Ten *Realistic* Steps U.S. Could Take (english) by the slave 1:47am Mon Oct 8 '01 keith_v at yahoo.com
Ten realistic steps U.S. could take that DO NOT require 1)absolute drop of support for Israel, 2)dropping all sanctions against Iraq or 3)abandoning Saudi Arabia to "fend for itself". IE., these are not ideological-bound steps but pragmatic steps. An answer to drivel on IndyMedia. The following are several realistic steps that the U.S. could take towards building peace and consensus in the Middle East. After considering both anti-U.S. sentiment abroad and the perceived concerns of the U.S. and Israel, I think these solutions are actually workable.
I am not under the impression that these steps will be in anyway undertaken by the U.S. But I do think they are realistic and not completely out of line with U.S. security needs.
1) The U.S. should drop those economic sanctions that stop the free flow of food and basic commodities into Iraq. This does not necessarily require dropping ALL sanctions, such as those against import of military weapons or advanced computers. The U.S. should admit openly to the Middle East that its sanctions against Iraq have cost millions of lives - and will be revised to recognize that average Iraqis are not to be blamed for the actions of the Iraqi military. This is a compromise that ensures a containment of Iraqi aggression without inflicting a heavy toll on the people that live there. The U.S. should seek to engage the Iraqi government in more discussions. The U.S. should seek to involve Iraqi citizens in some sort of discussions. If one accepts the U.S. position that peace is hard to make with Sadam Hussein, then it should work with regional governments to try to achieve some solution that will ultimately allow the U.S. to withdraw.
2) The U.S. needs to force Israel to set a specific schedule for repatriation of illegal Jewish settlements out of Palestinian lands and back to Israel. This timetable should be realistic and start within a few months. If Israel fails to follow this time-line, the U.S. should begin to incrementally decrease funds to Israel. There should be a timetable for the incremental withdrawal of funds. The U.S. should condemn openly any attacks on Palestinians by Israeli settlers who are illegally stealing land. Israel and the PLO have largely agreed on the borders and lands that will constitute the new Palestinian state, but Israel is failing to live up to those earlier agreements. The Israeli government seems to be under the impression that since no absolute & final agreement has been hammered out, that it can ignore what has already been settled. This shows bad faith on the part of Israel. It should be held accountable for its earlier agreements.
This pressure on Israel does not force Israel into a final agreement that it feels will not insure long-term peace. It recognizes that Israel and the PLO may both have legitimate conflicts, but also forces Israel to take seriously the peace process and live up to their current agreements. There is simply no other way. This simple step acknowledges that much is yet to be done, but what HAS been done so far is legitimate. Israel needs to send a clear message to settlers taking PLO land that this is no longer acceptable. We must not underestimate how hard this will be to sell politically within Israel, especially when Jewish settlers are shot and the government does not intervene to protect. The UN or US may be able to offer logistical support for this repatriation. It will be hard but it is now necessary more than ever if peace is to be found in the region.
3) The U.S. should work to diversify forces protecting Saudi Arabia by including international troops and/or troops from the region. The U.S. needs to quickly start a process that includes other nations in the region in this mission. The U.S. should address regional and internal Saudi concerns that the U.S. is intervening and occupying Saudi Arabia. It may be debatable how deeply held this feeling is, but it is certainly felt among reactionary elements in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
This process should alleviate some regional concerns about U.S. domination there, but also address concerns about protecting global oil supplies. It acknowledges that oil is indeed a very important issue by most modern, industrialized nations. It recognizes that any attempt by ideological extremes to control and dole out oil base on those beliefs is a slippery slope that could lead to global confrontation even global war. But it also recognizes that the region has legitimate concerns about foreign intervention due to previous European colonization.
4) The U.S. needs to present its version of events more clearly and directly to the people of the Middle East region. Simply meeting with the leaders of these nations is not enough. The U.S. needs to address various groups in these communities and attempt to convince them. If the U.S. has a good case against Osama Bin Laden, it should for instance, present what evidence it can to media and NGOs in the region. Simply working with the leaders of other governments, even if the U.S. is correct, leaves average people out of the process altogether. Considering the often shady past of U.S. foreign policy, this should come as no surprise. This is not an argument that the U.S. can please everyone. It however recognizes that the continued process of leaving average people out has not worked in the past and will not work in the future.
5) The United States needs to admit openly & unequivocably that it is guilty of numerous crimes in the past itself. For instance, the U.S. should admit to its deep involvement in the genocide in East Timor. The president should apologize to the people of East Timor for this genocide. The U.S. president should do this in an address to the general public with the nations press.
East Timor is a prime example since this genocide is a very recent one and illustrates that old problems are still alive. The U.S. should offer reparations to the East Timorese to rebuild their nation. These reparations should be honest one, not contingent on structural readjustment policies or market liberalization. The U.S. should make these funds available to U.N. develop agencies and let the U.N. adminster these monies to build housing and restore basic infrastructure.
This confession is not an attempt to make the U.S. pay for every past aggression. There simply isn’t enough money in the world to really cover the massive human suffering and misery. Nor really enough money to rebuild nations it has devastated. But the point is to get the U.S. to confess to a genocide that happened throughout the recent 90s and admit that the U.S. has serious problems that have NOT been resolved.
6) The U.S. should make stands of some sort on its own terror and anti-democratic past. For instance, the U.S. should censure Henry Kissinger. They should make it a crime for any person in the Congress or Executive branch to in any way speak or deal with him. This is a compromise that does not force the U.S. to extradite a former Secretary of State. At the same time, it must acknowledge the deep gravity of the wholesale bombings of Vietnam, Laos & Cambodia. Furthermore, the U.S. should extend a formal apology to Chile for the crimes of Henry Kissinger, the CIA and U.S. government. The U.S. should offer reparations to the families of those who were murdered by Pinochet.
7) The U.S. should define terrorism in clearer terms both at home and in the U.N. Any concept of terrorism should confine it to those that pose an immediate threat to LIFE, not merely those that are ideological opponents of anyone who happens to be in power. The resolutions passed by the U.N. are entirely vague and will be used to oppress ideological foes potentially. For instance, mass demonstrations could be classified as “terrorism: under existing rules and this is clearly not acceptable. Worst of all, these laws would affect those least capable of defending themselves: the poor, politically disenfranchised, citizens of despotic states and citizens of the Global South and Third World. A stand against terrorism without defining it will not only be twisted to excuse repression of masses, it will not effectively deal with real terrorism.
8) The U.S. must reengage on global issues such as nuclear missile treaties it is abandoning wholesale, environmental treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol and conferences that deal with the Global South, such as the recent conference on racism that the U.S. refused to attend. This is not a wholesale condemnation of the U.S., but simply encourages the U.S. to engage honestly in the international community. If a missile defense system is feasible, one must convince our allies and global neighbors, not take unilateral action and ram it down their throats. After all, the Bush Administration simply declared it was going to do this no matter what anyone else thought after being in office for less than 6 months. That is hardly “dialogue”. Across the board, this administration and others in the past have consistently shown open disregard for global opinions on issues that have a global impact. This is reckless and irresponsible and can no longer be tolerated. Likewise, refusing to participate in a global conference on racism, even when you disagree with other nations, is no solution to anything. That is not how one behaves in an international arena.
9) The U.S. must reform the policies of the IMF/WB towards the Third World and Global South. It may not be possible for the U.S. to dismantle these institutions, but it is possible to push fundamental reforms and move towards debt forgiveness. Without these reforms, disenfranchised peoples around the globe will have no reason to trust or believe in the U.S. And regarding the WTO, the U.S. must recognize human rights, labor rights and environmental laws when creating international treaties. Without considering these things, the U.S. is creating long-term poverty, misery and instability.
10) Campaign finance reform must be enacted to bring people back into the political process. A democracy in which elections are simply bought and sold by the highest bidder is only a pretension to democracy. These ideas of campaign finance reform should reaffirm that money is not the same thing as speech. These reforms should be recognized not only as the rights of U.S. citizens, but throughout ALL democracies in the world. The U.S. should work with nations around the world to increase democracy, not corrupt and overthrow it.
I would like to point out that these are a few of the very realistic options the U.S. could take. I don’t believe the U.S. will seek to do ANY of them in the near future however.
I think these proposals are fair. They are neither far right nor far left. They take U.S. security concerns into mind, accept them as legitimate even, and offers alternatives to meet these ends.
For instance, my Israeli compromise does not simply abandon Israel altogether. It does not force them to make a final agreement they cannot pull off or have concerns about. But it DOES force Israel to live up to what it has already agreed to and forces Israel to acknowledge that settlement of Palestinian lands is not acceptable. This small step is not meant in and of itself to be a final remedy, but definitely forces Israel to make commitments that will illustrate to the Middle East that it is serious about the peace process.
The proposal to create a multinational and/or regional military force to support and defend Saudi Arabia recognizes the deep concern the U.S. has over the global issues of oil supply. In fact, it accepts them as legitimate, but simply asks why is the U.S. doing it alone? The Middle East must feel that it is involved collectively as a whole in maintaining regional peace. There are numerous possibilities about how to form such a multinational or regional force so there is flexibility. It may even be possible for UN multinational troops to assist the Saudis and for the U.S. to withdraw altogether. Even if the U.S. remains involved, it would go farther to alleviate concerns in the Middle East that the U.S. is possibly engaging in colonialism.
I know these solutions will not satisfy many. I also recognize that none of these are final solutions. But I feel that they are a)concrete and achievable, b)move the U.S. in the right direction towards working with a larger global community, and c)consider global security. I think they are fairly reasonable.
Sadly, having compiled what I think is not a really radical set of changes (other than the admission of genocide and the Henry Kissinger bit), I seriously doubt the U.S. will move towards these kinds of solutions anytime soon. It makes me ashamed to be a citizen of this country.
[|=-=slave=-=|] Austin IndyMedia