|
An
Oct. 2 teach-in packed the ERB Ballroom.
PLAYING
WITH FIRE
Conference
at UO takes a critical look at U.S. foreign policy in response to terrorist attacks.
With the bombs dropping in Afghanistan, a three-day conference
on "Peace, Justice and Globalization, Community Responses to 9/11" kicks
off this Friday, Oct. 19 at the McDonald Theater and the UO.
The conference begins Friday night at the McDonald Theater (10th
and Willamette) with a 7 pm keynote address by Stephen Zunes, a leading progressive
critic of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Zunes is followed by a 9:30 pm
benefit concert ($13) by Michael Franti and Spearhead. A multitude of panel discussions
and workshops follow Saturday and Sunday at the UO's Grayson Hall (12th and Kincaid).
Call 484-9167 or www.geocities.com/eugenecoalition for conference
information.
Here's a preview of three of the conference speakers:
Stephen Zunes
says public support for bombing Afghanistan won't last. Zunes is a professor of politics
and peace studies at the University of San Francisco. He will give the conference
keynote address and will speak at a session on why the attack happened (7 pm Saturday,
EMU Ballroom) and on building the peace movement (1 pm Sunday, room 129).
While polls show overwhelming support for U.S. military action,
Zunes says most Americans want the military to protect the safety of the U.S., not
retaliate. With the ongoing bombing in Afghanistan, "it will quickly become
obvious that is not going to make the U.S. any safer."
The heavy bombing will only inflame hatred of the U.S., Zunes says.
After Sept. 11, the U.S. enjoyed unprecedented sympathy in the Islamic world as the
victim of terrorism. With the bombing, he says, "now we're being portrayed as
the aggressor."
The U.S. has mistakenly declared Sept. 11 as an "act of war"
rather than an "international crime of horrific proportions." Rather than
widespread bombing, the U.S. should strike a few air defenses and then send in commando
units to arrest or kill the terrorists, Zunes says. The current campaign "is
like hunting quail with an elephant gun" and will cause heavy civilian losses.
The U.S. should address the policies in the Middle East that have
created anti-American hatred, Zunes says.
Osama bin Laden is a "psychopath" with very few followers
who agree with his terrorist campaign against the U.S., Zunes says. But many of bin
Laden's statements about Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians "resonate
very strongly" in the Islamic world, he says. The U.S. shouldn't give in to
bin Laden's blackmail, but the widespread concern about Palestinians "does raise
questions about continuing to support Israel's occupation and oppression."
Zunes disagrees with President George W. Bush's assessment that
the terrorists are targeting U.S. freedom and democracy. The U.S. is a strong supporter
of repressive dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and other nations, he says. "Our
policy in the Middle East has not been about freedom and democracy."
U.S. rhetoric in the war against terrorism is contradictory, Zunes
says. The harsh fundamentalist dictatorship of the Taliban is criticized while the
excesses of the similar dictatorship in Saudi Arabia is ignored.
U.S. support of repressive dictatorships in the Middle East "is
a lot like U.S. policy in Latin America. The U.S. is actually creating extremists,"
Zunes says.
Even if the U.S. does destroy bin Laden and his organization, the
U.S. won't be safe, Zunes says. "There will be new terrorists to take his place
until the U.S. redefines security."
In the past decades, "the more we have militarized [the Middle
East], the less secure it's become," Zunes says. Instead of relying on arms
sales and air strikes to guarantee security, the U.S. should pursue a foreign policy
of human rights, international law and sustainable development in the region that
will bring stability and friendship, he says. "We'd be a lot safer."
In Afghanistan, the U.S. armed and funded Mujahedin extremists
against the former U.S.S.R. The policy backfired with the Taliban, Zunes says. Now,
the U.S. is "cozying up" with the military dictatorship in Pakistan to
fight the Taliban 3 a policy that could "end up blowing back in our face"
again, he says.
Zunes says there's growing opposition to the war. Pacifists oppose
it on the Gandhian idea that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
The far left opposes the war as another imperialist venture in the Third World. Pragmatists
oppose the war as counter-productive to maintaining U.S. security. As in the Vietnam
era, "the pragmatist ones are the ones that have turned minority movements into
majority movements."
Many people in the peace movement don't want to ignore American
security, Zunes says. They want safety through more moral and less counterproductive
policies. "The people in the peace movement are as concerned about our national
security as anybody."
Ann Fagan Ginger
says the U.S. bombing in Afghanistan is illegal.
Ginger is a professor of peace law and human rights at San Francisco
State University. At the conference, Ginger will speak at sessions on the progressive
response to terrorism (3 pm Saturday, room 122), civil liberties (1 pm Saturday,
room TBA), building the peace movement (1 pm Sunday, room 129), and conscientious
objection (3 pm Sat., room TBA).
The U.S. ratified the United Nations charter after World War II
but has largely ignored it, Ginger says. Under the charter, nations must go through
the U.N. Security Council to respond to attacks such as Sept. 11. "Anything
that we do by ourselves is illegal," she says.
The U.S. would have to make its case, probably by suing in the
World Court, that terrorists in Afghanistan were responsible, according to Ginger.
The U.N. could then order Afghanistan to hand over the culprits. If the Taliban refused,
the U.N. could impose sanctions, freeze terrorist assets or even send in U.N. peace
keeping troops to enforce its order.
Going through the U.N. "would silence the idea that this is
the U.S. against Afghanistan or the U.S. against Muslims. It would become the United
Nations seeking peace," Ginger says. The U.N. approach would be a lot cheaper
in military expenditures and in lives, she says. "The advantage is you get peace
instead of killing."
With the U.S. bombing approach, "this could be the beginning
of World War III," Ginger says. Most people have forgotten the horror of the
30 million to 50 million deaths in World War II. Ginger says she's old enough to
remember. "I don't want it to happen again."
Ginger also doesn't want the Cold War McCarthyism to happen again.
Her late husband was forced to resign from Harvard in the 1950s when the administration
thought he was a communist and he refused a loyalty oath, Ginger says.
Today, the FBI has arrested hundreds of Arab non-citizens in the
U.S. without explanation or charges. Such secret jailings, even of non-citizens,
is unconstitutional, Ginger says.
At the same time, just like during the McCarthy era, the U.S. has
generated long lists of subversive organizations subject to harassment, according
to Ginger. In the 1950s such lists included many mainstream and innocent groups.
"It was outrageous," she says.
The terrorism on Sept. 11 "breaks my heart," Ginger says.
But "it's critical that we figure out why it happened so it doesn't happen again."
Ginger attended the recent World Conference Against Racism in South Africa where
she heard many complaints against the U.S. military and corporations. "The anger
against the U.S. is massive."
The U.S. corporate and military exploitation in developing countries
"is the equivalent of terrorism," Ginger says. The military and corporations
create such hatred that things like Sept. 11 are "bound to happen," she
says.
Anita Weiss
says there's "a lot that's at risk" in the U.S. war in Afghanistan. A UO
professor, Weiss has written four books on Pakistan and was in Pakistan on Sept.
11. She will speak on why Sept. 11 happened and where do we go from here, at 7 pm
Saturday in the EMU Ballroom.
"There's far reaching regional and global implications"
to the U.S. bombing in Afghanistan, Weiss says. In Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation
of 160 million, perhaps 80 percent of the people oppose the bombing, Weiss says.
The country already suffers from "a deepening chasm in terms of cultural orientation"
and is at risk of imploding, Weiss fears.
"Things could fall into real chaos," Weiss says. "What
happens when there's nuclear weapons involved in this?"
The destabilization could spread beyond Pakistan. In Malaysia,
usually a strong U.S. ally, the government is under pressure from Islamic groups
and has denounced the Afghan bombing. A key organization of Islamic states has also
condemned the bombing. The widespread opposition among Islamic nations "is virtually
ignored in the American media," Weiss says.
Adding to the instability in Pakistan is the threat of India taking
advantage of the situation to pursue gains in the dispute over Kashmir. India and
Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir since 1948, according to Weiss.
India, also a nuclear state, is having a "strong reaction"
against the new-found alliance between the U.S. and Pakistan. India would like the
U.S. to declare Pakistan a terrorist state for backing separatists in Kashmir.
The U.S. may have chose to ally with Pakistan rather than attack
them because of the nuclear threat, Weiss says. "It was as if someone was whispering
in Bush's ear, 'Whoa, whoa, Pakistan has a nuclear weapon, you just can't attack
them.'"
Table
of Contents
| News | Views | Arts & Entertainment
Classifieds | Personals
| EW
Archive
|