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

FRONTIER JUSTICE: No. 8 | ICC AND CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
By John Gershman

MUST THE U.S. BREAK LAWS TO ENFORCE THEM?
By Kendall Stiles

LOSING FOCUS
By Michael Klare

NEW FPIF SPECIAL FOCUS ISSUES

II. Letters and Comments

QUESTIONS THE SAME OLD GROWTH PARADIGM

APPRECIATION FOR THOUGHTFUL PIECE

I. Updates and Out-takes

FRONTIER JUSTICE: No. 8 | ICC AND CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
By John Gershman

(Editor's Note: Frontier Justice is a weekly column written alternately by Tom Barry and John Gershman, foreign policy analysts at the Interhemispheric Resource Center, chronicling instances of U.S. unilateralism and its assault on the multilateralism framework for managing global affairs. It is part of the new Project Against the Present Danger. These columns are now indexed on the www.presentdanger.org site at: http://www.presentdanger.org/frontier/2002/index.html .)

September was an important month in the ongoing saga of the efforts of the Bush administration to weaken the International Criminal Court (ICC). Early in the month the first assembly of states supporting the ICC convened at United Nations headquarters in New York. The excitement was tempered by the ongoing efforts by the Bush administration to strangle the ICC in its infancy.

After withdrawing its signature earlier this year, Washington has been negotiating bilateral agreements with countries to exempt U.S. citizens from court prosecution. The ICC Treaty requires every State Party to surrender individuals sought by the court and expressly excludes any reservations. The Bush administration has already signed bilateral agreements with 12 countries that promise not to turn over U.S. nationals to the ICC.

Faced with the possibility of a number of present and potential members of the European Union signing such agreements, the EU acted at the end of September to issue guidelines for its members. The guidelines are widely viewed as only weakly defending the ICC from the Bush administration's assaults. As Lotte Leicht, Europe director for Human Rights Watch noted:

The European Union knew that the stakes were high for the credibility of the International Criminal Court and for the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy as a whole. Yet the European Union failed to adopt a firm, unequivocal position in response to Washington's campaign to undermine the court.

The EU has agreed that individual members may choose to give U.S. military and civilian personnel on official government business in their territory immunity from the tribunal. The guidelines the EU issued--although intended as a conciliatory gesture toward Washington--fall short of U.S. demands. Washington has sought to exempt all "U.S.-connected" persons, regardless of whether they were on official or private business.

Germany has said it won't grant Americans blanket immunity from the ICC, a decision that is likely to further strain relations between allies already divided over a possible attack on Iraq. Italy, the UK, and Spain are likely to sign bilateral agreements, while France remains on the fence.

Germany hosts 71,000 U.S. troops, making Berlin's refusal to agree to immunity for Americans all the more sensitive. The legal standing of American troops in Germany is covered by special agreements that already provide limited immunity from national prosecutions.

In other news in international law, the Committee on the Rights of the Child concludes its annual meeting this week (October 4th), highlighting that the U.S. remains one of two countries (along with Somalia) that has failed to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. (The U.S. has signed the convention.) In a rare victory, and despite ongoing opposition to the Convention as a whole from many Senate Republicans, the Senate did ratify two optional protocols to the convention this past June, one on child soldiers and the other on trafficking in children.

The issue of children's rights continues to be a major front in the battle for economic and social rights as well as civil and political rights. One major issue involves the use of the death penalty against child offenders; a practice now almost solely reserved for U.S. executioners, according to a new report from Amnesty International. Almost half (eight of 17) of the executions of child offenders known worldwide in the past five years occurred in just one U.S. state: Texas.

From the ICC to executing children, the Bush administration and U.S. policy more broadly remains out of step with a growing, albeit uneven, world consensus on the importance of international law.

For more information see:

The Coalition for the ICC
http://www.iccnow.org/

Human Rights Watch Campaign on the ICC
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/us.htm

Indecent and internationally illegal: The death penalty against child offenders in the USA
Amnesty International
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR511432002/

(John Gershman <john@irc-online.org> is a senior analyst at the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) (online at www.irc-online.org) and Asia/pacific editor for Foreign Policy in Focus.)

MUST THE U.S. BREAK LAWS TO ENFORCE THEM?
By Kendall Stiles

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF commentary as part of the Project Against the Present Danger, posted in its entirety at: http://www.presentdanger.org/commentary/2002/0209breakrules.html .)

Listening to President Bush speak these days, one gets the distinct impression that, to him at least, international law is for wimps. The push by the administration to intervene militarily in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein is wrapped in the sheerest of legal gauze. Although Bush said on September 27th that he was willing to "give peace a chance" and support a tough new UN Security Council resolution that would allow weapons inspectors to do their job, it is clear that his heart is not in it. He has said repeatedly that if the UN fails to pass a satisfactory resolution or hesitates to enforce it, the U.S. will go it alone. Thousands of soldiers and tons of war materiel are being moved to the region in anticipation of an attack.

The Bush administration claims that disarming and overthrowing Saddam is necessary to defend the safety of the United States and its allies. Although he has not explicitly referred to it, this implies that action is justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But Article 51, at least on paper, only applies when a country has been attacked. It reads: "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..."

This is not to say that preemptive strikes have never been tolerated. UN members recognize that the bar set by Article 51 is too high, and have been flexible in applying it. In the Caroline case, argued in the 1830s, Daniel Webster criticized a British preemptive strike on a Canadian vessel moored in America. He set what has become the standard, stating: "It will be for that Government to show a necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." Implicitly applying that standard, the international community has excused Israel twice for using force in violation of Article 51--once to rescue hostages in Uganda and once to launch a preemptive strike against Arab states in 1967. Note that Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and its current operations in the West Bank received no such sanction, even though the threat to its territory was high.

No one in the White House is suggesting that Iraq is in the process of launching an attack against the U.S. or its allies--only that it is developing the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction in the near future. But the threat assessment varies considerably in the region. Saudi Arabia, a state once in Saddam's cross-hairs, has expressed opposition to Bush's war plans. Only Kuwait and Israel believe Iraq is an immediate threat.

One has the sense from the Bush officials that they simply don't understand that international law is about long-term relationships, not short-term expediency. They treat international rules as a mere cover for a priori plans, without regard for their future application or historical origins. Their attitude betrays both ignorance and cynicism, not to mention a dangerous nearsightedness. As frustrating as it might be, the U.S. must either work to change international rules or wait until Iraq presents a more immediate threat. Preemption at this stage is simply not justified and would undermine the very principles of order and justice the administration claims to be fighting for.

(Dr. Kendall Stiles <kstiles@luc.edu> is an associate professor of political science at Loyola University Chicago, where his teaching and research focuses on international politics, international organization and law, and international political economy.)

LOSING FOCUS
By Michael Klare

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs commentary posted in its entirety at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0210focus.html .)

The Bush administration is losing the war against terrorism. A year after the attacks on New York and Washington, U.S. forces have failed to eliminate Al Qaeda's capacity to conduct terrorist operations. While this may be alarming enough, what is truly disturbing is that our failure is not caused by the deviousness of Osama bin Laden, but by the skewed priorities of President George W. Bush.

A year ago, in his address to the nation, President Bush vowed, "I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent" in leading the war against terror. For about five months, it appeared that he intended to carry through on this solemn commitment--the war in Afghanistan was waged with vigor and dispatch, and Al Qaeda was severely damaged. But since January, the president has turned American attention and resources away from Al Qaeda to lead a crusade against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, pushing the anti-terrorism campaign to the sidelines.

The ominous consequences of this shift are fully evident:

• The Taliban has lost control of Afghanistan, but American forces have failed to establish law and order in areas outside of Kabul. Well-armed bands of Taliban fighters have joined local warlords in challenging Hamid Karzai's U.S.-backed government. Afghanistan is once again a breeding ground for terrorism.
• Significant elements of the Al Qaeda network have regrouped in Pakistan and elsewhere. Although pursued by America's covert warriors and other friendly forces, Al Qaeda remnants continue to attack U.S. facilities, like the American consulate in Karachi.
• Al Qaeda and allied groups have reconstituted their international financial links. A recent UN report says the terrorists have circumvented U.S. controls on conventional bank transactions by relying on the underground trade in diamonds, gems, and precious metals.

These developments are partly due to the inherent difficulty of eradicating a well-established, multinational terrorist network. But they are also the product of inadequate White House leadership.

To prevail in the war against terrorism, U.S. leaders must devote their full attention to the day-to-day struggle against Al Qaeda, and continue to build international support in efforts to disable global terrorist links. President Bush stressed all this in his earliest statements a year ago.

But since January, Mr. Bush has focused his subordinates on a different campaign. For example, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, head of the U.S. Central Command and the leader of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is spending most of his time devising plans for an invasion of Iraq. Meantime, Bush's crusade against Iraq has alienated foreign leaders whose help we need in the war against terrorism, allowing Al Qaeda breathing space and time to regroup.

To justify this policy shift, President Bush and his aides have argued that the campaign against Saddam is a natural continuation of the war against terrorism. But while the Iraqi leader has engaged in egregious behavior of all sorts and deserves international opprobrium and isolation, he had no part in the September 11 terror attacks and has no known ties to Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. Thus, going after Iraq is not a logical step in the war against terrorism--rather, it is a distraction.

As for Iraq, President Bush's recent UN speech won favor and support from our European and Middle Eastern allies for now, and they continue to believe the best way to deal with Iraq is through the return of UN arms inspectors.

Without question, Mr. Bush's threats did much to make that possible. But he has not foreclosed the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iraq. That would reverse global support for our policies, and more to the point, would greatly complicate our efforts to gain or maintain their cooperation in the more mundane but far more important task of tracking down Al Qaeda's hidden operatives.

President Bush must re-focus. He must reaffirm his commitment to the war against terror and put aside his obsession with Saddam. The victims of September 11, their families and loved ones--and the rest of us--deserve no less.

(Michael T. Klare <mklare@hampshire.edu>, author of Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict and a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., is on the advisory board of Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org).)

NEW FPIF SPECIAL FOCUS ISSUES

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

II. Letters and Comments

QUESTIONS THE SAME OLD GROWTH PARADIGM

Re: A New Development Paradigm, by Thomas Palley

It is good to see an alternative approach to the current "TNC's know best" and "the market is omnipotent" philosophies, and to see a belated recognition of the critical part that is played by transparency, accountability, and a more equitable income distribution in creating a stable working platform. However the proposed revisions to economic orthodoxy will be little more than a temporary respite unless ecological responsibility is included as one of your basic conditions and environmental effects are integrated into economic policies.

There has been some recent analysis of resource consumption and environmental degradation that suggests that it would require the equivalent of five more "earths" to provide developing countries with a lifestyle similar to that which is enjoyed by the developed nations. It is also now widely recognized that, because the environment is stressed (witness climate change), acceptable social justice and human rights outcomes will only be achieved if the society is based on an ecologically sound platform, and conversely that ecological benefits can only be achieved within an equitable social framework. I would also question the unchallenged assumption that growth is always good. It is essential that the world population stabilizes--and the sooner the better. So it would be an excellent idea to explore a "steady state" economy based on minimal throughput of new material, no-waste generation, equitable wealth distribution, and an acceptable standard of living. If we can't find a way to get there, we may turn out to be one of nature's mistakes and your discussion paper just another attempt to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

- Jo Lewis <idg@alphalink.com.au>

APPRECIATION FOR THOUGHTFUL PIECE

Re: Bush's United Nations Speech Unconvincing, by Stephen Zunes

Stephen Zunes' article was a pleasant relief to the poor mind deluged by Officialdumb in the mass/mess media. One would think from the general silence out there that there were no thinking Americans left--and that is hardly the case. We simply cannot make our voices heard in a climate of fearful gibberish--one in which expressions of concepts contrary to this administration's doublespeak are so difficult to find in the national press. We live in the most complex time in the history of the human race. That is not hyperbole but merely an observation. And yet we are surrounded with the least intelligent rhetoric possible short of a comic book. Nothing could be more depressing than the overall level of unintelligent discussion in this country. For this reason, I am taking a moment to express my appreciation for this thoughtful piece.

- Diane Harvey <merak@sedona.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.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, October 11, 2002 1:52 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.