SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (67242)1/20/2003 8:19:02 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
We see this strategy repeatedly. Take some fringe element in a demonstration

It's fair play if the "fringe element" organized the demonstration, printed up the signs, and chose the speakers.

Do you think Alterman is trying to label the protestors?



To: JohnM who wrote (67242)1/20/2003 8:51:52 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Sigh, again.


I think everybody has been pretty restrained about it, John. No "Commie Dupes!" except in your reaction to it. Lets remember those here that are not happy about the marchers have to put up with "Cheney and his Friends," "Bush the Idiot," "Arrogant Neocons," etc, on a daily basis from some of our fellow posters.

The media's portrayal of the marchers as "Mr and Mrs Moderate, with kids, from flyover country" was a distortion in the other direction, IMO. Some of the signs in DC were, "USA Is #1 Terrorist," "Bush Is a Terrorist," "The NYPD Are Terrorists Too," and "Get the Terrorists Out of the White House." But if you went by the reporters, they were all patriots acting in the American tradition of dissent. Harmless old ladies, middle-American Republicans, and well-dressed students. Give me a break!



To: JohnM who wrote (67242)1/21/2003 12:22:14 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
<<...Some have argued that the Bush administration does not truly mean to go to war in Iraq, that this incredible buildup has been a diplomatic tool to pressure Saddam Hussein into UN compliance. Done properly, this might have been a canny process. With this administration, however, it is a game of Russian Roulette with five bullets in the chamber. This is the administration that has told the world, though its bungling of the North Korea situation, that the best way to deal with America is to blackmail us with nuclear weapons. This is the administrations whose utter disregard for diplomatic engagement has caused the Israel/Palestine situation to worsen dramatically in the last two years...>>
_____________________________________

There's Something Happening Here
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday January 19 2003

Someone once said that convictions are tested not when things are easy, or when circumstances do not challenge the mettle of your beliefs. Convictions are tested when standing on your principles causes inconvenience and pain. If you are able to withstand the test with your convictions intact, you come away with a clearer knowledge of your own strength.

There are thousands and thousands of Americans today who can say their convictions passed intact through a small but significant testing. They came by bus, by car, by rail and by plane to the nation's capitol to shout down a push for war in Iraq. Citizens from as far away as Alaska and Oklahoma made the trek, a sacrifice of time and money that is noteworthy. Moreover, these people endured for an entire day temperatures that lingered several degrees below freezing down on the Mall.

If you think that is not a test, try it sometime. While standing and listening to several hours of speeches, the cold crawls through your boots and up your legs, turning your feet and toes into blocks of frozen wood. The muscle cramps begin once the skin loses feeling. Your face becomes a chapped mask. Speaking is painful. The skin of your hands reddens and cracks. Simple tasks like writing and shaking hands become a misery, even with gloves on. The wind is always there. At the end of it all, when your body has lost circulation and the pain truly becomes all-encompassing, you are asked to walk from the Capitol steps to the Navy Pier so you can do it all over again.

Anyone could have bailed when it became too uncomfortable, but I did not see anyone taking themselves away from the scene. The purpose behind the International ANSWER Coalition's rally against looming war was far to important to walk away from. At stake is nothing more or less than the future of this republic.

A war in Iraq, pursued in the unilateralist fashion the Bush administration is slowly being relegated to by disinterest and hostility from former coalition members, would leave us isolated in a time of unprecedented danger. A pre-emptive strike would set a precedent for other nations around the world, further destabilizing an already rocky global situation. Thousands of American troops could be killed, and tens of thousands more face the permanent disability from exposure to chemicals, ill-tested vaccines and petroleum smoke that some 28% of veterans from the last Gulf War currently endure.

A unilateral attack without international support would assuredly bring more terrorism to our shores. When those fires go out, they will have done more than extinguish more innocent American lives. Those fires will burn to ash, finally and irrevocably, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We have seen the Bush administration's rights-restricting reaction to the first attack. Further attacks will motivate them to finish the job once and for all.

The war will not be fought 'over there.' It will be right here, on your street and mine. It will be fought with those constitutional protections so many of us have come to take for granted right there on the firing line.

Some have argued that the Bush administration does not truly mean to go to war in Iraq, that this incredible buildup has been a diplomatic tool to pressure Saddam Hussein into UN compliance. Done properly, this might have been a canny process. With this administration, however, it is a game of Russian Roulette with five bullets in the chamber. This is the administration that has told the world, though its bungling of the North Korea situation, that the best way to deal with America is to blackmail us with nuclear weapons. This is the administrations whose utter disregard for diplomatic engagement has caused the Israel/Palestine situation to worsen dramatically in the last two years.

When a nation sends 150,000 troops into a region, along with all of the weapons of war, the situation develops an inertia of its own. The administration may once have seen this as a bluff. Now, they are faced with the reality that backing down will be an embarrassing and expensive defeat.

Some frostbite is a small price to pay for taking part in an action to see such a disaster stopped in its tracks.

Counting the pinked noses at this protest is, as ever, something of a subjective affair. The organizers pegged the crowd at 500,000 people, but few in the media believed that to be accurate. A more likely number falls between 200,000 and 300,000 people. Whatever the actual numbers may be, the crowd stood shoulder to shoulder from 3rd street, in front of the Capitol building, all the way down the Washington Mall to the Washington Monument. It was a sea of signs and faces that, when on the march from the Capitol to the Navy Pier, stretched for several miles.

D.C. police chief Charles Ramsey said, "It's one of the biggest ones we've had, certainly in recent times." U.S. Capitol Police chief Terrance Gainer said, "I know everyone is skittish about saying a number, but this was big. An impressive number." A C-SPAN cameraman I spoke to spent the entire protest on the roof of a cargo truck just to the side of the stage. He told me that he had covered dozens of protests in his time, and that the crowd on Saturday was the biggest he had ever seen.

Combined with the hundreds of thousands of protesters who came to Washington during the relatively balmier late-October rally, the number of people who have gone out of their way to say 'No' to Mr. Bush in downtown Washington is creeping slowly towards one million strong. This, for a war that has not started yet. The crowds on Saturday and in October had their share of fringe elements; the inevitable free-Mumia-free-Peltier-super-socialist folks were loud and proud. What made Saturday notable were the tens and tens of thousands of very average, mainstream Americans who braved the distance and the elements to be there. The rally became a referendum against so much of what the Bush administration has done, from rights restrictions to economic malfeasance. God help the administration if they get this one wrong.

The rally in Washington coincided with massive gatherings all across the nation and the world. In San Francisco, over 100,000 people marched. They were joined by huge protests in Michigan, Oregon, Boston, Denver, Portland, Moscow, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong and elsewhere. At one point during the Washington rally, I spoke with British Labour Minister Jeremy Corbyn. He could not explain Tony Blair's slavish adherence to Bush policy - noting at one point that a recent poll in Britain showed that 97% of the people there think Blair is far too close to Bush - but he was clear in one respect: The people of England do not support this action, and the looming February 15th protests there promise to be enormous.

This was not some isolated twitch to be dismissed. Saturday, January 18th was a day when a good portion of America and the world stood in solidarity against a very bad idea being promulgated by an American administration whose priorities are badly out of joint. It bears notice, again, to point out that the war has not even started yet. There is something happening here, and it is getting clearer by the day.

-------

William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two books - "War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003 from Pluto Press. He teaches high school in Boston, MA.

Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.

truthout.org



To: JohnM who wrote (67242)1/21/2003 1:40:02 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Fundamental Arab reform can't be had by force

By Fawaz A. Gerges
Commentary > Opinion
The Christian Science Monitor
from the January 21, 2003 edition

BRONXVILLE, N.Y. – Whether the US wars with Iraq or not, it should understand that only through careful diplomacy - not force - is there hope for undermining extremism and diminishing anti-Americanism in the world of Islam.

There is no need to sell the idea of America to Muslims, because many of them are dazzled with the American dream.

It's America's "unjust, inconsistent" foreign policy that most Muslim grievances focus on.

Now State Department officials appreciate that winning Muslim hearts and minds requires a broader political strategy than relying on slick commercials produced by the revived Office of Public Diplomacy.

Indeed, recent pronouncements by US Secretary of State Colin Powell and his aides show signs of movement in the right direction by taking into account the root causes of Arab despair.

Mr. Powell recently introduced the "US-Middle East Partnership Initiative" which aims to spread democracy and political reforms in the Middle East, including the empowerment of women. The "three pillars" of this proposed US-Middle East bridge are education, business, and political and private-sector reforms. Although only $29 million is allocated for the first part of the initiative, "significant additional funding" was promised next year.

Powell's director of policy planning, Richard Haass, acknowledged that "successive US administrations, Republicans and Democrat[s] alike" had erred by not making "democratization a sufficient priority" with its Arab allies. He made it very clear that an important part of the solution lies in promoting democracy and providing economic and educational opportunities for the alienated youths who have served as a fertile recruiting ground for militant groups.

But what's alarming is the negative reception this progressive step has gotten in the ranks of pro-US Arab governments and civil society leaders. Arab officials criticized it for misplaced focus on reforming Arab politics at the expense of trying to resolve the dangerous Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Witness how the secular, pro-US regimes use the threat of the Arab street to maintain the authoritarian status quo: Egyptian and Saudi foreign ministers warned the administration that interference in their internal affairs would be unacceptable and would generate a further public backlash against the US.

More disconcerting is that few Arab opinionmakers have taken the new ideas emanating from Washington seriously and most dismiss them as part of a propaganda ploy designed to distract attention from the coming war in Iraq. Moreover, they've derided the Powell initiative to help democratize the Arab world by suggesting that $29 million is a paltry sum - "Just six cents for every Arab!" opined a leading liberal Arab columnist.

Rejecting Powell's initiative and labeling it "suspicious," Egyptian opposition parties, along with human rights organizations, vowed "to organize public protests against it."

Why incite the populace against a US initiative, humble as it is, intended to nourish civil society? Why discredit democracy further in Muslim eyes by cynically linking it to mischievous US designs? Or is the goal to capitalize on widespread anti-American sentiments and garner popular support even at the expense of democracy?

Anti-Americanism in the Arab world has become a tool used by all political factions handicapping its politics and slowing any move toward democracy.

Clearly there is a general misunderstanding of the potential US role in furthering democracy among Arabs and Muslims as well as of the required conditions for it. On the one hand, Muslim liberals believe that the US possesses a magic wand that can easily open Muslim eyes to democratic paradise. On the other hand, Islamists and leftists more or less subscribe to a conspiracy theory holding Washington mainly responsible for the absence of democracy in the Arab world. Both positions indirectly imply that Arabs and Muslims aren't to blame for the dismal political and economic situation in which they live - that it's the fault of the US.

Neither the US nor any external power can do the work for Arabs and Muslims by exporting a well-tailored democratic model. Democracy can't be offered on a silver platter - nor can it be achieved without democrats.

Experience shows that liberal forces must struggle to expand the political space and thus earn a place among the community of democrats. Those genuine democrats, who tirelessly defend personal freedoms and liberties of all members of society, not just their own, are in short supply in Arab lands. The politics of exclusion and intolerance predominates.

The most the US can do is to serve as a facilitator, to show by deeds, not just words, its commitment to sustainable development and peaceful resolutions of regional conflicts.

In particular, the Arab-Israeli dispute has exhausted meager local resources and impeded political evolution. To encourage genuine democratic transition, the US must exert unflinching pressure on its Arab allies to expand political participation and to show respect for the rule of law and the free assent of peoples.

This requires a convincing and consistent approach to human rights, missing in the US approach to the Middle East. For example, while the US demands the democratization of the Palestinian Authority, it maintains cozy relations with other Middle Eastern dictators.

American officials must recognize that there are limits to what they can do to structurally reform the Arab Middle East. Only Arabs and Muslims, with international assistance, can, and should democratically transform their own societies.
__________________________________________

• Fawaz A. Gerges is a professor of international affairs and Middle Eastern studies at Sarah Lawrence College and is author of the forthcoming 'The Islamists and the West.'

csmonitor.com