-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progressive
Response
8 November
2004 Vol.
8,
No. 23
Editor: John Gershman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
codirector of FPIF. He can be contacted at
<john@irc-online.org>.
**** We Count on Your Support ****
Welcome to the 1st test design for the new-format Progressive
Response. We've heard your plea for smaller mailings, so are just
including excerpts of the latest postings. We've also decided to
introduce a small amount of formatting to give readers an easier
overview
of our current offerings. Please let us know what you think of the new
design by emailing
<feedback@fpif.org>.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Columns
Frontier Justice: Weaving Constraints on an Easy Empire, John
Gershman
This Week in the Americas: Can the U.S. Ever be a Good Neighbor?,
Laura Carlsen
II. Updates and Out-Takes
The Future of U.S.-South Korean Security Relations, John
Feffer
J'accuse: War Crimes & Iraq, Conn Hallinan
Are the War and Globalization Really Connected?, Mark Engler
The U.S. Invasion of Iraq: The Military Side of Globalization?,
Stephen Zunes
For Scary Halloween Reading, Dig Deeper into the Duelfer Report,
Michael Roston
III. Letters And Comments
Wonderful Analysis
Stark Contrast
Pacifying Iraq
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Columns
Frontier Justice
Weaving Constraints on an Easy Empire
By John Gershman
The re-election of President Bush as well as the increase in Republican
seats in the House and Senate provides a major challenge to
progressives
as we seek to articulate alternative policy agendas and defend basic
rights and social programs such as reproductive choice, social
security,
environmental protection, and civil liberties from a fresh round of
legislative and judicial assaults.
Foreign policy will occupy center stage in the next few months,
especially Iraq, terrorism, and proliferation (especially Iran and
North
Korea). Several pieces in the past year from across the political
spectrum (such as John Ikenberry in Survival and Francis Fukuyama in
The
National Interest) pronounced the end of the neoconservative moment,
arguing that Iraq has been its death knell. But these eulogies are
clearly premature, and while many Republicans remain concerned about
the
financial and political costs of Iraq, the election will undoubtedly
spur
a more aggressively unilateralist approach, as the second Bush
administration claims the mantle of a popular, not merely an electoral
college, mandate. The practice, if not the rhetoric, of empire is
certain
to increase.
Three elements in the short term are in play: an imminent reshuffling
of
the foreign policy team, efforts at home and abroad to constrain U.S.
policy, and a refocusing of the terms of political debate on culture
and
values.
(John Gershman is the director of the Global Affairs Program at the
Interhemispheric Resource Center
(http://www.irc-online.org)
and
codirector of Foreign Policy In Focus
(http://www.fpif.org).)
The complete text is available online at
http://www.presentdanger.org/commentary/2004/0411christsoj.html
U.S. Elections and Latin America
Can the United States Ever be a Good Neighbor?
By Laura Carlsen
Much of the debate on the U.S. presidential elections in Latin American
countries does not center on who would be better for the region, Bush
or
Kerry, but on whether it makes any difference at all.
The skepticism has a solid foundation. Documents released under
freedom-of-information law, and truth commissions in nations still
emerging from military rule have provided hard evidence of U.S.
involvement in everything from dirty tricks to assassination attempts.
Allegations have been made for years, but now Washington's shady role
in
the region has become part of the historical record.
But throughout the world, the U.S. elections-beyond the obvious
similarities in the positions of the two candidates--reflect a clash of
worldviews that has turned many sceptics into, at the least, passionate
onlookers. If questioned further, it's a safe bet that Latin Americans
who opted for Kerry in the opinion polls would not cite lofty
expectations but rather a simple desire to keep things from getting
worse. Most recognize that for the United States to develop a real good
neighbor policy, based on respect for self-determination, political
solutions to conflict and decreasing inequities, is probably a bit much
to ask now. But if the high-level of interest in this year's elections
forces both U.S. citizens and Latin Americans to reflect on the U.S.
role
in the region, and if it succeeds in detaining this particularly
blatant
form of imperialism, it could be a step in the right direction.
(Laura Carlsen directs the Americas Program of the Interhemispheric
Resource Center (IRC, online at
www.irc-online.org) in Mexico
City.)
The complete text is available online at
http://www.americaspolicy.org/columns/amprog/2004/0410elect.html
II. Updates and Out-Takes
The Future of U.S.-South Korean Security
Relations
By John Feffer
In its crudest form, geopolitics is a zero-sum game. The United States
recognizes mainland China and breaks official ties with Taiwan;
Washington leans toward Karachi and away from New Delhi. A gain along
one
axis is offset by a loss along a second. But diplomacy is usually too
complex an amalgam of relationships to evaluate so starkly on a balance
sheet, and there are often opportunities for simultaneous improvements
between mutually antagonistic countries. Take, for example, the
surprising improvement in U.S. relations with both China and Taiwan
over
the last three years. Alas, the flip side to win-win diplomacy is
lose-lose diplomacy. Since 2000, when U.S. relations with both halves
of
the Korean Peninsula seemed to be on the upswing, Washington has
managed
to unravel its incipient relationship with Pyongyang while tangling its
ties with Seoul.
The reasons for this dual deterioration include a neoconservative shift
in U.S. foreign policy, the geopolitical shake-up after the September
11
attacks, the North Korean tactic of playing its adversaries off against
one another, and the enduring influence of nationalism on Korean
policymaking. Regardless of the reasons, however, the necessity of
improving U.S. relations with the Korean Peninsula is critical in order
to bolster mutual security and enhance the general stability of the
region. The November elections in the United States may well provide an
opportunity to re-evaluate the failed policies of the last four years.
But it will take a new leadership approach to move from lose-lose to
win-win scenarios.
(John
Feffer--www.johnfeffer.com--is
currently a Pantech Fellow in Korean Studies at Stanford University and
a
regular contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus
(www.fpif.org). He is the author,
most
recently, of North Korea, South Korea: U.S. Policy at a Time of
Crisis.)
The complete text is available online at
http://www.fpif.org/papers/0410korea.html
J'accuse: War Crimes & Iraq
By Conn Hallinan
- "….The Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish
between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian
objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their
operations only against military objectives."
- Article 48, 1977 addition to the Geneva Conventions, Part IV
The above "Basic Rule" is at the heart of the Geneva
Conventions, the international treaty that tries to be the thin line
that
separates civilization from savagery. It is not something the Bush
administration has paid much attention to as it goes about the
"pacification" of Iraqi cities where local insurgents are
resisting the American occupation.
If we are cavalier or dismissive about international law, it will
encourage others to be so as well. The most likely victims of that
policy
will be we civilians, as well as our own uniformed forces. If we
torture
prisoners and hide them from the eyes of organizations like the Red
Cross, why shouldn't others do the same to our soldiers and
civilians?
In a recent commentary in the Financial Times, Jakob Kellenberger,
president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, wrote:
"The struggle against terrorism cannot be legitimate if it
undermines basic values shared by humanity. The right to life and
protection against murder, torture and degrading treatment must be at
the
heart of the actions of those engaged in this struggle. The struggle
will
lose credibility if it is used to justify acts otherwise considered
unacceptable, such as the killing of people not participating in
hostilities."
Apart from the inhumanity our actions engender, as an entirely
practical
matter, to do anything less than Kellenberger suggests is to place our
own people in harm's way.
(Conn Hallinan is a foreign policy analyst for Foreign Policy In
Focus, online at http://www.fpif.org/,
and a Lecturer in Journalism at the University of California, Santa
Cruz.)
The complete text is available online at
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0411warcrimes.html
Are the War and Globalization Really
Connected?
By Mark Engler
To be radical, in the oldest sense of the word, is to go to the root.
One
strength of truly progressive analysis is that it places what appear to
be isolated events in a larger context. It seeks to make connections
between seemingly disparate political issues by revealing underlying
ideological frameworks.
And so it has been central task, in the post 9-11 era, for activists to
demonstrate how the war against terror and the drive for corporate
globalization are one and the same-how peace and global justice
movements share vital common ground. That these two issues are
connected,
in a fundamental way, is an article of faith on the political left,
reinforced by the fact that many participants in globalization protests
have also mobilized against the Bush administration's
militarism.
All such articles of faith deserve a bit of critical skepticism, so I
would like to offer a constructive challenge. Many of the arguments
wedding the war in Iraq with a strategy for neoliberal expansion are
not
readily convincing. They risk reading causality into tangential
relationships. And, in their drive to connect, they overlook important
disjunctures between the Bush administration's foreign policy and the
policy preferred by many business elites. Activists have good reason to
look again at the neoconservative hawks now in power and to consider
whether they have outdone the corporate globalists of earlier years or
whether they have betrayed them.
(Mark Engler, a writer based in New York, is a commentator for
Foreign
Policy in Focus (online at
http://www.fpif.org). He can be
reached via his website at
http://www.DemocracyUprising.com.
Research assistance for this article was provided by Jason
Rowe.)
The complete text is available online at
http://www.fpif.org/papers/0410warglob.html
The U.S. Invasion of Iraq: The
Military
Side of Globalization?
By Stephen Zunes
The major justification for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq--Saddam
Hussein's supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi
ties to the terrorist al-Qaida network--are now widely discredited, and
Washington's claims that its efforts are creating a democratic Iraq are
also highly dubious. So what actually motivated the United States to
take
on the problematic task of conquering and rebuilding Iraq?
Although economic factors did play an important role in prompting a
U.S.
invasion, the simplistic notion that Iraq's makeover was undertaken for
the sake of oil company profits ignores the fact that even optimistic
projections of the financial costs of the invasion and occupation far
exceeded anticipated financial benefits. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein
was
already selling his oil at a level satisfactory to Western buyers and
his
standing among fellow OPEC members was low, so he could not have
persuaded the cartel to adopt policies detrimental to American
interests.
(Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and chair of the Peace
&
Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves
as
Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy In Focus Project (online at
http://www.fpif.org/) and is the
author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of
Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).)
The complete text is available online at
http://www.fpif.org/papers/0410milglob.html
For Scary Halloween Reading, Dig
Deeper
into the Duelfer Report
By Michael Roston
America received a frightening jolt when the International Atomic
Energy
Agency announced that heavy-duty explosives perfectly suited for
terrorist bombing attacks had gone missing from critical sites in Iraq.
But a far more terrifying revelation was made in the Central
Intelligence
Agency's publicly released Duelfer Report on October 6. It took some
effort, but anyone who dug deep enough into this document submitted by
Charles Duelfer, fully titled the Comprehensive Report of the Special
Adviser to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of
Mass
Destruction, found reading far more scary than any of the ghost stories
you might hear this Halloween.
If you thought the missing explosives were bad, just turn to the annex
labeled "Al-Abud Network" buried in the report's third volume.
In plain language, the Iraq Survey Group reports on the activities of
insurgents who worked with a civilian Iraqi chemist to build chemical
weapons to use against Coalition forces. Fortunately, these insurgents
foundered before they were caught by U.S.-led troops. But, the report
menacingly warns that al-Abud is "not the only group planning or
attempting to produce or acquire CBW agents … availability of chemicals
and materials dispersed throughout the country, and intellectual
capital
from the former WMD programs increases the future threat to Coalition
Forces."
So, since we toppled Saddam Hussein for threatening us with WMD that
weren't there, terrorists in Iraq have started working with Saddam's
intellectual dream team to build new WMD to use against American
forces?
(Michael Roston is a graduate student at Columbia University's
School
of International and Public Affairs and an analyst for Foreign Policy
In
Focus (http://www.fpif.org). He
formerly worked in Washington, DC as an analyst of WMD nonproliferation
policy. This article represents his own personal views.)
The complete text is available online at
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0410halloween.html
How Much Money Did You Make on
the War, Daddy?
by William D. Hartung
Subtitled "A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering
in the Bush
Administration," the 178-page book details how the Bush Cartel has
seamlessly united OUR government with the arms industry. Hartung
details
the intimate relationship between defense industry lobbyists, the
companies themselves, and the Bush administration. The reality is, you
can't figure out where one begins and the other ends.
III. Letters And Comments
Wonderful Analysis
Re: Vice Presidential Debate
(http://www.fpif.org/papers/0410fffp.html)
Wonderful analysis. Only addition I would have made: Any
reasoning/historical or nuanced discussion of the Israel situation by
candidates is taboo in American presidential elections. Always has been
so and will remain so under the two-party system.
- David Dietrich,
dd1787@adelphia.net
Stark Contrast
Re: A Failed "Transition": The Mounting Costs of the
Iraq War
(http://www.fpif.org/papers/0409iraqtrans.html)
The article offers stark contrast to the administration's thoughts and
policies on the War. I have just recently spent a number of days in New
York at the Foreign Policy Association's Leadership Forum. I listened
at
that event to Foreign Ministers from Spain, Poland, Mexico, and Russia.
Only the Russian Foreign Minister was optimistic, but then [Russian
President] Putin is beginning to end democracy in that country. We need
to get this and related news from your auspices to those of the mass
media. Unfortunately, I know what a Herculean task that will be. Thanks
for your efforts to keep us informed!
- Bill Weightman,
William.Weightman@dol.state.nj.us
Pacifying Iraq
Re: A Failed "Transition": The Mounting Costs of the
Iraq War
(http://www.fpif.org/papers/0409iraqtrans.html)
The author(s) describe why the methods implemented by the Bush
administration in attempting to "pacify" Iraq are failing. One
notable exception may, however, be a proper labeling of the Bush
administration's obvious attempt at adopting a shopworn version of what
in the 1960s was referred to as "Vietnamization" of the Vietnam
War.
The current attempts by the Bush administration at
"Iraqization" (similar in scope, pace, and intent to
"Vietnamization") include: (a) an American military invasion,
(b) followed by an American military occupation, (c) unrealistic
American
presidential expectations that Iraq's indigenous peoples would become
enraptured with an American vision of democracy and would, as a result,
heartily swarm to the side of "righteousness and justice," and
(d) Iraqis would choose to take up arms in an attempt to wrest control
from their fellow countrymen instead of the occupiers.
The Bush administration myopically, and in spite of recent history, has
failed to appreciate that liberty means freedom from all external
forces,
including those being imposed in Iraq by the United States. Freedom
"grows from the inside out, not the outside in."
- Robert Burrell,
rburrell@usg.com