The Progressive Response

Volume 9, Number 19
September 6, 2005

Editor: John Gershman, International Relations Center (IRC)

The Progressive Response (PR) is produced weekly by the International Relations Center (IRC, formerly Interhemispheric Resource Center, 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 a joint project of the International Relations 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 International Relations Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org) and codirector of FPIF. He can be contacted at john@irc-online.org.

Table of Contents

I. Updates and Out-Takes

Hurricane Katrina and the War in Iraq | Stephen Zunes
The Iraq Quagmire: The Mounting Costs of War and the Case for Bringing Home the Troops | Phyllis Bennis and Erik Leaver and the IPS Iraq Task Force
Iraq: Stop Intervening in the Civil War | Gareth Porter
What to do about Hugo? | Tom Barry
Iraq’s Neoliberal Constitution | Herbert Docena
Sixty Years Without Nuclear War | Zia Mian, R. Rajaraman, and Frank von Hippel

I. Updates and Out-Takes

Hurricane Katrina and the War in Iraq
By Stephen Zunes

As it begins to appear that the death toll in southeastern Louisiana and southern Mississippi from Hurricane Katrina may surpass that of 9/11, questions are once again being raised regarding the Bush administration’s distorted views as to what constitutes national security.

Much of the criticism thus far has focused on the failure of authorities to evacuate the tens of thousands of low-income residents in New Orleans who lacked the means to leave for higher ground inland and the slowness and inefficiency of the federal response following the rupture of the levees protecting the city, much of which lies below sea level.

Still others have noted the growing evidence that the increase in recent years in the frequency of such mega-hurricanes as Katrina is a result of global warming. The Bush administration has aggressively undermined international efforts to forcefully address such potentially catastrophic changes in the world’s climate as a result of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and other industrialized nations.

It also appears that the Bush administration’s decision to undercut the authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a once-independent unit of government, by subsuming it into the Department of Homeland Security—with its over-emphasis on the threat from international terrorism—limited FEMA’s ability to better prepare for the long-predicted scenario of disastrous flooding resulting from a major hurricane striking New Orleans.

Perhaps the decision by the Bush administration which most directly contributed to the high numbers of unnecessary deaths, however, was the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

By providing shelter for those fleeing the devastated areas, making financial contributions to relief efforts, and other measures, the American people have once again demonstrated enormous caring and generosity. Such efforts will and should continue. However, this laudable energy must also be focused on holding accountable the politicians of both parties who—out of their eagerness to invade an oil-rich country on the other side of the globe—allowed so many of their fellow Americans to suffer and die needlessly. 

Stephen Zunes, Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at http://www.fpif.org), is a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco. 

The Iraq Quagmire: The Mounting Costs of War and the Case for Bringing Home the Troops
By Phyllis Bennis and Erik Leaver and the IPS Iraq Task Force

The Iraq Quagmire is the most comprehensive accounting of the mounting costs and consequences of the Iraq War on the United States, Iraq, and the world. Among its major findings are stark figures that quantify the continuing of costs since the Iraqi elections, a period that the Bush administration claimed would be characterized by a reduction in the human and economic costs.

IPS Fellow Phyllis Bennis has written extensively on Middle East and UN issues for many years. In 1999, she accompanied a group of Congressional aides to Iraq to examine the impact of U.S.-led economic sanctions and later joined Denis Halliday, who resigned as the UN's Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq to protest the impact of sanctions, on a nationwide speaking tour. Bennis is the author of many books including the forthcoming Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy U.S. Power. Erik Leaver is a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Additional IPS Iraq Task Force members include: IPS Director John Cavanagh; IPS Co-founder Marcus Raskin; Foreign Policy In Focus staff Emira Woods, Miriam Pemberton, and Saif Rahman; IPS Fellows Sarah Anderson and Karen Dolan; IPS Peace Movement liaison, Amy Quinn; and IPS interns Jared Hall, Diana Jou, Shurouq Swaitti, Angela Walker, Chris Wolcott.

See new FPIF study online at:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/467

Iraq: Stop Intervening in the Civil War
By Gareth Porter

While the news media have covered every twist and turn in the negotiations over a constitution, it has largely ignored the most important development in Iraq since the January 2005 election—the emergence of a sectarian civil war between Sunnis and Shiites.

The beginning of Shiite violence against Sunnis by Shiite militias, with tacit government approval, raises a new issue of central importance to U.S. policy—what role will the United States play in the ensuing violence.

Gareth Porter is a historian and an analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org). His latest book is Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam (University of California Press, 2005).

See new FPIF commentary online at:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/382

What to do about Hugo?
By Tom Barry

Pat Robertson’s remarks were “inappropriate.” But treating this as another media event, with accusations, disavowals, and recriminations, misses the opportunity that Robertson has afforded. What is an appropriate response to the new Bolivarian spirit of Hugo Chavez that the Bush administration and regional elites find so disconcerting?

The U.S. government—and the U.S. public—would do well to use the Robertson brouhaha to draw up a list of what are inappropriate policies and remarks, while at the same time outlining more appropriate measures.

It is in the best interests of the United States to have a Latin American region that seeks collectively to address its common problems. Chavez may be grandstanding, but he is on the money with much of his political rhetoric. What’s more, he is putting money where his mouth is. Independence, self-reliance, and neighborhood problem-solving are core U.S. attributes. Rather than seeing these as a threat in Latin America, we should applaud and encourage these efforts.

Tom Barry is policy director of the International Relations Center, online at www.irc-online.org, and an associate of the IRC Americas Program.

See new Americas Program commentary online at:
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/415

Iraq’s Neoliberal Constitution
By Herbert Docena

Last June 30, the Iraqi Al-Mada newspaper published the latest draft of the Iraqi constitution that was then being negotiated upon by Iraqi politicians. Its contents would have been enough to give former occupation authority chief Paul Bremer a heart attack.

The Iraqis—even those who were willing to cooperate with the Americans—wanted, at least on paper, to build a Scandinavian-type welfare system in the Arabian desert, with Iraq’s vast oil wealth to be spent upholding every Iraqi’s right to education, health care, housing, and other social services. “Social justice is the basis of building society,” the draft declared. All of Iraq’s natural resources would be owned collectively by the Iraqi people. Everyone would have the right to work and the state would be legally bound to provide employment opportunities to everyone. The state will be the Iraqi people’s collective instrument for achieving development.

In other words, the Iraqis wanted a country different from that which the Americans had come to Iraq for. They, or at least those who were involved in drafting the constitution, wanted nothing of the kind of economic and political system that Bremer and other U.S. officials had been attempting to create in Iraq ever since the occupation began. What the occupation authorities wanted was to fulfill “the wish-list of international investors,” as The Economist magazine had described the economic policies they began imposing in the country in 2003.

As direct occupiers, the United States had enacted laws which give foreign investors equal rights as Iraqis in the domestic market; permit the full repatriation of profits; institute the flat tax system; abolish tariffs; enforce a strict intellectual property rights regime; sell off a whole range of state-owned companies; reduce food and fuel subsidies; and privatize all kinds of social services such as health, education, water delivery, etc.

By the time the next version was leaked in late July, the progressive provisions in the draft constitution had disappeared.

Herbert Docena is a Research Associate at FOCUS on the Global South and a regular contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org).

See new FPIF special report online at:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/492

Sixty Years Without Nuclear War
By Zia Mian, R. Rajaraman, and Frank von Hippel

It is now sixty years since the destruction of Nagasaki, the last use of nuclear weapons in war. It is a time to both celebrate the survival of civilization and to confront the continuing nuclear danger.

Given that there have been tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the world’s arsenals for the past 50 years, the fact that we are still here is testimony to a remarkable display of self-restraint by our often savage nation-states. This is due in part to our luck in political and military leaders. The most credit is due to the millions who marched in the streets when the nuclear arms race seemed to be getting out of control or governments seemed to be considering nuclear use.

Since 1970, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has committed the first five nuclear-weapon states to disarm in exchange for other states foregoing nuclear weapons. In 2000, the five nuclear-weapon states made a number of specific near-term commitments. These included bringing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty into force and negotiating a verifiable ban on the production of further plutonium and highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. However, all this is unraveling.

Zia Mian is a Pakistani physicist at Princeton University. R. Rajaraman is professor of physics emeritus at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. Frank von Hippel is a professor of public and international affairs at Princeton. They are all regular contributors to Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org).

See new PresentDanger commentary online at:
http://presentdanger.irc-online.org/pd/363

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 http://www.irc-online.org/donate.php to support FPIF online, or for information about making contributions over the phone or through the mail.

***** We Count on Your Support. Thank you. *****

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.

To manage your subscription to the Progressive Response: http://www.irc-online.org/lists/

Production Information:
Editor: John Gershman
Layout: Chellee Chase-Saiz

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 International Relations 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 Tuesday, September 6, 2005 6:23 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2005 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.