[Peace] News notes for June 9 [part 3 of 3]

[C. G. Estabrook]

[continued from part 2]

THURSDAY, JUNE 06, 2002

MAKING THE WORLD IN OUR IMAGE. Bitter disputes over territory. Suicide
bombings. Threats of retaliation. International attempts to calm roiled
passions. The Middle East? Yes - and South Asia. Although there are
important differences between the Israeli-Palestinian struggle and the
standoff between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, the similarities between
the situations are striking. And perhaps the most important similarity is
this: In both cases, the stronger party has had some success in defining
its aim as the defeat of terrorists. That has complicated the US war on
terrorism, drawing the Bush administration more deeply into crises that
are flaring on the periphery of its fight against Al Qaeda. It may also
have brought the stronger parties - India and Israel - more US support
than they might otherwise have received. "Both India and Israel have
turned 9/11 to their advantage," says Dennis Kux, a retired State
Department South Asia specialist and a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson
Center in Washington. In both the Middle East and South Asia, the basic
confrontation is the same: a regional power is struggling with a smaller,
determined foe over land issues. In both cases, militants from the smaller
power have resorted to unconventional means - suicide bombings and other
random attacks on civilian targets - to try to counter their foe's larger
conventional strength. In both, the leaders of the smaller powers -
Palestinian chief Yasser Arafat and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf -
have disavowed their militants' actions. Yet questions remain about the
leaders' desire and ability to control radical elements. And in both, the
stronger power in the standoff possesses a distinct advantage in
conventional force. Israel and India have used tanks in the past to invade
their foe's territory in an attempt to preempt bombing attacks. They
threaten to do so again, if necessary, and now liken their military
efforts to the US invasion of Afghanistan. "In each case the justification
for taking action and the kind of actions are very similar," says Rahul
Mahajan, author of "The New Crusade: America's War Against Terrorism".
That said, there remain significant differences between the Middle East
and the Kashmiri crisis. Pakistan is not Palestine, for one. It has been a
sovereign nation for over half a century and possesses both nuclear
weapons and conventional forces that are significant, if smaller than
India's. Pakistani troops have held their own in two of the three wars
that have erupted over the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir. The border
between Israel and Palestinian territory is relatively short. The
territory is flat and arid. The border between Indian and Pakistani-held
territory is long, and the geography mountainous - making it a much more
difficult region to pacify. Furthermore, there is arguably more support
for suicide bombings and other militant action in the Palestinian
population than among residents of Kashmir. Moderate Kashmiris themselves
have been targets of assassination. "The Indians think there are
substantial numbers of Kashmiris ready to agree to an Indian
administration in some form," says Andrew Hess, a South Asia expert at
Tufts University. "I think they're right." Finally, unlike the
Palestinians, Pakistan does not have a legitimate, internationally
accepted claim over the territory in dispute, says Sujit Dutta, a senior
fellow at the Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis in New Delhi. The
1948 United Nations Security Council resolution that called on India to
hold a plebiscite in the region also demanded that Pakistan withdraw its
troops from the area of Kashmir it controlled - something it has still not
done. "Despite apparent similarities, there is a large difference between
the history of Israeli-Arab relations on one hand and the Indian-Pakistani
relationship on the other," says Mr. Dutta. Whatever the differences,
though, in Washington today there is far less tolerance for tactics that
can be equated with terrorism. To Palestinian and Kashmiri militants,
suicide bombers may be freedom fighters. To the US, they are analogous to
Al Qaeda, thus to be condemned. Witness the political and rhetorical
pressure the US has exerted on Mr. Arafat to control terror attacks, to
the point where the White House has begun to openly question whether the
Palestinian leader remains a fit negotiation partner. "In the president's
eyes, Yasser Arafat has never played the role of someone who can be
trusted or effective," said Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer in the wake of
Wednesday's car bombing near the Israeli town of Megiddo. India, for its
part, quickly offered the US full support in the wake of last September's
events, and has since been rewarded with a rapprochement that has produced
its closest ties with Washington in decades. One result: The US has placed
two militant Pakistani Islamic groups, Jaish-e-Mohammed and
Lashkar-i-Taiba, on its list of terrorists. That's a move Washington
resisted in the past. "I have been surprised we have leaned as heavily and
publicly as we have on Pakistan," says Mr. Kux of the Wilson Center. All
this doesn't mean the US has become completely one-sided in either crisis.
The US continues to insist that Israel accept the inevitability of a
Palestinian state - and it continues to view Pakistan as a staunch ally in
the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces. [CSM]

AND THE LIBERAL OPPOSITION. Key Senate Democrats led by Senate Majority
Leader Tom Daschle met Wednesday in one of several recent closed-door
meetings to develop their position on Iraq and its president, Saddam
Hussein. They emerged without an official statement, but earlier in the
day Daschle offered a clue into their discussions: Universal support to
oust Saddam from power exists within the Democratic caucus. "The question
is when and how and under what circumstances," Daschle said. The move
comes one day after potential Democratic presidential candidate and House
Minority Leader Dick Gephardt gave what was billed as a major foreign
policy address in which he said that, if diplomacy fails, he would back
the Bush administration if it chose to topple the Iraqi despot. The
backing is a marked turnaround for Gephardt, who voted against the use of
force prior to the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who
was a key player in the Wednesday powwow, said he agrees with Gephardt
that it is time for a regime change, but asked, "Then what?" "I don't know
a single informed person who suggests that you can take down Saddam and
not be prepared to stay for two, four, five years to give the country a
chance to be held together," he said. Sources told Fox News that
Democratic members of Congress have recently contacted Iraqi opposition
groups to develop a plan for democracy in Iraq after Saddam is gone. But
military analysts say those who want a perfect post-Saddam plan are
missing the point. "The number one priority is to really get rid of
Saddam, a regime change, get a democratic government in there, and free
the Iraqi people," said retired Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, a Fox News
contributor. That plan is currently what the United States is undertaking
in Afghanistan. It ousted the Taliban government and has provided
assistance to the country in trying to develop a democratic government.
While the military regularly calls up reservists for regular rotation in
Kuwait and more are scheduled to report this fall, Bush administration
officials insist there are no plans on the president's desk to take any
kind of military action against Saddam.

WHAT'S AT STAKE IN INDIA. US Commission on International Religious
Freedom, a statutory body advising American President and Congress,
announced on Thursday that it will hold a hearing on June 10 to examine
evidences which suggested that recent communal violence in Gujarat, was
carefully planned by the state government. "The government of Gujarat and
some members of the police force is involved in the recent violence in
that state. The riot in the state, located on the border with Pakistan,
threatens to exacerbate the already inflamed tensions between New Delhi
and Islamabad," said Commission Chairman Michael K Young. "According to
India's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the events leading up to
the Godhra tragedy and the violence that followed were marked by a serious
failure of intelligence and inaction by the (Gujarat) state government,"
an official release quoted Young as saying. "The Commission is very
concerned that the US government has not spoken out forcefully against the
attacks which killed nearly 1,000 people and left another 10,000 homeless
in Gujarat", he said. Stating that the violence has yet to be contained,
the Commission called upon the US government to press the government of
India to provide security for those people who remain under threat of
attack, including Muslims and Hindus who may be subject to retaliation,
and to see that those responsible for violent acts targeting members of
religious groups are held accountable. [TIMES OF INDIA]

FROM BUSH'S SPEECH (SOMEONE HAS TO LISTEN TO THIS STUFF): "...America is
leading the civilized world in a titanic struggle against terror. [ONE
DOESN'T HAVE TO BE MUCH OF A FREUDIAN TO WONDER ABOUT THAT CHOICE OF
ADJECTIVE.] Tonight, over 60,000 American troops are deployed around the
world in the war against terror -- more than 7,000 in Afghanistan, others
in the Philippines, Yemen and the Republic of Georgia to train local
forces ... Americans should continue to do what you're doing. Go about
your lives, but pay attention to your surroundings [ALL YOU WHO'VE BEEN IN
THE HABIT OF BUMPING INTO TREES AND TRASHCANS, STOP IT.] ... we now know
that thousands of trained killers are plotting to attack us ... The first
and best way to secure America's homeland is to attack the enemy where he
hides and plans, and we're doing just that. We're also taking significant
steps to strengthen our homeland protections: securing cockpits,
tightening our borders, stockpiling vaccines, increasing security at water
treatment and nuclear power plants. [HMM...]

CLINTON GANG STILL AT LARGE. Some labor unions are threatening to withhold
money from Democrats this election year because Bill Clinton's
presidential library is being constructed in Arkansas without 100 percent
union labor. "It's ironic that the presidential library dedicated to
Ronald Reagan -- an ardent foe of our unions -- was built 100 percent
union," said Edward C. Sullivan, president of the AFL-CIO's Building and
Construction Trades Department, which is made up of 14 unions with more
than 3 million members. The unions "are furious at being treated this way
by former allies," and most will stop their contributions to the
Democratic National Committee, Sullivan said Thursday. [AP]

FRIDAY, JUNE 07, 2002

ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT AMTRAK MAY CLOSE.  Those concerned with the
growing fascistic tendencies of our leaders and the media may find some
comfort in the fact that under the Bush regime the trains not only won't
run on time, they may not run at all -- if rightwing budget slashers have
their way. This will place America in the rare company of its new colony,
Afghanistan, as among the few countries in the world without passenger
rail service. [PROG REV]

SEE NEXT STORY. The overall teen birthrate including all age levels and
ethnic groups fell to its lowest level in six decades last year, marking
the 10th straight year of declines, the federal government said. Black
teen-agers and high school girls between the ages of 15 and 17 saw a
significant 8 percent drop in their birthrates, slightly more than the
overall 5 percent decline. [WASH TIMES]

THEY NEED INCENTIVES. Census data shows that some counties in the United
States have an astounding 3 out of 5 children living in poverty. The
counties with the highest child poverty rates included: Buffalo County,
South Dakota - 61.8 percent Zieback County, South Dakota - 61.2 percent
Shannon County, South Dakota - 61.0 percent Starr County, Texas - 59.5
percent Todd County, South Dakota - 57.7 percent East Carroll Parish,
Louisiana - 56.8 percent Owsley County, Kentucky - 56.4 percent McDowell
County, West Virginia - 53.0 percent Madison Parish County, Louisiana -
52.6 percent Holmes County, Mississippi - 52.4 percent Brownsville, Texas
and Hartford, Connecticut topped the list of big cities with high child
poverty rates in a report by the Children's Defense Fund. 45.3 percent of
children in Brownsville, Texas were poor 41.3 percent in Hartford,
Connecticut 40.5 percent in New Orleans, Louisiana 40.5 percent in
Providence, Rhode Island 39.3 percent in Atlanta, Georgia 38.7 percent in
Buffalo, New York 38.5 percent in Miami, Florida 38.2 percent in Gary,
Indiana 38.0 percent in Cleveland, Ohio 38.0 percent in Laredo, Texas Some
of the rankings were a surprise. Providence, Rhode Island is now tied with
New Orleans, Louisiana as the 3rd poorest big city for children, up from
the 25th poorest in the 1990 Census. Among states, CDF found that in nine
states and the District of Columbia 1 in 5 children is poor. Mississippi
had the worst showing (with 27.0 percent of its children in poverty)
followed by Louisiana (26.6 percent), New Mexico (25.0 percent), and West
Virginia (24.3 percent). These states were closely followed by Arkansas
(21.8 percent), Alabama (21.5 percent), Kentucky (20.8 percent), Texas
(20.5 percent) and New York (20 percent). The District of Columbia had an
even higher child poverty rate than any of the states (31.7 percent).

UK PUNDITS PREDICT. The Times and Guardian disagree about the likelihood
of nuclear war in the region. Bronwen Maddox, the Times' foreign editor,
thinks it unlikely - unless Mr Musharraf is overthrown in a coup. The
Guardian, on the other hand, says it would be very difficult for the
Pakistani president to accept defeat in Kashmir for a second time. "His
military commanders would say to him, 'Use it [the nuclear option] or go,"
a source tells the paper.

WHY IS THAT? Henry Paulson, the chairman of Goldman Sachs, is quoted on
the front page of The New York Times: 'I cannot think of a time when
business over all has been held in less repute.' Why is that? Because
corporate and white-collar crime inflict far more damage on society today
than all street crime combined. Health care fraud alone costs the nation
more than $100 billion a year in damage, while, according to the FBI,
burglary and robbery inflict $4 billion. The FBI estimates that there are
15,000 homicides in the United States every year. Compare that to the more
than 40,000 Americans who die every year on the job or from occupational
diseases. And yet, the prisons are filled with street criminals. [R.
Mokhiber, CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER]

NEEDING NO STINKIN' BADGES. Another example of the Secret Service engaging
in unconstitutional and illegal restraint of demonstrations came during
Condoleezza Rice's talk at the Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School graduation
ceremony in DC's Constitution Hall. Reports one attendee, "Students who
participated in the graduation ceremony protested Rice's speech by wearing
red armbands over their robes - this was greeted with hostility by both
school administration and the Secret Service, who demanded that students
remove them." [PROG REV]

I WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS. The United States Defence Secretary, Donald
Rumsfeld, has baffled journalists in Brussels by explaining the greatest
threat to Western civilisation may lurk in what he has termed "unknown
unknowns". Mr Rumsfeld says he told a meeting of North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO) defence ministers that even US intelligence agencies
can often only see the tip of the iceberg when looking for terrorist
threats. But this is how he explained it at a media conference. "There are
no knowns," Mr Rumsfeld. "There are things we know that we know. There are
known unknowns - that is to say, there are things that we now know we
don't know but there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not
know we don't know," Mr Rumsfeld said. "So when we do the best we can and
we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's
basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known
knowns and the known unknowns. "And each year we discover a few more of
those unknown unknowns." [ABC via S. Ahten]

SATURDAY, JUNE 08, 2002

WHO'S RATTLING THE SABERS? House Democratic leader and presidential
hopeful Dick Gephardt made a pledge of allegiance to George W. Bush. If
Bush exhausts all diplomatic possibilities and Saddam Hussein threatens
nuclear war, Gephardt is right behind him on military action. His timing
was startling. The Joint Chiefs of Staff told Washington Post reporter
Thomas Ricks that they oppose the invasion, despite what the hawkish
civilian lobby, the Cakewalk Invincibles, is telling Bush. [M. McGrory,
WP]

	*	*	*

At the White House, 'The People' Have Spoken -- Endlessly 
By Dana Milbank, Tuesday, June 4, 2002

What do the American people think? Ask President Bush.

"The American people know this about me," he said on the subject of
pre-Sept. 11 terrorism warnings. "Had I known that the enemy was going to
use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done
everything in my power to protect the American people." What do the
American people think about the war on terrorism? "The American people
understand that some days there will be moments of great drama on the TV
screens, and sometimes there's going to be kind of a lull in the action,"
Bush said yesterday in Little Rock, invoking the American people three
times in one speech. "The American people, much to the chagrin of the
enemy and much to the delight of a grateful president, understand that we
face a new threat."

How about his handling of Enron and its pension debacle? "The American
people know that my administration has acted the right way," Bush
affirmed.

The best energy policy? "It's a combination of good conservation and an
increase in supplies," and "I think most of the American people understand
that," he said.

The American people do not know for sure why the president keeps saying
this. But the president and his aides have used some variation of the
phrase hundreds of times, to defend the administration's policies on
everything from the Middle East to income taxes.

This is no verbal tic. By invoking the American people (not the informal
"Americans") when confronted with a thorny issue or a hostile question,
Bush and his aides give the impression that the matter is some
inside-the-Beltway intrigue that is out of step with public opinion. 

"It's an effective shorthand," said Jeff Shesol, a former Clinton
speechwriter who taught a course in presidential rhetoric at Princeton
University this year. "It's suggesting that in fact you may have an
argument but we've got the people." Shesol admits Clinton speechwriters
used the phrase, too. "We're not proud of it, but the American people know
our heart was in the right place," he said.

But how does a president know what the American people believe? Earlier
this spring, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer hinted the source may be
opinion polls. "The American people, as shown by all the data, powerfully,
continually support the president at record-breaking levels," he said. 

This from the president who said he would govern by "principle, not polls"
and who mocked the Clinton administration for polling. Yet, according to
the new issue of the American Prospect magazine, Federal Election
Commission filings show that the Republican National Committee spent
$236,000 on Bush's three pollsters in the first quarter, on pace to spend
nearly $1 million this year. (The RNC says no more than $150,000 was
relevant to the White House.)

"Polls do give you as accurate a reflection as you can get of what the
public thinks," Fleischer allows. Besides, he adds, invoking the American
people "beats the alternative, which is to say what the people of a
foreign country believe."

As Bush deals with issues such as Enron and the terrorism warnings, the
phrase has grown more popular. In a single briefing recently, Fleischer,
spoke for the American people no fewer than seven times, including:

"The American people will be very leery of any politician who seeks to
turn the sorrow of victims into their own political gain. . . . The
American people know that this president is determined to protect this
country. . .The American people know that this administration has a lot of
meetings that take place at classified levels. . . . I think the American
people have a general sense of the process the president uses to obtain
the information he needs."

Even when asked about the propriety of the GOP selling a White House photo
of Bush on Air Force One on Sept. 11, Fleischer invoked the same
authority. "The American people recognize that that photo represented the
president doing his job on behalf of the country," he said.

The American people may have noticed the phrase creeping into the
vocabulary of top Bush aides. "The American people . . . understand
there's a need for action, and they want Congress to put partisanship
behind them," counselor Karen Hughes said. Energy Secretary Spencer
Abraham remarked that "the American people know that we are too dependent
on foreign oil, and they know the most promising means of reducing that
dependence is to open up ANWR," the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to
drilling. 

The fullest report by far on the state of the American people's thinking
came when Bush, addressing a GOP luncheon in West Virginia, stipulated the
following:

"The American people are incredibly patient and resolved."

"They know that we have succeeded in one phase of our war in Afghanistan."

"They also know that the stage we're now in, which is hunting down the
cave dwellers, is going to take a while."

"They understand that this is a dangerous phase of the war."

"They also understand that we are not preoccupied by one or two people,
that while bin Laden thinks he can hide in a cave or Mullah Omar thinks he
can run, it's just a matter of time."

With such a harmonic convergence of views, it's no wonder, as Bush said
that day, "that I stand in awe of the American people."


Bush and Putin unite against a common 'foe'
by Eric Margolis June 2, 2002 

GENEVA -- If you can't beat them, join them. Russia has wisely decided to
accept junior membership in NATO and link itself to Europe at last week's
Rome summit rather than challenge the overwhelming might of the United
States and its allies. 

As former president Lyndon Johnson pithily noted, it's better to have
someone inside your house spitting out, than someone outside spitting in.
The George Bush administration has followed this sensible dictum and is to
be congratulated for steering Russia into Europe's arms. The alternative
would be a sullen, isolated, dangerous Russia. 

So far, so good. But a cloud hung over the heavily guarded Rome meeting.
The new U.S.-Russian entente may be more a temporary liaison of
convenience driven by sharing a mutual enemy - Islamic militancy (known as
"terrorism" to its enemies) - rather than common goals or ideals. As the
Arabs say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. 

In 1999, George Bush denounced Russia for its savagery in Muslim Chechnya
thus: "When the Russian government attacks civilians, killing women and
children ... it can no longer expect aid. The Russian government will
discover it cannot build a stable and unified nation on the ruins of human
rights." Now, in May, 2002, Bush lauds Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, as
a friend and ally in the war against terrorism, man of peace and respecter
of human rights. The same Putin whose forces invaded independent Chechnya,
razed its cities, killed over 70,000 civilians and continue to destroy it.
This week, Amnesty International again accused Russia of ongoing torture
and human rights violations in Chechnya. 

Just as Chechens fighting 300 years of brutal Russian occupation are now
branded "Islamic terrorists" by the Bush administration, so, too, are
Muslim Kashmiris struggling against Indian rule. As India and Pakistan
teeter on the verge of war, the White House, whose ham-handed diplomacy
helped ignite this latest Kashmir crisis, has swallowed India's claim that
militants fighting its occupation of Kashmir are "Islamic terrorists." 

Short memory 

Any armed resistance by Muslims to oppression or denial of their basic
rights is now deemed "terrorism" by Washington, which has conveniently
forgotten America's creation of Cuban rebels, Nicaraguan Contra
guerrillas, and Afghan mujahedin. India accuses Pakistan of terrorism
while forgetting its support for Bangladeshi insurgents, Sri Lankan Tamil
Tigers, and the dispatching of saboteurs to Pakistan. 

As a result of 9/11, Chechen and Kashmir independence fighters have now
joined Palestinians in a triumverate of evil. According to the new Bush
interpretation, any Muslims who resist the status quo, no matter how
unjust, may be terrorists - especially if they use their own bodies or
bombs as weapons. 

Political militants who blow up buildings and airliners, or slaughter
civilians, are terrorists. Unfortunately, revolutionary warfare always
involves a certain degree of terrorism. Let's recall Jews who waged a
campaign of terrorism against the British in Palestine; India's bloody
suppression of Sikh separatists; the Irish uprising against British rule,
and so on. 

There is no clear line between "clean" legitimate resistance and
terrorism. Terrorism remains the weapon of the poor, the unarmed, the
oppressed. If Muslim militants had tanks and helicopter gunships like the
Russians, Indians and Israelis, they would use them instead of suicide
attacks. But they do not. How is an oppressed people without arms to
resist? 

Pakistan has armed and supported many of the Kashmiri mujahedin operating
against India. But India is a major violator of human rights in the
Kashmir Valley, as Amnesty International also reported last week. 

In 1948, the UN mandated that India and Pakistan hold plebiscites in their
portions of divided Kashmir to determine the wishes of the population, 80%
of whom were Muslims. India has persistently refused to hold the vote and
instead annexed its portion of Kashmir, insisting the disputed state is
purely an internal matter. India's claims that the latest uprising in
Kashmir is entirely due to Pakistani machinations are as false as
Pakistan's claims it gives nothing but "moral support" to Kashmiri
militants. 

Legitimate grievances 

In fact, the Kashmir uprising spontaneously ignited in 1989 and caught
Pakistan as much by surprise as India. But India, like Israel and Russia,
has jumped on George Bush's anti-terrorism bandwagon in order to crush
enemies who are fighting as much for land and freedom as they are for
Islam. Trying to demonize and dismiss the legitimate grievances of
Palestinians, Muslim Kashmiris and Chechen by branding them terrorists is
immoral and will ensure that even more terrorist acts become the norm. 

To the Muslim world, America has now joined Russia as its main oppressor.
As the Israeli thinker Uri Avnery observed, the U.S. is now acting like
the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the 1830s by ruthlessly enforcing an
unjust, repressive and politically reactionary status quo. 

Three decades ago, America was regarded as a friend and saviour by the
Muslim world. In the 1990s, the United States saved the Muslims of Bosnia
and Kosovo from genocide - a noble act insufficiently recognized by the
world's Muslims. [??--CGE] Today, after 9/11, America is now seen as the
leading enemy and oppressor of Muslims, a fact underlined by the new
U.S.-Russian entente. Such is the continuing tragic fallout from 9/11.

  =========================
  Carl Estabrook
  Five Litchfield Lane
  Champaign IL 61820 USA
  office    217.244.4105
  mobile    217.369.5471
  residence 217.359.9466
  <cge at shout.net>
  <www.carlforcongress.org>
  =========================
  "Either the general population will take control of its own destiny
  and concern itself with community interests
  guided by values of solidarity, sympathy and concern for others --
  or there will be no destiny for anyone to control.
  As long as some specialized class is in a position of authority,
  it is going to set policy in special interests that it serves --
  but the conditions of survival, let alone justice,
  require rational social planning in the interests of the community
  as a whole and by now that means the global community." --Noam Chomsky
  ======================================================================