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 http://www.fpif.org/, or email <feedback@fpif.org> to share your thoughts with us.

John Gershman, editor of Progressive Response, is a senior analyst with the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) (online at www.irc-online.org). He can be contacted at <john@irc-online.org>.

We Count on Your Support!

Editor: John Gershman (IRC)

Table of Contents

I. Updates and Out-Takes

DEPARTURE OF KEY AIDE MARKS NEW POWELL SETBACK
By Jim Lobe

IRAQ: THE CHALLENGE OF HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE
By Kevin Murray

RECYCLING WARS
By Col. Dan Smith (Ret.)

THE U.S. AND LATIN AMERICA AFTER 9-11 AND IRAQ
By Coletta Youngers

THE NEED FOR UN POLICE
By Don Kraus

II. Letters and Comments

THOUGHTFUL PIECE

IMPORTANT TASK

III. Announcements

CORRECTING ANNOUNCEMENT OF POWER TRIP: U.S. UNILATERALISM AND GLOBAL STRATEGY AFTER SEPTEMBER 11

I. Updates and Out-takes

DEPARTURE OF KEY AIDE MARKS NEW POWELL SETBACK
By Jim Lobe

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new Global Affairs Commentary available in full online at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0306haass.html .)

The announcement on June 5 that the State Department's director for policy planning, Richard Haass, is leaving to become the next president of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), marks the latest sign of the eclipse of Secretary of State Colin Powell's influence in the Bush administration.

While there is no doubt that his new job, which begins July 1, has real attractions--a lengthy contract to direct the oldest and most prestigious U.S. foreign policy think tank--Haass has historically preferred to be in the thick of the action. He played a key role on the National Security Council under George H.W. Bush during the Gulf War and its aftermath, including the Madrid peace talks, in the early 1990s. Next to Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Haass has been seen as Powell's closest adviser.

While no official announcement has made, his most likely replacement is said to be the current ambassador to Turkey, Robert Pearson, a career foreign service officer who, while highly regarded as a diplomat and administrator, lacks Haass' reputation as a thinker and grand strategist. The fact that Powell has not put forward anyone of Haass' stature is being interpreted as an indication that the retired general probably intends to step down himself after next year's election, if not before.

Long targeted by neoconservative forces centered in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office, as well as their counterparts outside the administration, Haass has served as an influential voice in favor of traditional Republican realism, a protege of Bush Sr.'s national security adviser, ret. Gen. Brent Scowcroft. During his mere two-and-a-half years in one of the State Department's most coveted positions--George Kennan, the legendary strategist who authored the "containment" doctrine at the dawn of the cold war, was a predecessor--Haass led efforts to define and argue Powell's positions internally and to enunciate more general ideas about where he thought U.S. foreign policy should be headed.

(Jim Lobe <jlobe@starpower.net> is a political analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org). He also writes regularly for Inter Press Service.)

IRAQ: THE CHALLENGE OF HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE
By Kevin Murray

(Editor's Note: This commentary is the first in a series that will explore the ethical and political challenges facing humanitarian and relief organizations in occupied Iraq in general, and the more general issue of how humanitarian relief may come to legitimate U.S. imperial designs more broadly. This one is available in full at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0306humane.html. The discussion is particularly relevant given the recent comments made by USAID head Andrew Natsios at a meeting held by Interaction, the "trade association" of U.S. aid and relief organizations. At the meeting he described NGOs and private contractors receiving U.S. aid monies as "an arm of the U.S. government" and went on to note that organizations receiving such funds should do a better job of promoting their ties to the U.S. government--and that failure to do so could be grounds for losing future aid contracts. As for all our pieces we appreciate feedback on these issues, which should be sent to <john@irc-online.org>.)

The new world order on display in Iraq places new demands on the U.S. humanitarian community. The Wolfowitz-Perle doctrine of pre-emptive action against perceived external threats preserves a role for humanitarian intervention. In fact, it may make humanitarian response a growth industry. The role of relief organizations in Iraq raises many questions, however, and these questions deserve the continuing attention of the movement that sought to avoid this war in the first place.

Relief and reconstruction in Iraq are taking place against the backdrop of a military occupation. A collection of individuals trained, for the most part, in U.S. military and security structures hold effective political power in Iraq and show little sign of being ready to surrender that power to a new Iraqi leadership. European organizations and U.S. ones not receiving government funds will certainly operate with more independence than those reliant on U.S. government contracts, but they will still face serious limitations. Financial independence from the U.S. government will not, in this case, automatically lead to operational independence from the military.

These circumstances have created difficult dilemmas for the NGO community, especially U.S. NGOs. Some organizations have taken the difficult decision of not participating in the relief operation at all. Others, including several faith-based NGOs that expressed strong opposition to the war, have said that they would attempt to respond to the crisis, but would not apply for U.S. government funds to do so. The largest U.S. organizations, with huge economic stakes in Iraq relief and in good relations with USAID, are going ahead despite their reservations about Pentagon control.

The best aid organizations will find ways to carry out some credible operations in this context, but, in other cases, humanitarian interventions will take place firmly within the logic of military plans to pacify the Iraqi population and win the Iraqis' hearts and minds for a long-term project of restructuring the country. Such programs will approximate the "civic-military action programs" widely criticized by the humanitarian community in Central America and elsewhere in the 1980s.

To be successful, humanitarian organizations providing aid to Iraq must struggle to establish a humanitarian/reconstruction agenda with some degree of autonomy from military occupation plans. This will be no easy task, especially for those organizations working with U.S. government funds. Such an agenda must, of course, focus on how to deliver immediate relief to those most directly affected by the war. It must also mobilize the human and financial resources necessary to initiate the daunting task of reconstructing Iraq's social infrastructure.

But it very much matters how this aid is provided. Iraq's reconstruction process ought to take place in a way that respects the long-denied basic human rights of all Iraqis. There is already ample reason to doubt how much importance the occupation regime will place on the protection of those rights. In addition, a progressive humanitarian agenda must recognize the critical importance of encouraging local initiative in the rebuilding of the country, thereby strengthening an emerging Iraqi civil society. Iraqi civil organizations will doubtless promote varied visions of a new Iraq. Even amidst this challenging and contradictory diversity, a true humanitarian agenda will honor local initiative.

Unconditional opposition to unjust war is the first humanitarian response. If the failure to take strong public positions against this war is any indication, many leading U.S. humanitarian organizations apparently judged this a just war. In any event, we would do well to re-examine the relationship between pre-emptive wars and humanitarianism … before the next war. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to be the last time we will face such dilemmas.

(Kevin Murray <kmurray@grassrootsonline.org> is the executive director of Grassroots International, an international development and human rights organization providing support to local social change organizations in Brazil, Eritrea, Haiti, Mexico, and Palestine. He provides analysis of humanitarian relief and development issues for Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org).)

RECYCLING WARS
By Col. Dan Smith (Ret.)

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary available in full at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0306war.html .)

Tell it to the troops on the ground, not to mention the indigenous population. They know that war can go on even after it has "ended."

On May 1, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared that major combat in Afghanistan had ended for the 8,000 U.S. troops in country. Yet on June 3, television showed pictures of substantial military units scouring the hills along the border with Pakistan for al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Elsewhere in the country, militias of regional "governors" (also known as warlords) still clash with each other over who controls what turf--and which people.

Also on May 1, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush declared that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Since then, more than 30 U.S. soldiers and Marines have died, many in armed clashes with Iraqis. The number of troops, instead of falling, has risen to between 160,000-165,000, and the 3rd Infantry Division's scheduled departure from Iraq has been postponed indefinitely. As Lieutenant General David McKiernan, coalition ground forces commander, said May 29, "The war has not ended. These operations happened in a combat zone and it is war." Significantly, his comments don't address communal conflicts within Iraq.

The phenomena of cyclical fighting and resurgent wars should not be as much a surprise as it seems to be for U.S. officials. In its May 22 issue, the highly respected Economist magazine noted three very startling statistics: (1) counting only conflicts involving more than 1,000 deaths from violence, one in eight countries worldwide has a civil war; (2) on average, these conflicts last eight years, twice the length of wars before 1980; (3) 50% of all countries that achieve peace fall back into civil war within a decade.

In Africa, periodic civil war seems to be a fact of life (and death) in Sudan, Central African Republic, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Somalia, Zimbabwe, and other countries. A May 2003 World Bank study found that the most common characteristic of intra-warring countries throughout the globe is poverty: four-fifths of the civil wars are concentrated in countries with the poorest one-sixth of the world's population. The Bank concluded that this concentration of wars in impoverished societies was a result of the increased opportunity to find causes--some real, such as corruption and incompetence; some imaginary--for which people would take up arms.

And then there is the Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire), a country where, over the past five years, fighting always seems to be going on somewhere and where the estimated deaths in these years number 3 to 3.5 million.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, Congress is set to give the Pentagon more than $400 billion to spend on war preparations and now, it seems, on the "non-wars." Once again, the U.S. sets a poor example for other countries, especially those that only recently resolved internal wars. These governments heap scarce funds on their militaries to ward off future rebellions. Ironically, such spending increases the chances for war because it scoops up resources needed for bettering people's lives and suggests that those in power foresee and are planning for renewed warfare. So the killing never stops, and what is left for the poor is recycling war.

(Dan Smith <dan@fcnl.org> is a military affairs analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org) and a retired U.S. army colonel and senior fellow on Military Affairs at the Friends Committee on National Legislation.)

THE U.S. AND LATIN AMERICA AFTER 9-11 AND IRAQ
By Coletta Youngers

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new policy report available in full at http://www.fpif.org/papers/latam2003.html . This is a revised version of Coletta's chapter in FPIF's new book Power Trip, edited by FPIF Advisory Committee member and frequent contributor John Feffer. Ordering information is available at http://www.fpif.org/advisers/feffer.powertrip.html .)

From Chile to Cuba to Mexico, Latin American countries united behind Washington in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The Organization of American States (OAS) issued a declaration stating, "Individually and collectively, we will deny terrorist groups the capacity to operate in this Hemisphere. This American family stands united." Yet despite this overwhelming show of solidarity, the Bush administration has largely turned its back on its Latin American allies. Most disturbingly, it is unilaterally waging war against its own Latin American "axis of evil"--the Colombian "narcoterrorists," Cuba's Fidel Castro, and Venezuela's Hugo Chávez--with little if no effort to take into account the concerns of Latin American leaders, reach regional accords, or engage the OAS.

Yet another country was added to the "axis of evil," according to conservative Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL), with the election of Luiz Inacio ("Lula") da Silva in Brazil. Upon taking office, Lula pledged to eradicate hunger in the region's largest country, a far greater threat to most Latin Americans than international terrorism, prompting Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to proclaim an "axis of good."

U.S. policymakers have long considered the tri-border area of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay a hotbed of Arab radicalism, concerns fueled by bombings carried out by Hizbollah in Argentina in 1992 and 1994. The 2001 State Department report on terrorism still refers to the region as a "hub for Hizbollah and HAMAS activities, particularly for logistical and financial purposes," concerns echoed again in the 2002 report. Arab populations in Latin America are now under close scrutiny by U.S. intelligence officials, raising serious civil rights concerns. However, alleged terrorist activity in this area of the world pales in comparison to other U.S. global priorities. In short, Latin America is near the bottom of the U.S. anti-terrorist agenda.

The one exception is Colombia. Home to three groups on the U.S. State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations and the third-largest recipient of U.S. military aid in the world, Colombia remains the centerpiece of U.S. counter-terrorist efforts in the hemisphere. In the post-September 11 worldview of most Washington policymakers, the distinction between terrorists and drug traffickers operating in Colombia and other places has been obliterated. "Terrorism and drugs go together like rats and the bubonic plague," proclaims U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. "They thrive in the same conditions, support each other and feed off of each other." The United States has consequently collapsed its anti-drug and counter-terrorism efforts into a single offensive.

(Coletta Youngers <cyoungers@wola.org> is a senior associate at the Washington Office on Latin America (online at www.wola.org) and a member of the Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org) Advisory Committee. This policy report is a revised version of an essay that appears in the Foreign Policy in Focus book Power Trip: U.S. Unilateralism and Global Strategy After September 11 edited by John Feffer and published by Seven Stories Press.)

THE NEED FOR UN POLICE
By Don Kraus

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new Global Affairs Commentary available in full online at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0306uncops.html .)

The aftermath of the Iraq War has shown us that good soldiers are not always good cops. They cannot replace a professional international police force able to rapidly deploy and reestablish the rule of law in post-conflict hot spots. Most Iraqis would tell you the world needs such a force right now. The United Nations should be tasked with making this a reality.

Why not use the soldiers to do this work? U.S. armed forces are arguably the best-trained military in the world. But they are not trained to apprehend criminals, escort children to school, or calm a hungry, riot-prone mob. Additionally, diverting an already overextended U.S. military to do police work means extending the time reservists are called away from home. Finally, international civil servants are perceived as more impartial than troops. This is essential because law officers cannot operate without the support of the community they are policing.

Iraq is the most recent conflict to spawn a breakdown of law and order in its aftermath. The U.S. has faced this problem in Panama, Haiti, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, but has yet to craft a solution. A step in this direction has been taken in the form of bipartisan legislation introduced in Congress by Reps. Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Amo Houghton (R-NY) to establish a UN Civilian Police Corps (UNCPC), the "International Rule of Law and Antiterrorism Act."

Why the UN? The UN is the only international body that represents all of the nations of the world. It already has the infrastructure that, with improvement, could administer a UN civilian police corp. A force of well-trained international civil servants would compliment the UN's core capacity to deliver humanitarian aid and reconstruct war-torn nations. A UN Civilian Police Corps could protect relief workers, schools, and hospitals. They could keep roads, airports, and businesses open. UN cops could arrest war criminals and small-scale spoilers who attempt to re-ignite hostilities.

A UNCPC would help to rectify one of the UN's underlying flaws, its culture of "peace and neutrality." Peace is not just the absence of war; it is the presence of law and justice. Lawbreakers cannot be treated with neutrality, but rather with impartiality. Either you are obeying the law or you are not. By giving the UN the resources to enforce the law in nations where local governments cannot or will not, the UN would mature and become a much more viable and useful institution.

(Don Kraus <dkraus@cunr.org> is the Executive Director of the Campaign for UN Reform and writes regularly for Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org) on the UN and international law.)

II. Letters and Comments

THOUGHTFUL PIECE

Re: Terminating the Bush Juggernaut

I do not have time to comment in detail on Jeremy Brecher's very thoughtful piece. I do believe that there are three potential weak points for the new U.S. Empire that because he was so comprehensive Mr. Brecher did not necessarily focus on enough.

The weak point is one he does mention and one that is worth noting--the flight to the euro from the dollar. This is something that should be encouraged all over the world. It would represent a much stronger "sanction" than disinvesting T-bills and boycotting American exports (with multinational inputs into most moveable goods what constitutes an American export would be hard to know for sure!). However, the use of the dollar as the world's reserve currency gives the U.S. a great advantage in spending dollars in the world to buy the inputs into the new Roman Empire. A divestment of dollars for Euros both increases the cost of the U.S. empire and strengthens the potential opposition located in the French-German mini-alliance.

Two areas of concern: North Korea and Iran. I think the world peace movement needs to stand strongly in solidarity with South Korea. South Korea was subjected to incredible disrespect from the Bush administration from the word, "go." South Korea is a highly democratic country with a very involved citizenry. This country is facing the danger of a nuclear holocaust should the North Korean madmen believe themselves backed into a corner. South Korea wants to deal calmly (yet firmly) with North Korea.

Our posture should be: We trust the South Koreans to deal with the North Koreans much more than we trust the U.S. to do so ... This should produce significant positive echoes in the rest of the world--maybe even in China, which is a crucial player in this situation.

Iran poses a very complicated challenge. Unlike Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where the internal opposition had been totally smashed, Iran has a vibrant and growing opposition. It is in the interest of the Clique that runs the U.S. to unify all Iranians against us so we can look good against the caricature of Iran that was its public posture during the years of Khomeini. The fact remains that since Khomeini's death, The Iranian people have totally rejected the clerical fascism of that Regime. They are not necessarily pro-American but they are definitely anti-clerical and very supportive of democracy. The U.S. leaders are actually afraid of a liberated democratic Iran because it would give the U.S. no pretext for military intimidation and it would be clearly nationalistic.

We in the world peace and anti-empire movements must combine our desire not to have the U.S. go to war against Iran (or even seek to militarily destabilize that country) with outright solidarity with the people of Iran who are seeking by peaceful or other means--but without outside help [unlike the Shah's son who has made it clear he'd welcome outside help!]--to overthrow the clerics.

-Mike Meeropol <mameerop@wnec.edu>

IMPORTANT TASK

Humbly, I think that what you are doing is probably the most important task facing the world today! I am concerned. I see grass roots organizations and think tanks that are equally concerned and dedicated to educating the people, but I don't see unification and political backing. Is there any work going on to find the resources and political leadership to lead the country into an administration change in '04? I have limited resources, so I want to insure that my contribution will go to where it will do the most good in '04. Thank you so much for what you are doing.

- David Drown <ddrown@oakhurst.net>

III. Announcements

CORRECTING ANNOUNCEMENT OF POWER TRIP: U.S. UNILATERALISM AND GLOBAL STRATEGY AFTER SEPTEMBER 11

POWER TRIP: U.S. UNILATERALISM AND GLOBAL STRATEGY AFTER SEPTEMBER 11
The Foreign Policy in Focus staff is proud to announce the publication of Power Trip: U.S. Unilateralism And Global Strategy After September 11 from Seven Stories Press. Edited by FPIF Advisory Committee member John Feffer, Power Trip is a concise dissection of the new U.S. unilateralism, the first book-length critique of this fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy to consolidate and extend U.S. global control. Exploring the transformation of U.S. foreign policy begun by the Bush administration when it took office in 2001 and implemented with greater ease and heightened zeal after September 11, Power Trip introduces the cast of characters responsible for the new U.S. power trip and wrestles with the consequences of the new trends in U.S. foreign policy. Featuring contributions by Barbara Ehrenreich, William T. Hartung, Michael T. Klare, Jules Lobel, Ahmed Rashid, Michael Ratner, Stephen Zunes, Tom Barry, Martha Honey, John Gershman and others, Power Trip includes essays on:

• the new military strategy of the Bush administration and its preoccupation with controlling
• access to natural resources;
• the "Axis of Evil" and other targets of the war on terrorism;
• the cultural arm of the new unilateralism, from propaganda to Hollywood movies;
• the consequences of international critical response to the new U.S. policies;
• appropriate alternatives to current U.S. policies.

Books are $14.95 (NOT $12.95, as announced in the last edition of the PR) plus $3 shipping and handling and are available three ways:

By mail:
Interhemispheric Resource Center
Department PTPR
PO Box 4506
Albuquerque, NM 87196-4506
Please make checks payable to the IRC

By phone:
Call IRC with your credit card information at (505) 388-0208

Online at http://www.fpif.org/advisers/feffer.powertrip.html

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.

This page was last modified on Friday, June 13, 2003 4:55 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.