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 (76421)2/21/2003 8:37:19 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Kerry Proposes 'Progressive Internationalism' As Alternative To 'Blustering' Bush Approach

Friday, January 24, 2003 By: Scott Shepard

Cox News Service

WASHINGTON --- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry derided what he called the ‘‘belligerent and myopic unilateralism’’ of the Bush administration’s foreign policy Thursday, promising to replace it with ‘‘progressive internationalism’’ that works closer with allies to promote democracies and trade around the globe. And while he urged President Bush to rely more on diplomacy and international support before going to war to disarm Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Kerry also said the United States must always be ready to act alone when necessary. ‘‘Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an oppressive regime,’’ Kerry said. ‘‘And while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution’s decision, I say to the president, show respect for the process of international diplomacy . . . do not rush to war.’’ Kerry, a four-term senator from Massachusetts, delivered his critique of the Bush foreign policy in a speech at Georgetown University in Washington. It was his latest effort to bolster his party’s image on the issue of national security. ‘‘For Democrats to win America’s confidence, we must first convince Americans we will keep them safe,’’ he said. ‘‘You can’t do that by avoiding the subjects of national security, foreign policy and military preparedness. Nor can we let our national security agenda be defined by those who reflexively oppose any U.S. military intervention anywhere, who see U.S. power as mostly a malignant force in world politics, who place a higher value on achieving multilateral consensus than necessarily protecting our vital interests.’’ Kerry, who was decorated for heroism in the Vietnam War, delivered a similar assessment last summer in New York at a meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the centrist organization that served as a springboard to Bill Clinton’s successful campaign for president in 1992. But the task undertaken by Kerry to restore a foreign policy balance to the Democratic Party may be just as difficult as the task Clinton faced in moving the party back from its reliance on big government programs as a response to domestic problems. The difficulty of that task was reflected in a new poll released Thursday by Democracy Corps, a public policy research organization founded by former Clinton advisers James Carville and Stan Greenberg. The poll showed that on the issue of homeland security, Americans favor Republicans 54 to 16 percent over Democrats. At a breakfast with reporters to publicize the poll, Greenberg noted that while Bush continues to have solid support on foreign policy issues, Americans are beginning to be uncomfortable with the president’s go-it-alone approach. Americans are recognizing that ‘‘being unpopular in the world in this environment has consequences,’’ he added. Still, ‘‘Democrats have got to put defense and foreign policy issues on the table,’’ Carville said. ‘‘Democrats can’t just talk about health care and environment and prescription drugs. Democrats have to present a reasonable, rational position for use of American power in the world.’’

Kerry sought to do just that with his speech Thursday, arguing for a ‘‘bold progressive internationalism’’ that ‘‘commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity’’ through international coalitions and expanded trade, a formula that should begin immediately in the Middle East. He noted that the Muslim world had become a breeding ground for hostility to the West as a result of political repression, economic stagnation, population growth and lack of education. ‘‘With creative leadership, the U.S. can enlist our allies in a sustained multilateral campaign to build bridges between the community of democracies and the greater Middle East,’’ he said. Kerry, one of six Democrats vying to be the party’s presidential candidate, said the Bush administration’s ’’blustering unilateralism’’ was wrong and dangerous. ‘‘It has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world,’’ he said. ‘‘The U.S. should never go to war because it wants to,’’ he added. ‘‘The U.S. should go to war because we have to.’’ War isn’t justified ‘‘until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people,’’ he said.

johnkerry.com



To: JohnM who wrote (76421)2/22/2003 12:06:50 AM
From: Rollcast...  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Chavez Seeks Prison for Two Dissidents

We have our own little Saddam growing in VZ right now. What did Carter's trip bring? Once again, stabilizing a dictator and enabling repression... just like North Korea and Nicaragua.

washingtonpost.com




Desde Washington







By JAMES ANDERSON
The Associated Press
Friday, February 21, 2003; 8:17 PM

President Hugo Chavez demanded 20-year prison terms Friday for two prominent opponents who directed a nationwide strike that devastated Venezuela's oil-based economy.

Carlos Fernandez, head of Venezuela's largest business chamber, and Carlos Ortega, leader of its biggest labor confederation, are charged with treason and other crimes for the two-month strike, which cost more than $4 billion.

Fernandez was arrested by secret police Wednesday and hauled into court Friday. Ortega went into hiding when a judge issued an arrest warrant.

Thousands protested Fernandez's arrest in the western oil city of Maracaibo. Hundreds more rallied in Caracas and blocked a highway.

"These oligarchs believed that they were untouchable. There are no untouchables in Venezuela. A criminal is a criminal," Chavez thundered during a ceremony handing land titles to peasants in Trujillo state.

He demanded a 20-year term for Fernandez, president of Fedecamaras, and for Ortega, of the Venezuelan Workers Confederation, for allegedly sabotaging the oil industry, inciting civil disobedience "and trampling the human rights of the Venezuelan people."

The treason charge carries a 20- to 26-year prison term.

Oil is Venezuela's strategic industry, and its exports were the fifth-largest in the world before the strike began Dec. 2. The strike ended Feb. 4, but Chavez's government is battling a continuing walkout in the oil industry.

Citing nationwide hardship caused by gasoline shortages, Chavez condemned Fernandez and Ortega as "terrorists" who failed to topple his government - both during a brief April coup and this winter.

Fernandez's case was transferred Friday from a judge who had acted as defense attorney for Chavez supporters accused of shooting at opposition marchers before the April coup. A second judge was to decide Saturday if Fernandez should remain in custody pending trial.

The tempestuous Chavez also had a message for foreign critics of Fernandez's arrest. The United States, Organization of American States and other entities voiced concern that Venezuela's crisis is escalating.

"I want to remind all the governments of the world that Venezuela is a sovereign country! We are nobody's colony!" Chavez shouted.

Fernandez's arrest fueled speculation Chavez has begun a crackdown on his opponents.

Chavez won't allow strikers access to U.S. dollars under a new foreign exchange system, and he has threatened to shut down broadcast media for inciting rebellion. He also has warned he will seize private businesses and property to deliver gasoline, food and other basics.

The labor confederation, meanwhile, said it wasn't planning another strike to protest Fernandez's arrest.

The OAS, the United Nations and the Carter Center, run by former President Jimmy Carter, have sponsored three months of talks to seek an electoral solution to Venezuela's crisis. The future of those talks was in doubt after Fernandez's arrest.

Venezuela's opposition wants early elections and collected more than 4 million signatures to back its demand. The government dismisses the petition drive; Venezuela's elections authority is in shambles.

Chavez is a former paratrooper who was elected in 1998 and re-elected in 2000 to a six-year term. He vows to distribute Venezuela's oil riches to the poor. Critics accuse him of imposing an authoritarian state and driving the economy into the ground.

© 2003 The Associated Press



To: JohnM who wrote (76421)2/22/2003 12:12:29 AM
From: Rollcast...  Respond to of 281500
 
Venezuela names `Carlos The Jackal's' brother to top post

WHere is the outrage from the American "left"?

PETROLEUMWORLD

petroleumworld.com

DJ -The brother of Venezuelan terrorist Carlos Ramirez Sanchez, better known as "Carlos the Jackal," has been named Director of Energy at the Venezuelan Energy and Mines Ministry, a ministry spokeswoman said Friday.

Lenin Ramirez Sanchez, an electrical engineer who had held a management post at state-owned electricity utility Cadafe, was named director almost a month ago and is now the third highest ranking official at the ministry, the spokeswoman said.

The decision is likely to stir controversy within and outside of Venezuela.

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez caused a stir in April 1999 when he sent a letter to Carlos Ramirez Sanchez expressing his "human solidarity," saying "every human being deserves respect."

The Venezuelan-born Carlos Ramirez Sanchez is serving life in prison for the 1975 murders of two French secret agents and an alleged informer. He is under investigation for three terrorist attacks in the 1980's and he was arrested in Sudan in 1994.

Sources at the ministry say the appointment of Lenin Ramirez Sanchez didn't go down well within the ministry: "Not because he is the brother of Carlos, but because they removed Luis Villanueva from the director's post without any reason," said one. Director Luis Villanueva was removed by the Oil Minister and appointed to another post within the ministry.

Several government officials have said Venezuela couldn't consider the "Carlos the Jackal" a terrorist because he hadn't committed a crime here. Chavez later labeled the comments a "mistake."

Venezuela is currently going through a severe crisis as opposition toward the government is mounting. Civil associations, the business sector and the largest labor union want Chavez to resign or call for early elections. Chavez has balked at calling early elections.

By Fred Pals, Dow Jones Newswires; fred.pals@dowjones.com;

CARACAS



To: JohnM who wrote (76421)2/22/2003 3:02:36 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Bush Knows the Jig Is Up: So Let's Hurry on to Baghdad

By Bernard Weiner
The Crisis Papers
Friday 21 February 2003

One can almost sense a palpable shifting of momentum, from an unrestricted Bush war-juggernaut rolling to its bloody unfolding to an administration caught between Iraq and a hard place, condemned if it unleashes the dogs of war (imperial warmonger), condemned if it pulls back and bides its time (wimp).

In a sense, what's transpiring reminds one of the delicious secret of "The Wizard of Oz": more and more people are beginning to sense, and sometimes even see, that the "all-powerful" governmental leader behind the curtain is just a flawed little man broadcasting to an overly-awed (and/or frightened) polity. Or, to shift fairytales: "The Emperor's New Clothes," where the leader, who has been nude all this while for all to see, suddenly finds that his subjects, heretofore willing to swallow the illusion of the emperor's new garments, realize that he's not wearing any.

In short, Bush is just another leader -- not even an elected one at that -- who, to disguise his incompetency and true motives, has lived on propaganda and falsification, and now the jig is up. His citizens are beginning to see through the charade -- even many who once supported him, including a good many ordinary, moderate Republicans, appalled at the powers assumed by Big Government and its willingness to eviserate the Constitution in its push toward more and more authoritarian control.

Certainly those outside the United States have seen through America's ostensible leader, and they, being more familiar with imperial arrogance, have not liked what they've seen. No, not at all. Even though they know they might pay a high price for telling the emperor to his face that he's full of bullbleep and that they refuse to have blood on their hands just because he says it's time to go to war, they have stood up. (Sad to say, there are some signs of wavering these days.)

What's about to come down over the next several weeks doesn't look hopeful. Bush&Co. are pulling out all the stops -- threatening, bribing, cajoling, arm-twisting, bullying -- in an effort to smooth the path to war, to give fig-leaf cover to their rush to military onslaught devoid of overt evidence to justify the haste.

There IS going to be a war, you know. Bush&Co. will not have it any other way. The Bush&Co. domestic and global agenda requires it. How can you get your extremist domestic agenda passed unless a frightened Congress and populace rallies around the flag being unfurled in a Mideast desert? How can the U.S. exercise its "benevolent hegemony" of the globe (and totally by coincidence, have effective control of the world's natural resources) unless would-be upstarts get bombed to smithereens, to demonstrate to others that they'd better not make the same mistake of getting in our way? So, it's full speed to Baghdad.

Doesn't matter if the allies are opposed, doesn't matter if thousands of Iraqi citizens get slaughtered as the missiles rain down (no wonder "Guernica" was covered up when Powell arrived at the U.N.), doesn't matter if North Korea insanely is threatening nuclear war against the U.S., doesn't matter if the American citizenry doesn't want a pre-emptive war on its conscience, doesn't matter if America is torn apart by dissension and economic disaster, doesn't matter if millions are demonstrating in the streets of America even before bombing has begun -- none of that matters. (Reminiscent of what Bush once told an ordinary citizen when that man deigned to criticize him at some public event: "What do I care what you think?")

But, let's clear up something right away. Iraq War #2 already has begun. U.S. special forces are currently operating in northern Iraq, moving to protect the oilfields from Saddam's orders to destroy them. U.S./British bombing of military targets is happening on a more frequent basis. Propaganda leaflets are already being released from U.S. planes over Iraq, warning soldiers not to follow the orders of their superiors to use biological or chemical armaments or risk "war crime" trials later.

So the war is on. All that's missing is "Shock & Awe" -- the U.S. plan for the first several days of missile attacks (hundreds and hundreds of them) aimed at Baghdad and Basra and elsewhere -- this to break the back and morale of Iraq's defense forces and to keep civilians from wanting to fight when the U.S./British troops arrive in downtown Baghdad.

There is little doubt that the U.S. onslaught will defeat the Iraqi forces -- ignoring for a moment what might happen if and when Saddam uncorks his biochem agents and aims them at the invaders. But, per usual when it comes to Bush foreign/military policy, little thought has been given to the consequences of what happens when the dogs of war are loosed on the world scene, especially on that ready-to-explode part of the world. (But this is in keeping with Bush&Co.'s we'll-deal-with-the-consequences-later domestic agenda -- for example, pushing for more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate sectors in the face of an economy that already is in shambles because of earlier take-the-money-and-run policies.)

So, here we are -- we liberals and progressives and radicals and moderates -- congratulating ourselves on our marvelous work of the past few months, building a stop-the-war coaliton here and abroad that culminated in those fantastically impressive marches and rallies and demonstrations around the world and throughout the U.S. last weekend (perhaps as many as 11 million! peacefully protesting). True, those demonstrations were effective morale boosters and put the fear of electoral defeat in the rulers of a number of countries as they saw millions of their normally passive, ordinary citizens marching in the streets.

But Bush&Co. will have their war. So, what we in the opposition need to do now is to start reckoning with an overt, shooting-war situation: How can we throw sand into our government's war machine? How can we mobilize for peace candidates? How can we help the Democrats become a true party of opposition? How can we best help educate more of our fellow citizens -- the ordinary, somewhat-troubled middle-class ones sitting on the sidelines for now -- about the duplicity of our rulers and the dangerous policies being carried out in our names? How can we move toward impeachment for this incompetent, dangerous-to-American-interests Administration?

In short, how can we use the energies displayed on the streets in the past few months to build a dynamic, unstoppable Movement for peace and justice and economic recovery?

Those of us who were active in the civil rights/anti-Vietnam War Movement of the '60s and '70s know how much work is involved in building to critical mass. it took years and years of hard, slogging work to eduate and agitate and begin to change the way the great American muddle class saw the world and their political leaders devoid of illusion.

That transition can be accomplished much faster in 2003 -- especially given the speed with which news and information and communications can be disseminated these days, via the Internet and television and cell phones.

Don't get me wrong. It's not going to be easy. And it's going to come at a heavy price for many -- who will be persecuted, arrested, beaten, perhaps killed, censored, etc. -- as the forces of reaction fight tooth and nail to hang onto their greed-and-power agenda.

But none of us doubts that the battle needs to be waged -- in as creative and life-affirming way as possible. Let's continue to try to stop the war from happening, but, if -- as seems likely -- we can't, let's get our nascent Movement in gear and revved-up for the fight ahead. If you love your country, and your Constitution, and the world, and your kids, we can do no less. Onward!

-------

Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught government & international relations at various universities, worked as an activist journalist during "The Sixties," was with the San Francisco Chronicle for nearly 20 years, and is co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).

truthout.org



To: JohnM who wrote (76421)2/22/2003 3:35:38 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Don't Put The Blame On Clinton



By Steve Ricchetti
Editorial
The Washington Post
Saturday, February 22, 2003

Charles Krauthammer's column blaming all the world's problems on former president Bill Clinton [op-ed, Feb. 14] echoes attacks by ultraconservative writers and regurgitates their anti-Clinton bile to distort history. Krauthammer's allegations are wrong and misleading. At a time when our nation is preparing for war, we should be serious about serious things, rather than gathering debating points to please one extreme of the political spectrum. Consider:

Iraq. In 1991 we had 500,000 troops in and around Iraq. President George H.W. Bush decided on a strategy of containment, not overthrow. During the Clinton years, military force was deployed against Iraq on four occasions, including an intensive four-day air campaign in 1998 that significantly set back Iraq's program of weapons of mass destruction. As a result of the Clinton administration's efforts -- the combination of sanctions, strong enforcement of the no-fly zone and military action -- the Iraq our troops face today is far weaker than it was a decade ago.

North Korea. Pyongyang's nuclear program was built up during the 1970s and '80s, and the plutonium possibly used to make one or two nuclear weapons was created before Clinton took office. It was Clinton -- taking a firm stand, as opposed to the current confused posture of the United States -- who froze North Korea's plutonium production operation. Were it not for Clinton's leadership, North Korea would have enough plutonium to make at least 50 nuclear bombs today.

Terrorism. Krauthammer, citing terrorist attacks during the 1990s, claims we were on a "holiday from history" in our response. He should look a little farther back in the history books. Nearly 500 of our citizens died at the hands of foreign terrorists during the Reagan administration, including 241 Marines at barracks in Lebanon, to which that administration's response was promptly to withdraw. The 1980s were the most ravaging decade of terrorism against Americans before Sept. 11, 2001. Except for a single bombing run against Libya one day in April 1986, there was no significant military response.

Under the Clinton administration, fighting terrorism became a national priority. Counterterrorism funding doubled. Force was used against Osama bin Laden and Iraq. Multiple terrorist plots were stopped, including plans to blow up tunnels and the United Nations headquarters and to strike U.S. targets during our millennium celebrations. Al Qaeda cells were rolled up in more than 20 countries. Dozens of important terrorist fugitives were apprehended.

Where were Republican leaders then? Some were busy opposing key efforts to strengthen laws designed to combat terrorists. Others criticized significant counterterrorism funding requests. Perhaps I missed Krauthammer's column at the time chiding his Republican friends for "kicking the can" down the road.

By the way, if any leading Republicans were calling for military action against Afghanistan during the Clinton administration, it is hard to find evidence of it in the public record of that time. Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush certainly did not.

As for the allegation that Sudan "offered up" Osama bin Laden to us in 1996, it's a right-wing lie. It didn't happen. If a more robust strategy for combating international terrorism was obvious before 9/11, President Bush had nine months to initiate it. He did not.

The Balkans. Krauthammer's dismissive description of America's successful efforts to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide in the Balkans as "teacup wars" will come as a shock to the hundreds of thousands of people saved by American action and to the thousands of families who lost loved ones to Serbian aggression. His swipe at those conflicts also insults the courage of the U.S. soldiers who risked their lives in combat in Bosnia and Kosovo and grossly ignores the strategic threat that war in Western Europe's back yard represented.

Every president inherits a world full of problems. From the first President Bush, Clinton inherited a brewing genocide in the Balkans, growing tension in the Middle East, a standoff in Northern Ireland, unrest in Haiti, an unstable situation in Russia, a healthy and dangerous Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and an emerging terrorist threat. It's not former president Bush's fault that these crises carried over, and Clinton certainly didn't spend the next two years blaming his predecessor for them. America and the world were better prepared and able to meet each of these challenges at the end of the Clinton administration than at the beginning.

We should work together to confront the threats to our nation today. But by giving Bill Clinton no credit for his achievements and all the blame for our present problems, Krauthammer's "Holiday From History" column is one long holiday from reality.

The writer was President Clinton's deputy chief of staff.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

washingtonpost.com



To: JohnM who wrote (76421)2/23/2003 6:37:23 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
I watch Joe Klein on TV Saturday hawking his book. He sounds like Freidman. They are both moderate Liberals who are conflicted on Iraq. They remind me of a couple of my teenage girlfriends. They admit we are going to do it, they just don't like the way we got to the point of doing it, and are afraid of what will happen after we do it. "Time" Magazine.

Monday, Feb. 24, 2003
The Blinding Glare of His Certainty
By JOE KLEIN

George W. Bush lives at the intersection of faith and inexperience. This is not a reassuring address, especially in a time of trouble. His public utterances are often measured and elegant, but there are frequent and rather grating lapses too. There is a tendency to ricochet between piety and puerility, an odd juxtaposition that raises a discomforting theological question: What is it about the President's religious faith that makes him seem so jaunty as he faces the most fateful decision a President can make. Last week Bush careened from restrained but persistent evangelism before a convention of religious broadcasters to casual trash-talking with sailors in Jacksonville, Fla. "The terrorists brought this war to us, and now we're takin' it back to them," he told the troops, leaning an elbow on the lectern, squinting crosswise at the camera, tossing a breathy Clint Eastwood chuckle. "We're on their trail, we're smokin' them out, we've got 'em on the run." One imagined the French Foreign Minister watching this lunch-hour martial spectacle and choking on his baguette.

There has been a great deal of nonsense written about Bush's religious convictions, much of it emanating from Europe ? a continent where God has been relegated to the back pews ? and from secular intellectuals at home. So let's be clear: Bush's public piety is not unique or extreme among Presidents. At the dawn of the cold war, Harry Truman said, "I have the feeling that God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose. And up to now we have been shirking it."

Furthermore, there is scant evidence that the President is either messianic or a hard-edged religious determinist. Bush and I had several discussions about faith (and faith-based social programs) back when he was Governor of Texas, and he never displayed the vaguest hint of dogmatism or sense of destiny. Quite the contrary: his faith was humble and, well, soft. It softened his cowboy-preppie heart, especially when he was in the presence of poverty and despair. He used words like love and heart more than any other presidential candidate I've ever seen. It was a rudimentary form of compassion, to be sure. When suffering became an abstraction ? a budget item ? Bush lost the sensitivity he had when he confronted poor people directly. His faith enabled him to appreciate those who gave their lives to the poor, but it didn't force him to struggle toward a deeper, detailed understanding of poverty or what could be done about it.

And this, I think, is at the heart of what is disturbing about Bush's faith in this moment of national crisis: it does not discomfort him enough; it does not impel him to have second thoughts, to explore other intellectual possibilities or question the possible consequences of his actions. I asked one of Bush's closest advisers last week if the President had struggled with his Iraq decision. "No," he said, peremptorily, then quickly amended, "He understands the enormity of it, he understands the nuances, but has there been hand-wringing or existential angst along the way? No." (This, in contrast to his torturous quasi-Solomonic decision on stem-cell research.)

There are religious traditions ? the Jesuits, the Jews, the Shi'ites, certain suffering segments of Protestantism ? for which grace is a constant anguish, a goal never quite attained but approached through learning or good works. "The Evangelicals take their marching orders from Paul, who said you have to 'work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,'" Martin E. Marty, the University of Chicago theologian, told me last week. "The implication is that once you've worked it out, once you've been born again, you don't have to be fearful or tremble so much anymore."

There are plenty of thoughtful, angst-ridden Evangelicals, of course; the President's simple swagger isn't merely a consequence of his religious faith. He has long disdained the tortured moral relativism he first encountered at Yale. He doesn't come from the most introspective of families. And he has recently found an intellectual home in the secular evangelism of the neoconservatives, who posit a stark world of American good and authoritarian evil. But George W. Bush's faith offers no speed bumps on the road to Baghdad; it does not give him pause or force him to reflect. It is a source of comfort and strength but not of wisdom.

The American tradition of wartime leadership seems more subdued. The most memorable images are gaunt and painful: the haunted Lincoln; the dark circles under Franklin Roosevelt's eyes; Kennedy standing alone, in shadows, during the Cuban missile crisis. This is a moment far more ambiguous than any of those; intellectual anguish is permissible. War may be the correct choice, but it can't be an easy one. The world might have more confidence in the judgment of this President if he weren't always bathed in the blinding glare of his own certainty.

time.com