The Progressive Response
Volume 6, Number 30
October 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
JOIN THE IRC'S "THINK TANK WITHOUT WALLS" INTERNATIONAL NETWORK
UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS CURRENTLY BEING VIOLATED BY COUNTRIES OTHER THAN IRAQ
By Stephen Zunes
GLOBAL TOXICS TREATIES: U.S. LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITY SLIPS AWAY
by Kristin Schafer, Pesticide Action Network
II. Letters and Comments
PALESTINIANS HAVE REAPED THEIR TRAGEDY
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE THESIS OF "ANTICIPATORY SELF-DEFENSE"
By Peter Mark
I. Updates and Out-takes
Iraq In Focus
FPIF is working with a coalition of organizations to try to stop a U.S. war against Iraq. Check out our special web page for articles, fact sheets, speakers, films, and events around the country.
http://www.fpif.org/iraq/index.html
Project Against the Present Danger
In response to the Bush administration's consistent assaults on international law and norms, the articulation of a military strategy based on sustained military primacy, and its generally unilateralist approach to foreign policy, the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) and FPIF project have developed the Project Against the Present Danger to become a portal for analysis, news, and resources for citizen movements and campaigns committed to defending multilateralism and international law in the U.S. and abroad.
http://www.presentdanger.org/index.html
Student Activism In Focus
FPIF is working with student organizations to support campus teach-ins, protests, and other events during the week of October 7. The focus is two-fold: on opposition to the war in Iraq and on opposition to crackdowns on civil liberties at home. Our special web pages feature materials for student organizing and well as a calendar of events.
http://www.fpif.org/students/index.html
JOIN THE IRC'S "THINK TANK WITHOUT WALLS" INTERNATIONAL NETWORK
The Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) needs a few good people interested in volunteering their time to help us increase our outreach through the Internet and our listservs. Our two programs--Americas Program and Global Affairs/Foreign Policy In Focus--produce top notch policy analysis that is making a difference. To increase our impact, we need to increase our outreach capacity. This is an opportunity to see the world. Volunteers will be asked to undertake focused research to find organizations, activists, experts, and government officials interested in the issues we address. For example, we will ask our volunteer staff to visit websites around the world to find emails for individuals and organizations who have a special interest in United Nations reform, Latin American economy, Iran, U.S.-China relations, etc. We also need volunteer researchers for our new RightGuard project investigating the most prominent rightist foundations, think tanks, ideologues, and government officials.
This important work can be done in the IRC offices or from your home computer. If you think you are capable of this type of research and you would like to become part of the IRC's "think tank without walls" in a part-time, volunteer capacity, please contact:
Debra Preusch
IRC Executive Director
<deb@irc-online.org>
UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS CURRENTLY BEING VIOLATED BY COUNTRIES OTHER THAN IRAQ
By Stephen Zunes
(Editor's Note: In its effort to justify its planned invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has emphasized the importance of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. However, in addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91 Security Council resolutions about countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. This raises serious questions regarding the Bush administration's insistence that it is motivated by a duty to preserve the credibility of the United Nations, particularly since the vast majority of the governments violating UN Security Council resolutions are close allies of the United States. Stephen Zunes <zunes@usfca.edu>, University of San Francisco professor and Middle East Editor for Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org), compiled the following partial list of UN resolutions that are currently being violated by countries other than Iraq. The cases are listed in order of resolution number, followed by the year in which the resolution was passed, the country or countries in violation, and a brief description of the resolution. Included here are a sampling of the resolutions that continue to be violated, followed by an explanatory note by Zunes.)
1319 (2000) Indonesia
Insists that Indonesia "take immediate additional steps, in fulfillment of its responsibilities, to disarm and disband the militia immediately, restore law and order in the affected areas of West Timor, ensure safety and security in the refugee camps and for humanitarian workers, and prevent incursions into East Timor." Stresses that those guilty of attacks on international personnel be brought to justice and reiterates the need to provide safe return for refugees who wish to repatriate and provide resettlement for those wishing to stay in Indonesia.
1322 (2000) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power.
1359 (2001) Morocco
Calls on the parties to "abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law to release without further delay all those held since the start of the conflict."
1402 (2002) Israel
Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.
1403 (2002) Israel
Demands that Israel go through with "the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay."
1405 (2002) Israel
Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.
1416 (2002) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.
1435 (2002) Israel
Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure.
Explanatory Notes:
This list deals exclusively with resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, a fifteen-member body consisting of five permanent members (the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom) and ten non-permanent members elected for rotating two-year terms representing various regions of the world. The Security Council's primary responsibility, under the UN Charter, is for the maintenance of international peace and security. For a resolution to pass, it must be approved by a majority of the total membership with no dissenting vote from any of the five permanent members. Since the early 1970s, the United States has used its veto power nearly fifty times, more than all other permanent members during that same period combined. In the vast majority of these cases, the U.S. was the only dissenting vote. The preceding list, therefore, includes only resolutions where the United States voted in the affirmative or abstained.
This list does not include resolutions that merely condemn a particular action, only those that specifically proscribe a particular ongoing activity or future activity and/or call upon a particular government to implement a particular action. Nor does this list does include resolutions where the language is ambiguous enough to make assertions of noncompliance debatable, such as UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 on the Arab-Israeli conflict that put forward the formula of "land for peace," to cite the most famous. Similarly, it does not include broad resolutions calling for universal compliance not in reference to a particular conflict, particularly if there is not a clear definition. For example, in a resolution that proscribes the harboring of terrorists, there is no clear definition for what constitutes a terrorist. This list does not include nonstate actors, such as secessionist governments, rebel groups or terrorists, only recognized nation-states.
Furthermore, this list does not include resolutions that were also violated for a number of years that are now moot (such as those dealing with Indonesia's occupation of East Timor, South Africa's occupation of Namibia, and Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon). If these were also included, the number of violations would double. In most of these cases, the United States played a key role in blocking enforcement of these resolutions as well.
GLOBAL TOXICS TREATIES: U.S. LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITY SLIPS AWAY
by Kristin Schafer, Pesticide Action Network
(Editor's Note: Multilateralism is about more than peace and security issues, more than UN resolutions. Multilateralism is also the framework for international norms and rules--a noninstitutional form of global governance that addresses transnational issues that nations cannot resolve alone. The aggressive anti-multilateralism of the Bush administration extends beyond its unilateralism in security issues to its dismissal of the threats of rising transnational problems such as climate change and toxics. This new FPIF policy brief (available in its entirety at http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol7/v7n11toxics.html) examines the problem of our increasingly toxic global environment, the conventions and protocols designed to reduce this problem, and the recalcitrant policy position of the U.S. government.)
Once again, the U.S. is squandering an opportunity for leadership in the international environmental policy arena. As the Bush administration continues to backtrack on environmental protection at home and abroad, these opportunities are increasingly few and far between. The issues at hand are global elimination of persistent chemicals and control of trade in toxics, and the opportunity is early ratification of two international treaties that effectively address these challenges: the Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions. Fast action from the White House and the Senate could still make a difference.
Many NGOs (nongovernmental organizations), including the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) International and the International POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants) Elimination Network (IPEN), called on nations around the world to bring these important treaties into effect before the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa. Both treaties require fifty ratifications before implementation can begin. As of September 2002, 21 countries had ratified the Stockholm Convention, and 27 had ratified the Rotterdam Convention. The U.S. has yet to ratify either.
The chemicals addressed under the Stockholm Convention are persistent organic pollutants. These toxic substances currently are transported across the globe, persist in the environment, accumulate in the body fat of humans and animals, and concentrate up the food chain. Even 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, and infants around the world are born with an array of POPs already in their blood. 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 United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to sponsor extensive negotiations that culminated in the signing of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants on May 23, 2001, by 91 countries as well as the European Union. The treaty identifies an initial list of twelve POPs slated for elimination. Nine of the 12 (aldrin, endrin, dieldrin, chlordane, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, and toxaphene) are pesticides that have been targeted for elimination by NGOs around the world since the early 1980s. The other chemicals on the convention's initial list are polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and furans. The nine listed pesticides and PCBs have already been banned in the U.S., some--like DDT--for decades. The U.S. continues to produce dioxins and furans as byproducts of chlorine-based industries and waste incineration.
The Stockholm Convention establishes various timetables for the elimination of the listed POP chemicals. Provisions specific to the ever-controversial DDT call for its ultimate elimination but allow interim use of the pesticide for malaria vector control, if use is accompanied by aggressive efforts to develop and implement safe and effective alternatives. DDT is currently used to control malaria in about two dozen countries, mostly in Africa.
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 since 1989. The Rotterdam Convention 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. This gives receiving countries the option of refusing shipments of chemicals on the grounds that they may be harmful to the environment or to the health of their populations.
U.S. customs records from U.S. ports reveal that more than 3.2 billion pounds of pesticides crossed international borders between 1997 and 2000. Nearly 65 million pounds of this total were pesticides that have either been banned or are severely restricted in the United States. 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 50 ratifications needed to enter into force. Although the convention could be strengthened--some analysts believe that the rules for adding chemicals to the PIC list are designed to limit the number of new substances--it represents an important tool to help the international community monitor and control the world's massive trade in dangerous substances.
(Kristin S. Schafer <kristins@panna.org>, program coordinator with Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), is coauthor of Nowhere to Hide: Persistent Toxic Chemicals in the U.S. Food Supply (San Francisco: PANNA, 2001). A version of this article appeared in the September 2001 (vol. 6, no. 31) issue of Foreign Policy in Focus.)
II. Letters and Comments
Re: Overcoming the Legacy of the Vietnam War
Just what kind of "legacy" am I suppose to be overcoming. I was a U.S. Marine "Grunt" who served his country proudly and did no wrong while serving. The only legacy I have is of a brave, highly decorated Marine doing what he had to do. I have absolutely no legacy to "overcome". I would love to know if Mr. Wells-Dang was there; and if he was, what type of legacy he is trying to overcome.
- George Nicol <nicolgs@TUHS.temple.edu>
PALESTINIANS HAVE REAPED THEIR TRAGEDY
Re: Why U.S. Supports Israel
The mingling of facts and leftist idealist lies scares me. What humanitarian crimes has Israel committed? They are surrounded by enemies who hate them and want to commit genocide. They are at war with every Arab state who brainwash their people to unconditionally hate Jews. Anybody who cares about the truth knows that the Palestinians destroyed themselves with Jordan and Egypt acting as the puppetmasters. The PLO has reaped what they have sown and deserve no sympathy. Read real history and Israel gave everything a people could want to the Palestinians in the beginning, but they would accept nothing less than control of all of Israel and the death or exile of all Jews. The diaspora happened because Muslims hate Jews and to survive they had to flee their homeland. The Jews know the real meaning of Jihad--conversion or death. To simplify the Middle East's problems as the Israel's fault is ignorance at best or criminally partisan politics.
- Joe Shaffer <jshaffer1545@msn.com>
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE THESIS OF "ANTICIPATORY SELF-DEFENSE"
By Peter Mark
The Bush administration threatens a preemptive attack on Iraq. It is important to ask what affect such an attack might have on the relationship of the United States to the rest of the international community. Almost without exception, America's closest allies have voiced opposition to a military attack against Iraq. What might their response be if the U.S. actually carries out its threats? In the light of widespread international opposition to the use of military force against Saddam Hussein's government, it is important for American citizens to ask: can such a preemptive use of military force against another nation be justified by international law?
Here, succinctly, are some elements of international law that relate to the situation between the United States and Iraq:
An important principle of international law is the avoidance of armed force. Article 2-4 of the United Nations Charter prohibits all recourse to military force, including war. The U.S. is a signatory member of the United Nations and must therefore respect the Charter.
Article 2 of the UN Charter:
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles. ...
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Would the use of armed force against Iraq be compatible with the aims of the United Nation? Article 51 of the Charter authorizes the use of armed force for legitimate self-defense, but this right is applicable only if a member of the United Nations is the object of an armed aggression.
Article 51 of the United Nation Charter:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Armed intervention is justified under the following conditions:
1. The existence of armed aggression (the definition adopted by the UN General Assembly, Resolution 3314 of 1974):
Aggression is defined as the use of armed force by one state, against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state.
2. The absence of necessary measures by the UN Security Council to maintain peace. Once the Security Council has taken these measures, the right to armed self-defense ceases. A state that takes measures of legitimate self-defense is obligated to inform the Security Council.
3. Legitimate defense only justifies "those measures proportional to the armed aggression that has occurred, and that are necessary for ending that aggression." (International Court of Justice, June 27, 1986 in re Nicaragua)
Self-defense only warrants "measures which are proportional to the armed attack and necessary to respond to it". It implies that the victim of aggression must not occupy the aggressor state's territory, unless strictly necessary.
The use of armed force may on occasion be justified as part of humanitarian assistance, but only in order to prevent human suffering and "to protect life and health and to ensure the respect of persons" (International Court of Justice, June 27, 1986 in re Nicaragua). Such intervention must not be discriminatory.
In each of these cases, it is clear that the United States does not have the right to intervene without the approval of the Security Council. Nevertheless, on several occasions the U.S. has used the argument of Article 51 of the UN Charter to justify attacks that do not fall within the domain of legitimate defense:
- in 1986 against Libya (to justify an attack that caused the death of 37 people, mostly civilians) in reprisal for the bombing of a Berlin disco that caused the death of an American soldier.
- in 1993 against Iraq (purportedly to prevent an assassination attempt against the U.S. President orchestrated by Iraq).
The rationale of anticipatory self-defense has been invoked by Israel to justify attacks against Palestinian camps in Lebanon in 1975. Subsequently, UN Security Council resolutions have condemned this attack while contesting the idea of self-defense where there has been no armed intervention by the 'aggressor.'
The thesis of anticipatory self-defense is thus not an acceptable principle of international law today, because it is prone to arbitrary interpretation. A preemptive attack on another sovereign nation is counter to established and universally accepted standards of international law. This may help to explain the vehemence of opposition to a preemptive attack, among even our staunchest European allies.
- Peter Mark <pmark@wesleyan.edu>
(Peter Mark is an historian who teaches at Wesleyan University. This article was written with the assistance of Claudia Sciotti, a doctor of international law who works for the Commission on Human Rights of the European Parliament, in Strasbourg, France.)
Re: Why Not to Wage War with Iraq
I can't tell you how helpful this was for me to share with a family member who sent me the following link http://www.aclj.org/news/bibpers/020917_preemptive.asp regarding the biblical basis for war and three criteria for a just war. Your article was just what I needed to show this person that the set of criteria they had me looking at was NUTS.
- Amy Vennett <jajvennett@earthlink.net>
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
Friday, October 11, 2002 1:38 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001
IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.