|
||||||||||||
Greetings from Global Policy Forum!
George Bush at the UN
President George Bush addressed the United Nations on Saturday, November 10, with tough talk about "fighting terrorism" and winning the war in Afghanistan. He laced his speech with familiar rhetoric about the battle between good and evil, "with us or against us," and the threat to civilization. Such self-righteous thunder from the superpower further eroded the spontaneous sympathy many delegates felt for the United States after September 11 and stirred fears about the new fundamentalism in Washington.
But nearly everyone in the house welcomed one aspect of the President's speech. He said: "We are working toward a day when two states, Israel and Palestine, live peacefully together within secure and recognized borders as called for by Security Council resolutions." As everyone listening to him in the General Assembly hall knew well, Council Resolution 242 calls for Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories. So the President took a step of undeniable importance, going further than many expected in support of Palestinian independence and self-determination.
Such a shift by the Bush administration may only be temporary or purely tactical -- to win Arab states to the "coalition" against Osama bin Laden and to accommodate pressures from other key allies. China and the UK, among others, have reportedly been urging US action to restrain Israel and broker a durable peace settlement.
In recent weeks, though, signs from Washington have suggested shifts in rhetoric and thinking. Most striking, New York Times Washington columnist Thomas Friedman, a dependable voice of officialdom, has written of the "lunacy" of Israeli "colonial settlements" in Gaza. These are very strong words and previously unthinkable, especially in the pages of the Times. Elite opinion may be changing. But it remains to be seen whether this will translate into relief, much less peace, for embattled Palestinians and fearful Israelis.
Terrorism: You Know it When You See It!
Leading officials from the United States and the UK have been saying alarming things about terrorism to diplomatic colleagues and the press. They have been insisting that no definition of terrorism is necessary, because "we know it when we see it." Officials have insisted that "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck." This apparently pragmatic approach is frought with danger and contemptuous of the rule of law. If these governments arrogate to themselves the decision as to who is a terrorist and who is not, and if they bomb cities or assassinate persons or set up special courts to try persons, all based on such executive decisions, then no one on the planet can be safe from their arbitrary rule. What if these same governments decide that all who protest in the streets against globalization are terrorists, or that simply all who question their policies are terrorists? The "with-us-or-against-us" rhetoric leads in just this terrible direction.
Whodonit?
An Irish Times article dated November 7 takes an interesting look at the evidence made public by London and Washington as justification for the war in Afghanistan. The Irish are naturally sensitive about Britain bombing cities to chase terrorist suspects. Today Kabul, tomorrow Dublin, perhaps!
Based on a close reading of all the evidence mustered over the course of two months after September 11, author Vincent Browne concludes that very, very little is really known about the attackers and who backed them. Such scanty evidence should not be the basis for massive bombing and military intervention, Browne concludes. "Surely, at a minimum, before an entire country is terrorized by the kind of massive bombardment the people of Afghanistan have been subject to for a month today," he says, "there should be evidence of a direct link between what happened on September 11th and the country that is being devastated? Surely it is not enough that someone in Afghanistan gave their "blessing" to what happened. Surely there must be some direct and substantial involvement on the part of a major group in Afghanistan with what happened before such a bombardment could begin to be justified?"
What has emerged in the week since Browne wrote this article? Not much. After the hasty withdrawal of the Taliban from Kabul on November 13, we are told that US military intelligence teams found al-Qaeda training houses with maps on the walls, allegedly for operations planning. Indeed, the New York Times ran a front-page photo of a room with such maps in its November 17 edition. Proof at last? Times readers may have shuddered to see a world map with prominent Arabic writing off the shores of the eastern United States. But these were not annotations for further terror. The words off America's shores say "al-muhait al-atlasi." Translation: "Atlantic Ocean."
George Bush's New Summary Courts
The shocking US Presidential Executive Order of Tuesday, November 13 sets up special military courts and sets the stage for arrests on very broad and vague grounds. It also permits virtually unlimited secret detention in which the detained persons have no right to legal counsel and no right to knowledge of accusations brought against them. The order allows initial sentences to stand without any possibility of appeal.
Though the United States media have issued only restrained reports about the order, all those involved in human rights and civil liberties work are appalled at how far it goes and what a threat poses to established Constitutional guarantees, especially when taken together with other recent anti-terror legislation such as the USA Patriot Act.
Human Rights Watch, in a letter to the President on November 15 expressed its "profound concern" and concluded that it is "wrong and unlawful for the U.S. government to arrogate to itself the power to transgress these well established protections of international human rights law." The next day, the normally circumspect New York Times went further. In a lead editorial entitled "A Travesty of Justice," it denounced the Order as "a breathtaking departure from due process" and "a crude and unaccountable system that any dictator would admire."
US Booksellers Get Ready for the Knock on the Door
On November 1, amid the clamor of "Operation Enduring Freedom," the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression sent an extraordinary letter to book stores throughout the United States, warning them of the possible effects of Washington's new antiterrorism laws, particularly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Under this new act, according to ABFFE, book stores may receive a subpoena for information about customers, such as what books they have bought. Booksellers have always fought such subpoenas on grounds of free expression, but under the new law they may face very serious new difficulties. For example, the act imposes a gag order in which contacting anyone about the court order is forbidden. This may even prevent the bookseller from contacting an attorney.
If you are thinking about buying books on Islam, globalization, the skullduggery of the 2000 US Presidential elections or other potentially suspect topics, you had better think twice! Be sure to pay in cash and don't leave any fingerprints on the shelves in the human rights section.
Playwrights Speak Out on Iraq
With so much attention focused on Afghanistan, the crisis in Iraq has faded somewhat from public memory. But the US-UK bombing of Iraq continues almost daily and the UN sanctions carry on with punishing, inhumane consequences. We are glad to report that on Monday, November 19, a group of well-known authors, artists, actors and other personalities will be hosting an event in New York to "explore the connections between the people in Iraq, the Middle East and the west" - an event of witness and protest. Nine authors have contributed short plays which will be read at the evening's event, which takes place at the Great Hall at Cooper Union, beginning at 7:30 PM. Suggested contributions at the door are $5.00.
Rev. Moon's Activities at the UN
Our friends at WEED, a German policy organization, have recently published a very interesting paper on the activities of the Rev. Moon and his organizations at the United Nations. The paper, by Harold Paine and Bergit Gratzer, presents a thorough and astonishing overview of the Moon organization and its worldwide operations, which include arms manufacturing, ties to ultra-right-wing movements, and illegal financial transactions. According to the authors, three Moon front groups operate as accredited NGOs at the UN and more have applied for NGO status. NGOs, delegations and UN staff should read and reflect on this paper, which raises questions about who should qualify for NGO status and what protections should be developed against well-financed charlatans. http://www.weedbonn.org/unreform/moon.htm
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.
