we gain or lose by using one name or another?
- Do you agree that the impact of 9-11 on the global justice movement has been largely limited to effectively delegitimizing certain tactics--such as protests that destroy property?
- What are the possible initiatives that could emerge from the World Social Forum (and similar events) that could provide a compelling focal point for mobilization and advocacy in the coming year?
- Is the movement "stronger than ever" or has it passed its apex?
If you have opinions about the prospects of the antiglobalization/global justice movement, please visit http://www.fpif.org/discussion/0201globalization/index.html and send us your feedback.
WHAT'S NEW FROM SELF-DETERMINATION IN FOCUS
FPIF's Self-Determination In Focus project (online at www.selfdetermine.org) provides regular coverage and analysis of ethnopolitical, religio-political, and self-determination conflicts around the world.
Aceh
Conflict Profile
By Anthony Smith
Aceh remains part of the Indonesian heartland and its loss would be a
far greater national trauma than the loss of East Timor. Considerable
energy has been expended in diplomatic lobbying to ensure that the world's
states still recognize Indonesia's territorial integrity.
Korea
Conflict Profile
By John Feffer
The U.S. does not maintain diplomatic relations with North Korea and has
gone to great lengths to prevent the country from participating in key
international organizations. For its part, North Korea has consistently
excoriated the U.S. and has threatened the country rhetorically.
Bosnia
Conflict Profile
By Roberto Belloni
What now might be needed is the international community's abandonment
of a façade of democracy that praises local participation in the
peace process but removes sites of power and policymaking from popular
accountability. In other words, if the near future is that of a full-blown
international protectorate, then this should come with the connected duties
and responsibilities that go with the job.
New
U.S and EU Moves Worry Sudan Activists
By Jim Lobe
Concern that the European Union (EU) and the United States are taking
the demands of the largely black African population of southern Sudan
off the agenda is rising among a broad coalition of activists critical
of the Arab National Islamic Front (NIF) government in Khartoum.
II. Outside the U.S.
(Editor's Note: FPIF has a new component called "Outside the U.S.," which aims to bring non-U.S. voices into the U.S. policy debate and to foster dialog between Northern and Southern actors in global affairs issues. Please visit our Outside the U.S. page for other non-U.S. perspectives on global affairs and for information about submissions at: http://www.fpif.org/outside/index.html. )
EMERGING ALTERNATIVES IN
PALESTINE
By Edward Said
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from an Outside the U.S. commentary available in its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0201palestine.html .)
Since it began 15 months ago, the Palestinian Intifada has had little to show for itself politically, despite the remarkable fortitude of a militarily occupied, unarmed, poorly led, and still dispossessed people that has defied the pitiless ravages of Israel's war machine. In the United States, the government and, with a handful of exceptions, the "independent" media have echoed each other in harping on Palestinian violence and terror, with no attention at all paid to the 35-year Israeli military occupation, the longest in modern history: as a result, American official condemnations of Yasser Arafat's Authority after 11 September as harboring and even sponsoring terrorism have coldly reinforced the Sharon government's preposterous claim that Israel is the victim, the Palestinians the aggressors in the four-decade war that the Israeli army has waged against civilians, property, and institutions without mercy or discrimination.
A new secular nationalist current [among Palestinians] is slowly emerging. It's too soon to call this a party or a bloc, but it is now a visible group with true independence and popular status. It counts Dr. Haidar Abdel-Shafi and Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi (not to be confused with his distant relative, Tanzim activist Marwan Barghouthi) among its ranks, along with Ibrahim Dakkak, Ziad Abu Amr, Ahmad Harb, Ali Jarbawi, Fouad Moghrabi, Legislative Council members Rawiya Al-Shawa and Kamal Shirafi, writers Hassan Khadr and Mahmoud Darwish, Raja Shehadeh, Rima Tarazi, Ghassan Al-Khatib, Nassir Aruri, Eliya Zureik, and myself. In mid-December, a collective statement was issued that was well-covered in the Arab and European media (it went unmentioned in the U.S.) calling for Palestinian unity and resistance and the unconditional end of Israeli military occupation, while keeping deliberately silent about returning to Oslo. We believe that negotiating an improvement in the occupation is tantamount to prolonging it. Peace can only come after the occupation ends. The declaration's boldest sections focus on the need to improve the internal Palestinian situation, above all to strengthen democracy; "rectify" the decisionmaking process (which is totally controlled by Arafat and his men); assert the need to restore the law's sovereignty and an independent judiciary; prevent the further misuse of public funds; and consolidate the functions of public institutions so as to give every citizen confidence in those who are expressly designed for public service. The final and most decisive demand calls for new parliamentary elections.
However else this declaration may have been read, the fact that so many prominent independents with, for the most part, functioning health, educational, professional, and labor organizations as their base have said these things was lost neither on other Palestinians (who saw it as the most trenchant critique yet of the Arafat regime) nor on the Israeli military. In addition, just as the Authority jumped to obey Sharon and Bush by rounding up the usual Islamist suspects, a non-violent International Solidarity Movement was launched by Dr. Barghouthi that comprised about 550 European observers (several of them European parliament members) who flew in at their own expense. With them was a well-disciplined band of young Palestinians who, while disrupting Israeli troop and settler movement along with the Europeans, prevented rock-throwing or firing from the Palestinian side. This effectively froze out the Authority and the Islamists, and set the agenda for making Israel's occupation itself the focus of attention. All this occurred while the U.S. was vetoing a Security Council resolution mandating an international group of unarmed observers to interpose themselves between the Israeli army and defenseless Palestinian civilians.
So where is the Israeli and American left that is quick to condemn "violence" while saying not a word about the disgraceful and criminal occupation itself? I would seriously suggest that they should join brave activists like Jeff Halper and Louisa Morgantini at the barricades (literal and figurative), stand side by side with this major new secular Palestinian initiative, and start protesting the Israeli military methods that are directly subsidized by tax-payers and their dearly bought silence. Having for a year wrung their collective hands and complained about the absence of a Palestinian peace movement (since when does a militarily occupied people have responsibility for a peace movement?), the alleged peaceniks who can actually influence Israel's military have a clear political duty to organize against the occupation right now, unconditionally and without unseemly demands on the already laden Palestinians.
Some of them have. Several hundred Israeli reservists have refused military duty in the occupied territories, and a whole spectrum of journalists, activists, academics, and writers (including Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, David Grossman, Ilan Pappe, Dani Rabinowitz, and Uri Avnery) have kept up a steady attack on the criminal futility of Sharon's campaign against the Palestinian people. Ideally, there should be a similar chorus in the United States where, except for a tiny number of Jewish voices making public their outrage at Israel's military occupation, there is far too much complicity and drum-beating. The Israeli lobby has been temporarily successful in identifying the war against Bin Laden with Sharon's single-minded, collective assault on Arafat and his people. Unfortunately, the Arab American community is both too small and beleaguered as it tries to fend off the ever-expanding Ashcroft dragnet, racial profiling and curtailment of civil liberties here.
(Edward Said is Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University and an author of numerous books and articles on the Middle East. This originally appeared in Al-Ahram Weekly Online (January 10-16, 2002), www.ahram.org.eg/weekly.)
III. Letters and Comments
As a died in the wool liberal (Liberal), caring about individuals, and sincerely feeling that anyone has a right to believe or not believe in what they want, I still find your stance--and that of many European (and American) progressives--frightening. [Tom Barry, "Onward Christian Soldiers," at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0201onward.html ] The corporate welfare state does exist in the USA, and it has and will continue to exploit poor people everywhere. But there is a segment of the world's population that is on a mission to destroy American lives. Was this caused by arbitrary borders drawn by countries exploiting Asia long before the U.S. was a major power? Yes. History has been one of exploiting neighbors, and this took place long before this very short era of U.S. hegemony. Iran took U.S. hostages, sends arms to the enemies of the only democracy in the Mideast. Iraq is led by a violent, deranged leader who has killed thousands of his own people. Korea has exploited its own people. Find fault with us. Fine, but it's time to come up with viable alternate solutions. There are none.
The French easily criticize us, but is that because of the Muslim minority from their ex-colony Algeria, and was Viet Nam not initially their fault? I think, as individuals, we must take a far more liberal stance than Mr. Bush, Ashcroft, and his cronies. But our government must protect us from murderous individuals before they get to us. This is not a cultural war, it is a war against our sworn enemies, which is our right. No one from any of the mentioned countries would be able to write this letter.
- Michael S. Mantel <mantel@pipeline.com>
I read Professor Ken Menkhaus' article "Somalia at a Crossroads of American Foreign Policy" (online at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0201somterror.html ) with great interest. I am pleasantly surprised with his accurate analysis of our miserable predicament. It is my opinion that the driver of the "bomb them now and ask questions later" is revenge of the unfortunate event in October 1993, and not lack of information concerning the existence or non-existence of foreign terrorists on Somali soil. I am afraid that someone whose mind is already made up might not benefit from reading an article that assesses Somali affairs as accurately as this one does. It is of concern of to me that the mentality of "bomb them now" would prevail over more temperate responses.
U.S. interest toward Somalia may have been prompted by Ethiopian and criminal warlords' (the true terrorists) assertion that there is terrorism in Somalia so as to serve their own interest. However, policy makers are well aware of the facts in Somalia now that they have had enough time to examine the interest of these warlords and the Ethiopian government. I do sincerely hope my adopted homeland will wage peace instead of war against my native land and intellectuals like you will influence the policymakers. Thank you very much for your objective commentary about Somalia.
- Ibrahim S. Mohamed <ibrahim.mohamed@fairfaxcounty.gov>
I thank Alejandro Bendana for an insightful and motivating piece. (Online at http://www.fpif.org/discussion/0201globalization/index.html .) From my rather limited perspective, I would disagree with his characterization of Argentine resistance to the IMF-imposed debt structure or external debt in general as the linchpin in the movement.
Within Argentina, there are those who have profited and those who have suffered by the mounting of government debt. There is also an element of corrupt in government that has accompanied the progressive accumulation of this debt. So the experience among Argentines, as with those in other debt-ridden countries, varies and the motivation to resolve the problem at the roots varies as well. I expect that with time, the usual compromises will be reached, the debt-load will be renegotiated, people will suffer but will be compensated just enough to withdraw their protest and the debt-cycle will begin again. Any long-term solution will have to address the export-led model of growth that arises from the continuation of the concentration of ownership of agrarian-based production in the hands of a relatively small group. I believe instead, that the situation in Colombia, where the resolution of the internal dispute over land reform and the role of social programs is at stake, is the more likely linchpin of the struggle. Granted this issue is greatly complicated by the role of drug trafficking in Colombia and new concerns over terrorism. In the long run, however, the key question for antiglobalists that of the breadth of effective representation in the halls of government, not just in places like Colombia, but in the U.S. as well.
- Lynn Holland <lhlland@aol.com>, Department of Political Science, University of Colorado, Denver
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.iexposure.com/fpif.org/donate.cfm to support FPIF online, or for information about making contributions over the phone or through the mail.
We Count on Your Support. Thank you.
|
Sponsoring
Partner |
Subscribe to The Progressive Response!
To subscribe to The Progressive Response, send a blank email to:
To unsubscribe from The Progressive Response, send a blank email to:
lists-unsubscribe@irc-online.orgSimply click the appropriate hyperlink above, or send a blank email to the appropriate email address above.
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 irc@irc-online.org. 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.
IRC
Tom Barry
Editor, Progressive Response
Codirector, Foreign Policy In Focus
Email: tom@irc-online.org
IPS
Martha Honey
Codirector, Foreign Policy In Focus
Email: ipsps@igc.org
This
page was last modified on
Thursday, February 7, 2002 4:48 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright
© 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.