[Peace-discuss] Humanitarian imperialism stymied

[C. G. Estabrook]

"...No one in the Administration, /*not even Samantha Power*/, is pressing Obama 
to divert major military resources to depose Qadhafi..."!


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	JFP 3/10: Obama vows to resist Libya trap; Karzai cousin killed in 
night raid
Date: 	Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:58:59 -0500 (EST)
From: 	Just Foreign Policy <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>

	

	


*
*Just Foreign Policy News*
*March 10, 2011

*Just Foreign Policy News on the Web:*
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/843 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Ce2LvNRdDqIuHR2TwzhtVxQO5osnoCgP>

[To receive just the Summary and a link to the web version, you can use this 
webform:
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/switchdailynews 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Ex%2Fd8NT%2B7EUFWJ50jeoBiBQO5osnoCgP>]

*"No-Fly Zone"? Senator Kerry, the UN Charter Is Supreme Law*
It's one thing for Senator McCain to engage in what Defense Secretary Gates 
called "loose talk" about U.S. military intervention in Libya. It's far more 
damaging for Senator Kerry to do it. Of course, Kerry voted yes on the Iraq war 
in 2002, and in August 2004 said he stood by his vote. Kerry was wrong then and 
is wrong now; a no-fly zone in Libya, if it is not authorized by the UN Security 
Council, would violate the UN Charter. The framers of the UN Charter gave this 
power to the Security Council for a reason: to ensure that military force would 
only be authorized with broad consent. The Security Council should use its 
leverage to press for a diplomatic resolution of the conflict that recognizes 
the interests of all the stakeholders in Libya.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/no-fly-zone-senator-kerry_b_833060.html 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=GFWkB8Z4eRuvNhORHABpLRQO5osnoCgP>

*Action: Urge President Obama and Members of Congress to oppose a unilateral 
U.S. military intervention in Libya*
Unilateral U.S. military action without UN Security Council authorization would 
be a grave violation of the UN Charter. As U.S. military officials have pointed 
out, the imposition of a "no-fly zone" would not be "bloodless": it would be 
preceded by extensive bombing of Libya's anti-aircraft facilities. Such bombing 
would almost certainly cause civilian casualties. As Defense Secretary Gates has 
said, the last thing the U.S. needs is a war in another Muslim country. Urge the 
White House and your representatives to oppose a unilateral U.S. military 
intervention.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/nobombsforlibya 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=pqF85vqBd%2FP5VYOKbuSPmxQO5osnoCgP>

**Action: Lee bill for military withdrawal from Afghanistan*
"H.R.780 - To provide that funds for operations of the Armed Forces in 
Afghanistan shall be obligated and expended only for purposes of providing for 
the safe and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan of all members of the Armed 
Forces and Department of Defense contractor personnel who are in Afghanistan."
Check to see if your Rep. has co-sponsored; ask them to co-sponsor if they haven't.
*You can view the cosponsors here *
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR00780:@@@P 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=7Mzu1TCXtcv%2BSc3DAjDp%2FxQO5osnoCgP>
*You can ask your Rep. to co-sponsor here:*
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/hr780 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=qaPxL43BhaOYBvAP80zx5BQO5osnoCgP>

*Help Support Our Advocacy for Peace and Diplomacy*
The opponents of peace and diplomacy work every day. Help us be an effective 
counterweight.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=MiZ2UnlFR9BuIpCQz3G3%2BxQO5osnoCgP>

*Summary:*
*U.S./Top News <#March1011r1>*
1) Administration sources say President Obama is determined to resist pressure 
for military intervention in support of the uprising against Muammar Qadhafi, 
even it means being labeled as weak by Republicans, Politico reports. No one in 
the Administration, not even Samantha Power, is pressing Obama to divert major 
military resources to depose Qadhafi, Politico says. The uncertainties on the 
ground are too numerous, the makeup and intention of the rebel forces too 
opaque, the possibility that any weapons shipped to them will end up in the 
hands of terrorists is too great to warrant the immediate shipping of war 
materiel. White House officials dismissed as false a Monday report that the U.S. 
was funneling arms to the rebels through Saudi Arabia, and a State Department 
spokesman suggested such actions might violate international agreements.

2) NATO on Thursday stepped back from any military intervention in Libya and 
agreed only to reposition ships in the region and to continue planning for 
humanitarian aid, the New York Times reports. NATO Secretary General Rasmussen 
made it clear NATO would not agree to a no-flight zone over Libya without 
authorization from the UN. Germany took a strong position against a no-flight 
zone over Libya. "We do not want to get sucked into a war in North Africa," 
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said. Defense Secretary Gates, who 
represented the US at the NATO meeting, remained equally resistant to a 
no-flight zone.

3) Intervention in Libya has all the makings of another Middle East quagmire, 
writes Stephen Kinzer in the Guardian. The no-fly zone is a seductive option, 
but only to those who do not reflect on its complexity. It would require a major 
commitment of air power, and since at least some missile launchers will be 
located in populated areas, American bombs would almost certainly kill Libyan 
civilians. Kinzer suggests that if the U.S. can resist the temptation to 
intervene militarily in Libya, it may become easier to resist this temptation in 
the future.

4) India, Brazil, and South Africa - all of whom currently serve on the UN 
Security Council - issued a joint statement insisting that any international 
intervention in Libya must obey the United Nations Charter, Inter Press Service 
reports.

5) The rebellion in Libya stands out among the recent unrest in the Middle East 
for its widespread violence: unlike the protesters in Tunisia or Egypt, those in 
Libya quickly gave up pursuing nonviolent change and became an armed rebellion, 
writes Erica Chenoweth in the New York Times. Research shows that nonviolent 
resistance is much more likely to produce results, while violent resistance runs 
a greater risk of backfiring, she writes. A study found that nonviolent 
resistance campaigns to were more likely to succeed than violent insurgencies. 
Violent resistance tends to reinforce the loyalty of regime supporters, while 
civil resistance undermines it.

6) A Rasmussen poll finds that the majority of likely American voters want all 
U.S. troops withdrawn from Afghanistan within a year, the Huffington Post 
reports. Seventy-three percent of Democrats favor a one-year timeline. A 
February USA Today/Gallup poll found that 72 percent of Americans would support 
Congress taking up the issue of a quicker withdrawal from Afghanistan.

7) The Afghanistan war has grown deadlier for Afghan civilians on President 
Obama's watch, writes Dan Froomkin for the Huffington Post.

8) A senior U.S. diplomat supervising Japan affairs has been replaced for 
allegedly making disparaging comments about Okinawans, AP reports. Kevin Maher 
caused an uproar by reportedly telling a group of American University students 
in December that Okinawans were lazy and used their hosting of U.S. bases to 
extort benefits from Tokyo.
*
Libya <#March1011r2>*
9) James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, predicted that "over 
the longer term, that the regime will prevail" in Libya's civil war, the New 
York Times reports. Clapper's assessment may push both American officials and 
some allies to the conclusion that efforts to terminate Col. Qaddafi's rule in 
Libya are futile, the Times says. Secretary of State Clinton noted that past 
no-flight zones had had mixed results: one imposed in Iraq "did not prevent 
Saddam Hussein from slaughtering people on the ground and it did not get him out 
of office."

*Afghanistan <#March1011r3>*
10) A first cousin of Afghanistan's president was killed Wednesday during a 
night raid by NATO and Afghan forces, the New York Times reports. The slain man 
was Yar Mohammed Karzai, 60, a lifelong resident of a rural village. "We've 
called for a stop of the night raids, which often cause a loss of life and are 
against the culture and the Islamic values of the Afghan people. They can always 
cause unnecessary and irresponsible action such as what happened last night," 
said an Afghan government spokesman. A NATO statement said they had "killed one 
armed individual." "People are really angry about his death; he was a very 
respected man in his community," said a tribal elder who lives in a neighboring 
village.

*Iran <#March1011r4>*
11) US officials say Iran has not been involved in Bahrain's unrest and has 
generally been keeping a low profile towards unrest in Arab countries, the 
Washington Post reports. Adm. Mullen said last week that Persian Gulf states' 
concerns about Iran's intentions had not been realized. "We are seeing no 
indications of any credible influence from Tehran," Mullen said.

*Colombia <#March1011r5>*
12) Colombia is now the country with the largest population of internally 
displaced persons in the world, writes Dan Kovalik in the Huffington Post. 
Almost 12% of its population is displaced - most of them by violence, with a 
disproportionate number being Afro-Colombians and indigenous. Many were 
displaced by a US-funded "counterinsurgency" campaign. The Colombia FTA would 
likely exacerbate this displacement, Kovalik argues. Meanwhile, 51 trade 
unionists were killed in 2010, the same number killed in 2008 when Obama vowed 
to oppose the Colombia FTA based on concerns about violence against trade 
unionists.

*Contents:
U.S./Top News*
1) Obama tries to avoid Libya trap
Glenn Thrush, Politico, March 9, 2011 04:38 AM EST
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50907.html 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=lQYvYst0bNRQXjie5uXsBBQO5osnoCgP>

The Libya hawks may be circling, but President Barack Obama is determined to 
resist pressure for military intervention in support of the uprising against 
Muammar Qadhafi, even it means being labeled as weak by Republicans, according 
to administration sources.

Obama has repeatedly said he won't take any option for Libya off the table - and 
he raised the possibility of a "full spectrum" response, including a 
NATO-sponsored no-fly zone, in his discussion with British Prime Minister David 
Cameron on Tuesday, according to a read-out of the call. But he doesn't want to 
fall into a Libya trap.

Obama's public call for Qadhafi's departure has been countered in private by a 
dour assessment of the likely outcome of even the most limited intervention. 
Those concerns were amplified by the brief detention of a British rescue crew 
over the weekend in rebel-controlled eastern Libya, which sent a jolt of anxiety 
through U.S. officials, according to administration sources. "History has shown 
that when you rush into these things, you get it wrong. We're not going to rush 
no matter what anyone says," one administration official told POLITICO.

For all his caution, Obama's attitude could instantly change if clear evidence 
emerges that Qadhafi is massacring his own civilians.

At the moment, however, there is little appetite among Obama's circle of foreign 
policy and national security advisers for any action that could draw the U.S. 
into a protracted conflict, so powerful are the ghosts of Iraq and the dawning 
reality that Qadhafi has, thus far, teetered but managed to hold onto power.

Even as NATO debates the no-fly zone, Obama's team - led by National Security 
Adviser Tom Donilon and Defense Secretary Robert Gates - is not enthusiastic 
about the option, despite the conditional backing of Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), 
Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Their argument: Pro-Qadhafi forces are counterattacking with artillery, small 
arms and helicopters, which can be better countered by a ground presence, not 
aerial patrols. And putting troops on the ground is a nonstarter.

But a chorus of hawks, some of whom were present at the inception of President 
George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq eight years ago, are pressing for a 
more forceful response. And they say Obama has talked loudly while carrying a 
Popsicle stick, calling for Qadhafi's ouster while doing nothing to make it happen.

"If you simply sit back, as the White House has done, and said 'Qadhafi's got to 
go,' and then you don't do anything about it, you have the worst of all worlds," 
said John Bolton, Bush's ambassador to the United Nations. "If you want to talk 
the talk, you've got to walk the walk. ... American prestige is at stake here."
[...]
But no one in Obama's orbit is seriously considering that advice, even though 
military planners are gaming out all contingencies. At the moment, they are more 
sanguine about less radical options: ratcheting up sanctions; sizing up the 
rebels to see what military assistance, if any, is warranted; 
forward-positioning U.S. assets for humanitarian missions; even jamming Libyan 
military communications and radar to discourage attacks by jets and helicopters.
[...]
Michael McFaul, the National Security Council staffer tasked with examining the 
paths autocracies take to democratic reform, has emphasized the need for a 
forceful response, as has Samantha Power, an NSC aide who won a Pulitzer Prize 
for her book about U.S. responses to genocide.

But no one, not even Power, is pressing Obama to divert major military resources 
to depose Qadhafi. The uncertainties on the ground are too numerous, the makeup 
and intention of the rebel forces too opaque, the possibility that any weapons 
shipped to them will end up in the hands of terrorists is too great to warrant 
the immediate shipping of guns and war materiel.

"It isn't even clear the insurgents want us there at all," said Anthony 
Cordesman, a former military intelligence officer now with the Center for 
Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank. "If you had 
large numbers of people in the street calling for action, I'd understand the 
impulse to intervene, but we are not seeing that. You can say [Obama] is getting 
a little too cautious, but reality-based decision-making, to me, is a positive."

White House officials dismissed as false a Monday report that the U.S. was 
funneling arms to the rebels through Saudi Arabia, and a State Department 
spokesman suggested such actions might violate international agreements.
[...]

2) NATO Steps Back From Military Intervention in Libya
Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times, March 10, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/world/africa/11nato.html 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=FcwxZgwiJ%2BGkEytiPSWYNBQO5osnoCgP>

Brussels - As Libyan rebels came under airstrikes and heavy assault by forces 
loyal to Col. Muammer el-Qaddafi, NATO on Thursday stepped back from any 
military intervention in Libya and agreed only to reposition ships in the region 
and to continue planning for humanitarian aid.

Although the NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said after a 
two-hour meeting of defense ministers that "time is of the essence," the tepid 
response reflected disagreement within the military alliance about what, if 
anything, should be done.

Mr. Rasmussen, who described Colonel Qaddafi's "outrageous and systemic violence 
against the civilian people," made it clear that NATO would not agree to a 
no-flight zone over Libya without authorization from the United Nations. "We 
considered initial options regarding a no-fly zone in case NATO were to receive 
a clear U.N. mandate," he said at a news conference after the meeting.

He also said that any move by NATO would be governed by three principles: a 
demonstrable need, "a clear legal basis," and strong support in the region.

There was confusion among the major European allies. Although France moved ahead 
of the rest of the military alliance on Thursday morning and became the first 
country to recognize the Libya's rebel leadership in the eastern city of 
Benghazi, Germany took a strong position against a no-flight zone over Libya. 
"We do not want to get sucked into a war in North Africa," the German foreign 
minister, Guido Westerwelle, said Thursday at the European Union.

But his government did join the United States, Switzerland and other countries 
in freezing Libyan government assets. Germany's finance minister, Rainer 
Brüderle, said the move would affect 193 accounts at 14 financial institutions 
in Germany, and the ministry said the amount was in the "billions."

"The measures taken are a clear reaction to developments in Libya," according to 
a statement from the Finance Ministry. "The brutal oppression of Libyans' right 
to freedom can no longer be financed with money that has been placed in German 
banks."

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who represented the Obama administration at 
the meeting, remained equally resistant to a no-flight zone. Despite the 
worsening situation for the rebels, his aides said his position had not changed 
from the strong case he made against intervention last week before Congress, 
where he warned that the first step would be an attack on Colonel Qaddafi's air 
defenses.
[...]

3) Why the US must not intervene in Libya
Americans are hardwired to expect their military to fix foreign crises, but we 
should resist the calls of DC's armchair generals
Stephen Kinzer, Guardian, Wednesday 9 March 2011 23.34 GMT 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/09/libya-usforeignpolicy 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=fQlMAZsJgTdvgWGadw5KUxQO5osnoCgP>

The urge to intervene around the world may truly have become hardwired into the 
American psyche. How else to explain the seriousness with which some in 
Washington are suggesting that the United States take sides in the unfolding 
civil war in Libya?

The US is fighting two wars in Muslim countries. Since the results have included 
thousands of dead Americans, a near-bankrupt treasury and a surge in 
anti-Americanism in the world's most volatile region, launching a third war 
might seem unwise. Intervening in Libya would require the US to take sides in a 
highly obscure conflict. Any group the US helps bring to power would be heavily 
tainted, and Americans would have to defend it in an explosive environment.

And few people in the Middle East, or anywhere else, would believe that the US 
had intervened in an oil-rich Arab state without being interested in securing 
its oil.

Intervention in Libya has all the makings of another Middle East quagmire. The 
urge to intervene there, however, is not driven solely by factors related to 
Libya. Sure, there is genuine outrage at the brutality Muammar Gaddafi is 
inflicting on his people. No doubt, some American strategists have their eyes on 
Libyan oil, and others are looking for a new platform for US power in the Middle 
East. But beneath it all is the deep belief that when there is trouble in Libya 
- or Liberia or Lesotho or Laos or Lithuania - the United States needs to take a 
decisive stand and push to impose the solution it finds best.

The reasoning is simple, and deeply rooted in American history. The world is a 
dangerous place, it needs to be managed, and the United States is called to do 
the managing.

This is the view that led Theodore Roosevelt to assert that submitting to 
America's will was "the prerequisite condition to the moral and material advance 
of the people who dwell in the darker corners of the earth". It convinced 
Woodrow Wilson that the US needed to dominate Latin Americans so it could "teach 
them to elect good men". It propelled Dwight Eisenhower to overthrow democratic 
governments in Iran and Guatemala, ultimately plunging both countries into 
brutal dictatorship. More recently, it pulled Jimmy Carter into Afghanistan and 
George W Bush into Iraq, with devastating consequences for American power and 
security.

The effect of these operations on America's fiscal health has been equally 
cataclysmic. Costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have reached one trillion 
dollars. That is two thirds of America's current budget deficit.

Despite all of this, there are still interventionists who insist that this time, 
the US can get it right. "It's hard to imagine any new government growing out of 
this opposition that is worse than Gaddafi," Senator Joseph Lieberman has 
blithely asserted. Millions of Iranians thought the same thing when they 
overthrew the Shah in 1979. They have learned a painful historical lesson: no 
matter how bad a regime is, there can always be a worse one. Gaddafi controlled 
every inch of Libyan territory, deftly balanced tribal and sectarian interests, 
and administered a reasonably effective state. Whether a new regime would be 
able to do any of those things is far from certain. Would the US stepping in to 
"help", do so?

Senator John Kerry has suggested that American warplanes "crater the airports" 
in Tripoli and other government-held cities - a nice way of saying that the US 
should bomb Libya: an act of war. Senator John McCain observed that decreeing a 
no-fly zone over Libya would be a good way to "send a signal to Gaddafi". 
Perhaps it would be as effective as the signal the US sent Saddam Hussein, who 
survived in office for 12 years after the Americans imposed two no-fly zones 
over his country.

The no-fly zone is a seductive option, but only to those who do not reflect on 
its complexity. It would require a major commitment of air power, and since at 
least some missile launchers will be located in populated areas, American bombs 
would almost certainly kill Libyan civilians. And given the balance of power in 
Libya, where ragtag rebels are outgunned by the regime's better organised troops 
and mercenaries, even sustained bombardment might not dislodge the tyrant. What 
would the US do then? Escalate until he is forced to flee, using ground troops 
if necessary?

Perhaps the appeal of the no-fly option is that it would give 
testosterone-driven politicians in Washington a way to pretend they are doing 
something meaningful to defend heroic rebels far away. Yet, the only real way to 
defeat Gaddafi quickly is by a land invasion, and even today's interventionists 
are unwilling - yet - to call for such madness. Invasion would resolve a 
short-term problem, but Libyans would presumably rebel against American 
occupation, just as Iraqis and Afghans have. The presence of American troops in 
Libya would be a magnet for every jihadist fighter in the world. An invasion 
might prevent or head off a civil war, but probably trap American forces into 
fighting another long-term insurgency.

Foreign interventions always end badly. They can sometimes be justified on the 
grounds that not intervening would produce even worse results, but such cases 
are rare. Libya is not one of them. No vital American interest is at stake 
there. In fact, as past interventions have shown, the outcome is likely to 
undermine the global stability on which the US depends.

When Hamlet tries to persuade his mother not to return to his uncle's bed, he 
appeals to her: "Refrain tonight, and that shall lend a kind of easiness to the 
next abstinence." Americans would be wise to heed this counsel as they 
contemplate the possibility of intervention in Libya. Resist this temptation, 
and resisting the next one may be easier. That might ultimately lead the US to 
abandon what Henry Cabot Lodge, a century ago, called "the large policy", and 
adopt prudent restraint in its place.

4) Libya: IBSA Together in Resisting No-Fly Zone
Ranjit Devraj, Inter Press Service, 9 March 2011
http://allafrica.com/stories/201103100082.html 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=XULuuen5apbNBBILpGNBIBQO5osnoCgP>

New Delhi - India has found backing at this week's India-Brazil-South Africa 
(IBSA) ministers meeting for its stance that a no-fly zone over Libya must 
follow multilateral consultations.

India is aware that it has little freedom of action either at the United Nations 
General Assembly or in the U.N. Security Council, of which it is currently a 
member, Prof. Pushpesh Pant who teaches diplomacy at the Centre for 
International Politics, Organisation and Disarmament at the Jawaharlal Nehru 
University in New Delhi told IPS.

"India is acutely sensitive to the kind of action that the U.S. and its allies 
took in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Pant who, as course director for entrants 
into India's diplomatic service, is mentor to many of India's top diplomats.

A joint communiqué issued Tuesday at the end of the two-day seventh trilateral 
commission declared that a "no-fly zone zone on the Libyan air space or any 
coercive measures additional to those foreseen in Resolution 1970 can only 
legitimately be contemplated in full compliance with the U.N. Charter and with 
the Security Council of the United Nations."
[...]

5) Give Peaceful Resistance a Chance
Erica Chenoweth, New York Times, March 9, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/opinion/10chenoweth.html 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=iCEtR0m0memm2WmdGHxmWxQO5osnoCgP>

[Chenoweth, professor of government at Wesleyan, is co-author of the forthcoming 
"Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict."]

Middletown, Conn. - The rebellion in Libya stands out among the recent unrest in 
the Middle East for its widespread violence: unlike the protesters in Tunisia or 
Egypt, those in Libya quickly gave up pursuing nonviolent change and became an 
armed rebellion.

And while the fighting in Libya is far from over, it's not too early to ask a 
critical question: which is more effective as a force for change, violent or 
nonviolent resistance? Unfortunately for the Libyan rebels, research shows that 
nonviolent resistance is much more likely to produce results, while violent 
resistance runs a greater risk of backfiring.

Consider the Philippines. Although insurgencies attempted to overthrow Ferdinand 
Marcos during the 1970s and 1980s, they failed to attract broad support. When 
the regime did fall in 1986, it was at the hands of the People Power movement, a 
nonviolent pro-democracy campaign that boasted more than two million followers, 
including laborers, youth activists and Catholic clergy.

Indeed, a study I recently conducted with Maria J. Stephan, now a strategic 
planner at the State Department, compared the outcomes of hundreds of violent 
insurgencies with those of major nonviolent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 
2006; we found that over 50 percent of the nonviolent movements succeeded, 
compared with about 25 percent of the violent insurgencies.

Why? For one thing, people don't have to give up their jobs, leave their 
families or agree to kill anyone to participate in a nonviolent campaign. That 
means such movements tend to draw a wider range of participants, which gives 
them more access to members of the regime, including security forces and 
economic elites, who often sympathize with or are even relatives of protesters.

What's more, oppressive regimes need the loyalty of their personnel to carry out 
their orders. Violent resistance tends to reinforce that loyalty, while civil 
resistance undermines it. When security forces refuse orders to, say, fire on 
peaceful protesters, regimes must accommodate the opposition or give up power - 
precisely what happened in Egypt.

This is why the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, took such great pains to use 
armed thugs to try to provoke the Egyptian demonstrators into using violence, 
after which he could have rallied the military behind him.

But where Mr. Mubarak failed, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi succeeded: what began as 
peaceful movement became, after a few days of brutal crackdown by his corps of 
foreign militiamen, an armed but disorganized rebel fighting force. A widely 
supported popular revolution has been reduced to a smaller group of armed rebels 
attempting to overthrow a brutal dictator. These rebels are at a major 
disadvantage, and are unlikely to succeed without direct foreign intervention.

If the other uprisings across the Middle East remain nonviolent, however, we 
should be optimistic about the prospects for democracy there. That's because, 
with a few exceptions - most notably Iran - nonviolent revolutions tend to lead 
to democracy.

Although the change is not immediate, our data show that from 1900 to 2006, 35 
percent to 40 percent of authoritarian regimes that faced major nonviolent 
uprisings had become democracies five years after the campaign ended, even if 
the campaigns failed to cause immediate regime change. For the nonviolent 
campaigns that succeeded, the figure increases to well over 50 percent.

The good guys don't always win, but their chances increase greatly when they 
play their cards well. Nonviolent resistance is about finding and exploiting 
points of leverage in one's own society. Every dictatorship has vulnerabilities, 
and every society can find them.

6) Rasmussen Poll: Majority Want U.S. Troops Out Of Afghanistan Within A Year
Amanda Terkel, Huffington Post, 3/ 7/11 09:30 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/07/rasmussen-poll-afghanistan_n_832675.html <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=5Ne%2BLtWU6FWPkNDif60Pv6Jeo2O%2BDLCu>

Washington - On the same day that Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that 
America would continue to have a military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014, a 
new poll finds that the majority of Americans want all U.S. troops withdrawn 
within one year.

The polling firm Rasmussen, whose surveys are often accused of having a 
decidedly conservative tilt, finds that for the first time, a majority of likely 
voters want the U.S. government to set a timetable to withdraw American troops 
from Afghanistan within one year. Within that group, 31 percent want troops to 
come home immediately. In September 2010, just 43 percent of likely voters 
wanted a one-year timeline.

This time frame is considerably more accelerated than the one set forth by 
President Obama. The current plan is for the U.S. military to begin withdrawing 
troops in July 2011 and then end combat operations in 2014. But on Monday, Gates 
said that both the U.S. and Afghan governments agree U.S. forces should remain 
in Afghanistan even after that date.

"Obviously it would be a small fraction of the presence that we have today, but 
I think we're willing to do that," Gates said. "My sense is, they are interested 
in having us do that."

Seventy-three percent of Democrats favor a one-year timeline, compared to 37 
percent of Republicans. But there has been an erosion of support in both 
parties, with 24 percent of Republicans six months ago favoring bringing the 
troops home within a year.
[...]
A USA Today/Gallup poll from February also found that 72 percent of Americans 
would support Congress taking up the issue of a quicker withdrawal from Afghanistan.
[...]

7) Obama's Afghan Legacy: More Civilian Deaths
Dan Froomkin, Huffington Post, 03/10/11 02:01 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/10/obamas-afghan-legacy-more_n_833915.html 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=2tFaXAY9efncQodDxHmtWxQO5osnoCgP>

Washington - There is no consensus about what good has been achieved in the 
two-plus years that President Barack Obama has waged war in Afghanistan. But one 
negative result is indisputable: the war has grown deadlier for Afghan civilians.

Newly released data on civilian casualties compiled by the U.S.-led NATO forces 
confirm what the United Nations reported on Wednesday: That even as Obama has 
doubled the number of U.S. troops in the country, the insurgency has only gotten 
more brutal and life for ordinary Afghans has become more perilous.

Published for the first time on Thursday by Science magazine, data from the 
military's "CIVCAS" database show a 19 percent increase in the number of 
civilians killed last year, compared to the previous year.

That's more or less in line with the U.N. data, which showed a 15 percent 
increase during that same period - after a 14 percent increase between 2008 and 
2009.
[...]

8) Senior US diplomat replaced over Okinawa uproar
Eric Talmadge, Associated Press, Thursday, March 10, 2011; 1:37 AM 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/09/AR2011030905536.html 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=F3cE2oPJm9mc2CS7yZOjShQO5osnoCgP>

Tokyo - A senior U.S. diplomat supervising Japan affairs has been replaced for 
allegedly making disparaging comments about the inhabitants of a southern 
Japanese island where U.S. troops are based, the U.S. Embassy and an assistant 
secretary of state said Thursday.

Kevin Maher caused an uproar by reportedly telling a group of American 
University students in December that Okinawans were lazy and used their hosting 
of U.S. bases to extort benefits from Tokyo.

The comments have been widely reported in the Japanese media, and Japan's 
foreign minister called them hurtful and deeply regrettable.

Maher has been replaced by Rust Deming, the deputy chief of mission in Tokyo, as 
director of the State Department's Office of Japan Affairs, the U.S. Embassy 
said in a statement. Maher will continue to work for the State Department.

Visiting Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell refused to say whether the State 
Department had confirmed what Maher said. But he said the decision to replace 
him was made for the sake of the overall bilateral relationship.

Okinawa hosts tens of thousands of U.S. Marines and other troops, more than any 
other part of Japan. Okinawans have often complained that they bear too much of 
the burden for Japan's security alliance with Washington.

The issue is particularly sensitive now because Tokyo and Washington are 
negotiating a plan to move about 8,000 Marines off Okinawa to the U.S. territory 
of Guam. To do so, they plan to relocate a Marine base on Okinawa to a less 
crowded part of the island, but many Okinawans oppose that option and want the 
base closed down.
[...]
Under their mutual security pact, about 50,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Japan.
*
Libya*
9) U.S. Intelligence Chief Says Qaddafi Has Edge in Conflict
Mark Mazzetti and David E. Sanger, New York Times, March 10, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/world/africa/11clapper.html 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=B92Vs7CZltGdjWnT06mVRxQO5osnoCgP>

Washington - One week after President Obama demanded that Col. Muammar 
el-Qaddafi cede power in Libya, the president's top intelligence official 
predicted on Thursday, "over the longer term, that the regime will prevail" in 
Libya's civil war, an assessment that cast significant doubt on efforts so far 
by the NATO allies to drive him from power.

James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, told members of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee that Colonel Qaddafi has a potentially decisive 
advantage in arms and equipment that would make itself felt as the conflict wore on.

The statements by Mr. Clapper, a retired Air Force general who oversees 
America's 16 intelligence services, could limit the Obama administration's 
options. So far, only France has recognized the provisional government set up by 
the rebels, called the Libyan National Council. Mr. Clapper's assessment that 
the Libyan leader is unlikely to be dislodged by the rebels - which presumably 
reflects the briefings Mr. Obama and his top national security advisers have 
been receiving in recent days - would appear to diminish the chances that that 
the United States and other NATO allies would follow suit.

While Mr. Obama and his aides have spoken of military options, including 
imposing a no-flight zone over Libya, they have so far limited their concrete 
actions to imposing new sanctions, freezing assets and monitoring Libyan 
military communications traffic. They have stopped short of direct military 
action, even the jamming of communications lines, and Mr. Clapper's assessment 
may push both American officials and some allies to the conclusion that efforts 
to terminate Col. Qaddafi's 41-year rule in Libya are futile.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did say on Thursday that she would 
planned to meet with Libyan rebel leaders, perhaps during her travel to Tunisia 
and Egypt next week to press for democratic changes in those countries, or 
perhaps in Paris or back in Washington.

But Mrs. Clinton, in testimony to a subcommittee of the House Appropriations 
Committee, appeared far more cautious about military intervention than she was a 
week ago, aligning herself more closely with the warnings offered by Secretary 
of Defense Robert Gates. She wrapped her warnings in calls for international 
authority to impose a no-flight zone, presumably from the United Nations 
Security Council, which seems unlikely to act soon, if at all.

"Absent international authorization, the United States acting alone would be 
stepping into a situation the consequences of which would be unforeseeable," 
Mrs. Clinton told a House Appropriations subcommittee.

Past no-flight zones had had mixed results, she said. One imposed over Iraq in 
the 1990's, she noted, "did not prevent Saddam Hussein from slaughtering people 
on the ground and it did not get him out of office," she said, according to news 
agencies. Nor did a no-flight zone in Bosnia drive the Serbian leader, Slobodan 
Milosovic, from power "until we had troops on the ground," she added.

In his testimony, Mr. Clapper said that the rebel groups were "in for a tough 
row, because a very important consideration here for the regime is that, by 
design, Qaddafi intentionally designed the military so that those select units 
loyal to him are the most luxuriously equipped and the best-trained." Dismissing 
the idea that the Libyan leader would step down the way the leaders of Egypt and 
Tunisia did, he added: "We believe that Qaddafi is in this for the long haul. He 
appears to be hunkering down for the duration."
[...]

*Afghanistan*
10) Cousin of Afghan President Is Killed in NATO Raid
Alissa J. Rubin and James Risen, New York Times, March 10, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/world/asia/11karzai.html 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=k9h%2BYvlgt7pE5fl%2FB00avBQO5osnoCgP>

Kabul, Afghanistan - A first cousin of Afghanistan's president was killed 
Wednesday during a night raid by NATO and Afghan forces in which they detained 
the man's son as a suspected Taliban commander, as well as several of the 
family's bodyguards.

The case brought the sensitive issue of civilian casualties into the 
presidential palace and added to the already tense relationship between the 
Afghans and the Americans.

The raid occurred in the southern province of Kandahar, in the rural village of 
Karz, the Karzai clan's ancestral home. The slain man was Yar Mohammed Karzai, 
60, a lifelong resident of the village.

On Thursday evening, a NATO spokesman said the force was "aware of conflicting 
reports about the identities of those involved and has initiated an inquiry to 
determine the facts."

The death was confirmed by the president's half-brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, the 
chairman of Kandahar Province's provincial council, who said the killing was a 
mistake.

He said the raid was a joint operation by the NATO force - the International 
Security Assistance Force - and the Afghan National Army that had gone awry. 
"The prime target was not actually him," he said, "It was somebody else. But 
mistakenly he was killed, and ISAF apologized for that."

President Hamid Karzai was informed of his cousin's death this morning, said 
Waheed Omar, the presidential spokesman. "This was the result of an 
irresponsible night raid and like any other case of civilian casualties, the 
president was very sorry to hear about it," Mr. Omar said.

"We've called for a stop of the night raids, which often cause a loss of life 
and are against the culture and the Islamic values of the Afghan people. They 
can always cause unnecessary and irresponsible action such as what happened last 
night."

This is the third serious case of civilian casualties in three weeks. Last week, 
NATO forces mistakenly killed nine boys gathering firewood in Kunar Province.

Gen. David H. Petraeus apologized to President Karzai in person for the deaths, 
but Mr. Karzai called his statement "insufficient." He did accept an apology 
from the American defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, a day later.

A routine NATO statement on the events sent to reporters Thursday morning said 
that NATO troops and Afghan security forces "had captured a Taliban leader, 
killed one armed individual and detained several suspected insurgents during 
security operations in Kandahar City, Kandahar province, yesterday."

The targeted Taliban leader, the statement said, was responsible for 
distributing car bombs to fighters in the greater Kandahar area and coordinated 
arms shipments to the Taliban.

"Security forces advanced to the targeted compound where they called for all 
occupants to exit the building peacefully before conducting searches," the 
statement said. "A member observed an armed individual with an AK-47 in an 
adjacent building within the same compound. The security force assessed the male 
as an immediate threat to the security force, and engaged him. The individual 
killed was the father of the targeted individual."

Interviews with witnesses of the Karz raid offered a different perspective.

According to Mohammed Karzai, a cousin who lives in Maryland and heard accounts 
from relatives who were in nearby houses at the time, "the armed individual" was 
Yar Mohammed. Two of the other "suspected insurgents" were the family's 
bodyguards, assigned by Ahmed Wali Karzai to protect the family after one of Yar 
Mohammed's sons was murdered. A member of another branch of the family was 
suspected in the killing.
[...]
The elder Karzai was "shot in the head" said Hajji Fazal Mohammad Khan, a tribal 
elder who lives in a neighboring village, Moshan. "His son, three bodyguards and 
two neighbors were detained, but later his son was set free and the five others 
are in ISAF detention," Mr. Khan said.

"We don't know why he was raided," he added. "That area is free of Taliban and 
he was not involved in any activity. He was 60 years old. People are really 
angry about his death; he was a very respected man in his community."

*Iran*
11) Iran's response to Middle East protests is muted
Joby Warrick, Washington Post, Wednesday, March 9, 2011; 12:14 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/09/AR2011030902480.html 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=KBfHtW1fMLdYEv8MO0xjGhQO5osnoCgP>

When Shiite protesters took to the streets of Bahrain three weeks ago, U.S. and 
Middle Eastern officials watched anxiously to see how Iran, the kingdom's 
notoriously meddlesome neighbor, would intervene. What happened - or didn't 
happen - surprised them.

No Shiite clerics from Iran visited Bahrain to denounce its Sunni rulers. There 
were no provocateurs whipping up anti-government fervor in Shiite neighborhoods. 
Even popular Shiite Web sites controlled by Iranian clerics were unusually subdued.

The muted response fits a pattern observed by intelligence analysts and experts 
since the wave of Middle East unrest began in December. Iran, which so often has 
sought to assert its influence in neighboring countries, is sitting this one out 
- apparently having concluded that it wins by simply doing nothing.

"Iran sees that everything is already going its way," said a former U.S. 
intelligence official who consults with Arab governments on internal security. 
 From the Persian Gulf states to Lebanon, "they have decided to hold back."

Current and former intelligence officials and diplomats said in interviews that 
Iran's restraint reflects its growing confidence in the region.

Since January, the Islamic republic has seen its largest regional rival - the 
government of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak - toppled by protesters, 
while the Iranian-backed Hezbollah party has strengthened its grip on Lebanon. 
Saudi Arabia, another regional bulwark against Iranian expansion, is distracted 
by uprisings on its borders, particularly in Yemen, Oman and Bahrain.

Meanwhile, U.S. influence in the region has plummeted with the loss of allies 
and prestige. Intelligence officials and diplomats predict that, even under 
their rosiest scenarios for a more democratic Middle East, the region's emerging 
governments will be less supportive of U.S. efforts to isolate Iran politically. 
Already, the Obama administration is having to rethink an Iran strategy that 
relied on Middle Eastern allies to counterbalance Tehran's conventional forces 
and prevent cheating on economic sanctions, the officials said.

"Iran has risen by default," said Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer in the 
Middle East and the author of "The Devil We Know," a 2008 book about Iran's 
ascendancy as a regional power. "Iran sees the influence of the United States 
waning in the Middle East, and they know that our allies are on wobbly legs and 
possibly going down."

Iran maintains deep cultural and religious ties to other Shiite populations in 
the region, including in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. In the past, it has also 
sought to directly influence the internal politics of Iraq and Afghanistan, 
promoting pro-Iranian policies and politicians.

Several Middle Eastern governments hit by unrest were initially convinced that 
Iran was behind the disturbances, a conviction based on decades of experience. 
Officials in Bahrain have repeatedly complained of past interference by Iran, 
which maintains close ethnic and religious ties to some members of the country's 
majority Shiite population.
[However, US officials have often been skeptical of such claims of interference, 
a fact that this article should have noted - JFP.]

Not so this time. The striking lack of Iranian involvement in Bahrain's current 
unrest has been confirmed by senior Obama administration officials as well as 
intelligence operatives based in the region. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week that the Persian Gulf states' deep 
concerns about Iran's intentions had not been realized. "We are seeing no 
indications of any credible influence from Tehran," Mullen said, speaking to 
reporters after a visit to the region.
[...]

*Colombia*
12) Colombia Slips Into the Abyss as FTA Threatens Further Havoc
Dan Kovalik, Huffington Post, March 9, 2011 05:16 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/colombia-slips-into-the-a_b_833086.html <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=KTroPjyN%2FK4LbrhuqV6LkxQO5osnoCgP>

While little attention has been paid by the press, Colombia just reached an 
ignominious benchmark - it is now the country with the largest population of 
internally displaced persons in the world, surpassing Sudan which had held this 
position for the past several years. Colombia, with a population of around 44 
million, now has 5.2 million internally displaced persons, meaning that almost 
12% of its population is displaced - most of them by violence, and a 
disproportionate number being Afro-Colombians and indigenous.

As a report by the Colombian human rights group CODHES notes, half of the 5.2 
internally displaced were displaced during the presidential term of Alvaro Uribe 
and as a direct consequence of his "counterinsurgency program" - a program 
funded in large measure by the U.S. As CODHES noted, in a significant proportion 
of the municipalities impacted by this program, there has been large-scale 
mining and cultivation of oil palm and biofuel. CODHES is clear that this 
production is directly responsible for the violent displacement of persons from 
their land Indeed, it appears that the "counterinsurgency program" has in fact 
largely been intended to make Colombia safe for multi-national exploitation of 
the land at the very expense of the people the program has claimed to be helping.

The proposed Colombia FTA is also intended to do the very same - to protect the 
rights of multi-national corporations over the basic human rights of the 
Colombian people. For example, the Colombia FTA would privilege the very palm 
oil production which is leading to the mass displacement of people. Even more 
frightening, as The Nation Magazine explained in a detailed article, around half 
of the palm oil companies are actually owned and controlled by paramilitary 
groups, meaning that the FTA will directly aid these groups by incentivizing 
their crops.

As the Washington Office on Latin America recently noted, the FTA's agricultural 
provisions will also undermine the livelihood of Colombia's rural inhabitants 
who will not be able to compete with the subsidized, cheap food stuffs which 
will be able to flood the Colombian markets duty-free under the FTA. Indeed, we 
have seen this before in Mexico where NAFTA led to the impoverishment and 
displacement of 1.3 million small farmers, and in Haiti which lost its ability 
to feed its own people with its rice production after Clinton's free trade 
policies with that country.
[...]
Meanwhile, the labor rights situation in Colombia remains dismal. Thus, 
according to the Escuela Nacional Sindical (ENS), fifty-one (51) trade unionists 
were killed in 2010, and 4 unionists (including 3 teachers) have already been 
killed this year. The 51 unionists killed in 2010 matches precisely the number 
of unionists killed in 2008 when President Obama vowed to oppose the Colombia 
FTA based upon his concern that unionists face unprecedented violence in that 
country.
[...]
-

Just Foreign Policy 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=jv0xcB1sE9scpD1ezxZQhxQO5osnoCgP> 
is a membership organization devoted to reforming US foreign policy so it 
reflects the values and interests of the majority of Americans. The archive of 
the Just Foreign Policy News is here 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=rMv%2FfYnA1BEX7zRae6o0IqJeo2O%2BDLCu>: 


http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/blog/dailynews 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=FCnvKDGiAzjPvDyVsnHsChQO5osnoCgP>


------------

Click here to unsubscribe 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ppx9iIJUHhZ%2F7BD87vdukRQO5osnoCgP>

empowered by Salsa <http://www.salsalabs.com/?email>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110310/1a639390/attachment-0001.html>