The Progressive Response

Volume 8, Number 6
March 8, 2004

Editor: John Gershman, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC)

We Count on Your Support!
Foreign Policy In Focus	www.fpif.org

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) and co-director of FPIF. He can be contacted at <john@irc-online.org>.

I. Updates and Out-Takes

Editor’s Note

AFGHAN WOMEN CONTINUE TO FEND FOR THEMSELVES
By Sonali Kolhatkar

GUATEMALAN WOMAN'S ASYLUM CASE A MAJOR TEST FOR ASHCROFT'S POSITION ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS
By Jim Lobe

In PROFILE: INDEPENDENT WOMEN’S FORUM and CONCERNED WOMEN OF AMERICA
By IRC’s Right Web Project

HAITI: DANGEROUS MUDDLE
By Conn Hallinan

ARISTIDE'S FALL: THE UNDEMOCRATIC U.S. POLICY IN HAITI
Interview by IRC's Policy Director Tom Barry with Robert Maguire, director of the Haiti Program at Trinity College in Washington, DC.

IRAQ AND THE COST OF WAR
By William Hartung

IRAQ ADVOCACY DAY
By Erik Leaver

II. Letters and Comments

VERY USEFUL

HE WAS RIGHT

III. Job Announcement

IRC Communications Director

I. Updates and Out-Takes

Editor’s Note

We apologize for our extended delay in sending this issue of the Progressive Response, and expect next week to be back on our weekly schedule. This week’s issue covers three main issues: women’s issues, in honor of International Women’s Day on March 8, the current crisis in Haiti, and the war in Iraq. In particular we draw your attention to the upcoming Advocacy Days scheduled for March 19 and the mobilizations scheduled for March 20.

We will continue to feature debate and discussion on these and other policy issues, including an exchange on Haiti in the next issue of the PR. Next week we’ll also be featuring FPIF’s new Defense Policy Report (online at www.fpif.org), an excerpt from Chalmers Johnson’s new book The Sorrows of Empire, and some new pieces on the Bush administration’s human rights policy. We’ll also be officially launching FPIF’s bookstore, featuring books by FPIF staff, board members from the two sponsoring organizations (Institute for Policy Studies and Interhemispheric Resource Center) as well as FPIF Advisory Committee members and analysts. We welcome short (up to 500 words) book reviews from PR subscribers on books you think we should be reading (or avoiding ,as the case may be).

As always, be sure to send us your comments, criticisms, and suggestions to feedback@fpif.org.

Best,
John Gershman

AFGHAN WOMEN CONTINUE TO FEND FOR THEMSELVES
By Sonali Kolhatkar

(Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new special report available in full (and with complete citations) at http://www.fpif.org/papers/2004afghanwom.html .)

A recent New York Times article accurately portrayed two Afghan women from the poor farming village of Haji Bai Nazar, as “heroines” for de-mining their village. Khairulnisah and Nasreen have the United States military campaign in Afghanistan to thank for a deadly legacy of cluster bomblets that litter their village and that recently killed two young boys. These small yellow canisters are part of the “liberation” of Afghan women by a Bush administration that reminds us continually of the feminist achievements of Operation Enduring Freedom. The United States dropped over 1,200 cluster bombs over Afghanistan. Wrapped in an innocuous package each bomb deploys its deadly load of 202 bomblets, of which 10-22% remain unexploded, strewn over villages such as Haji Bai Nazar. Afghan women are left to take responsibility for the U.S.'s unexploded cluster ordinance which has added to Afghanistan's ten million existing land mines from previous wars.

There has been a continuous, steady trickle of a few deaths here, a few there, in Afghanistan--not enough to warrant news headlines. According to the BBC this January, “In early December, six Afghan children died during a U.S. assault in eastern Paktia province. The next day, nine more died in a field in Ghazni province after a U.S. air attack.” More than two years after “Operation Enduring Freedom” began in Afghanistan, Afghan women and children are still enduring death by U.S.-style freedom.

The U.S.'s destructive role in Afghanistan goes back many years from the fueling of extremist fundamentalism in the “jihad” against the Soviet Union, to the lukewarm engagement with the Taliban. And every step of the way Afghan women faced a worsening climate of fear, repression, and misogyny as a result. Today, the countryside is overrun with Afghan warlords, resurrected from the pre-Taliban era--these warlords, who also targeted women, were the main reason for initial widespread public acceptance of the Taliban's promise of peace and stability in 1996. The warlords, many of whom hold high-level positions in the interim government thanks to the intervention of U.S. officials, are just as disrespectful of women's rights today as the Taliban.

In 2001, a month after Operation Enduring Freedom began, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said, “if we do everything we can to help reconstitute Afghan society and give people hope for a better future, we will not fail.”

But “we” have failed Afghan women, and in fact, failure seems almost deliberate. Putting aside for a moment the physical and political destruction of the U.S. military and government campaigns, a few concrete steps could have done much more in practical terms to help Afghan women. For example:

Instead of arming and empowering fundamentalist warlords who threaten women's safety, the U.S. could have participated in disarming them. After all, the U.S. was the original benefactor to most of these armed men during the jihad of the 1980s. Today, the government of Japan , not the United States , is funding the crucial “ Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration” project supervised by the United Nations. This program has already disarmed 1,000 men from each of the armies of two rival warlords, Abdul Rashid Dostum and Mohammed Atta. The program registers the disarmed men to vote, provides them with a little cash and food, and informs them of their employment options. Since the U.S. is still actively working with the warlords, the effectiveness of such a program is sadly in question.

Malnutrition, maternal mortality, and other treatable conditions still plague Afghan women. Instead of funding paltry private enterprise through the U.S.-Afghan Women's Council and U.S. AID the Bush administration could have pledged billions of dollars in aid toward hospitals for women, food assistance, girls' schools, and other life-saving actions throughout Afghanistan. If spending on the occupation of Iraq is any indication, the U.S. can clearly spare such amounts of money.

Colin Powell made a promise in 2001: “The rights of the women of Afghanistan will not be negotiable.” Yet, more than two years later, the number and manner of dollars spent, and the actual situation on the ground reveals that Afghan women's rights have been clearly negotiated in exchange for political gains, manipulated for public relations success stories, under-funded, or ignored altogether.

(Sonali Kolhatkar is a founding director of the Afghan Women's Mission, a nonprofit organization that works in solidarity with Afghan women on political and social issues. She is also the host and producer of KPFK Pacifica Radio's daily prime time morning program "Uprising," which airs Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.)

GUATEMALAN WOMAN'S ASYLUM CASE A MAJOR TEST FOR ASHCROFT'S POSITION ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS
By Jim Lobe

(Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary available in full at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0402women.html .)

Immigration and human rights groups are hoping that a legal brief they have submitted to Attorney General John Ashcroft will persuade him to uphold a proposed Clinton administration policy that women who have suffered severe domestic abuse in their homeland may be granted political asylum in the United States.

Briefs were due Feb. 18 in the asylum case of Rodi Alvarado, an immigrant from Guatemala, who suffered repeated and nearly fatal beatings by her husband, a soldier in the Guatemalan army, for more than ten years before fleeing in 1995 to San Francisco, where she currently resides. She contended that if she were returned to Guatemala, her husband would almost certainly track her down and that the Guatemalan authorities were unwilling to provide her with protection.

Rights groups are concerned that Ashcroft intends to limit asylum for women fleeing gender-based persecution, a concern that was furthered when the attorney general initially declined to accept briefs to help him decide the matter a year ago. He reversed that decision last fall after 62 members of Congress intervened. Ashcroft has not said when he intends to issue his opinion.

The Alvarado case, which has been pending since the late 1990s, is considered the key test of whether the Bush administration will offer asylum to women based on gender-related abuse, an increasingly important issue in international refugee law.

Among the almost 100 groups that have signed the brief are the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (recently renamed Human Rights First), Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Rescue Committee, as well as a number of faith-based groups representing the Catholic Bishops, Jewish congregations, the Presbyterian Church, and the National Association of Evangelicals. In addition, almost 100 law professors have signed the brief that was drafted by the Harvard Law School Immigration and Refugee Clinic.

The case is the latest in an almost 20-year evolution that began with a 1985 opinion by the UN High Commission for Refugees that women who face abuse arising from certain customs in their society, such as female genital mutilation, honor killings, or beatings by their mates--should constitute a special group for asylum purposes. The opinion, however, was largely ignored until the UN's 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, which paid particular attention to violence committed against women, including mass rape in Bosnia.

Under U.S. law, a person can be granted asylum only if he or she establishes a well-founded fear of persecution if returned home on account of five protected areas: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Thus, the essential difference between the immigration judge and the appeals court majority was over the question of whether battered women could qualify as members of the last category.

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

In PROFILE: INDEPENDENT WOMEN’S FORUM and CONCERNED WOMEN OF AMERICA
By IRC’s Right Web Project

(Editor’s Note: On the occasion of International Women’s Day we’d also like to shine the spotlight on some women’s organizations that have worked to undermine efforts to enshrine women’s rights in international and national law and whose policies support efforts denying women reproductive freedom at home and abroad. The full profile for the Independent Women’s Forum is available at http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/iwf.php while the profile for Concerned Women of America is at http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/cwa.php .)

Right Web Profile: Independent Women’s Forum
The Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), originally an ad hoc organization called Women for Clarence Thomas, was founded in 1991. Barbara Ledeen, wife of neocon ideologue Michael Ledeen, was its first executive director. The IWF is the neoconservative counterweight to the progressive National Organization for Women (NOW). IWF is fighting the culture war against the inroads of the women’s liberation movement by challenging efforts to establish women’s equity in sports and by opposing the Violence Against Women Act and the Women’s Educational Equity Act. Its mission statement states that the IWF “is dedicated to advancing the spirit of enterprise and self-reliance among women, and supporting the principles of political freedom, economic liberty, and personal responsibility.” Internationally, the Independent Women’s Forum, along with religious right and right-wing social conservative organizations such as Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, International Right to Life Federation, and American Life League, have either been granted or are seeking NGO consultative status with the United Nations with the encouragement of the Bush administration.

Right Web Profile: Concerned Women of America
Concerned Women for America (CWA) was founded in San Diego in 1979 by Christian Right social conservative Beverly LaHaye. Well connected to the Christian Right network, Beverly LaHaye is married to Tim LaHaye, cofounder of the Moral Majority. The CWA describes itself as “the nation's largest public policy women's organization” the boasts “a rich 25-year history of helping members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy.”

HAITI: DANGEROUS MUDDLE
By Conn Hallinan

(Editor’s Note: The following excerpt of Conn Hallinan’s policy report (available in full at http://www.fpif.org/papers/2004haiti.html ) explores the historical context of the current military intervention, examining the legacy of the 1994 intervention which returned President Aristide to Haiti as well as the similarities and differences between unilateral and multilateral intervention.)

In 1994, when President Bill Clinton sent 20,000 American troops into Haiti to restore Jean-Bernard Aristide to the presidency, there was widespread support for a mission aimed at restoring democracy and relieving the misery of the Haitian people. It also seemed to herald a new day in the post-cold war world, when American invasions were not automatically synonymous with supporting some Latin American caudillo or South East Asian despot.

With the exception of the isolationist Right, virtually every voice in the political spectrum cheered the policy of “liberal intervention.” The use of American power to make good things happen was a heady drug.

Unfortunately, an addictive one.

Although there is no question that the 1994 intervention was good for Haiti, military intervention has turned out to be fraught with problems, particularly when it is wielded by one country.

The 1994 Haiti intervention illustrates the problem of single power intervention even when authorized by the United Nations.

Seven weeks after the invasion, the Republicans took control of Congress and systematically dismantled aid to the impoverished, war-torn country.

The cuts meant there was no effort to rebuild roads, ports, airports, or infrastructure. When Aristide's opposition cried foul over eight contested seats in the 2000 election, the U.S. froze the final $500 million in aid.

The aid was never very substantial. Per capita, the U.S. was giving Haiti one fifth what it was spending in Bosnia, and one tenth what it was distributing in Kosovo. After 1996, U.S. aid to Haiti was the same as what it had given the dictatorship that deposed Aristide. Aid did flow, but not to Aristide. Instead, U.S. organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to the opposition.

Shortly after the demonstrations and attacks on Aristide began, the U.S. State Department made it clear it would do nothing to impede his overthrow. In early February, an anonymous State Department official told the New York Times that the U.S. was not adverse to replacing Aristide, “When we talk about undergoing change in the way Haiti is governed, I think that could indeed involve changes in Aristide's position,” the official said. This past week, shortly before Aristide was driven out, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, and President George W. Bush, essentially called for him to step down.

There is no question that the Aristide government was a troubled one, and some of the opposition was composed of former supporters alienated by corruption, violent pro-Aristide gangs, and the contested 2000 election. Most of this group was non-violent, and based mainly among Haiti 's elites and the business community. But the forces that converged on Port au Prince are the very thugs and murderers the U.S. invaded to get rid of in 1994.

Louis-Jodel Chamblain, one of the principal leaders of the armed opposition, is a former death-squad leader and one of the founders of the brutal Front for the Advancement of Progress in Haiti (FRAPH) that killed thousands of people between 1991 and 1994.

The shady nature of people like Chamblain and Andre Apaid of Group 184, has deeply worried human rights groups, and generated some anger in Washington. U.S. Representatives Barbara Lee (D-Ca) and Maxine Waters (D-Ca) have both challenged the “neutrality” of the U.S. State Department. In a recent letter to Powell, Lee wrote, “with all due respect, this looks like regime change.” It would appear that Lee was right on target.

There is certainly reason to suspect the two men in charge of diplomacy in the region. Otto Reich, U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS), played an important role in the coup attempt against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Robert Noriega, has been a long-time critic of Aristide.

Whether through enmity or indifference, U.S. fingerprints are all over the overthrow of Aristide.

(Conn M. Hallinan is a provost at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and an analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org).)

ARISTIDE'S FALL: THE UNDEMOCRATIC U.S. POLICY IN HAITI
Interview by IRC's Policy Director Tom Barry with Robert Maguire, director of the Haiti Program at Trinity College in Washington, DC.

(Editor’s Note: The following excerpts are from a longer interview which is available in full at the IRC’s Americas Program website at http://www.americaspolicy.org/articles/2004/0403haiti-int.html .)

What should be U.S. policy with respect to Jean-Bertrand Aristide's future as Haiti's president?

I strongly believe that U.S. policy should support a government that won power in a legitimate election and which is recognized as a democracy throughout the hemisphere. Mr. Aristide should be permitted to finish his five-year term. Washington should strongly declare its support for this democratically elected president, and should not be equivocating about this.
But the Bush administration has been equivocating.
It took some time for the Bush administration to state that it recognized Aristide as the legitimate president of Haiti. It adopted this position because it feared that Aristide might be cooking the books, changing the law so that he could run for another term. The Haitian constitution permits two terms but only if they are nonconsecutive. So, the Bush administration decided to back Aristide, but in doing so warned him that he had only his five-year term, not a day longer.
Recently, the whole calculus has changed. Aristide supporters hold up one hand, with their fingers extended, and say “Five Years.” No longer is there any talk about Aristide continuing beyond five years. But as the calculus has changed, the administration's recognition of the legitimacy of that five-year term has also changed.

To what degree is U.S. policy responsible for the current situation?

First, it should be recognized that there has been a lot of miscalculation, bad judgment by Aristide, who is in many ways his own worst enemy. But on the other hand, he has faced a chorus of criticism from the U.S. and a lack of cooperation--and stridently so, both from Washington and the political opposition.
We should remember that from the first day of Aristide's term, the opposition set up a provisional government. My own observation then was that things in Haiti had changed. This never would have been permitted before. It was a sign that Haiti seemed to be becoming a more tolerant place.
One of the major voices of the administration has been Roger Noriega, who has always talked at the Aristide government not with it--constantly disparaging and criticizing Haiti in the OAS. Noriega has always refused to comment on the work of the IRI in Haiti.
This is not a U.S.-led coup. But if you ask who's to blame and what led up to this, then you need to cast blame on the Bush administration for its failed policy, for its contributing role.
It has not been very constructive. Policy has been run by subordinates like Noriega. When you engage, you have much more influence than when you disengage, as the U.S. has during the Bush administration.

IRAQ AND THE COSTS OF WAR
By William Hartung

(Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new special report available in full at http://www.fpif.org/papers/2004cost.html .)

Halliburton's role in Iraq has been deeply scrutinized in the past few months but its implications go far beyond one company or one conflict. The real issue at hand is determining how to best provide effective support for our men and women in uniform, at a reasonable cost, with transparency and accountability. That's true in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Philippines, or Colombia, or Kosovo, or Liberia, or anywhere else American military personnel are sent on short notice to face down tyrants or keep the peace.

Just as many in the Bush administration underestimated the challenges posed by the postwar occupation and stabilization of Iraq, they overestimated the ability of private companies like Halliburton to bear a lion's share of the burden in the rebuilding process. In the January/February issue of The Atlantic, James Fallows points out the degree to which the Pentagon cast aside all of the detailed pre-war planning that had been done not only by the State Department, but also by the Agency for International Development, the CIA, and the Army War College. As the magazine's own summary puts it, “The U.S. occupation of Iraq is a debacle not because the government did no planning but because a vast amount of expert planning was willfully ignored by the people in charge.”

A number of members of Congress and representatives of good government groups have called for Halliburton to be debarred from government contracts altogether, or from future contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq, based on the overcharges, kickbacks, and overbilling practices that have emerged in its work in the Iraqi theater to date. This may well be warranted, but it is as important to think about how we would go about doing this as whether to do it. As David Isenberg of the British American Security Information Council put it recently, for our armed forces as they are currently structured, private military companies like Halliburton are like the American Express card--they can't leave home without them. So before punishing a company like Halliburton, one must consider how to accomplish the support and logistics tasks that Halliburton is currently shouldering on behalf of the armed forces.

So, what should happen? Independent investigations of Halliburton need to continue, but the punishments may have to proceed in parallel with a sort of “policy audit.” This process would be helped substantially if the doors were opened to genuine competitive bidding, not only among big U.S. companies, but also between private companies and units of the U.S. government that may be able to do the job better. The U.S. should also do a better job of involving indigenous Iraqi entrepreneurs. And the absurd limits on who can bid on Iraqi rebuilding work should be lifted. If companies are only brought in at the subcontracting level, there isn't competition on price at the prime contractor level, which is where taxpayers' money can be saved.

Over time, the functions of private companies, and which ones we want the military itself to handle, should be reexamined--particularly with respect to logistics and support functions that involve being in the midst of combat and occupation operations. But for the moment, part of holding Halliburton and other private companies accountable may involve scaling their responsibilities down to size, so they are not “too big to punish,” without also punishing our men and women in uniform. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable, it just means a short- and long-term strategy is needed. The privatization of military support functions has evolved over a decade or more. Restoring the proper balance between government and corporate roles in this area could take at least that long.

(William D. Hartung is an advisory committee member of Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org), Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute and Director of the Arms Trade Resource Center. www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms. He is also the author of How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy?--A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering in the Bush Administration (Nation Books/Avalon Group). This article is adapted from testimony presented before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee on February 13, 2004.)

IRAQ ADVOCACY DAY, MARCH 19
By Erik Leaver

IRAQ ADVOCACY DAY, MARCH 19:
MEET WITH YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS!
March 20 will mark the one year anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Memorials, demonstrations, and other activities are being planned around the globe. As part of this worldwide organizing, FPIF is working with colleague organizations and the United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) network to coordinate a national lobby day for Friday, March 19. People across the country will meet with their members of Congress in their district offices to deliver the message that WAR IS STILL NOT THE ANSWER, to urge them to help stop the suffering in Iraq, and to uphold the principles of democracy and international law. Act now to schedule face-to-face meetings with your members of Congress for Friday, March 19.

SCHEDULE YOUR IRAQ ADVOCACY DAY MEETINGS TODAY: The U.S. Senate will be on recess during the week of March 15-19, and many House members will return to their districts on Friday. That makes March 19 an excellent day to schedule visits for with your elected representatives in their home district offices. For your members' contact information, go to http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/ and enter your ZIP code. Call the district offices and ask for face-to-face meetings with your senators and representative to discuss your concerns related to Iraq. Many offices will request a faxed letter or email detailing the nature of the meeting. Be prepared with a simple letter describing the purpose of your visit, listing who will attend, and requesting to meet with the member of Congress personally. (A sample letter is available through UFPJ, http://www.unitedforpeace.org/downloads/March19sampleletter.rtf .)

BE PART OF A DELEGATION: Your message is amplified when you join with other constituents from your community. UFPJ is providing a forum for sharing information about congressional delegation meetings and linking up with others in your area.

Check out the UFPJ web site to find information on events in your area and meetings with your members of Congress that have already been set up. Go to http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2294 and enter your state in the "Upcoming Events" section on the left. Under "Event type," select "March 19 Advocacy Day" to view meetings with your members that have already been scheduled.
You can also register a congressional lobby visit that you have scheduled and invite others to contact you and join the meeting. Go to http://www.unitedforpeace.org/calendar_gxinput.php. Under the event title, enter "Meeting with [Representative/Senator's Name]" and under "Event type" select "March 19 Advocacy Day." Then enter in the date and time of your appointments, as well as a contact name and email address so that others from your district will be able to get in touch with you. [Note: This information will be accessible to all those visiting the UFPJ web site.]

For more information on the March 19 Iraq Advocacy Day and issues to raise with your members, visit FPIF's Iraq Index: http://www.fpif.org/iraq/index.php. FPIF will provide further updates in the coming days. If you have questions about the Iraq Advocacy Day or about meeting with your members of Congress, please email Congressional Relations Director Erik Leaver, at erik@ips-dc.org or call 202-234-9382 x240.

II. Letters and Comments

VERY USEFUL

Re: A Twenty Year Retrospective: The U.S Invasion of Grenada

This article is appears to be impartial and presenting the facts. It is very easy to understand. I appreciate what you guys have done. Your site is very useful for International Relations students.

- Natalie Patterson <natalie.patterson@uwimona.edu.jm>

HE WAS RIGHT

Re: Israeli Wall on Trial

Ian Williams was right: In the section covering Israel of the State Department’s recently released summary of its annual "Country Report on Human Rights Violations," the report covers the usual panoply of abuses, but makes no mention of the separation barrier.

- Eric Petersen <ericellenp@yahoo.com>

III. Job Announcement

Position Available: Communications Director

The IRC, a nonprofit policy studies institute based in southern New Mexico (www.irc-online.org), is looking for a full-time communications director. The communications director will be involved in all IRC activities, primarily organized around the three programs: Global Affairs/Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org), Americas (www.americaspolicy.org), and Right Web (www.right-web.org).

For more information, see the job listing in its entirety at http://www.irc-online.org/job_comm-dir.php

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.

Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org) and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS, online at www.ips-dc.org). ©2004. All rights reserved.

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 US 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 Monday, February 9, 2004 12:22 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.

<table width="600" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr valign="top"> <td width="539"><h1 align="left">The Progressive Response</h1> Volume 8, Number 4 February 9, 2004 Editor: John Gershman, Interhemispheric Resource Center (<a href="http://www.irc-online.org/" target="_parent">IRC</a>) </td> <td width="61"><a href="javascript:openTafWindow('/?action=etfform&url=http://www.fpif.org/progresp/volume8/v8n06_body.html','TellAFriend','scrolling=yes,resizable,width=600,height=400')"><img src="../../images/icon_share.gif" width="38" height="27" border="0"></a> <a href="../../form_feedback.html" target="_parent"><img src="../../images/icon_feedback.gif" width="51" height="22" border="0" alt="Give us your feedback"></a></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><table width="600" cellpadding="5"> <tr> <td colspan="2"><div align="center"><a href="https://secure.iexposure.com/fpif.org/donate.cfm" target="_parent">We Count on Your Support!</a></div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Foreign Policy In Focus</td> <td> <div align="right"><a href="http://www.fpif.org/" target="_parent">www.fpif.org</a></div></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"> <div align="center"></div> <blockquote> <div align="left"> The Progressive Response (PR) is produced weekly by the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC, online at <a href="http://www.irc-online.org/" target="_blank">www.irc-online.org</a>) 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 <a href="../../index.html" target="_parent">http://www.fpif.org/</a>, or email <<a href="mailto:feedback@fpif.org">feedback@fpif.org</a>> to share your thoughts with us. John Gershman, editor of Progressive Response, is a senior analyst with the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) (online at <a href="http://www.irc-online.org/" target="_parent">www.irc-online.org</a>) and co-director of FPIF. He can be contacted at <<a href="mailto:john@irc-online.org">john@irc-online.org</a>>.   </div> </blockquote> <h2>Table of Contents</h2> <h3>I. Updates and Out-Takes</h3> <blockquote> <a href="#nepal">NEPAL & THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: INTO THIN AIR</a> By Conn Hallinan <a href="#iraqiwomen">IRAQI GOVERNING COUNCIL PLANS LATEST ASSAULT ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN IRAQ</a> By Jim Lobe <a href="#wrong">WHY SO MANY WERE SO WRONG FOR SO LONG</a> By Col. Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.) <a href="#unbacking">THE U.S. BEGS FOR UN BACKING IN IRAQ</a> By Phyllis Bennis <a href="#libyan">LIBYAN DISARMAMENT A POSITIVE STEP, BUT THREAT OF PROLIFERATION REMAINS</a> By Stephen Zunes <a href="#blair">BLAIR'S PYRRHIC VICTORIES</a> By Ian Williams </blockquote>   <h3>II. Letters and Comments</h3> <blockquote> <a href="#best">THE BEST WE CAN DO</a> <a href="#interesting">VERY INTERESTING</a> </blockquote>   <hr size="1" noshade> <h3>I. Updates and Out-Takes</h3> <a name="nepal" id="nepal"></a>NEPAL & THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: INTO THIN AIR By Conn Hallinan <blockquote> (Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary at <a href="../../commentary/2004/0402nepal.html" target="_self">http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0402nepal.html</a>). </blockquote> Tucked into the upper stories of the Himalayas, Nepal hardly seems ground zero for the Bush administration's next crusade against “terrorism,” but an aggressive American ambassador, a strategic locale, and a flood of U.S. weaponry threatens to turn the tiny country of 25 million into a counter-insurgency bloodbath. More than 8,000 Nepalese have died since a civil war broke out in 1996, and the death rate has sharply increased with the arrival of almost 8,400 American M-16 submachine guns, accompanied by U.S. advisers, high-tech night fighting equipment, and British helicopters. For most Americans, Nepal, birthplace of the Buddha and home to Everest, the world's highest mountain, is a charming tourist haven. For the native Nepalese, 42% of whom, according to the World Bank, live below the poverty line, Nepal is a land enchained by caste, riven with ethnic rivalries, and dominated by a feudal landlord class. The central protagonists in the current war are King Gyanendra, who abolished an elected parliament last year, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (CPNM), which is leading a rural insurrection, and a group of five political parties that found themselves out in the cold when the monarchy took over. The Bush administration has concluded that the civil war threatens to make Nepal a “failed state” and a haven for international terrorists, leading it to place the CPNM on the State Department's “Watch List,” along with organizations like al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, and Lebanon's Hezbollah. U.S. Ambassador to Nepal, Michael E. Malinowski, compares CPNM leader, Baburam Bhattarai, to Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels. Malinowski, whose track record includes service in Afghanistan and Pakistan, advocates an all-out military offensive aimed at the insurgency, and recently told the New York Times that the CPNM, “literally have to be bent back to the table.” But it was the Nepalese government's attempt to crush rural unrest that sparked the civil war in the first place, and virtually no one thinks there is a military solution to the insurrection. “The government forces, under the present policies, could win a couple of battles here and there,” writes analyst Romeet Kaul Watt in The Kashmir Tribune, “but will never win the war.” (Conn Hallinan <a href="mailto:connm@cats.ucsc.edu" target="_blank"><connm@cats.ucsc.edu</a>> is a provost at the University of California at Santa Cruz and a political analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus (online at <a href="../../index.html" target="_parent">www.fpif.org</a>).)   <a name="iraqiwomen" id="iraqiwomen"></a>IRAQI GOVERNING COUNCIL PLANS LATEST ASSAULT ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN IRAQ By Jim Lobe <blockquote> (Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary at <a href="../../commentary/2004/0402iraqwomen.html" target="_parent">http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0402iraqwomen.html</a>). </blockquote> Iraq's governing council (IGC) has quietly approved a plan to replace some existing legal women's rights with Islamic law or “Shariah,” according to 44 U.S. lawmakers, who warn Washington of a “brewing women's rights crisis” in the U.S.-occupied country. This comes as women are facing broader assaults on women's rights and political power in Iraq. For example, while three women serve on the IGC, only one is in the cabinet and no women serve on the 24-member constitutional committee. One of the three female members of the IGC, a champion of women's rights, was killed this past fall and her replacement is widely viewed as a conservative. According to the Rocky Mountain News, when the adviser on human rights issues for the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority, Salwa Ali, tried to be a part of the local elections in Baghdad, she found that the neighborhood was plastered with fliers stating that women were not allowed. In a letter sent to President George W. Bush on February 2, the national political leaders, led by Representatives Carolyn Maloney, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and Darlene Hooley, complain the move will reverse legal guarantees for Iraqi women, who were among the most liberated in the Arab world. “To prevent this order from taking effect, we strongly urge you and your administration to take steps now to protect the rights of Iraqi women,” wrote the lawmakers, who represent both the Republican Party and the Democrats. The White House had no immediate comment. The letter follows earlier reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other human rights groups critical of the Bush administration's failure to adequately protect women's rights in occupied Iraq. The lawmakers were referring to IGC resolution 137, approved by the 25-member body Dec. 29, which replaces Iraq's 1959 personal-status legislation with religious laws to be administered by clerics from the country's different religious faiths, depending on the sect to which the parties in any dispute belonged. That change could affect everything from the right to education, employment, and freedom of movement, to property inheritance, divorce, and child custody, according to the letter's authors. The resolution must still be approved by the de facto government in Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), headed by Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III, in order to become legally binding. In a letter to Bremer on Jan. 30 MADRE, a New York-based international rights advocate for women, argued that IGC's action lacked transparency and was taken without any public debate or open consultation, with only a minority of council members present. “In less than 15 minutes of discussions, the IGC--none of whose members were elected by Iraqis--passed Resolution 137, effectively abolishing women's legal rights in 'liberated' Iraq,” said MADRE's associate director, Yifat Susskind. “Under the direct authority of the Bush administration, the IGC has privileged sectarianism over inclusiveness and violated core principles of democratic governance,” she said. Iraqi women are also protesting the resolution, according to recent press reports. “This will send us home and shut the door, just like what happened to women in Afghanistan,” Kurdish lawyer Amira Hassan Abdullah told the Washington Post last month. “The old law wasn't perfect, but this one would make Iraq a jungle. Iraq women will accept it over their dead bodies.” (Jim Lobe is a political analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus (online at <a href="../../index.html" target="_parent">www.fpif.org</a>). He also writes regularly for Inter Press Service.) For More Information: MADRE Letter <a href="http://www.madre.org/art_iraq_resolution137.html%20" target="_blank">http://www.madre.org/art_iraq_resolution137.html </a> Paul Wolfowitz, “Women in the New Iraq,” Washington Post, February 1, 2004 <a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2004/Feb/03-11242.html%20" target="_blank">http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2004/Feb/03-11242.html </a> Amnesty International, Iraq's Women: Occupied Territory <a href="http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnestynow/iraqi_women.html" target="_blank">http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnestynow/iraqi_women.html</a> Woodrow Wilson Center conference on the role of women in Iraq: <a href="http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1411&fuseaction=topics.item&news_id=28266" target="_blank">http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1411&fuseaction=topics.item&news_id=28266</a> Open Society Institute, Casualties of War: Iraqi Women's Rights and Reality Then and Now (November 17, 2003) <a href="http://www.soros.org/initiatives/women/events/casualties_20031117%20" target="_blank">http://www.soros.org/initiatives/women/events/casualties_20031117 </a>   <a name="wrong" id="wrong"></a>WHY SO MANY WERE SO WRONG FOR SO LONG By Col. Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.) <blockquote> ( Editor's Note : Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary at <a href="../../commentary/2004/0402wrong.html" target="_parent">http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0402wrong.html </a>). </blockquote> It may have been fortuitous that David Kay's testimony about U.S. intelligence failures in Iraq came just before the Super Bowl. Watching the game--and the “flash dance” finale of the halftime show--the everyday observer could begin to understand the truth in the caution: “Don't believe everything you think you see.” Or in the case of instant replays, “re-see”--as in, “Did the Patriots really get those few inches and a first down?” David Kay has flatly stated that U.S. and other national intelligence agencies with which the U.S. has close ties essentially got it wrong on Iraq 's weapons of mass destruction. Kay traced the main failure to December 1998. Then the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) looking for weapons, toxic stockpiles, and missile delivery systems since 1991 was forced to withdraw because of the U.S.-UK Operation Desert Fox bombing campaign. Suddenly, the on-the-ground eyes and ears on which the U.S. intelligence community had relied since Operation Desert Storm vanished, leaving only easily spoofed optical and communications “spies in the skies.” Why were so many so wrong for so long? Essentially, because no one could fathom the wheels within wheels that existed within Saddam's inner circle, beginning with Saddam himself. In short, the most basic rule of intelligence--know your opponent--wasn't observed. George Tenet conceded as much in his speech at Georgetown on February 5, 2004 , in which he defended the pre-war performance of U.S. intelligence. And he specifically contradicted David Kay on individual points, leaving the public wondering where the truth lies. The baseline the intelligence agencies seemed to work from rested on two “irrefutable” premises. First, Saddam had produced, stockpiled, and used chemical weapons, had been working on developing a nuclear weapon capability, had produced biological agents, and had surface-to-surface missiles. Second, Saddam knew everything that happened in Iraq and was ruthless when someone crossed him. Flowing from the first premise was the assumption that Iraqis would not adjust to post-1991 realities. These included sanctions and the intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM--and the latter's 2002-2003 successor inspection agency. The second premise carried an implicit assumption that in a rigid, highly centralized society like Iraq , everything would be documented. Thus, the absence of documents detailing destruction of weapons and agents “proved” that large stockpiles still existed somewhere. David Kay said he could find no evidence that the assessments of analysts were influenced by or changed in response to pressure from any official. Given that Vice President Cheney paid multiple visits to CIA headquarters to speak to analysts and that an independent intelligence “unit” created in the Office of the Secretary of Defense fed raw information and its “analysis” directly to the White House, a red flag should have gone up the highest flagpole. Because of these and quite possibly other, unknown, visits and pressures, analysts would be prone to weave into assessments any information supporting their long-held suspicions as a “defense” against the extremist positions (e.g., Saddam is an imminent threat) of Bush administration officials. Similarly, analysts may have omitted the usual caveats to make their case more convincing. But the price of defending a “rational” position resting on old premises was to be so wedded to history that the actual situation, which occasionally was glimpsed, was not even considered to be possible. If Kay is right about the corruption in Iraq and the extent of the deception practiced on Saddam and others in the Baathist and military elites, in effect Iraq was on the verge of becoming a failed state ready to disintegrate at the slightest push. That push came in March 2003, and the resulting and continuing inter-ethnic, inter-confessional, and jihadist carnage attest to the danger Iraq has become to its neighbors as a result of the U.S.-led invasion. (Dan Smith is a military affairs analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus (online at <a href="../../index.html" target="_blank">www.fpif.org </a>), a retired U.S. army colonel and a senior fellow on Military Affairs at the Friends Committee on National Legislation.)   <a name="unbacking" id="unbacking"></a>THE U.S. BEGS FOR UN BACKING IN IRAQ By Phyllis Bennis <blockquote> (Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new set of Talking Points available in full at <a href="../../commentary/2004/0402un.html" target="_self">http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0402un.html</a>). </blockquote> The U.S. is eager for the UN to return to Iraq to provide political cover for its occupation. The quagmire on the ground in Iraq plus recognition that the rest of the world, and most Iraqis themselves, reject Washington 's claim of legitimacy, is the basis for the Bush administration reversing its earlier anti-UN positions to beg the international organization for help. Kofi Annan's decision to send a technical investigative team to Iraq is partly in response to mounting pressure from the U.S., but also a response to shifting sentiments among Iraqis, particularly the call from Ayatollah al-Sistani for a UN assessment of political conditions. While Annan's announcement indicated he was responding to the request of the U.S. occupation authorities and its hand-picked “governing council” to determine whether elections could be held by Washington's June 30th deadline, he left open the possibility of a broader definition of “what alternative arrangement would be acceptable” if not. Why Did the Bush Administration Change Their Line on the UN? 1) The utter and all-too-public failure of the U.S. occupation (especially the continuing deaths and mounting injuries of U.S. soldiers) in Iraq seems to have led to an internal power shift within the Bush administration, with the Pentagon ideologues tactically (and almost certainly temporarily) giving way to electorally focused considerations. In the battle between Rumsfeld/Cheney and Karl Rove, the Rumsfeld/Cheney team seems to have blinked first. 2) There is no doubt that unilateralist, anti-UN sentiments continue to dominate the Bush White House. But hypocrisy aside, changes are afoot. One piece of evidence is Dick Cheney's unexpected European foray. While arrogantly refusing to even hint at an apology for launching Washington's war in the face of UN and broad international opposition, the fact that he left his undisclosed location at all to travel to European capitals urging greater international support for the U.S. in Iraq, even calling on (though only once) the UN to respond to the request of the Iraqis, indicates a significant level of pressure on Cheney's longstanding antagonism to multilateralism and the UN. What is the Danger to the United Nations if it Refuses to Return to Iraq Under U.S. Terms? What is the Danger to the United Nations if it Agrees to U.S. Terms? 1) If the UN completely rejects the U.S. proposal that it return to Iraq under the auspices of the U.S. occupation, it faces the possibility of escalating marginalization by the Bush administration, further threats to its independence, and the likelihood of being deemed “irrelevant” by the world's sole super-power. Washington might make additional cuts in dues to the world organization and the humanitarian agencies, reduce its already insufficient political support, and increase its threats and punishments of UN member states who stand defiant. 2) If the UN agrees to return to Iraq under terms set by the U.S. occupation, the dangers are even higher. The global organization risks a serious loss of international credibility, and the danger of being deemed an agent for or facilitator of occupation. Aside from the credibility factor itself, UN staff in Iraq would again face the likely possibility of physical attack, based on the opposition's view that the UN was acting as an agent of an illegitimate occupation. Passed under extreme U.S. pressure, Security Council resolution 1483 arguably provides a kind of forced legality to the U.S. occupation of Iraq; it does not provide any legitimacy. So, What Should Be Done 1) There should be an immediate end to U.S. occupation, and withdrawal of American troops. Because the U.S. invasion destroyed the governing capacity in Baghdad and undermined security for civilians throughout much of the country, the withdrawal of the U.S. forces should be followed by a temporary combined mandate for the United Nations, Arab League, and OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) to provide direct support for Iraq's reclaiming of sovereignty. That would include election assistance, humanitarian and reconstruction aid (including control over all international funds, including those coming from the U.S. Congress, designated for Iraqi rebuilding), and peacekeeping/security deployment. 2) The UN investigation team should reject the artificial U.S.-imposed June 30th deadline, and broaden its mandate to examine what conditions would have to change before an election could be organized, assess what time frame would be required to accomplish those changes, and determine whether any election conducted under foreign military occupation could be free and fair. (Phyllis Bennis <<a href="mailto:pbennis@compuserve.com">pbennis@compuserve.com</a>> is a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and is a contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus (online at <a href="../../index.html" target="_parent">www.fpif.org</a>).)   <a name="libyan"></a>LIBYAN DISARMAMENT A POSITIVE STEP, BUT THREAT OF PROLIFERATION REMAINS By Stephen Zunes <blockquote> (Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary available in full at <a href="../../2004/0401libya.html" target="_parent">http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0401libya.html</a>). </blockquote> In a world seemingly gone mad, it is ironic that one of the most sane and reasonable actions to come out of the Middle East recently has emanated from the government of Muammar Qaddafi, the Libyan dictator long recognized as an international outlaw. Libya's stunning announcement that it is giving up its nascent biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs and accepting international assistance and verification of its disarmament efforts is a small but important positive step in the struggle to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). It would be a big mistake, however, to accept claims by the Bush administration and its supporters that it was the invasion of Iraq and other threatened uses of force against so-called "rogue states" which pursue WMD programs that led to Libya's decision to end its WMD programs. While Saddam Hussein was less than cooperative with United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) efforts in the 1990s, it appears that they were successful in ridding the country of its chemical and biological weapons and related facilities. The Iraqi regime was more cooperative during that period with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), with the IAEA announcing in 1998 that Iraq's nuclear program had been completely dismantled. When IAEA inspectors returned in the fall of 2002 as part of UN Security Council resolution 1441, they reported that no signs that the program had been revived. Iraq also allowed the return of a revived and strengthened inspections regime for chemical and biological weapons systems (known as UNMOVIC) at that time, which also found no evidence of any proscribed weapons or weapons programs. Despite this, the United States invaded Iraq and overthrew the government. As a result, Libya presumably knows that unilateral disarmament and allowing UN inspectors does not necessarily make you less safe from a possible U.S. invasion. More likely, Libya simply recognized that they would not get anything worthwhile as a result of continuing with an expensive, dangerous, and complex process of weapons development and would instead continue to face international isolation and difficulty obtaining certain dual-use technologies which could enhance the country's economic development. (Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus (online at <a href="../../index.html" target="_blank">www.fpif.org</a>) and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (online at <a href="http://www.commoncouragepress.com" target="_blank">www.commoncouragepress.com</a>).)   <a name="blair"></a>BLAIR'S PYRRHIC VICTORIES By Ian Williams <blockquote> (Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary available in full at <a href="../../commentary/2004/0402blair.html" target="_parent">http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0402blair.html</a>). </blockquote> On the face of it, Tony Blair had an almost Clintonesque week as he walked away from two separate train wrecks seemingly unhurt. However, beneath the surface, there are deep internal injuries that have left him seriously weakened. His escape on the University fees issue by the tiniest handful of defections among Labor rebels was only contrived by Gordon Brown exercising his influence on some of the more prominent of them. Brown is preparing the ground for a “more in sorrow than in anger” replacement of an unelectable Blair before the next elections. He has pre-emptively cleared himself of disloyalty by acting as the, strictly temporary, king-saver. The leadership conflict in the Labor Party has been brought forward all the more sharply by the other “victory,” the Hutton Report. The Law Lord may have done British Prime Minister Tony Blair no favors at all, since public opinion overwhelmingly sees the report as a whitewash, and thus that the government has something to hide. Even the Report's attack on the integrity of the BBC has backfired. Three times as many British people polled trusted the BBC as compared to trusting the government. Indeed almost the only supporters the government and the Report had were the Murdoch press, the Sun and Times. And even their readers may wonder whether a media empire that has never allowed the truth to interfere with the smooth flow of proprietary prejudices really has the proper standing to attack the BBC's journalistic standards. There was a germ of truth in some of the Report's criticisms of the BBC's journalism. Ironically, under Thatcherite and New Labor pressures, it has relaxed its previous standards. The news is no longer scripted and read, based on “balance,” airing both sides. The good aspect is that, even though nominally a state-owned body, it has proved far more skeptical of the government than its privately owned counterparts in the USA. But if Andrew Gilligan had but just a shade more balance and qualifications in his initial report, as in fact he did in later versions, then he would not have left the Achilles Heel that Blair's media minders and Hutton got a noose into. Without some admission on his part, the public has to decide whether the Prime Minister was sincere, but either misled or stupid. Or he could have been so desperate to please George W. Bush that he persuaded himself that more evidence actually existed than there really was. Or he was so mendacious, that to conceal his real agenda of regime change, he marshaled a set of excuses that later failed. None of these positions actually strengthen his position, so he may follow the example of the BBC's bosses and do the honorable thing. Resign before the election. But like them, he will need a shove. Brown is waiting. (Ian Williams <<a href="mailto:uswarreport@igc.org">uswarreport@igc.org</a>> contributes frequently to Foreign Policy in Focus (online at <a href="../../index.html" target="_parent">www.fpif.org</a>) on UN and international affairs.)   <hr size="1" noshade> <h3>II. Letters and Comments</h3> <a name="best" id="best"></a>THE BEST WE CAN DO Re: <a href="../..papers/03petropol/development.html">The Global Record on Oil</a> The best we European and American would do to end the waste of oil is to build smaller cars, go by bike, walk or take public transport electrically driven. And instead of spending money for exploring the Mars, we better invent electrically driven cars and use Earth Energy. And airplanes are, sorry to say, vehicles of the last century. Consumer must change their habits, above all. - Edwin Wagner, <a href="mailto:aewagth72@bluewin.ch"><aewagth72@bluewin.ch></a> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- <a name="interesting"></a>VERY INTERESTING Re: <a href="../../commentary/2003/0305roh.html" target="_parent">Eyes on Different Prizes </a> I found this article to be very interesting. Although I am young, I do have an interest in what happens in our world and how we would go about dealing with those issues. What I thought was the most interesting about this article was that how the U.S. and N. Korea have different goals set in my mind, I am pleased to hear that N. Korea abd S. Korea are working on their peace issues, and how we are building a better relationship then the one that we have with S. Korea already. Things obviously get rough but through our efforts and our patience we can get it all worked out. And with this article I think that's what we are doing with our best abilities. - Tina Dickerson, <a href="mailto:Wolfsreign@Wapda.com"><Wolfsreign@Wapda.com</a>>   <hr size="1" noshade> Please consider supporting Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF). FPIF is a new kind of think tank&#151one 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 <a href="https://secure.iexposure.com/fpif.org/donate.cfm" target="_parent">https://secure.iexposure.com/fpif.org/donate.cfm</a> to support FPIF online, or for information about making contributions over the phone or through the mail. We Count on Your Support. Thank you. <a href="../../index.html" target="_parent"><img src="../../images/icon_fpif_25.jpg" width="113" height="38" border="0" alt="Back to FPIF homepage"></a> Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC, online at <a href="http://www.irc-online.org/" target="_parent">www.irc-online.org</a>) and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS, online at <a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/" target="_blank">www.ips-dc.org</a>). ©2004. All rights reserved. <hr noshade size="1"> <h3 align="center"><a name="subscribe"></a>Subscribe to The Progressive Response!</h3> <blockquote> To subscribe to The Progressive Response, send a blank email to: <script language="javascript" src="/all_sites/email.js"></script><form name="subscribe_form" method="post" action="http://www.irc-online.org/lists/subscribe" onSubmit="return valid_list_signup(this);"><input name="email" type="text" value="(enter your email address)" size="30" onFocus="enter_email(this);"><input type="hidden" name="action" value="subscribe"> <input type="hidden" name="group" value="17"><input type="submit" name="btn_submit" value="Subscribe"></form> To unsubscribe from The Progressive Response, send a blank email to: <a href="mailto:list-unsubscribe@irc-online.org">lists-unsubscribe@irc-online.org</a> Simply click the appropriate hyperlink above, or send a blank email to the appropriate email address above. </blockquote>   The Progressive Response aims to provide timely analysis and opinion about US 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 <a href="mailto:irc@irc-online.org">irc@irc-online.org</a>. 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 Monday, February 9, 2004 1:51 PM Contact the <a href="mailto:web@fpif.org">IRC's webmaster</a> with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website. Copyright © 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved. </td> </tr> </table>