|
||||||||||||
Greetings from Global Policy Forum!
The Afghanistan War and the Humanitarian Crisis
The United States this week struck at Afghanistan for the first time with B-52 heavy bombers. These giant warplanes, operating at very high altitude, greatly increase the likelihood that the campaign will kill innocent civilians. This week, US bombers again destroyed a well-marked warehouse of the Red Cross, as well as other civilian and humanitarian buildings. An unknown number of civilians perished.
With the Afghan borders closed, very few supplies are reaching the six million people in Afghanistan who depend on international food aid. United Nations officials have increasingly called for a pause in the bombing to allow humanitarian track convoys to bring aid into the country before the onset of the winter.
At the United Nations, where the great majority of delegations initially expressed sympathy for the United States and solidarity with its intention to bring the September 11 terrorists to justice, opinion has been shifting. Many delegates now privately express doubt that the US approach will work. They also whisper anxiously that it violates international law and defies global public opinion. As one delegate told GPF recently, such use of massive force is inappropriate, counterproductive and very likely to fail.
The Counter Terrorism Committee of the UN Security Council, set up under Council Resolution 1373 of September 28, has been meeting intensively and has established a preliminary list of terrorist groups against which it will act. Delegates have noted that the Committee list includes only a limited number of groups, mostly bin Laden's al-Qaeda and its immediate allies. Jonas Savimbi's UNITA in Angola, responsible for the terror bombing of a railroad train last August that claimed hundreds of lives does not make the list. Such a one-sided approach may suit Washington's policy priorities, but delegates understand that it is unlikely to mobilize the broad support necessary to produce results.
Public Opposition to Washington's War and Economic Policy
On Saturday, October 27, in many cities of the United States, protesters rallied to "Stop the War" as part of a nationwide campaign. According to the Los Angeles Times, hundreds gathered in Pershing Square and marched through downtown LA in an event that drew a number of public figures including Santa Monica Mayor Michael Feinstein. Clearly, though, the number of war critics remains small in contrast to those who still support the President, but as Washington's policy stalls, opposition could grow swiftly.
Two opposition currents are quickening in the US - those who are critical of the war and those who are angry about the post September 11 economic policies enacted by Washington. Airline workers, for instance, were outraged that the Bush administration voted billions for a bailout of the airlines, with no aid at all for laid off airline workers. More recently, unions have vigorously opposed the $100 billion Republican "economic stimulus package" that has been passed by the House of Representatives and will soon be considered by the Senate. The bill cuts taxes mostly for corporations and wealthy individuals. One of the most striking features of the tax package eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax for corporations, enacted in 1986, and it may lead to $6.3 billion in tax rebates to 14 giant corporations, including $1.4 billion to IBM alone. Over 85 per cent of the tax cuts enacted will affect the wealthiest citizens.
In a sign of the times, New York City union officers and members have issued a public letter titled "New York City Labor Against the War." The letter, with hundreds of signatures, condemns the terrorist "crime against humanity" but goes on to say that "George Bush's war is not the answer." Signatories include District Council 1707 of the American Federation of State, County and Muncicipal Workers (AFSCME), the President of Local 300 of the Mail Handlers, the President of Local 1180 of the Communication Workers, and the President of Local 446 of the Civil Service Employees Association as well as leaders of the nurses union, the writers' union and the teachers' union. The letter has also been endorsed by hundreds of other trade unionists in other cities across the United States.
In Europe, an anti-war movement has swiftly emerged. Organizers told GPF that in Perugia, Italy, on October 14, tens of thousands of protesters gathered to demonstrate against the bombing. More mass protests are planned, while smaller events have already stirred the political pot in dozens of cities. In Germany, for instance, protests in the 5-10,000 range have been held in Stuttgart and Berlin, while daily vigils take place in Bonn, Cologne and other cities The next round of protests, which take aim primarily at the WTO and includes strong trade union support, will take place with an anti-war theme on November 9 and 10.
Political quakes from the war have already shaken the German political landscape. The German Green Party, a member of the governing coalition, has been deeply divided over the war. Green parliamentarians in the Bundestag have supported the war (as we were reminded by a visiting delegation last week), while the party rank and file has grown increasingly critical. According to news reports, party Chair Claudia Roth and Green Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer are publicly at odds over the question of a "pause" in the US bombing. The Party of Democratic Socialism, which did very well in recent elections in Berlin, has opposed the war and threatens to capture the allegiance of many Green pacifists. Another sign of doubts about the war comes from the Social Democratic Party, whose Minister of Development, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, has also called for a pause, in defiance of the policy of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Meanwhile, the European federation of Green parties has issued a statement urging more vigorous humanitarian aid in Afghanistan, while implying (but not stating) that a pause is called for.
The Wall Street Laundromat
Security Council resolution 1373, crafted by French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte, included many steps to block money-laundering, to cut off the financing of terrorist networks. The French government and parliament had already been actively at work on policy to restrain offshore financial havens and to restrict money laundering and tax evasion.
Ironically, the strongest opposition to anti-money-laundering legislation comes from Wall Street and the City of London, where financial institutions have grown fat off the profits of this kind of financial skullduggery. So Washington and London, the leaders of the anti-terrorism crusade, cannot bring themselves to shut off the money flow that keeps bin Laden and others of his ilk in funds. When an anti-terrorism bill wove recently through Congress, the American Bankers' Association adamantly opposed its money-laundering provisions. The people who work in the neighborhood of the World Trade towers simply cannot kick their money habit, even if it puts us all at continued risk.
Robert M. Morganthau, District Attorney [state prosecutor] for New York County, wrote a blistering op-ed piece in the New York Times recently, calling for rapid passage of tight new regulations. Morganthau pointed out that the Cayman Islands offshore center, a money launderers' paradise, alone holds deposits of about $800 billion, nearly 20 percent as much as the dollar deposits in all US banks.
To the best of our knowledge, some money-laundering provisions remained in the Congressional bill when finally passed this week (otherwise, we imagine, the US would be in violation of the Security Council resolution). But the bill's language proved relatively weak, nothing to seriously disturb the money practices of Wall Street and its bankers' lucrative Laundromat
Return to Past List-Serv Index
What's New This Week
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
