The Progressive Response

The Progressive Response (PR) is produced weekly by the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org) as part of its Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF) project. FPIF, a "Think Tank Without Walls," 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." FPIF is joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies. 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 www.fpif.org, or email <feedback@fpif.org> to share your thoughts with us.

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. 12 | U.S. DECISION REFLECTS PRESSURE OF ANTI-CHOICE ZEALOTS
By John Gershman

GOOD COP, BAD COP AT THE UN
By Ian Willams

A WAR AVOIDED?
By Don Kraus and Mark Epstein

HOW THE DEMOCRATS BLEW IT
By Stephen Zunes

COMMITTEE FOR LIBERATION OF IRAQ: ANOTHER RIGHTWING FRONT GROUP
By Jim Lobe

II. Letters and Comments

HUMANITARIAN ISSUES?

ZUNES REPLIES

CHRISTIAN FRIENDSHIP

I. Updates and Out-Takes

FRONTIER JUSTICE: No. 12 | U.S. DECISION REFLECTS PRESSURE OF ANTI-CHOICE ZEALOTS

(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.)

By John Gershman

The Bush administration continues its assault on reproductive rights and reproductive health services for women at home and abroad. At a UN population and development meeting in late October in Bangkok, the United States threatened to withdraw its support from an international agreement it had helped formulate eight years ago, because the Bush administration says some of its terms imply that women have the right to abortion.

The U.S. delegation to the Asian and Pacific Population Conference said the United States would not reaffirm its support for the program of action from the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo unless the terms "reproductive health services" and "reproductive rights" are changed or removed. At the meeting Louise Oliver, a special assistant in the State Department's population office, stated unequivocally that the Bush administration position was non-negotiable.

The administration falsely claims that references in the Cairo Program of Action promote abortion. In fact, the document is silent on the subject except to say that in countries where termination of a pregnancy is legal, the procedure should be done in a safe manner--just as it currently is here in the U.S. (Other critics of the Cairo Document argue that it is not explicit enough in its defense of reproductive rights and access to reproductive health services including abortion). Although not a perfect framework, the Cairo program of action did shift the world's approach to reducing rapid population growth away from coercive, numbers-based programs toward voluntary family planning programs. At their core, such programs are about empowering women to make choices and have control over their lives.

The Bush administration stance on the Cairo program follows a decision in July to withhold $34 million in previously approved aid to the UN Population Fund (UNFPA). Washington claimed the UNFPA helps Chinese government agencies that force women to have abortions. And at the General Assembly's special session on children in May, the Bush administration, the Vatican, and some Muslim countries advocated a policy banning abortions for teenagers and promoting abstinence as the centerpiece of sex education.

The State Department recently decided to freeze $3 million in funding appropriated by Congress for the World Health Organization's research on mifepristone (also known as RU-486 and the "abortion pill"). Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), along with eight other members of the House of Representatives, sent a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell on November 1 to express their concerns that the State Department is using an overly broad interpretation of a 1985 law to justify withholding U.S. funding from international organizations.

The law, commonly referred to as Kemp-Kasten, prohibits U.S. funds from being used to finance or support abortions abroad. Such a broad interpretation of this law was the justification of withholding the $34 million appropriated by Congress for the United Nations Population Fund.

In their letter to Secretary of State Powell, Maloney and the other House members expressed their concern that this overly broad interpretation of the law could also jeopardize other funding for other international programs that work with the Chinese health ministry and family planning programs, including $120 million to the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), $108.1 million for the World Health organization, and $792.4 million for the World Bank. "We want to know that the administration is not jeopardizing UNICEF, WHO, and other important UN programs because of a small group of anti-choice zealots," said Maloney in a statement released by her office.

(John Gershman <john@irc-online.org> is a senior analyst at the Interhemispheric Resource Center (online at www.irc-online.org).)

GOOD COP, BAD COP AT THE UN
By Ian Willams

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new Present Danger Global Affairs Commentary, available in its entirety online at http://www.presentdanger.org/commentary/2002/0211goodbad.html.)

Resolution 1441 is more an alternative "legal" road to war rather than an alternative to war itself. Extrapolating from Saddam Hussein's previous behavior, the Security Council resolution will lead to war as surely as a position of unilateral U.S. belligerence.

Washington has certainly won its major point at the Security Council. Regardless of differing opinions heard throughout the rest of the world, Iraq is the first item on the U.S.-shaped global security agenda--even if no other Security Council member would rank it so importantly. Even Tony Blair, the Bush administration's closest ally over Iraq, has been vainly trying to point out the equal importance of the Israel/Palestine issue, both as a security issue in its own right and in terms of its potential for coalition building. The Pakistan-India nuclear stand-off, for example, poses serious threats to international peace and security. Even in terms of defiance of UN resolutions, Iraq is far from the worst scoff-law.

The final draft of 1441 echoes the sigh of relief that greeted George Bush's September 12 speech announcing his new-found devotion to the United Nations. The alternative was having the world's most important nation flout the UN Charter and the major principles of international law established in the wake of the Second World War. It is hardly surprising, then, that so many were prepared to accommodate U.S. whims in the interests of preserving the appearance of the international rule of law.

On a slightly more optimistic note, the long resistance and diplomatic campaign of attrition in the Security Council should send a warning to Washington--and constitute a rallying point for the rest of the world--that the United States will not always have everything its own way. After all, even a superpower needs allies to conduct operations far from home. That's small comfort for Saddam Hussein, but in the end the resolution does give us some small hope for a more multilateral future.

(Ian Williams <uswarreport@igc.org> contributes frequently to Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org) on UN and international affairs.)

A WAR AVOIDED?
By Don Kraus and Mark Epstein

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs Commentary, available in its entirety online at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0211waravert.html .)

Perhaps a war has been avoided. The United Nations Security Council's unanimous passage of an historic resolution gives UN weapons inspectors "unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to anyone and anywhere in Iraq that their search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) might lead them. The resolution gives Iraq a "final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations." Resistance is futile. Saddam Hussein has been given seven days to confirm his intention to comply.

Optimists and skeptics are certain to view this situation differently. If one believes the glass is half full, then the Bush administration, pressured by allies and U.S. public opinion has veered off of its unilateral course and should be commended for working within the international system and helping to restore credibility to the United Nations. But the glass is half empty if one believes this is the logical extension of a shadow dance begun by the Bush administration this summer after reading polling data clearly showing a strong American majority against unilateral action in Iraq. After reviewing this polling data, the Bush foreign policy team may have concluded additional steps were needed to create adequate window dressing for an invasion--the illusion of working with allies and the UN system.

Does the U.S. support for the UN resolution demonstrate that the U.S. is searching for truth, or is the Bush administration on a course for war (and oil)?

Half full or half empty, it is disconcerting that the credibility and future of the United Nations might well now rest in the hand of two men, Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush, the former who has flaunted international law and the latter whose administration has questioned the very legitimacy of the international treaty system. Either could bring down the delicate system of international laws that have developed over the past century.

If international pressure brought to bear by the United Nations and the United States on Iraq works--if peace is maintained without war--then an empowered UN system, with appropriate checks and balances, given the degree of authority and capacity that Security Council Resolution 1441 has granted to weapons inspectors, could finally delegitimize war as a means of creating political change. We could live in a world ruled by the force of law rather than the law of force.

(Don Kraus <dkraus@cunr.org> is the Executive Director of the Campaign for UN Reform. Mark Epstein <mepstein@wfa.org> is the Executive Director of the World Federalist Association. Kraus and Epstein write for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org) on the UN and international law.)

HOW THE DEMOCRATS BLEW IT
By Stephen Zunes

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs Commentary, available in its entirety online at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0211blewit.html .)

With the country still mired in recession and polls consistently showing that the Republicans' positions on such basic policy issues as the environment and the economy are decidedly unpopular, this should have been the Democrats' year.

Perhaps the biggest mistake was refusing to challenge the Bush administration's foreign policy. Although most Americans support in general terms the use of military support to oust Saddam Hussein's regime, most oppose an invasion without clear authorization of the UN Security Council or a broad coalition, which is highly unlikely. These polls also indicate support dropping dramatically in the event of high American casualties, highly probable in a ground assault on Baghdad.

Making a strong case against the Bush administration's war plans, its support for repressive governments, and its assaults on well-respected international institutions would have almost certainly resulted in a galvanizing of the Democratic Party faithful as well as large numbers of independents, insuring a Democratic victory. Millions of Democrats have been alienated by the party leadership's insistence on acceding to President George W. Bush's demand that he be granted the authority to invade Iraq without the legally required mandate from the United Nations Security Council.

It is difficult to shift public attention to domestic issues in times of international tension. The Democratic leadership should have recognized that calls for prescription drug benefits for seniors while the nation is concerned about an illegal, unnecessary, and possibly devastating war simply did not catch the imagination of the voting public. This was particularly problematic in that the Democrats were unable to explain how they intended to pay for such benefits while refusing to reverse the recently enacted tax cuts and in authorizing a military campaign that will cost up to $200 billion.

Already, Democratic Party activists concerned with peace and human rights issues are angered by their party leadership's support for last spring's attacks by Israel's right-wing government against civilian areas of the occupied West Bank, which Amnesty International has labeled as war crimes. This rightward drift on human rights concerns by the Democratic leadership has gone as far as supporting legislation opposing the International Criminal Court, including authorizing the use of military force to free any citizen of the United States or an allied nation detained in The Hague for war crimes.

One hopes the Democrats will learn the lesson for Tuesday's devastating defeat and decide to replace their discredited leadership with those who have the integrity and political smarts to return the party to majority status.

(Stephen Zunes <zunes@usfca.edu> is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org). He is an associate professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and the author of the recently released Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2002).)

COMMITTEE FOR LIBERATION OF IRAQ: ANOTHER RIGHTWING FRONT GROUP
By Jim Lobe

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from Defining the Present Danger analysis, available in its entirety online at http://www.presentdanger.org/papers/libiraq.html .)

The "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq" is setting up offices on Capitol Hill this week, according to its president, Randy Scheunemann, Lott's former chief national-security adviser who last year worked in Rumsfeld's office as a consultant on Iraq policy. The chairman of the new Committee, Bruce P. Jackson, is a former vice president of Lockheed Martin who chaired the Republican Party Platform's subcommittee for National Security and Foreign Policy when Bush ran for president in 2000.

Jackson, who also served as chairman of the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO, which spearheaded a "citizen's" campaign to persuade Congress to ratify NATO's eastward expansion in 1998, resigned from Lockheed earlier this year to, in his words, "pursue democracy building projects full-time."

He, Scheunemann, and a prominent Republican fund-raiser who worked with Jackson on the NATO Committee, Julie Finley, founded the Project on Transitional Democracies, for which he is now president. He also leads the U.S. Committee on NATO, a successor to the expansion effort, in which both Scheunemann and Finley are officers.

The new Committee on Iraq appears to be a spin-off from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a front group consisting mainly of neoconservative Jews and heavy-hitters from the Christian Right whose public recommendations on fighting President George W. Bush's "war against terrorism" and alignment with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the second intifada have anticipated to a remarkable degree the administration's policy course.

Both Scheunemann and Jackson have signed a number of PNAC's open letters to Bush, including one sent just eight days after the September 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, calling for Washington to carry the anti-terrorist campaign beyond al Qaeda to Syria, Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Palestine Authority and, of course, Iraq. Other signers included Richard Perle, chairman of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board (DPB), Frank Gaffney, a Perle protege who now heads the Center for Security Policy (CSP), and several of Perle's colleagues at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), including former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, Michael Ledeen, and Marc Reuel Gerecht.

"The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq will engage in educational and advocacy efforts to mobilize U.S. and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny," it goes on. It "is committed to work beyond the liberation of Iraq to the reconstruction of its economy and the establishment of political pluralism, democratic institutions, and the rule of law."

Scheunemann told FPIF the group will concentrate its efforts on the media "both in the U.S. and in Europe." The new committee appears to be the latest organization used by neoconservatives and other right-wingers in a long line of similar front groups stretching back over a quarter of a century, first to the Coalition for a Democratic Majority and then to the more bipartisan Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), which campaigned against détente and arms control treaties during the Carter administration.

During the 1980s, they spawned new groups--consisting mostly of the same people--such as the Committee for the Free World; Prodemca (Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America), which supported Reagan administration policies in Central America; and the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD), which campaigned against the overseas work of mainstream Protestant churches and liberation theology of the Roman Catholic Church; among others.

Many of the activists in these groups were associated with AEI, the leading neoconservative think tank in Washington and one whose foreign-policy positions have never enjoyed as much influence as now. In the lead-up to the Gulf War 11 years ago, many of the same individuals launched the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG), co-chaired by Perle along with former New York Democratic Rep. Stephen Solarz.

(Jim Lobe <jlobe@starpower.net> writes for Inter Press Service and is a member of the advisory committee of Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org).)

Also see:

Glossary of the Right-Wing Sectors in U.S. Foreign Policy
By Tom Barry (November 4, 2002)
Understanding politics in America and U.S. foreign policy means knowing about the right wing.

The Men Who Stole the Show
By Tom Barry and Jim Lobe (FPIF adviser) (October 2002)
Organizations such as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), the Center for Security Policy (CSP), and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) have supplied the administration with a steady stream of policy advice and also with the men-and they are virtually all men-to steer the ship of state on its radical new course.

See FPIF's Focus on the Right Index

II. Letters and Comments

HUMANITARIAN ISSUES ?

Re: U.S.-Iraq: On the War Path

Stephen Zunes raises eloquently all the issues relating to a possible U.S. invasion of Iraq such as unilateralism, the danger of a preemption doctrine, etc. What I am wondering is: why aren't humanitarian issues a concern? Why does the international community support a brutal dictatorship? And, even if Saddam is not a direct threat to the United States, does that mean we can simply ignore all of his humanitarian violations? The Gulf War showed how weak Saddam's regime was when faced with strong opposition. Saddam has little support, if any, from the Iraqi populace, which is secular, highly literate, and educated. If the United States were to force a "regime change" in Iraq, it would mean an end to the Ba'ath and its reign of terror. I agree that America was wrong to impose economic sanctions and bombardments on the Iraqi people (which only made Saddam more popular), but why are humanitarian issues not raised in this discussion of a possible regime change. The international community, and the American opposition, are right to criticize Bush's unilateralism, but wrong in assuming that Saddam is a civilized head of state.

- Michal Zapendowski <michal.zap@attbi.com>

ZUNES REPLIES

While Saddam Hussein is not nearly the threat that the Bush administration and its congressional allies of both parties are making him out to be, there should be no question about the brutal nature of the regime. Unlike the 1980s, however, virtually no one in the international community currently supports the dictatorial regime or believes he is a "civilized head of state." But should the international community tolerate its ongoing existence?

I do support regime change in Iraq. However, the vast majority of regime change against autocratic governments in recent years has come not from foreign invasion or even internal armed rebellion but by nonviolent "people power" revolutions that have toppled dictatorial regimes in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Madagascar, Bolivia, Malawi, and scores of others, including Yugoslavia, where the Serbian people did nonviolently in a 48-hour period in 2000 what 11 weeks of NATO bombing in 1999 could not--topple Slobodan Milosovic.

Such a movement has been made difficult by the fact that the urban middle class--which has traditionally been key in such movements--in Iraq has been essentially wiped out, reduced to penury, or forced to emigrate as a result of the sanctions. In its place, a new class of black marketeers has emerged that has a stake in preserving the status quo. In addition, the sanctions have made the Iraqi people dependent on the government for rations, making them even less likely to risk defying the regime. Indeed, if you are struggling simply to get food and medicine for your family, you are less likely to get involved politically.

A unilateral invasion by the United States--which has supported regimes as cruel as that of Saddam Hussein, like the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia, among others--will not likely bring freedom to Iraq. Remember that the United States has never supported democracy in the Arab world. The leading names mentioned as Washington's preferred replacements to Saddam Hussein are all former Iraqi generals under Saddam who have defected in recent years but have been linked to war crimes in the 1980s.

Armed humanitarian intervention may have its place in certain special circumstances if the international community has exhausted all means to create conditions where the oppressed people of a given country can oust their oppressive regime themselves. It has at least some international support if the hold on power by the regime is indeed fragile and the real goal is to bring freedom to an oppressed people rather than to extend the hegemony of a superpower over a territory rich in natural resources. This is not one of those circumstances.

- Stephen Zunes, FPIF Middle East editor

CHRISTIAN FRIENDSHIP

There's a saying about being in a very difficult position, "between a rock and a hard place," which originated in ancient Greece. It described a place along their ocean coast, where a sailing ship had to steer carefully through a narrow passage, between a jagged rocky island in the water and a steep bank on the shore. Contact with either was almost certain to impact and sink the boat--hence the term meant a navigable but extremely dangerous voyage.

The United States government is currently moving along such a very dangerous path, between Iraq and a hard line, by wanting to start a war to remove Saddam Hussein. However, the Gulf War under the previous Bush administration killed some 100,000 Iraqis, and their current poverty is due in large part to our destruction of their facilities and to our ensuing sanctions against them. And it cost us some $60 billion and veterans' deaths from Gulf War syndrome.

What is the real reason that our government wants Iraq? A Newsweek editorial (Sep. 20) says "Iraq: It's the Oil, Stupid." World oil reserves are not keeping up with global use. And "With less oil on tap, oil-importing countries like ours" (60%) "would take a far more aggressive interest in the Gulf states that run the world's last big reserves." "Iraq contains one of the planet's largest reserves. President Bush would hardly go after Saddam for the oil alone, but it's certainly a factor." And it concludes with saying, "The more we guzzle, the more we're exposed to geopolitical trouble..."

Actually, President Bush previously made a suggestion about how to get rid of Saddam that was at least on the right track--but it didn't go far enough. He said we should put out a "Wanted" poster, like they used to do in our old Wild West days. But he forgot to add the "Reward" part, which of course is what motivates people to respond to the request. Specifically, we should offer a huge donation, like maybe $10 billion to the Iraqi people, if and when they depose Hussein--and agree to replace him with a leader with whom we can deal successfully. That would take the form of food, medicine, housing, energy, etc., delivered to them to create a healthy and peaceful society. As Jesus said, "Feed the hungry and heal the sick."

By floating a Christian Friendship proposal between the Iraq dictator and U.S. hard line military threats, it is highly likely that the problem can be solved peacefully. And it would be far less costly in money and lives than another "war" against terrorism. Not to mention that it would probably avoid additional terrorist attacks on American soil.

However, our current Congress doesn't seem to have the will or ability to resist the warmongers financed by our military-industrial complex. Therefore it is the responsibility of American citizens to vote this November only for candidates who truly want to make peace and not war. After all, it would save many lives and billions of bucks!

- Conrad Golich

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.

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, November 13, 2002 6:11 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.