The Progressive Response
Volume 6, Number 22
July 25, 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
FRONTIER JUSTICE: A WEEKLY CHRONICLE
By Tom Barry
CITIZEN ACTION IN THE AMERICAS
ANNOUNCEMENT! STUDENT ACTIVIST OPPORTUNITY!
II. Outside the U.S.
VIEW ABROAD: BUSH'S WAR ON TERRORISM IS FLOUNDERING
By Dan Plesch
III. Letters and Comments
I. Updates and Out-takes
FRONTIER JUSTICE: A WEEKLY CHRONICLE
By Tom Barry
If you think of America first, then you probably don't share in the collective indignation swelling around the world. If you think of America first, then you probably understand at least part of the logic of current U.S. foreign policy. If you think of America first, you are probably not outraged at the news that the U.S. attempted to block a new international protocol on torture. It may all make good sense to you.
If you think of America first, then you have a different point of view--a perspective that has refracted through the centuries, from the early Puritanist belief that they were building a "City on the Hill" in this new land to the supremacist thinking that now oozes from this administration.
Last week I was talking to a relative who had this other perspective--the America First point of view. And I gained new insight into the political divide in the United States. A Midwesterner, he was talking about farm politics. Although a rugged individualist, he supported the recent Farm Bill that increased subsidies to agribusiness by an estimated 80% over the $28 billion spent last year. I countered that such subsidies are driving millions of small farmers around the world away from their land and into destitution because they can't compete with subsidized exports. And he responded that as an American he would always think of America first. Not an amoral perspective but a strong ethic that we have a God-given duty to look after ourselves first, being that Americans had successfully founded and nurtured the blessed "city on the hill."
America Firstism has experienced numerous permutations. In the 20th century, being an American Firster evolved from an anti-socialist, pro-fascistic tendency in the century's first decades to being an anti-globalist, anti-New World Order nationalist, and cultural warrior at the century's end. Today, the term itself is kept carefully out of the official rhetoric, but it is a concept that shapes the prevailing ideology and decisionmaking. In its most recent incarnation, America Firstism is both isolationist and internationalist--isolationist in its historical sense of keeping America free of entangling treaties and obligations, and internationalist in that America necessarily must wield its big stick and big wallet abroad both because its national interests now span the globe and because the culture war against our Judeo-Christian city on the hill has gone global.
American Firstism means exercising power unconstrained by laws or norms. America is the self-deputized enforcer, the final arbiter of good and bad, the Lone Ranger. As the supreme power, we don't ensure that laws are upheld. Rather we hold ourselves above the law.
In the belief--or vain hope--that someday this cowboy foreign policy will be held accountable by history and the electorate, we thought it important to chronicle the righteous frontier justice now in fashion. So frequent have been the transgressions against the post-WW II framework of international rule and cooperation that memory no longer suffices; a record must be kept.
This week the U.S. announced that it intended to reopen negotiations on the UN's plan to enforce a convention on torture. Human rights advocates predicted that would have killed the proposal, essential they say to reducing torture in the 111 countries that Amnesty International says abuses prisoners. If you are an America Firster, you will immediately understand the U.S. position. International observers are fine in Iraq or China, but the protocol under consideration might allow an international commission to look at U.S. practices. Our prisons--public and private--might be subject to international inspection; not a bad idea if you are concerned that the U.S. has the highest per capita rate of imprisonment in the world. Also, the Pentagon is alarmed that the terror suspects being held without trial or rights at Guantanamo Naval Base and in Afghanistan might be visited by an international human rights commission. Then there is the ever-important issue of states' rights, explained one U.S. official. Not only would this protocol infringe on our sovereign right to abuse or torture prisoners but on the right of our 50 state systems to do the same. When America frames a new foreign policy initiative, the God-given, U.S.-protected rights of freedom and liberty are routinely invoked, but no one, no how will be permitted to hold us accountable.
The U.S. proposal to sidetrack was defeated, and the UN Economic and Social Council went on to approve the treaty in a 35-8 vote, with ten abstentions, sending it onto the UN General Assembly. To come into force, at least 20 countries need to sign and ratify the pact, which will supplement the existing Convention Against Torture. Joanna Wechsler of Human Rights Watch commented, "It is a big defeat for the United States. It's really hard to understand why the U.S. is working against human rights and against so many of its allies." Hard maybe for Human Rights Watch to understand, but then they don't share the America First conviction in U.S. exceptionalism.
Lose one, but the U.S. is winning other battles against multilateralism. Facing strong opposition from the U.S. for her outspoken defense of human rights around the world, including criticism of U.S. conduct of the war on terrorism, Mary Robinson was replaced as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. According to the Washington Post, "current and former U.S. officials could hardly conceal their delight at the departure of Robinson." Human rights advocates were not as enthusiastic about the nomination of senior UN official Sergio Vieira de Mello. "The challenge will be whether he is willing to confront the big powers on sensitive human rights issues," said Michael Posner, executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. "It requires a very strong backbone. Mary Robinson had that."
The U.S. also bowed this week to the political right in its decision to withhold $34 million in funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Social conservatives, as part of their anti-abortion efforts and ongoing campaign to undermine the UN, argued that UNFPA was condoning sterilizations and forced abortions in China. A State Department fact-finding team found no evidence to support this charge, but President Bush, like President Reagan before him (who also suspended UNFPA funding), calculated that he would suffer no political damage from yet another assault on the UN but would benefit from the appreciative support of social conservatives and America Firsters.
(Tom Barry <tom@irc-online.org> is a senior analyst at the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) and codirector of Foreign Policy In Focus.)
CITIZEN ACTION IN THE AMERICAS
(Editor's Note: The Americas are pulling apart, but the Bush administration doesn't seem to notice. Throughout Latin America, there is a surge of popular movements that are rejecting neoliberal dogma, supporting left-leaning populist politicians, and saying "no" to Washington. Meanwhile, the State Department's point-man for Latin America, Otto Reich, moves around the region spouting recycled rhetoric about free trade, privatization, and "Washington and Wall Street know best." For the most part, what is emerging in Latin America is not so much a broadly agreed-upon alternative to the Washington Consensus, but a visceral consensus that Washington has led the region down the wrong path to development and democracy. Although not foreign policy issues themselves, the issues addressed in the a new series of "Citizen Action Profiles" by the IRC's America's program speak volumes about the superficiality and self-interested objectives of Washington's goals in Latin America.)
Mexico has become a leading global free trader, boasting commercial accords with some 30 countries worldwide. The terms of these agreements favor large corporations and put Mexico's numerous campesino farmers, artisans, small producers, and family establishments at a serious disadvantage. Local economies have suffered under the free trade model and thousands have been forced off the land or out of business, taking low-wage jobs in the cities or crossing the U.S. border to find work.
In the face of these challenges, however, Mexican communities are responding positively. A growing number of coops, nongovernmental organizations, microenterprises, and campesino groups are proving that Fair Trade offers a viable alternative to communities struggling to cope with globalization. Beyond securing incomes for themselves, participants in Mexico's fair trade market are also promoting a working alternative to current commercial practices--one grounded in the principles of social equity and sustainable development. Their efforts offer an example for other communities in the Americas struggling with the challenges of economic integration. (Read the full Citizen Action profile online at: http://www.americaspolicy.org/citizen-action/series/mexicos-fair-trade-movement.html .)
Also in Mexico, a grassroots movement to block a new international airport near the capital has been building a head of steam since last Oct. 22, when Mexican President Vicente Fox declared the expropriation of 15,000 acres for the $2.5 billion project. Infuriated by the threat of seizure of their ancestral turf, a few hundred Nahua Indian farmers picked up their machetes and called for the formation of a resistance movement, instigating a struggle that achieved the astonishing result of the president's offer this July to reconsider the location.
The unrest and protest in San Salvador Atenco are emblematic of the mounting frustration being felt by ejidatarios, campesinos, and indigenous groups in Mexico who have been left behind by the globalization process and by their government. Their mood is echoed across Latin America, and if the governments of the region don't take steps to make economic integration generate returns for everyone, and to make democracy a reality for all citizens, that backlash is going to intensify. (Visit http://www.americaspolicy.org/citizen-action/focus/0207atenco.html for more).
In southern Mexico and Central America, communities are organizing to respond to the threat that the spread of genetically modified organisms presents their traditional, corn-based economy (see http://www.americaspolicy.org/citizen-action/focus/0207corn.html ) and to counter the corporate-driven Plan Puebla-Panama development scheme (http://www.americaspolicy.org/articles/2002/0207ppp.html ).
Farther south, citizens are on the move as well, from the piqueteros of Argentina to the U'wa Indians of Colombia, from the growing profile of Brazil's PT party to deepening citizen activism in Ecuador. In Peru, when residents of the small town of Tambogrande learned that the Canada-based Manhattan Minerals Corp. was planning an open-pit mine to exploit deposits under their town and had acquired concession rights for other deposits in the surrounding San Lorenzo Valley, they organized to resist mining development in the area. In June, in a public referendum organized by Tambogrande's mayor, 98% of the town's eligible voters said "no" to the proposed mining projects. Manhattan Minerals says that townsfolk lacked enough information to make an informed vote. Peru's Minister of Energy and Mines asserts the referendum holds "no legal weight" and promises to continue evaluating Manhattan's proposal according to national mining laws. Tambogrande residents, however, insist that their "consulta vecinal" was grounded in national law and should be respected. As they continue their fight, their cause is gaining national and international support--and is sparking similar campaigns elsewhere in Peru. (see http://www.americaspolicy.org/citizen-action/focus/0207tambogrande.html ).
ANNOUNCEMENT! STUDENT ACTIVIST OPPORTUNITY!
Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) joins Alliance for Justice to organize its annual student activism campaign, First Monday 2002: Civil Liberties in a New America--Unchecked Powers at Home and Abroad. Join a national student campaign aimed at protecting the Bill of Rights and international rule of law in a post-9/11 world. The kick-off is held on the First Monday of the Supreme Court, this year on October 7, 2002.
Discuss the USA Patriot Act; homeland security; immigrants' rights; privacy, secrecy, and surveillance; free speech; military tribunals; Geneva Convention and "enemy combatants"; the ICC and the UN in the war on terrorism; extradition of prisoners; tracking of foreign students and student organizations; and much, much more. Through First Monday 2002, you will gain first-hand organizing and academic experience on civil liberties and international law post 9/11. Together, FPIF and Alliance for Justice will connect the war abroad to the war at home.
To find out more about how you can hold a First Monday event on your campus or in your community, contact Juliette Niehuss of the Foreign Policy In Focus project, Institute for Policy Studies, at 202-234-9382, x254. Or email <juliette@ips-dc.org>.
II. Outside the U.S.
(Editor's Note: FPIF's "Outside the U.S." component 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. If you're interested in submitting commentaries for our use, please send your solicitation to John Gershman at <john@irc-online.org>.)
VIEW ABROAD: BUSH'S WAR ON TERRORISM IS FLOUNDERING
By Dan Plesch
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new Global Affairs Commentary available in its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0207terrorwar.html .)
President Theodore Roosevelt said famously about power, "Speak softly but carry a big stick."
But the Bush administration's policy of "strike first" is more like "Talk loudly and get in everyone's face." For America's allies, the new Bush Doctrine of attacking people before they attack us, known as "first strike," is another example of a bull-in-a-china shop approach to world affairs.
Americans are right to expect clear and aggressive leadership against its foes in the world--and there's a good deal to be said for Texan frankness But the problem is that this "take on the world" approach is ineffective. Behind the hype, there's a long list of failures to tackle key issues, and not much prospect of improvement.
For example, the Saudi government says it does not support the coalition against terrorism. Many Saudi citizens help fund or are members of al Qaeda, but the Bush administration is handling the Saudi government with kid gloves. U.S. special forces aren't allowed to operate in the Kingdom, nor are American law enforcement officials permitted to interrogate terrorist suspects detained on Saudi soil. No such sensitivities are displayed toward other countries. So much for the "You are either with us or against us" doctrine.
Then there's the failure of U.S. intelligence to hunt down terrorists. The American people now understand that the Bush administration not only failed to connect the dots before September 11th, it wasn't paying enough attention. This can't be blamed on the fact that President Bush was not long in office. The reality is, the administration brought in a highly experienced national security team that had stayed in close touch during the Clinton years.
Now the administration is touting the new Department of Homeland Security as a giant step toward reform of the U.S. intelligence community. But even well-publicized federal arrests of low-level terrorist wannabes like Jose "The Dirty Bomber" Padilla should not distract us from the huge problem we still face in collecting accurate intelligence on terrorist activities.
A simple chain of logic applies to intelligence. To get good intelligence you have to be able to work around the world, and that in turn takes good cooperation with your friends. To get that cooperation you need to give your allies respect. This is as true in world affairs as it is in your local neighborhood. But right now, respect is about the last thing we get from U.S. officials--there's no rethinking of U.S. positions on other issues that concern us, such as global warming, the International Criminal Court, and the Middle East.
The Bush team seems to think the U.S. military--now functioning as a global SWAT team--is all it needs. But SWAT teams need to know where to hit and when, and they need to get the job done when they do go in. Otherwise, the result is the same as "Pin the Tail on the Donkey."
This is what happened in Afghanistan. After early success in driving the Taliban out of Kabul, U.S. commanders kept their soldiers out of harm's way and the bad guys slipped away in the mountains. The Bush administration was anxious to deflect public attention from the lack of progress in capturing bin Laden and Taliban Leader Mullah Omar. President Bush had to find someone or something to take the heat. This is where the "Axis of Evil" comes in.
Mr. Bush's targeting of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, and now his threat of preemptive attacks, don't have much to do with global terrorism. Neither Iraq nor North Korea, odious though these governments are, have much of a record of supporting global terrorism. The Iranians, hoping to improve ties with the European Union, have little in common with bin Laden. These countries are just the "usual suspects" on the U.S. most wanted list.
Americans may need to get the bad guys before they get them, but advertising the fact is just useless bravado to many of us observing this war from abroad. Worse, it gives the impression that this administration, while dismissing our concerns and even our cooperation in some instances, is now dangerously floundering in its war against terrorism.
(Daniel Plesch <dplesch@rusi.org> is a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London and security analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org). He is the author of Sheriff and Outlaws in the Global Village.)
III. Letters and Comments
article: The Yellow Peril Revisited [online at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0207china.html ]
comments: First let me thank you for site, it is impossible to read objective, clear analysis and reporting on foreign policy, particularly the foreign policy of the current administration. This article fills in and provides background to important issues that are barely mentioned in the print or (gag) televisual media. Virrillo speaks about a form of political warfare, useful for suppression of internal dissent, that consists of providing proliferating contradictory, multiple, and confusing official comments regarding policy decisions, so one can never pin down the actual policy decisions being made.
The article reinforces my sense that a coup occurred in the elections of 2000, and that foreign policy is being made ideologically, not pragmatically or even idealistically by a group of out-of-work cold warriors who will not be happy until there is nuclear conflagration.
Sincerely,
- Craig Lucas <clucas@kent.edu>
article: THE BUSHARON GLOBAL WAR [online at http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0207busharon.html ]
comments: I agree with Lev Grinberg's analysis of the collaboration between Bush and Sharon, and the immediate benefits to Sharon are obvious. But Grinberg's explanation of Bush's motivation--a strong Israel to backstop a U.S. attack on Iraq--leaves me wondering why an oil-obsessed president would publicly thumb his nose at oil-rich Arab nations months before the day he launched the invasion. It's the same question the five-star generals are asking: Why tip his hand?
Though I reject them outright, I think I understand the reasons for Bush wanting to boast about gunning-down Iraq--there's a bit of Goliath in all of us. I can even understand why, for him, punishment is the only response to threat--look at his solution to executive malfeasance: longer jail terms. I'm not even surprised that he can be blind to the repercussions if the other oil nations of the Middle East respond by closing the spigot to the U.S.--he is, after all, from the state that gave us "Remember the Alamo." (Though frankly I've seen enough westerns to be baffled if he thinks he can attack Iraq with the assurance that "the cavalry" is at the ready just behind the ridge when, to continue the analogy, the entire "Apache nation" is waiting behind another ridge.)
But why, I kept asking, is he willing to take that same risk now? Think of the incredible disorientation the reduction of Middle Eastern oil will bring to the lives of ordinary people. Worse yet, think of its impact on the manufacturing and transportation that feed the tycoons of business and industry who are Bush's supporters and buddies and colleagues. Worst of all: It could stall out the super-tech fighter jets, keep the destroyers bobbling in port, and leave the army sitting around campfires telling ghost stories. Why would he do that?
Then a thought crossed my mind. It was a chilling and unthinkable thought; a thought worthy of a Poe heart-pounder or an Ambrose Bierce dictionary; a thought that flattens decency and patriotism and honor and even compassionate conservatism. I tried to dismiss it but it kept snapping back. And the thought is this: What effect would the loss of Arab oil have on the U.S. millionaires who make their money from oil?
- Anthony Prete <tp372312@yahoo.com>
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.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
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 2:51 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001
IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.