|
The Week in Review Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
|
December13, 2004 - The Week in Review, Issue 1 (reformatted) >> |
|
Anti-Social Security by DEAN BAKER The Nation [from the December 27, 2004 issue] This article can be found on the web at http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041227&s=baker The battle for Social Security's survival is under way. In a key maneuver recently, N. Gregory Mankiw, George W. Bush's chief economic adviser, explicitly floated the idea of cutting benefits, a necessary but unmentioned part of the White House's privatization plan. More details will be presented to the public in the weeks ahead, but the outlines of the Bush plan are already clear, having been laid out by his 2001 Social Security Commission. As Mankiw suggested, the Bush plan would require a large reduction in the benefits provided by the existing system. A worker who is 20 today would see a cut of approximately one-third in his or her retirement benefit, although workers would theoretically more than recoup this loss by investing a portion of their Social Security taxes in a private account. Read more: http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20041227&s=baker ---- Liberal Leader From Ukraine Was Poisoned By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL, International Herald Tribune Published: December 12, 2004 LONDON, Dec. 11 - Tests done at a hospital in Vienna confirmed that Viktor A. Yushchenko, the Ukrainian opposition candidate, had been poisoned with dioxin, doctors there said Saturday, providing an explanation for a broad array of painful and disfiguring conditions that plagued him during the last three months of the presidential campaign. There is "no doubt" that Mr. Yushchenko's disease "has been caused by a case of poisoning by dioxin," Dr. Michael Zimpfer, the head of the Rudolfinerhaus hospital, said at a news conference on Saturday. He said that Mr. Yushchenko's blood dioxin level was "more than 1,000 times" the upper limits of normal and that his initial severe abdominal pain suggested that he had eaten the poison. Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/international/europe/12ukraine.html ------------- The Atlantic Monthly | October 2004 Bush's Lost Year By deciding to invade Iraq, the Bush Administration decided not to do many other things: not to reconstruct Afghanistan, not to deal with the threats posed by North Korea and Iran, and not to wage an effective war on terror. An inventory of opportunities lost by James Fallows http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200410/fallows ..... I remember distinctly the way 2002 began in Washington. New Year's Day was below freezing and blustery. The next day was worse. That day, January 2, I trudged several hundred yards across the vast parking lots of the Pentagon. I was being pulled apart by the wind and was ready to feel sorry for myself, until I was shamed by the sight of miserable, frozen Army sentries at the numerous outdoor security posts that had been manned non-stop since the September 11 attacks. I was going for an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense. At the time, Wolfowitz's name and face were not yet familiar worldwide. He was known in Washington for offering big-picture explanations of the Administration's foreign-policy goals??”a task for which the President was unsuited, the Vice President was unavailable, and most other senior Administration officials were, for various reasons, inappropriate. The National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was still playing a background role; the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was mainly dealing with immediate operational questions in his daily briefings about the war in Afghanistan; the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was already known to be on the losing side of most internal policy struggles. After the interview I wrote a short article about Wolfowitz and his views for the March 2002 issue of this magazine. In some ways the outlook and choices he described then still fit the world situation two and a half years later. Even at the time, the possibility that the Administration's next move in the war on terror would be against Iraq, whether or not Iraq proved to be involved in the 9/11 hijackings, was under active discussion. When talking with me Wolfowitz touched briefly on the case for removing Saddam Hussein, in the context of the general need to reduce tyranny in the Arab-Islamic world. But in most ways the assumptions and tone of the conversation now seem impossibly remote. At the beginning of 2002 the United States still operated in a climate of worldwide sympathy and solidarity. A broad range of allies supported its anti-Taliban efforts in Afghanistan, and virtually no international Muslim leaders had denounced them. President Bush was still being celebrated for his eloquent speech expressing American resolve, before a joint session of Congress on September 20. His deftness in managing domestic and international symbols was typified by his hosting an end-of-Ramadan ceremony at the White House in mid-December, even as battle raged in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan, on the Pakistani border. At the start of 2002 fewer than 10,000 U.S. soldiers were deployed overseas as part of the war on terror, and a dozen Americans had died in combat. The United States had not captured Osama bin Laden, but it had routed the Taliban leadership that sheltered him, and seemed to have put al-Qaeda on the run. Read more: http://www.dragg.net/users/maxx/ezine/fallows.htm --------- Los Angeles Times Analysis: Discontent Plaguing Military By TOM RAUM Associated Press Writer 1:07 PM PST, December 10, 2004 WASHINGTON ??” Soldiers always gripe. But confronting the defense secretary, filing a lawsuit over extended tours and refusing to go on a mission because it's too dangerous elevate complaining to a new level. It also could mean a deeper problem for the Pentagon: a lessening of faith in the Iraq mission and in a volunteer army that soldiers can't leave. The hubbub over an exchange between Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and soldiers in Kuwait has given fresh ammunition to critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy. It also highlighted growing morale and motivation problems in the 21-month-old war that even some administration supporters say must be addressed to get off a slippery slope that could eventually lead to breakdowns reminiscent of the Vietnam War. For thousands of years, soldiers have grumbled about everything from their commanders to their equipment to shelter and food. But challenging a defense secretary to his face is rare. So is suing the military to keep from being sent back to a combat zone. "We are seeing some unprecedented things. The real fear is that these could be tips of a larger iceberg," said P.J. Crowley, a retired colonel who served as a Pentagon spokesman in both Republican and Democratic administrations and was a White House national security aide in the Clinton administration. "The real issue is not any one of these things individually. It's what the broader impact will be on our re-enlistment rates and our retention," Crowley said. Several Iraq-bound soldiers confronted Rumsfeld on Wednesday at a base in Kuwait about a lack of armor for their Humvees and other vehicles, about second-hand equipment and about a policy keeping many in Iraq far beyond enlistment contracts. Their pointed questions were cheered by others in the group. The episode -- the questions and Rumsfeld's testy responses were captured by television cameras and widely reported -- did not raise new issues. Complaints about inadequate protection against insurgents' roadside bombs and forced duty extensions have been sounded for months. But not so vividly. President Bush and Rumsfeld offered assurances that the issues of armor and equipment were being dealt with, and that the plainspoken expression of concerns by soldiers was welcome. "I'd want to ask the defense secretary the same question," Bush said, if the president were a soldier in overseas combat. "They deserve the best," he added. The display of brazenness in Kuwait came just two days after eight U.S. soldiers in Kuwait and Iraq filed a lawsuit challenging the military's "stop loss" policy, which allows the extension of active-duty deployments during times of war or national emergencies. In October, up to 19 Army reservists from a unit based in South Carolina refused orders to drive unarmored trucks on a fuel supply mission along attack-prone roads near Baghdad, contending it was too dangerous. The Pentagon is still investigating the incident. "Tensions obviously are rising," said Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former adviser to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "The fact is that you do need now to consider how to change the force structure: the role of the reserves, the role of the actives. Troops are being deployed in continuing combat under what are often high risk conditions for far longer periods than anyone had previously considered or planned for." When the war began in March 2003, the troops were predominantly active duty military. Today, National Guard and Army Reserve units make up about 40 percent of the force. The growing restiveness of U.S. troops in the Middle East echoes a drop in optimism at home that a stable, democratic government can be established in Iraq. A new poll for The Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs shows that 47 percent of Americans now think it's likely Iraq can establish such a government, down from 55 percent in April. White House spokesman Scott McClellan on Friday said that Bush "is committed to making sure our troops have the best equipment and all the resources they need to do their jobs. And that's exactly what he expects to happen." EDITOR'S NOTE -- Tom Raum has covered national and international affairs for The Associated Press since 1973. ----------- 1,000 a day dying in Congo, agency says http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/12/10/congo-report041210.html Last Updated Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:24:22 EST DAKAR, SENEGAL - An international aid agency says more than 1,000 civilians a day in Congo are dying from disease and malnutrition in the "deadliest crisis in the world." The New York-based International Rescue Committee blames a six-year military conflict being fought over the country's rich gold, diamond and mineral stores for 3.8 million deaths in Africa's third-largest nation. Most of the deaths are easily preventable, the agency said in a report released Thursday, but the war has destroyed hospitals and other health-care institutions. World response to the crisis in the country also known as Congo-Kinshasa has been lacking, the agency said. During 2003, Iraq received aid worth the equivalent of $138 per person, while Congo received roughly $3 per person in aid. "The international response to the humanitarian crisis in Congo has been grossly inadequate in proportion to need," said Dr. Richard Brennan, one of the study's authors. "It's sustained compassion and political will that's lacking." Congo's death toll remains one-third higher than the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, despite peace deals signed in 2002. A transitional government was set up last year with elections scheduled for 2005. Established at the request of Albert Einstein to help opponents of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, the IRC is a non-profit agency that assists refugees around the world. Written by CBC News Online staff Copyright ?©2004 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved ----------- NEIL MACDONALD: Defining 'terrorism' is harder than you'd think CBC News Analysis | December 3, 2004 http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_macdonald/20041203.html The UN's new report on its own relevance has a surprisingly candid and sensible passage, especially coming from an institution whose default position on controversial issues is usually no position at all. The section is titled "Defining Terrorism." Yes. That problem. Defining terrorism, especially post-9/11, practically guarantees a public lambasting from somebody. The term has been appropriated by governments, movements and zealots, all of which vigilantly seek to ensure that only their definition carries legitimacy. In fact, the term is so inflammatory nowadays that not using it seems to attract a ferocious response. (Ask any news organization that prefers to avoid the issue by using terms such as killer, bomber, attacker, etc.) The Americans, at the moment, assert particular ownership of the word. Hence military reports here of cornering "thousands of terrorists" in downtown Fallujah. The United States seems to regard any attack on any American target, military or civilian, under almost any circumstances, as terrorism. And as President Bush has famously declared, you're either with us or with the terrorists. To the United States, whole countries can be terrorists. And Bush's ill-defined "War on Terror" has been internalized, virtually without question, by the American political class, by the media here, and by the public. Other nations brandish the term, too, of course, but modified to their specifications. Israel, Russia, Great Britain, the Palestinians, Spain, Morocco and Turkey, to name a few, constantly blast the term at their adversaries. It goes without saying, naturally, that those states never apply it to their own actions, or, for that matter, the actions of anyone whose agenda happens to dovetail with their own interests. As one British writer put it, "terrorism is violence we disapprove of." But in shamelessly bending the term to their own ends, governments have cheapened the real and growing use of violence against civilians. The fact is that there is simply no international strategy for dealing with the issue; the UN has never been able to fashion one because its member states simply cannot agree on what constitutes terrorism. As the UN report soberly notes: "Lack of agreement on a clear and well-known definition undermines the normative and moral stance against terrorism and has stained the United Nations image. Achieving a comprehensive convention on terrorism, including a clear definition, is a political imperative." The report singles out two reasons why an international definition of terrorism has been impossible to achieve. The first, it says, "is the argument that any definition should include states' use of armed forces against civilians." Well, yes. One could certainly understand how the average Iraqi, with 100,000 of his countrymen and women dead at the hands of the U.S. military and its allies, might think that Islamists blowing up a pizzeria isn't much different from tanks annihilating an innocent family whose crime is to live in a country Washington has decided could develop into a threat. But there is a difference. When states target civilians or use military force with wanton disregard for civilian populations, it is a war crime. There is black-letter law against it. The UN report points that out, and suggests that an international definition of terrorism might be more acceptable if it contained "recognition ??¦ that State use of force against civilians ??¦ if of sufficient scale, constitutes a war crime by the persons concerned or a crime against humanity." The trouble is that such wording would be hollow, and everyone knows it. War crimes are almost never actionable. Powerful nations have seen to that. There are only two specific tribunals at the moment set up to deal with war crimes: the Arusha tribunal, to deal with the genocide in Rwanda, and the tribunal in The Hague dealing with the Yugoslavian civil war. The International Criminal Court itself is not empowered to act against states that have elected not to participate. And several have done just that. The United States, for example. It is also a safe bet that the five real powers at the UN ??“ the U.S., France, Russia, China and Great Britain ??“ are never going to agree to an anti-terrorism strategy that might eventually condemn their military tactics or those of their client states. And, of course, as long as states can evade responsibility for war crimes, "non-state actors," as the UN labels groups like al-Qaeda, will be able to claim they are merely doing what governments the world over do. The second argument standing in the way of an international definition of terror, says the UN, "is that peoples under foreign occupation have a right to resistance and a definition of terrorism should not override this right." What the report is talking about here, although it avoids naming names, is Israel. That second argument is the argument of the Palestinians, who have for decades waged diplomatic war with Israel at the UN, with the majority of member states taking their side. The UN report suggests finally taking a stand against that sort of thinking: "there is nothing in the fact of occupation that justifies the targeting and killing of civilians." Which would seem a simple enough truth. (Although one suspects that if Texas were occupied by a foreign power, its citizens would pull out their guns and start shooting at any enemy target that presented itself, civilian or not). But the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not as easy to characterize as the UN report might wish. The Israeli soldiers who enforce the occupation kill a great many Palestinian civilians. If Palestinians have committed terror, the Israelis have certainly committed war crimes. There is also the question of whether the Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza, thousands of whom are well armed and overtly bellicose, constitute civilians or combatants. Nonetheless, the UN report is courageous even to consider the matter. At the end of the section, it tentatively provides this definition of terrorism: "Any action ??¦ that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act ??¦ is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act." Simple enough. Sensible enough. And, for all sorts of reasons, likely doomed to languish in a report. -------- Arab leaders rebuke U.S. policy toward Israel By Jonathan S. Landay Knight Ridder Newspapers RABAT, Morocco - Arab leaders Saturday rebuked the United States for its policy toward Israel, saying U.S. efforts to curb Islamic extremism and promote democracy in the Middle East could not be taken seriously because of its one-sided stand in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "Let us face it ... the real bone of contention is the longest conflict in modern history. For too long, the Arabs have witnessed the Western bias toward Israel," Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, told a U.S.-sponsored conference here on political and economic reform. The Bush administration wanted to keep the Israeli-Palestinian dispute from clouding the "Forum for the Future," contending countries could modernize and fight terrorism independently of whether there was progress toward a settlement. But the issue came up in speech after speech, underscoring the deep differences between Arab governments and the Bush administration over the causes of the region's problems, especially growing Islamic extremism. At a news conference afterward, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the United States was using the "opportunity" created by the recent death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to re-energize the moribund peace process. But a final communique, accepted by Powell as co-chair of the session, said that participants' support for regional reform "will go hand in hand with their support for a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict." The communique made clear participants would not rush into overhauling systems that sustain many autocratic Arab regimes, reaffirming that it is "the sovereign right of each country ... to freely develop its own democratic political and socio-cultural system," free from "interference ... from outside." Iran, a key regional power and backer of extremist Palestinian groups, boycotted the conference. Not invited were Israel, one of the region's few democracies, and Sudan, accused by Washington of committing genocide in the Darfur region. The session was part of a broader Middle East and North Africa initiative launched by President Bush in June at a summit of the world's wealthiest nations to find ways in which wealthier nations and international institutions can promote change as a way of attacking problems that breed Islamic extremism. The conference was attended by some 20 Arab countries, the world's eight leading industrialized countries, the European Union, Pakistan, Turkey and Afghanistan. Bringing governments from across the Muslim world to the same table was a significant achievement at a time of widespread hostility toward the Bush administration for its policy toward Israel and its invasion of Iraq. But the decisions - aid for literacy programs, a $100 million initiative to support small businesses and a dialogue with civic groups - were vastly scaled back from Bush's original goal of using the overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to promote sweeping democratic change in the region. Opening the session, Powell sought to ease widespread concerns that the U.S. initiative was really an attempt to promote U.S. political ideas and interests. "We all agree that effective and sustainable change can only come from within," he said. But he exhorted Arab countries to stop stalling reforms. "Political and economic freedom go hand in hand," he said. "All of us confront the daily threat of terrorism. To defeat the murderous extremists in our midst, we must work together to address the causes of despair and frustration that extremists exploit for their own use." Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League, while saying that extremism must be fought, linked reforms to a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Arabs understand U.S. security guarantees for Israel, he said. "What the Arab peoples cannot fathom is why these guarantees are transformed into unrestricted backing of unrestrained Israeli policies contrary to international legality," he said. He said that the "beast of extremism, terrorism and hatred remains with us because we are not true to our commitments. It remains to be seen whether we can for the first time be honest with each other and commit ourselves to settling the Arab-Israeli conflict." http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/10395700.htm (c) 2004, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services. ----------------- Defeat So Sweet The Bush administration's strange insistence that it won the detainee cases. By Lyle Denniston Posted Friday, Dec. 10, 2004, at 12:12 PM PT Hardly a week goes by in the federal courts without some Justice Department lawyer filing a document or rising at a podium to proclaim "mission accomplished" on the legal battleground of the war on terrorism. Two Supreme Court rulings in June??”widely interpreted as serious defeats for President Bush and the Pentagon??”emerge repeatedly in the rhetoric of the government as encouragement to make even broader claims. This is not merely public relations spin, or cowboy bravado: It is put forth as serious legal argument, grounded in a view that Bush administration lawyers have held since the first days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It is a claim of nearly limitless constitutional authority for the president to choose both the grand strategy and the particular tactics of waging war on terrorists, without intrusion by the courts. And the administration insists the Supreme Court has endorsed this claim. Read more: http://slate.msn.com/id/2110910/ |
|
|
December13, 2004 - The Week in Review, Issue 1 (reformatted) >> |
|
The Week in Review Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
|
Archives powered by Zinester's Mailing List Service
Details on The Week in Review |
Browse for more newsletters at Zinester's Ezine Directory
Managed by Zinester's Mailing List Management |