Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 (79125)	3/2/2003 11:08:06 PM
From: FaultLine	Respond to of 281500

A Pivot Point for the Middle East nytimes.com By JAMES BENNET March 2, 2003 JERUSALEM, March 1 — Since last June, the Bush administration has premised its policy toward peace in the Middle East on what is apparently a paradox: it has sought an act of selfless statesmanship from a leader, Yasir Arafat, whom it regards as no statesman. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the administration has intently worked toward what it calls regime change, but in the Palestinian Authority it has contented itself with periodic public gestures and demands. It has refused to send high-level envoys to Mr. Arafat, while demanding that he step aside as Palestinian leader in the interests of restarting peace negotiations and ultimately of achieving a state for his people. Mr. Arafat has not done so, contending that it is up to the Palestinians to pick their leaders. While this impasse has endured, so has the essential dynamic of the conflict, despite all the suffering and violence by both Israelis and Palestinians in the last year. As the administration's attention shifted to other crises, Palestinian attacks continued, Israeli soldiers operated more and more freely in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Israeli blockades of Palestinian cities tightened and Israeli settlements grew. The impasse over Mr. Arafat is also likely to muffle the immediate effects of two significant developments here this week, a renewed vow by President Bush to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's formation of a new right-wing Israeli government. In a speech in Washington, Mr. Bush envisioned peace here as he sought support for a war in Iraq, much as his administration once spoke of achieving Middle East peace as it sought support for the Afghan war. Mr. Bush predicted that new leadership in Iraq would better position Palestinians "to choose new leaders" and halt all violence. That message has important implications for the second development. Mr. Sharon created his coalition with the participation of two parties that oppose any Palestinian state — a declared goal of Mr. Bush and a declared concession of Mr. Sharon — and that passionately support the settler movement, which the United States has traditionally considered an obstacle to peace. Mr. Bush appeared to be softening the demands on Israel in a draft for a "road map" to peace by the so-called diplomatic quartet of the United States, United Nations, the European Union and Russia. As drafted, the plan called for immediate concessions by both sides, including insisting that Israel dismantle settlement outposts built since March 2001. The Israeli government has proposed numerous modifications to the road map, and the Bush administration has repeatedly postponed its announcement of a final plan. As long as the Americans keep the pressure on Mr. Arafat and do not demand action against settlements or progress toward negotiations — that is, as long as Mr. Sharon can continue functioning as he has been — the far-right in the government and the hawks in Mr. Sharon's Likud Party are unlikely to become restive. They may not even urge Mr. Sharon to renegotiate his pledge to Mr. Bush two years ago not to harm Mr. Arafat, because as long as Mr. Arafat remains in the West Bank, their potential disagreements with Americans and each other over proceeding toward peace are moot, at least judging by Washington's present approach. Mr. Sharon has said that his pledge not to harm Mr. Arafat was all that kept him from trying to force him into exile last year. Further, Mr. Sharon has set himself up to function as the chief moderating voice on security matters in his cabinet. If Mr. Arafat is the Bush administration's dispensable man, Mr. Sharon in the short term may seem even more indispensable to the administration than he has been, as it seeks to keep matters relatively calm here during an Iraqi campaign. Mr. Sharon has replaced as foreign minister his old rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, with a relative novice, Silvan Shalom, a change that puts Mr. Sharon firmly in control of his foreign policy. To some diplomats here, with the appointment of Mr. Netanyahu as finance minister instead, Mr. Sharon is preparing to face up to Israel's dire economic situation and yawning budget deficit. Israel is seeking a large aid package from the Bush administration, which in turn is seeking economic reforms. Further, by including the settlers' parties while excluding parties that represent ultra-Orthodox Jews, Mr. Sharon may be signaling where he plans to let the budget ax fall. Shinui, a secular, centrist party that has also joined the government, is a firm opponent of subsidies for the religious. In this analysis, it is Israel's economy, rather than resolving the conflict, that preoccupies Mr. Sharon. But to some political analysts, Mr. Sharon is not planning far ahead but merely maneuvering, clumsily at times, to stay a step or two ahead of his multiplying rivals and policy headaches. Itzhak Galnoor, a Hebrew University political scientist, said Mr. Sharon simply felt comfortable embracing the settlers' parties, the National Religious Party and National Union, which also served at times in his last coalition. "For him this is not far right," he said. "Those are people who believe in things that are not far from his heart." He noted that Mr. Sharon had awarded the Ministry of Construction and Housing to Effi Eitam, the leader of the National Religious Party. Mr. Sharon himself held that post, and used it to expand the settlements, in the early 1990's under Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. At bottom, leaders on both sides are seeking to keep their options open until the expected war in Iraq is under way, which they think will cause the White House to return its attention here and perhaps adjust its policy. "Once this operation starts, things will start moving again here," said Shmuel Sandler, a political scientist at Bar-Ilan University. If concessions are demanded, Mr. Sharon can argue that his right-wing coalition gives him little room to maneuver. Or, if he wishes to act on his stated desire for an agreement that yields a limited Palestinian state in less than half of the West Bank and Gaza, he can sustain a break with the right and seek support from other factions, including the left-of-center Labor Party. For his part, Mr. Arafat has edged toward meeting the administration's demand, saying he will shortly appoint a prime minister, although he has not yet said who will it will be or what powers he will have. More than a year after being declared "irrelevant" by the Israeli government and shunned by the United States, Mr. Arafat remains at the pivot point of peace in the Middle East. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

To: JohnM who wrote (79125)	3/2/2003 11:10:38 PM
From: FaultLine	Respond to of 281500

Experts See High Risk of Strife in Iraq if Hussein Is Deposed nytimes.com By IAN FISHER March 1, 2003 BAGHDAD, Iraq — With war creeping ever closer, American officials and even some of Iraq's Muslim neighbors may still hold out hope that President Saddam Hussein can be persuaded to step down or even that he will be toppled from power. But experts on Iraq say the chances that Mr. Hussein will leave, on his own or because of a coup, remain very remote. The Iraqi leader has appeared composed and shows no sign of any readiness to go or any nervousness at the extent of internal opposition. But if he does leave, the outcome may be messy, unpredictable and very violent as old scores, suppressed by the governing Baath Party for more than three decades, are settled. "You have to anticipate that there is a high risk" of violence, said Judith Yaphe, senior research fellow at the National Defense University in Washington. "A lot of it will depend on how much law and order is controlled as quickly as possible by whatever follows the day after. That will be critical." In case of war, the task of imposing order would almost certainly fall — at least in the immediate term — to an American general, an option that would not be popular even among the millions in this proud nation who harbor little love for Mr. Hussein. Short of that, many experts agree that it is hard to imagine what satisfying alternative can emerge within a government that has been kept in place for 24 years by Mr. Hussein's absolute power. At the top of a list of questions is whether any new government will pass muster for the kind of "regime change" that Washington says it is determined to see. Would a new government, unvanquished in war, be any more willing to give up forbidden weapons that the Bush administration says Iraq has? Could a democratic leader emerge in this deeply divided nation, which many Iraqis themselves believe requires a strong, even autocratic, leader to stay united? Who, even far down the ranks beneath Mr. Hussein, is untainted by the workings of a security apparatus that by any measure is one of the most pervasive in the world? While Mr. Hussein does rely on a cadre of competent technocrats, who have helped overcome the devastation of two wars and 12 years of international isolation, there are no voices of opposition, let alone opposition parties. Whatever the uncertainties, many leaders appear to have concluded that it is worth exploring means to oust Mr. Hussein from within if the alternative is all-out war. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said that Mr. Hussein may be able to escape war crimes charges if he finds a safe haven in another country. "I think that that would be a fair trade to avoid a war," Mr. Rumsfeld said last month. But experts note that Mr. Hussein is a man concerned about his place in Arab history — citing the palaces, mosques and monuments rising around Baghdad as evidence — and that stepping down could be a fatal cut to his honor. In a nation where Mr. Hussein claimed to have won 100 percent of the vote in the last election, many Iraqis say he should not step down in the face of an invasion. "I think his character is almost the same as any Iraqis," said Abdulwahab al-Qassab, a political scientist at the University of Baghdad, who said most Iraqis would never consent to be ruled by foreigners. It is also hard to find anyone who will dare speculate what Iraq may look like after Mr. Hussein. But outside experts say the nightmare chain of events will be that the Baath Party will collapse quickly and completely and Iraq will tumble into civil war, with its deep divisions between the Kurds, Arabs, Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims. That possibility preyed on the minds of the administration of President Bush's father when it decided not to pursue the Persian Gulf war of 1991 to the point of ridding Iraq of Mr. Hussein. If the nation holds together without Mr. Hussein, experts do not rule out a period of extreme violence as groups vie for power and position. Others say that even if Mr. Hussein can be persuaded to go, he will try to leave power in the hands of one of his aides or his younger son, Qusay, 36. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service identified Izzat Ibrahim, vice chairman of the nation's top governing body, the Revolutionary Command Council, and Taha Yassin Ramadan, the country's first vice president, as other possible candidates. "This is a relatively problematic scenario for Washington," said Jeremy Binnie, Middle East editor of Jane's Sentinel, which analyzes the risks of conflicts around the world. "That doesn't constitute regime change. What the Americans will be looking for, if there is that kind of pushing out or coup, is to basically engage with the new regime to be sure that they would disarm." Most experts interviewed agree that it is unlikely that the Bush administration will accept any new leader from Mr. Hussein's inner circle. In fact, American officials have said that at least the top 12 officials in Mr. Hussein's ruling circle, whom they often call the "dirty dozen," should face war crimes trials in Iraq. The list includes Qusay Hussein and his older brother, Uday, as well as Mr. Ibrahim and Mr. Ramadan. Some experts and diplomats say the list was deliberately kept short to encourage officials just outside the inner circle to rebel, by alerting them to the possibility that the alternative may be death in war or trial afterward. But there have been many attempts at coups before, and all have been crushed. For his part, Mr. Hussein has never directly addressed in public the question of stepping aside. He has appeared on television often recently, rallying top army commanders and mingling with younger soldiers, as he vows to resist the "evil aggression" of the United States. But there was one recent tantalizing item in the English-language Iraq Daily. In a meeting with commanders, Mr. Hussein evoked the ancient legend of King Gilgamesh. The king, Mr. Hussein was paraphrased as saying, "gave up the helm and left his Senate leading the country till his coming back." Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

To: JohnM who wrote (79125)	3/3/2003 1:36:02 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Here is an op-ed piece in the WP that ties in with the dustup in Maine. washingtonpost.com Neutrality in The Classroom By Jonathan Zimmerman Monday, March 3, 2003; Page A19 Last fall the nation's largest state teachers union voted to denounce White House policy toward Iraq. Warning that President Bush "is seeking any pretext to overthrow the government of a sovereign nation," the California Federation of Teachers declared that an American attack on Iraq would squander "vital resources" in pursuit of a "destructive, senseless, and illegal goal." Teachers unions in several cities followed suit. Here in Washington, for example, the local union urged members "to get involved with organizations working toward stopping the Bush administration's march toward war with Iraq." The unions might be correct in their estimation of the president and his policies. As a teacher, however, I would never sign such a resolution. And if America does go to war, I would urge the unions to avoid any official statements -- negative or positive -- about it. Why? The answer lies in the special role of teachers in a democracy. Quite simply, our job is to help people learn how to think. And we'll never succeed if we tell them what to think -- about America, Iraq or anything else. This type of talk sparks high-voltage hyperbole among conservatives, who respond with charges of "anti-Americanism" and its close cousin, "relativism." Especially during wartime, the right says, schools need to ensure that students support the nation. And if teachers can't make any moral claims at all -- if all truths are up for discussion -- then America itself will sink into a quagmire of fear, weakness and skepticism. But an honest, open classroom discussion hardly presupposes an absence of common American values. Rather, it requires these values -- especially reason, tolerance and a commitment to personal liberty. Indeed, the right-wing effort to restrict discussion clashes directly with our country's most hallowed traditions. You cannot celebrate America as a land dedicated to individual freedom of thought and then tell every individual what to think. On the left, meanwhile, activists are more likely to invoke the rhetoric of discussion and deliberation. Even as the California teachers union attacked Bush's policies on Iraq, for example, spokesmen insisted that they only wanted to "get students thinking about the issue." But how can you get them thinking about a question if you have already told them the correct answer? Remember, we're talking about children and adolescents here. They take their cues from adults -- especially adults with the authority to evaluate them. Once they sense the teacher's bias, any "discussion" will inevitably assume the same slant. In their resolutions on Iraq, the teachers unions aimed to strike a blow against the right. Inadvertently, however, the unions showed how much they share with their conservative opponents. Neither side really wants students to arrive at their own conclusions; instead, both sides want to impose a predetermined conclusion on every student. If the United States attacks Iraq, teachers will face massive pressures to support the war -- or at least to "support our troops." By condemning the war before it starts, however, the unions have made it even more difficult to maintain their neutrality during any conflict that ensues. Schools do not exist to promote war, peace or any other national initiative. Their first job is to help Americans analyze these choices for themselves. The writer teaches history and education at New York University. He is the author of "Whose America? Culture Wars in the Public Schools." washingtonpost.com