The Progressive Response

Volume 8, Number 14
May 18, 2004

Editor: John Gershman, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC)

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>.

 

Table of Contents

I. Updates and Out-Takes

IT’S OUR PARTY (AND WE’LL CHEER IF WE WANT TO)
By John Feffer

FROM KEYNESIANISM TO NEOLIBERALISM: SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN ECONOMICS
By Thomas I. Palley

EX-DIPLOMATS PROTEST BUSH'S ANTI-PALESTINIAN POLICIES
By Jim Lobe

A DEBACLE IN THE BATTLE FOR HEARTS AND MINDS
By Pascale Combelles Siegel

HOW LONG A WAR?
By Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.)

 

II. Letters and Comments

THANKS FOR SAYING IT OUT LOUD

 

I. Updates and Out-Takes

IT’S OUR PARTY (AND WE’LL CHEER IF WE WANT TO)
By John Feffer

(Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new special report available in full at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0404ourparty.html).

Imagine if nearly three-quarters of the U.S. Congress were thrown out on its collective ear and replaced by a new generation of 30 and 40-somethings, many of them considerably more progressive than John Kerry. Imagine if the number of women in Congress doubled. Imagine a new labor party securing ten seats and a pivotal minority position.

A fantasy? Not for South Koreans.

When voters went to the polls in South Korea on April 15, they performed just this electoral miracle. Impeached president Roh Moo Hyun and his Uri (“Our”) Party were the chief beneficiaries of the results. The Uri Party, which tripled its share, now commands a majority in parliament, with the renascent Democratic Labor party to its left.

Some U.S. pundits have bent over backward to assure the public that the electoral results were far from revolutionary. As Georgetown Professor Victor Cha wrote in Far East Economic Review, “the Uri Party’s bark may be worse than its bite” for it won’t fundamentally challenge military relations with the United States, bail out North Korea with unsound economic projects, or tinker with the Constitution. But as the Bush administration continues to fumble its North Korea policy and China stakes out a larger foreign policy claim in East Asia, the Uri Party may well herald a fundamental transformation of politics on the Korean peninsula and beyond.

A month ago, it was revenge and not revolution that was brewing. In March, the two major parties in the South Korean parliament–the conservative Grand National Party (GNP) and the party of former president Kim Dae Jung, the Millennium Democratic Party (MDP)–ganged up to impeach President Roh Moo Hyun, who had barely spent one year in office. The pretext for impeachment was a minor electoral impropriety, but both parties were in fact eager to take advantage of corruption scandals and Roh’s declining popularity to make political gains of their own.

It was the mother of all miscalculations. Tens of thousands of demonstrators took to the street in protest. Korean voters, who have a warm spot for underdogs, repudiated the party duopoly to give Roh and his new party of supporters a much clearer mandate than when he first took office.

This was no mere political infighting. Roh and his breakaway Uri Party articulated a fundamentally different vision of South Korea, both to win the December 2002 elections and to beat back the most recent challenge. They have urged greater independence in South Korea’s relationship with the United States and a more assertive engagement policy with the North.

South Koreans, particularly the younger generation, want a change. They’re tired of the cozy, business-as-usual corruption culture of the older generation. They overwhelmingly oppose Bush administration policies, which is so often mistaken for anti-Americanism by U.S. observers who fail to distinguish between political and cultural motivations.

And over 90 percent of South Koreans don’t want to pursue policies that would lead to war on the peninsula. The conservatives have never put forward an alternative to engaging the North, a policy that Roh largely adopted from his predecessor Kim Dae Jung. With the Uri Party commanding a majority in parliament, expect this engagement policy to accelerate despite hostility from Washington.

John Feffer ( www.johnfeffer.com) is the author most recently of North Korea, South Korea: U.S. Policy at a Time of Crisis (Seven Stories, 2003).

For more information see:

Between Kim Jong Il and a Hard Place
By John Feffer ( March 1, 2004)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0402kimjongil.html

The Tug of War
By John Feffer ( October 22, 2003)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0310korea.html

Hexagonal Headache
By John Feffer ( September 4, 2003)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0309nk.html

FROM KEYNESIANISM TO NEOLIBERALISM: SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN ECONOMICS
By Thomas I. Palley

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

For the last 25 years, economic policy and the public’s thinking have been dominated by a conservative economic philosophy known as neoliberalism. The reference to “liberalism” reflects an intellectual lineage that connects with 19th century economic liberalism associated with Manchester, England. The Manchester system was predicated upon laissez-faire economics and was closely associated with free trade and the repeal of England’s Corn Law, which restricted importation of wheat. Contemporary neoliberalism is principally associated with the Chicago School of Economics, which emphasizes the efficiency of market competition, the role of individuals in determining economic outcomes, and distortions associated with government intervention and regulation of markets.

Two critical tenets of neoliberalism are its theory of income distribution and its theory of aggregate employment determination. With regard to income distribution, neoliberalism asserts that factors of production—labor and capital—get paid what they are worth. This is accomplished through the supply and demand process, whereby payment depends on a factor’s relative scarcity (supply) and its productivity (which affects demand). With regard to aggregate employment determination, neoliberalism asserts that free markets will not let valuable factors of production—including labor—go to waste. Instead, prices will adjust to ensure that demand is forthcoming and that all factors are employed. This assertion is at the foundation of Chicago School monetarism, which claims that economies automatically self-adjust to full employment and that the use of monetary and fiscal policy to permanently raise employment merely generates inflation.

These two theories have been extraordinarily influential, and they contrast with the thinking that held sway in the period between 1945 and 1980. During this earlier era, the dominant theory of employment determination was Keynesianism, which maintains that the level of economic activity is determined by the level of aggregate demand. Additionally, Keynesians maintain that capitalist economies are subject to periodic weakness in the aggregate demand generation process, resulting in unemployment. Occasionally, this weakness can be severe and produce economic depressions—as exemplified by the Great Depression. In such a world, monetary and fiscal policy can stabilize the demand generation process.

Whereas Keynesians have always agreed on a common theory of employment determination, they have always been divided regarding the theory of income distribution. This division created a fatal breach that facilitated the triumph of neoliberalism. American Keynesians (known as neo-Keynesians) tend to accept the neoliberal “paid what you are worth” theory of income distribution, while European Keynesians (widely associated with Cambridge, U.K., and known as post-Keynesians) reject it. Instead, post-Keynesians argue that income distribution depends significantly on institutional factors. Thus, not only do a factor’s relative scarcity and productivity matter, but so too does its bargaining power, which is impacted by institutional arrangements. This explains the significance of trade unions, laws governing minimum wages, employee rights at work, and systems of social protection such as unemployment insurance.

Finally, public understandings of the economy also matter, since a public that views the economy through a bargaining power lens will have greater political sympathies for trade unions and institutions of social protection.

(Thomas I. Palley is the chief economist at the U.S.-China Security Review Commission. This essay will appear as a chapter in a book by Deborah Johnston and Alfredo Saad-Filho, eds., Neoliberalism--A Critical Reader (Pluto Press, 2004).)

EX-DIPLOMATS PROTEST BUSH'S ANTI-PALESTINIAN POLICIES
By Jim Lobe

(Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary available in full at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0405exdip.html.)

President George W. Bush’s policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are not only damaging the United States’ credibility worldwide, but are putting U.S. diplomats, civilian contractors and the military at heightened risk.

That’s the message that at least 60 former U.S. diplomats and other government officials who have served overseas will deliver to the President later this month.

The open critique of Bush’s policies still gathering signatures was inspired by a similar protest signed by 52 former British ambassadors and senior government officials sent to Prime Minister Tony Blair two weeks ago. That letter warned that Blair’s strong support for Bush’s policies in both Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were “doomed to failure.”

The U.S. diplomats’ letter, due to be sent on May 28, focuses far more on the Israel-Palestinian issue, noting in particular Bush’s Apr. 14 endorsement of Sharon’s plan to unilaterally withdraw Israeli settlers from the Gaza strip while consolidating five large settlement blocs on the West Bank.

So far, the response to the letter has been “amazing,” organizers say. To date it has been signed by at least 16 former ambassadors, most of whom, like Edward Peck, James Akins, Talcott Seelye and Chas Freeman, Jr., represented the United States in various Arab capitals. Several dozen former deputy chiefs of mission, consul generals and chiefs and deputy chiefs of Central Intelligence Agency stations have also signed on, including Ray Close, a well-known CIA officer who served part of his career in Jeddah.

But despite the prominence of some of the signers, the letter’s impact may be somewhat muted, particularly compared to the controversy provoked by the letter to Blair.

While Blair’s Middle East policies have come under strong attack both within his Labor Party and by the two major opposition parties, Bush’s alignment with Sharon has not provoked much criticism from other major political figures, including his Democratic challenger in the upcoming November elections, Senator John Kerry.

Shortly after Bush’s April 14 embrace of the Sharon plan, Kerry declared not only that he supports it as well, but that he also backed Israel’s assassination of Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi. That killing provoked widespread outrage by U.S. allies in Europe and the Arab world—the same countries that Kerry says the Bush administration has ignored to its detriment.

Kerry’s declarations have been interpreted as an attempt to keep U.S. Jews, long a reliable source of support for Democrats, from deserting the party in what most analysts believe will be an extremely close presidential race.

The Bush campaign for the November vote is making a major bid for Jewish support, based almost exclusively on his strong backing for Sharon, despite the fact that most U.S. Jews do not favor the positions of the Israeli leader’s Likud Party against substantial territorial compromise with the Palestinians.

Despite Kerry’s unwillingness to take on Bush’s unprecedented support for Sharon, however, public concern over Washington’s general position in the Middle East appears to be on the rise. Concerns seem greatest over the recent setbacks in Iraq and the growing sense that U.S. actions, most recently the abuse and humiliation by U.S. troops of Iraqi prisoners, is intensifying anti-U.S. hatred and anger in the region.

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

A DEBACLE IN THE BATTLE FOR HEARTS AND MINDS
By Pascale Combelles Siegel

(Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary available in full at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0405debacle.html.)

A major battle in the “War on Terror” was lost last month and not a shot was fired.

It was lost when the now all-too-familiar images of Americans torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners were seared into the minds of thinking persons around the world. These images show a sort of mistreatment tailor-made for creating outrage in the Arab world: naked Iraqi bodies piled in a miserable human pyramid, simulated sexual acts directed by an American female soldier.

Defeating terrorism is directly dependent on the conversion of hearts and minds—to the winning over of the majority of Arab and Islamic individuals so terrorists will lose their base of support and source of future recruits.

However, goodwill to the United States—already under significant strain—has now plummeted throughout the Arab and Islamic communities, and through much of the rest of the world. Our oft-proclaimed lofty objectives and high ideals seem a mockery in light of evidence of systemic mistreatment of Iraqis in those very same facilities in which Saddam’s henchmen tortured and executed thousands.

All thoughtful Americans should share dismay over the abuse of prisoners by the U.S. Army and U.S. contractors in Iraq, the mounting international reaction to the images, and the long-term damage this will undoubtedly do to the standing of the United States around the world.

Due to my experience working with the U.S. military—including deployed time in Bosnia—I feel certain that these “incidents” represent an exception, rather than the rule, to the normal behavior of our military personnel. This, though, is not necessarily the view shared around the world and the “damage control” efforts to date are unlikely to convince many otherwise.

Sadly, the damage done has only been magnified by the Bush Administration’s inept response to the situation. As part of the 60 Minutes report of April 28, Dan Rather confessed that CBS had delayed reporting this story for a week at the personal request of General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Since the broadcast, Gen. Myers told a talk show that he had yet to read the Army’s investigative reports into prison abuse. On May 3, the Pentagon’s press spokesman, Larry DiRita, told the nation that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had yet to read the reports—or even be briefed on them!

Perhaps the Defense Department did not view this as a serious issue in the war on terrorism. That in itself suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of a fundamental element of the war. General Myers, however, did think enough of it to make the extremely unusual request for a delayed broadcast.

He told ABC’s This Week he did so because he “thought it would be particularly inflammatory at the time.” But what did the Administration do with the extra time. After the disastrous footage finally aired, there was no clear Pentagon or, more critically, overall U.S. government, approach to the situation to extinguish the firestorm of predictable outrage.

 (Pascale Combelles Siegel is an independent consultant specializing in “perception management.” She is the author of Target Bosnia: Integrating Information Activities in Peace Operations: The NATO-led Operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina: 1995-1997 published by National Defense University Press.).

HOW LONG A WAR?
By Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.)

(Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary available in full at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0405byrdwar.html.)

“A war in the wrong place, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.”

That was the verdict delivered by Senator Robert C. Byrd (WV) on April 29, 2004, two days before the first anniversary of President Bush’s declaration that major combat in Iraq was over.

Events of this past April and the obvious confusion in the first days of May reinforce Senator Byrd’s judgment:

• a total of 137 U.S. service personnel died in Iraq in April, one less than the number who died in the six weeks of war between March 20 and April 30, 2003—and 14 more were killed in the first three days of May;
• casualties among Iraqis—those the coalition came to liberate—were at least 600 in April, compared to a conservatively estimated 5,000 in the six weeks of war;
• the Bush Administration abandoned its thrice-modified blueprint for Iraqi democracy and threw all responsibility (but not matching authority) on the UN for Iraq’s transition by June 30 from an occupied country to one with “limited” sovereignty;
• insurgents—those the Pentagon describes as “dead-enders,” foreign fighters, and former regime loyalists—emerged in strength in the “Sunni Triangle,” forcing the closure of significant stretches of main highways running from Jordan and Kuwait;
• coalition authorities threatened a full-scale assault on Fallujah if the insurgents did not meet timelines to cease their attacks on U.S. Marines and surrender all heavy weapons, only to extend the deadlines, negotiate with civic and tribal leaders, and finally create an Iraqi “Fallujah Brigade” to take on the insurgents when U.S.-trained Iraqi units refused to confront the insurgents or even accompany U.S. forces on patrols;
• General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, contradicted the Marine Corps commander in Iraq about who would command the “Fallujah Brigade” (a new Iraqi commander was “found”) and also insisted that Marine units had not pulled back from the city even though media representatives on the ground in Iraq confirmed the relocations;
• around Najaf, a second locus of armed opposition emerged after coalition authorities declared that Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr would be captured or killed for inciting his Mahdi militia to violent confrontation (and belatedly revealed there was an “Iraqi” arrest warrant for al-Sadr, for murder);
• the coalition’s turn-about on total exclusion of former Ba’athist party members from public employment has prompted objections from Shi’ite secular and clerical leaders and foreshadows a post-June 30 struggle that could undermine attempts to preclude heightened violence and even the dismemberment of Iraq;
• the U.S. retained 20,000 troops in Iraq because of the upsurge in violence, Spain and two other countries announced total troop withdrawals, others are reviewing their commitments, NATO has declined to get involved, while the UK reportedly will commit an additional 4,000 troops for as long as two years—all of which points to shrinkage in the “internationalization” of the coalition;
• the White House, the Pentagon, and Coalition authorities in Baghdad hesitated or, when they did react were too passive, over the serious human rights abuses by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison.

Senator Byrd closed his remarks by asking “how long” the war will last and the casualties continue to climb. No one knows, of course, in part because Iraq is only one “front” of the larger worldwide “war on terror” that the Administration has declared. Moreover, Senator Byrd chose to highlight only the direct U.S. involvement and the consequences for broader U.S. interests.

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

For more information see:

Of Rumor and Reality
By Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.) ( May 13, 2004)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0404rumorreality.html

The Psychology of War: Iraq and Vietnam
By Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.) ( April 7, 2004)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0404iraq-vietnam.html

Rendering an Account on Iraq
By Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.) ( March 18, 2004)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0403iraq-ann.html

Why So Many Were So Wrong for So Long
By Col. Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.) ( February 5, 2004)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0402wrong.html

Fighting By the Rules, Not Against Them
By Col. Dan Smith, (Ret.) ( December 18, 2003)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0312rules.html

II. Letters and Comments

THANKS FOR SAYING IT OUT LOUD

Re: Outsourcing--A Policy Agenda (http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol9/v9n02outsource.html)

I rarely see policy analysis that takes into account domestic and international policy at the same time. Has this article been translated into Spanish or Portuguese? [Editor’s Note: It is being translated into Spanish and will be available shortly. Other readers interested in Spanish version please contact the editor at john@irc-online.org]

Development strategies in the South are often dependent on exporting goods and services to strong markets in the North. As imports from "low cost centers" disproportionately influence prices in US markets, creating downward pressure on U.S. wages, outsourcing service sector jobs only increases the impact of manufacturing job losses on U.S. demand. Export-based strategies for development in the South thus run some risk of failing due to their own impact on Northern markets.

As the likelihood of structural adjustments for the U.S. comes closer it is important to come to some international consensus on how to build and support the development of Southern markets.

If Southern manufacturers pay equitable wages and operate within sustainable resource guidelines, perhaps pressure on Northern jobs in both manufacturing and service sectors will decline and growth in Southern markets will offset deflationary tendencies in the global economy as a whole.

I agree that we need to find mechanisms to transfer resources to the South--including debt cancellation. Thanks for saying it out loud.

The North needs to find ways to build equitable and sustainable southern markets in order to avoid a global recession/depression as well as to protect U.S. labor and environmental standards.

-John Rogers, ecoshift@lostcoast.net

Please consider supporting Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF). FPIF is a new kind of think tank—one serving citizen movements and advancing a fresh, internationalist understanding of global affairs. Although we make our FPIF products freely available on the Internet, we need financial support to cover our staff time and expenses. Increasingly, FPIF depends on you and other individual donors to sustain our bare-bones budget. Click on https://secure.iexposure.com/fpif.org/donate.cfm to support FPIF online, or for information about making contributions over the phone or through the mail.

We Count on Your Support. Thank you.

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, May 17, 2004 4:25 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2004 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.