The Progressive Response

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>.

We Count on Your Support!

Editor: Tom Barry (IRC)

Table of Contents

I. Updates and Out-Takes

WAR ON DISSENT WIDENS
By Jim Lobe

MÁS DE LO MISMO?
By George Kourous

II. Outside the U.S.

CRISIS IN ZIMBABWE AND DEATH OF NEPAD
By Ian Taylor

III. Letters and Comments

BACK TO DRAWING BOARD IN ZIMBABWE

I. Updates and Out-takes

WAR ON DISSENT WIDENS
By Jim Lobe

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a FPIF Global Affairs Commentary, posted at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0203avot.html .)

A powerful group of neo-conservatives is launching a new public relations campaign in support of President George W. Bush's war on terrorism.

At a March 12 gathering of the National Press Club, members of the new Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (AVOT, online at www.avot.org) declared their intention to "take to task those groups and individuals who fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the war we are facing."

Those groups and individuals, AVOT claims, need to be resisted both here and abroad. A full-page AVOT advertisement carried in the Sunday March 10 New York Times pointed to radical Islam as "an enemy no less dangerous and no less determined than the twin menaces of fascism and communism we faced in the 20th century." At the same time, the $128,000 ad lambasted those at home "who are attempting to use this opportunity to promulgate their agenda of 'blame America first'."

"Both [internal and external] threats," the ad continues, "stem from either a hatred for the American ideals of freedom and equality or a misunderstanding of those ideals and their practice."

To expose the internal "threats," AVOT has compiled a sample list of statements by professors, legislators, authors, and columnists that it finds objectionable. The strategy appears similar to an earlier, much-criticized effort to monitor war dissidents by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), a group founded by Lynne Cheney, the wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, and neo-conservative Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman.

AVOT's list of speakers it considers threatening include:

• Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who said, "Some of us, maybe foolishly, gave this president the authority to go after terrorists. We didn't know that he, too, was going to go crazy with it."
• President Jimmy Carter, who assailed Bush's use of the phrase "axis of evil," arguing that it was "overly simplistic and counter-productive."
• Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who accused the president of "canceling, in effect, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments" and called the war "the patriot games, the lying games, the war games of an unelected president."
• American Prospect editor Robert Kuttner criticizing "Bush's dismal domestic policies" and his "dubious notion of a permanent war."
• Lewis Lapham, the editor of Harper's Magazine, who in a recent editorial said that Washington itself has used terrorist tactics during the 1990s, including the bombing of civilian targets in Baghdad and the Balkans.

Who exactly is behind AVOT's efforts? The newly formed organization is headed by a formidable array of right-wing luminaries. At the top of the list is former Secretary of Education and drug czar William Bennett, AVOT's chairman. The group's senior advisers include former CIA director R. James Woolsey; former Reagan Pentagon official Frank Gaffney; William P. Barr, attorney general under George Bush, Sr.; and mega-political donor Lawrence Kadish. AVOT is a project of Empower America--also co-chaired by Bennett--whose principal members include conservative political operatives Jeane Kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp, Vin Weber, and William Cohen.

During the press conference, Bennett insisted that, "We do not wish to silence people," adding that for now, AVOT plans to hold teach-ins and public education events, particularly on college campuses.

(Jim Lobe writes on international affairs for Inter Press Service, Oneworld.net, Foreign Policy in Focus, and AlterNet.org. An earlier version of this commentary appeared on AlterNet.org on March 12, 2002.)

MÁS DE LO MISMO?
By George Kourous

On Sept. 11, the window of opportunity for a substantial redefinition of U.S.-Mexico relations came slamming shut and the relationship settled into a more familiar rhythm of entente-estrangement-entente. Historic discussions on rationalization of the crossborder U.S.-Mexico labor market were placed on the back burner and reframed within the context of North American security.

The Bush administration has recently put immigration reform back on the table, but its proposals (which are much less ambitious than those in the works last summer) are now rolled into a larger package on border security and are aimed more at winning Latino votes for the GOP in this November's elections than at restructuring the problematic U.S.-Mexico labor market.

For its part, Mexico has scaled back its most innovative proposals linking migration and development issues and is now focusing on shared security as a means to maintain itself on the U.S. agenda. Instead of some form of NAFTA development aid or greater institutional support for a development agenda within the NAFTA context, the United States and Mexico will announce the Partners for Prosperity program when Bush and Fox meet today and tomorrow. This initiative is a $30 million effort to channel investment by U.S. companies into poor, migration regions of Mexico.

According to a March 20 article in the Washington Post, the Partners for Prosperity program will "include subsidies for Mexican entrepreneurs who want to buy franchises of U.S. brands, education about financial services so Mexican immigrants can send money home more cheaply, and partnerships to encourage a secondary mortgage market in Mexico."

While private investment does have a role to play in addressing poverty, underdevelopment, and migration pressures in Mexico, this sounds as if the Bush administration is planning to underwrite the expansion of U.S. interests south of the border and provide free advertising for U.S. wire service companies.

No matter how you look at it, the fact remains that just as government can't aspire to be the only solution, neither can private investment or exclusively market-dependent approaches. Calls to declare poor areas of Mexico "rural enterprise zones" and make them tax-free to investors, domestic or foreign, aim at promoting entrepreneurism in Mexico. However, they could easily deepen the disruptions that are forcing rural Mexicans to leave the land and seek work in the industrialized north--often a stepping stone to undocumented employment north of the border. This is especially true if well-planned and adequately funded training efforts and microcredit programs aimed at doing more than promoting U.S. franchise expansion aren't part of the program.

Another key question: How much attention will this issue receive once the fanfare surrounding this week's Bush-Fox face-to-face fades away?

It is quite clear that the United States is more focused on securing agreements from Mexico to tighten its own borders, install a national identity database and passport tracking system, and deepen binational security cooperation than on making a concerted effort to spark development in poor, migration-producing areas of Mexico in productive, sustainable ways.

The Bush budget for 2002 calls for an extra $2.1 billion in spending on border security measures, and the main announcement the two presidents are expected to make this week is a joint accord on new border protections and measures for sharing security information.

While the Bush administration has lined up a series of additional announcements and initiatives intended to keep U.S.-Mexico relations on track and give Mr. Fox something to brag about, they seem long on style and short on substance.

Some sort of statement on migration is likely to come out of the confab in Monterrey. This could possibly involve more concrete plans for establishing a larger guestworker program, but most probably will just be a reassertion of principles and agreement to continue discussions. It seems most likely that the two men will hold up measure 245(i), under consideration in the U.S. Senate, as evidence that migration discussions are moving ahead.

Bush is pushing hard for Senate approval of the bill by the end of this week. It would allow undocumented Mexican immigrants in the United States who missed a deadline last year to pay a fine and remain in the United States to try and adjust their legal status. The measure is a positive development, but is only one small step forward. Fox and Bush could also make a call for some specific action regarding reforms to the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and North American Development Bank (NADB)--there are some indications this will be a third party audit of the institutions as opposed to more sweeping reforms.

Additionally, the two countries have been working recently to lay the groundwork for a new agreement on border water disputes; it's not sure if Fox and Bush will have anything concrete to say on the matter in Monterrey, however. Ultimately, the key outcome of this latest presidential meeting is going to be an agreement on security measures. The flurry of Mexico-related announcements from the White House this week, in what is emerging as Bush's style, appears to be primarily an effort to float as many sound bytes containing phrases like "U.S.-Mexico cooperation" as possible--when the dust settles, there may be little to show for them.

While that be enough to bring more Latino voters into the GOP fold this November? Perhaps. More importantly, will that be enough to not just maintain the illusion of deeper U.S.-Mexico relations under Bush and Fox, but make it more real?

(George Kourous directs the IRC's Americas Program (online at www.americaspolicy.org) .)

Also see:

Bush Administration Policy in Latin America
Talking points from the IRC's Americas Program that explain why the White House's approach to Latin America is off the mark and what can be done to fix it.

Following 9-11, the military is playing a leading role in shaping U.S. policy toward Latin America, and within the context of the war on terrorism, the Bush administration is working to make military aid to Latin governments unconditional. Moreover, the U.S. is characterizing internal power struggles and social unrest resulting from socioeconomic considerations as terrorism, a flawed premise. The U.S. should not take the war on terrorism to Latin America and must avoid a return to involvement in civil wars and counterinsurgency campaigns. Problems stemming from poverty, economic inequalities, poor governance, or internal power struggles cannot be understood or resolved through the lens of anti-terrorism. See: http://www.americaspolicy.org/

Online at: http://www.americaspolicy.org/briefs/2002/0203bushpol.html

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.)

CRISIS IN ZIMBABWE AND DEATH OF NEPAD
By Ian Taylor

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs Commentary, posted at: http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0203nepad.html .)

Few events in Africa in recent years have so excited world opinion as has the downward spiral of Zimbabwe under President Robert Mugabe and the years of chaos and terror under his rule. The slide into lawlessness, the wholesale, illegal confiscation of land, the general free-fall of the Zimbabwean economy, and the presidential competition between Mugabe of the Zimbabwe African National Union-Popular Front (ZANU-PF) and Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change, have been the stuff of many editorials and commentaries in all the main newspapers, both in the West and in Africa. At the same time however, the Zimbabwe case has highlighted the perpetual reluctance of African elites to criticize one of their own, particularly in light of African leaders' reactions to what most people saw as fundamentally rigged elections. This point raises profound questions as to the seriousness and credibility of the New Economic Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD).

The NEPAD was launched in October 2001 and was a supposed blueprint for Africa's regeneration. The document asserts that "African peoples have begun to demonstrate their refusal to accept poor economic and political leadership. These developments are, however, uneven and inadequate and need to be further expedited." There is, so the NEPAD claims, "a new resolve to deal with conflicts and censure deviation from the [democratic] norm." This springs from the view that "development is impossible in the absence of true democracy, respect for human rights, peace and good governance." The NEPAD shows, the document claims, that "Africa undertakes to respect the global standards of democracy, which core components include political pluralism, allowing for the existence of several political parties and workers' unions, fair, open, free and democratic elections periodically organized to enable the populace choose their leaders freely." In short, "a democratic Africa will become one of the pillars of world democracy, human rights and tolerance," in partnership with the developed world who have certain "responsibilities and obligations" to support the NEPAD.

Tragically, that the NEPAD only lasted less than six months before its credibility was fatally undermined demonstrates the fickle nature of African elite politics. The much-vaunted desire to alter the "rules of the game" on how the continent interacts with the West, without any real reciprocal change in the behavior of African elites--an absolute precondition if such "partnerships" are ever to be taken seriously--now seems to be a one-way street of demands but no duties on the part of Africa's presidents. To put it bluntly, that will never wash in the global corridors of power and it is naïve of African leaders to think otherwise. Fatigue with Africa's incessant problems is already high and, even though not all of Africa's malaise is of its own making, the refusal of African leaders to at least try to get their own houses in order further exacerbates such negative attitudes in London, Washington, Paris, etc.

In the case of Zimbabwe, although there were repeated attempts to muddy the water over the real issues in Zimbabwe, particularly with incessant appeals to "the land issue" and a desperate playing of the race card, the real issue was the concerted effort by Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party to retain their hold on political power. That African leaders chose to ignore this and rather seek to cast it as some sort of "neo-imperialist" issue shows, it seems, that even in 2002, bad governance, corruption, violence, and vote-rigging will, in the final analysis, be defended to the hilt by many African presidents. Mugabe's record on the economy, setting aside the land issue, the Matabeleland massacres, the one-party state, and myriad other markers of his rule, has been lamentable. After twenty years of ZANU-PF control, not only are Zimbabwe's citizens one-third poorer than they were at independence, but, according to IMF figures, Zimbabwe has gained the dubious distinction of being the world's fastest-shrinking economy.

Sadly, rather than seeking to contribute positively to change this situation, many African leaders fell into line behind Mugabe--in effect positioning themselves in agreement with the view that there is a malevolent white racist conspiracy to recolonize Zimbabwe and make it back into Rhodesia, led by Britain's Tony Blair and his "gay gangsters." Thabo Mbeki, a man who likes to think of himself as some of sort of "philosopher king" went so far as to assert at the Commonwealth meeting in Australia in March 2002 that talk of ostracizing Mugabe was "inspired by notions of white supremacy" and that such moves were pursued because white political leaders apparently felt uneasy at their "repugnant position imposed by inferior blacks." This type of extreme language is not the unique preserve of Mbeki. But what is significant, is that it is precisely Mbeki who has been notably active in promoting the NEPAD and the "African Renaissance." Ironically, it was Mbeki who loudly proclaimed at a conference on the African Renaissance in September 1998 that:

"We want to see an African Continent in which the people participate in systems of governance in which they are truly able to determine their destiny and put behind us the notions of democracy and human rights as peculiarly "Western" concepts. Thus would we assume a stance of opposition to dictatorship, whatever form it may assume. Thus ... we say that we must ensure that when elections are held, these must be truly democratic, resulting in governments which the people would accept as being genuinely representative of the will of the people."

If Mbeki and the other proponents of the NEPAD had been serious about encouraging an African Renaissance then surely their response to Mugabe's behavior would have been different and signaled a brave commitment to the NEPAD's principles. But as Tendai Biti, an MDC MP commented on elite-produced initiatives such as the NEPAD, "at the end of the day [they] became nothing but a boy's club of little tin-pot dictators justifying the negative views of the traditional Afro-pessimist ... For as long as Africans do not insist on uniform international standards of respect for human rights, respect for national coffers, the sacrosanct nature of elections, and a commitment toward the eradication of poverty, then the noble ideas and concepts of African unity will become a pipe dream." The Zimbabwe debacle and the response of African leaders to this simply feeds such pessimism. In a speech to a "Review Workshop" on the NEPAD in January 2002, Mbeki boldly stated that "if we cannot unite through an initiative that can permanently reshape this continent and bring about sustained improvement in the lives of our people, then we would have lost an opportunity that will not arise for some time." The fatal undermining of the NEPAD's credibility by inaction over Zimbabwe has, I think, produced this lost opportunity. It is most disappointing to anyone who holds out hope for Africa's future.

(Dr. Ian Taylor <tayloric@mopipi.ub.bw> teaches in the Department of Political & Administrative Studies at the University of Botswana.)

III. Letters and Comments

BACK TO DRAWING BOARD IN ZIMBABWE

The people of Zimbabwe are quite fed up with this anti-Mugabe racist vitriol. [Zimbabwe's Rip-off Poll, http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0203zimbabwe.html]. The contrast between Mugabe's clarity of vision and Tsvangirai's hodgepodge utterances were too obvious for comfort. The MDC itself is a mixture of strange bedfellows. Little wonder that they have no coherent policies and no "center" that can hold. The best that the MDC can do for Zimbabwe is to accept defeat, go back to the drawing board and put their house in order.

- Solomon Mombeshora <solomon@ecoweb.co.zw>

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.

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.org

Simply 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 Friday, March 22, 2002 5:59 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.