[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Iraq: Where Things Stand

Tue Nov 26 15:30:33 CST 2002

>Date: 26 Nov 2002 20:20:36 -0000
>From: "Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org" <moveon-help at list.moveon.org>
>To: "Jay Mittenthal" <mitten at life.uiuc.edu>
>Subject: Iraq: Where Things Stand
>X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
>
>Dear MoveOn member,
>
>Over the last month, things have gotten more complicated for those of us 
>who are concerned about a war on Iraq. There have been elections, changes 
>in rhetoric at the White House, a new resolution at the UN, and most 
>recently the entry of weapons inspectors into Iraq. There is good news and 
>bad news; we have some triumphs to celebrate and serious hurdles to confront.
>
>Below, we share our understanding of where things stand on the war with Iraq.
>
>THE ELECTION AND CONGRESS
>
>There's no getting around the great disappointment of Election 2002, and 
>it's certain that President Bush will attempt to portray the election as 
>an endorsement of the Iraq war plan. But the fact remains that not a 
>single candidate lost because he or she voted against the war. And in 
>several cases, when candidates came out against the war they made 
>significant gains in the polls. So, while the talk about Iraq certainly 
>distracted from a discussion of the economy and other critical issues, the 
>repercussions of the vote may be to strengthen Democrats' spines rather 
>than embolden Republicans.
>
>The election of Nancy Pelosi to the position of House Minority Leader is a 
>terrific sign that Democrats are paying attention. Pelosi's opposition to 
>Bush's war resolution comes from her long tenure on the House Intelligence 
>committee -- she knows as much as anyone in Congress about the actual 
>dangers we face.
>
>It's very unlikely that Congress will vote on the war again, but there is 
>still great value in working with Congress on this issue. Of the 133 
>Representatives who voted against the Iraq resolution, most are still 
>concerned about the war and willing to work on it. Stay tuned for upcoming 
>ways of engaging Congress in fighting this war.
>
>THE SHAPE OF THE OPPOSITION
>
>One of the big pieces of good news is that the opposition to this war 
>remains quite broad, even after the new UN resolution and the war vote. At 
>the grassroots level, folks still have a tremendous amount of energy and 
>passion to devote to stopping it. Leaders who have been involved in the 
>peace or disarmament movements for the last thirty years say that there is 
>more energy now than they've seen in decades.
>
>We also have a whole host of organizational allies.
>
>Religious and church groups are getting fired up -- the leaders of 
>President Bush's own denomination issued a statement saying, "It is 
>inconceivable that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior and the Prince of 
>Peace, would support this proposed attack." Catholic bishops have also 
>been speaking up. Members of the religious community who work on foreign 
>policy issues say this groundswell is unprecedented in its size, speed, 
>and unanimity.
>
>Just as importantly, unions and labor groups are beginning to mobilize 
>against the war. Dozens of local and state-level unions representing 
>hundreds of thousands of workers have passed anti-war resolutions. And 
>AFL-CIO President John Sweeney sent a letter to Congress before the war 
>vote asking them to consider some very serious questions about the coming 
>conflict. In the struggle against the Vietnam war, it took years for 
>organized labor to come on board, but already we have the strong support 
>of some of that community.
>
>The community of veterans is also getting fired up about the war on Iraq. 
>A number of veterans of Gulf War I have started Veterans for Common Sense, 
>a group which advocates the diplomatic resolution of the current conflict. 
>Like many current military leaders, veterans are deeply concerned about 
>the safety of the soldiers who will serve in this conflict -- especially 
>after the poor treatment of the over 200,000 vets who applied for health 
>help after the first Gulf War.
>
>In a number of other constituencies, from Muslim groups to academia, more 
>and more folks are turning out against the war. The opposition is diverse, 
>broad, and deep.
>
>THE UN RESOLUTION
>[This section aided by the analysis of the Friends Committee on National 
>Legislation.]
>
>On November 8, the United Nations passed resolution 1441, which called for 
>full Iraqi compliance with the resumption of weapons inspections. While 
>many people see the resolution as a concession by France and the other 
>states that make up the Security Council, we believe it is not entirely 
>negative.
>
>First, it appears that the US engaged in good faith with the UN process -- 
>in other words, that US diplomats didn't rely on twisting arms to get what 
>they wanted, and that they made very significant compromises out of 
>respect for the institution. Remember how back in July the President was 
>very clear that he did not intend to go through the UN? The fact that the 
>United States has engaged in such a deep way with the UN is a great step 
>forward for those of us who care about global institutions and law.
>
>Second, the resolution doesn't provide a blank check for war -- in fact, 
>the understanding of most of the diplomats at the table is that the US 
>will have to return to the UN to get explicit authority for a military 
>strike, which will be difficult. US Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte 
>said after the resolution passed that "there is no automaticity" -- that 
>breaking the terms of the agreement does not automatically signal a war. 
>That's a huge step forward from the resolution originally brought to the 
>UN in October.
>
>Finally, there's a real possibility that the in-depth inspections which 
>were launched on Monday may offer an alternative to war. Given the serious 
>political risk involved in invading and taking over Iraq, the Bush 
>Administration may choose to respect the international inspections process 
>rather than drawing the anger of allies at home and abroad and going it alone.
>
>High-ranking members of the Bush Administration will continue to claim 
>that the resolution gives them the authority for war if Iraq shirks its 
>obligations. But a basic reading of the text itself makes clear that this 
>is not the case. Over the next month, we will need to make sure that our 
>elected representatives push President Bush to continue to work within the 
>United Nations and the realm of international law.
>
>THE MONTHS AHEAD
>
>Tomorrow's MoveOn Peace Bulletin will focus on the future. You can 
>subscribe at:
>
><http://peace.moveon.org/bulletin.php3>http://peace.moveon.org/bulletin.php3
>
>Over the next month, various constituencies will continue to make their 
>voices heard about the war on Iraq and the alternatives raised above. We 
>will be there as events unfold, and we intend to continue to offer you the 
>most strategic actions we can find for calling an end to this thoughtless 
>and dangerous rush to war.
>
>Stay tuned.
>
>Sincerely,
>--Eli Pariser
>   International Campaigns Director, MoveOn.org
>   November 26, 2002
>
>
>----------
>
>You can help decide the direction of MoveOn.org by participating in the 
>discussion forum at:
><http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=223>http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=223 
>
>
>This is a message from MoveOn.org. To remove yourself from this list, 
>please visit our subscription management page at:
><http://moveon.org/s?i=918-1253932-_MSTHUGopj7JsnwaSgGvBA>http://moveon.org/s?i=918-1253932-_MSTHUGopj7JsnwaSgGvBA 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20021126/bd79fe75/attachment.html