first published at www.independentindian.com

Some 20 years ago I recall watching James Webb, then Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan Administration, on the MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour and thinking “this man would be a great US President”. He then seemed for many years to disappear from the public eye, perhaps due to personal problems, until he returned recently as a Democrat and the junior Senator from Virginia. I am delighted to see his name being floated as a possible Vice-Presidential running-mate for Barack Obama, e.g. by Professor Gerald Pomper at

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_should_pick_webb_for_run.html

I agree with Professor Pomper’s analysis. An Obama-Webb ticket would be unstoppable for the reasons he has given and more. It will also be good for America and the world in the 21st Century.

I say this as a Ron Paul fan who — had I been an American voter, which I am not — would have voted for Carter 1980, Reagan 1984, Bush Sr 1988, Bush Sr 1992, Dole 1996, Bush Jr 2000 (ok ok, I did not think he’d be that bad), Kerry 2004.

Hillary Clinton’s name has been floated as a possible Veep candidate — for John McCain! Wouldn’t that be fun? Obama-Webb vs McCain-Clinton!

Subroto Roy

Democratic Party anxiety
Hillary still sniping at Obama from behind

Lead editorial in The Statesman, Kolkata and New Delhi, www.thestatesman.net, April 24 2008

Six weeks after the last Democratic Party primary, Pennsylvania as expected gave more votes to Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama, though the latter continues his unassailable lead in “primary delegates”. If Mr Obama had by some surprise defeated Mrs Clinton in Pennsylvania, her campaign would have ended. Now it moves on to Indiana and North Carolina under the same assumptions ~ that she needs to continue to win if she is to have a hope of becoming her party’s nominee for President while if she loses she may have to withdraw. The Republican Party’s nominee John McCain waits and watches in glee as the Democrats offer free cannon-fodder for him to use later in the year. Basically, Mrs Clinton says that Mr Obama is too inexperienced and weak compared to herself; Mr Obama says that her alleged experience is either exaggerated or of a highly dubious sort, and only he can provide real change after the Bush years. Democratic Party loyalists are worried that each of their two star candidates is making the other unelectable. One possible scenario that has done the rounds is that a divided Denver Convention in August will lead to the party choosing the stalwart Al Gore as the Presidential nominee who will then choose Mr Obama as his Vice Presidential running-mate, finally sending Mrs Clinton into the wilderness. The fact such unorthodox scenarios are being floated speaks of the deep anxiety among Democrats that they simply cannot seem to win the White House. (Bill Clinton won in 1992 thanks to a random factor named Ross Perot, Jimmy Carter in 1976 after the Watergate era.)
The world is affected by all this because of the American military actions that may be expected as a result. Mrs Clinton has said this week she would “obliterate” Iran if there was an Iranian attack on Israel - an event that seems far less likely than an Israeli attack on Iran. Mr Obama had earlier said he would attack Pakistan if necessary in the “war against terror”. Mr McCain also has built a foreign policy where “radical Islam” is supposed to be an American enemy. The world might wish that America looked within itself more than outside itself in the search for problems in election-season.

American Politics
Contest Between Obama And Clinton Affects The World

by

Subroto Roy

First published in The Statesman, Editorial Page Special Article, www.thestatesman.net, March 11 2008, republished at www.independentindian.com

In 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War and protests about it, the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago was marked by bloodshed and rioting. The sitting (Democrat) President, Lyndon Johnson, had taken moral responsibility for the war and declined to run for re-election. His widely-respected Vice-President, Hubert Humphrey, was chosen in traditional “smoke-filled rooms” by party elders during the Convention. But the public had witnessed the Convention’s violence, and Humphrey lost to Richard Nixon. In the next election in 1972, Democrats banned party elders from any role and allowed the nominee to emerge solely from state-by-state primary elections. The result was the anti-war candidate George McGovern, who lost 49 out of 50 States to the incumbent Nixon.

Denver Convention

This year’s Democratic Party Convention in Denver in August may be the first to return to “smoke-filled rooms” (figuratively of course, given the absence of public smoking in modern America especially among “politically correct” Democrats). Almost 800 party elders, consisting of senators, congressional representatives, party functionaries etc, known as “superdelegates” may have to break the near dead heat tie among “primary delegates” who have committed to Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama after state-by-state elections.

It was not supposed to have been like this. A year ago Mrs Clinton had seemed an unstoppable favourite not only in the Democratic race but the overall Presidential race too, so much so that the incumbent Bush-Cheney Administration was dropping hints it would not mind seeing a new Clinton Administration taking over its foreign wars. (Mrs Clinton’s husband had become a friend of former President GHW Bush, President Bush’s father, in some relatively rare American nepotism at the top.)

Mrs Clinton had been so confident of being confirmed by now she spent her energy trying to show herself one of the boys, who could be Commander-in-Chief of the world’s largest military and who had voted in favour of Bush’s Iraq war. The idea seemed to be she would show herself just as tough as the Republicans and yet because she was female she would win in November 2008 by reminding women of her gender. Her support among middle-aged white women has remained solid and seems unshakeable but her strategy of being the presumptive anointed “pseudo-incumbent” has failed.

Mr Obama, attracting younger better-educated Democrats as well as the crucial set of cross-party independents and floating Republicans, besides African-Americans like himself, has taken ground Mrs Clinton left undefended; she has been painted by him as Republican-Lite, the archetypal Washington-insider, and a war-monger. Mrs Clinton has indeed recorded the largest contributions of any candidate from America’s “military industrial complex” of weapons’ manufacturers.

Mr Obama went into the recent Ohio and Texas primaries having narrowed large leads against him, and though he lost both has retained a lead in the delegate count. Last weekend he won Wyoming and is likely to win Mississippi — states normally remote in the political landscape but which have acquired significance to “momentum” now. It is expected that even after the major state Pennsylvania votes next month (likely in favour of Mrs Clinton) the contest will not end. A joint ticket could become unstoppable and has been hinted at by the Clintons. But Mr Obama has no reason to be an understudy because if he is not himself the Presidential candidate, it may be better to wait for the 2012 contest than be brushed by the Clinton negatives.

Republicans have surprisingly quickly agreed upon Arizona’s elderly senator John McCain as their candidate out of a raucous field. The single anti-war Republican candidate, Ron Paul, fizzled out. Mr McCain, like his main rivals Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, has been overtly jingoistic, strongly backed the Bush wars and has identified “radical Islamic extremism” as an American enemy. Mr McCain was a POW of the North Vietnamese decades ago and underwent torture, something he has not let anyone forget. His remark that America under him may fight “100 years” in Middle East wars, as well as President Bush’s endorsement of him, may put off a country that has been turning against war and is increasingly anxious about macroeconomics and international trade again.

Mr McCain may have to wait to see who emerges from among the Democrats before he announces his Vice-Presidential running-mate. Usual “ticket-balancing” considerations point to a young conservative or a senior woman or black political figure for obvious reasons.

Thus the Democratic Party leadership now unexpectedly finds itself in a crucial role in the next weeks and months. A raucous divisive Convention in August on the 1968 pattern will leave the Republicans gloating. Current controversy has to do with Michigan and Florida; both held unauthorized primaries ahead of time and were punished by the leadership in not being recognized. Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama both agreed not to campaign there. Will Michigan and Florida “delegates” be recognized and “seated” in Denver? Should they be split equally between the two candidates? Should there be a “do-over” primary via the mail in each now that the race has become heated, and if so, who will pay for it?

The crucial question for the Democratic Party is to decide who may defeat Mr McCain. Mr Obama’s  youth, race and Muslim middle name Hussein, will undoubtedly be used by the Republicans to attack him. Mrs Clinton carries a lot of baggage from her husband’s time: there was an unpleasant air of sleaze and mendacity during the entire eight years of Bill’s rule in Washington DC and voters will be wary to allow a re-run of the same. (The 22nd Constitutional Amendment forbids more than eight years for any President, and the idea is novel and untested that a First Lady can run on her own to get around that.)

Israel policy

Mrs Clinton’s foreign and military policy will be quite close to Mr McCain’s in its aggressiveness. Mr Obama opposed the Iraq war and is certain to keep playing that trump-card against both. Mr Obama’s foreign policy “weakness” has to do with being perceived by the pro-Israeli lobby as not hardline enough. He has said clearly he is pro-Israel and strongly so and that he found Israel’s own debate “much more open” than the American one. Mrs Clinton and Mr McCain both pass the “Likud test” with flying colours; Mr Obama’s statement that being pro-Israel is not identical with being “pro-Likud” may mean he does not.

The Democratic Party will have to figure out in its decision between Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama where America’s voters in November 2008 are swinging on the issue of fighting aggressive wars. The other vital issue will be protectionism in international trade ~ some “superdelegates” have already started to demand pledges about trade-policies to “save American jobs”. The world will be affected by who wins between Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama along two important dimensions, viz., whether America will be more likely as a result to (a) launch new wars; (b) become more protectionist in trade.

The writer is Contributing Editor, The Statesman

Will Ron Paul endorse Barack Obama? Almost certainly not even though Obama is clearly, among the three remaining candidates for US President, closest to RP’s positions. It may be time soon for this blog to go. I have said that if I had been an American voter, I would prefer Obama over McCain and Hillary by a mile, though between McCain and Hillary (both war-mongers) I would have reluctantly preferred McCain.

I continue to think Mrs Clinton’s bid may be violating the 22nd Amendment — the easiest way to see that is by asking the following hypothetical: suppose Obama becomes President and wins re-election; after 8 years in the White House, his wife then decides she wants to try to be President and runs for the office. The 22nd Amendment was intended to stop such things though the authors of the 22nd Amendment could not have foreseen the kind of nepotism the Clintons have been indulging in. Husband and wife are the same legal person in the eyes of the State in these circumstances. The First Lady and the President are the same legal person. In fact, Mrs Clinton has been using that to her advantage in the campaign — eg getting President Clinton to campaign for her.

John McCain probably fears a contest with Obama more than one with Mrs Clinton.

CNN reports: Clinton’s campaign manager Maggie Williams responded to the photo controversy with a Monday morning statement that insisted the New York senator’s team “will not be distracted,” but did not directly address the substance of the allegation. ‘Enough. If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely,” said Williams.”

If Hillary Clinton or President Bush wear non-European attire in some country they are visiting, people will say, at most, isn’t that a cute diplomatic gesture, here are these European-Americans wearing non-European clothes for a little while.

But if an”African-American” like Senator Obama is seen wearing non-European clothes, and especially the clothes of a Somali Muslim on a visit to that country, the response of the racist subconscious is different: “there now you have him wearing his real outfit, what he really likes to wear at home if only he had the chance, he is only pretending to be a “European-American” like everyone else.”

Having fought racism in the federal courts of the USA for some 18 years now, I can empathise with the outrage the Obama camp is feeling about the insinuation from Hillary.

Subroto Roy

Justin Raimondo reports a scoop that Ron Paul remains in the US Presidential campaign.  America would have seen its cleanest, finest Presidential contest in living memory, perhaps in history, if RP had been the Republican candidate and Barak Obama the Democratic candidate.

The Statesman of Kolkata and New Delhi, editorial February 20 2008 www.thestatesman.net
“Without American and British backing, there would have been no
unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo’s Muslim “Ethnic
Albanian” population. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair bombed the Serbs
heavily on behalf of Kosovo’s Albanians, and George W Bush has now
promoted the latter’s breaking away. In part this has been because the
Americans want to show they are not anti-Muslim ~ 90% of Kosovo’s 2
million people are Muslim ~ though Muslim anger at America will hardly
reduce itself because Kosovo’s Albanians are now waving American
flags. The USA has been purely self-interested in another way also:
the largest American military base created between the Vietnam and
Iraq wars is Camp Bondsteel, 40 km from Pristina, the capital of
Kosovo. There have been calls for Russia to station troops in Serbia
in response to the American base ~ making Kosovo a flashpoint for a
new Cold War between Russia and the West. America’s own short history
being hidden in mythology, US foreign policy has not been much guided
by proper historical understanding. By creating an American dependency
in recognized Serbian territory, the USA may have sown the seeds of
new Balkan wars. World War I began in 1914 when in next-door Sarajevo,
a 19 year old Bosnian Serb, Gavrilo Princip, killed Austria’s Archduke
Ferdinand and his wife, causing Austro-Hungary to declare war on
Serbia and hence on Russia, which in turn caused Austro-Hungary’s
German ally to enter on one side, and Russia’s ally France and
France’s ally Britain to enter on the other. Almost a century later,
Russia will today veto any move by Kosovo to enter the UN, and China’s
Foreign Ministry has urged talks between Serbia and the Kosovo
Albanians. India through our MEA also must urge the world community to
follow international law, and that means in this case saying no to
Kosovo. Serbia was vanquished and viciously subjugated for centuries
by the Turks at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389. Let not new Balkan or
world wars start needlessly over Kosovo again.”

If I was Pakistani, I would want Javed Hashmi to become Prime Minister now. Mr Hashmi was wrongfully sentenced by one of Pervez Musharraf’s kangaroo courts to 23 years in jail, and served four years in solitary confinement before he was released by order of the (since deposed) Supreme Court. He has earned the moral right to lead Pakistan now, and may also be magnanimous enough to let Musharraf go on his way in peace.

Senator Obama has been frequently compared to John F Kennedy.  But the similarity is only youthfulness and being a senator.  Mr Obama is hardly going to end up displaying JFK’s weaknesses.  A more apt comparison may be Ronald Reagan: Mr Obama is inspiring people with his magnetic smile and his vision-thing just as Reagan did.  Reagan did not win the first time he sought the Republican nomination and Mr Obama may or may not do so  yet.  But if there is a President Obama in the White House before long, he will have the youth of JFK and the charisma of Ronald Reagan and perhaps a better education and more integrity than either of them.

Ron Paul seems to have all but thrown in the towel and gone back to surviving in his Congressional seat.  There is a case to be made that he may want to give up his seat and retire from politics at this stage, becoming an icon instead and a mentor in the Libertarian movement.  But in any case that does not help guide his millions of US supporters or the many people around the world who were encouraged by his candidacy.   Where do they turn?   Some will vote Libertarian perhaps.  But if the main reason  for supporting  RP was his anti-war plank, it may seem Barak Obama is the least bad choice available.  John McCain seems all ready to fight new wars and Hillary Clinton is the darling of the military -industrial complex.  It is sad to say Goodbye Ron Paul, Hello Senator Obama.

When I first went to the USA in 1980, I was a Jimmy Carter fan and I was surprised to see the animosity against him. In the 1980 elections, I would have voted for Carter over Reagan, in 1984 for Reagan, in 1988 for Bush Senior, in 1992 for Bush Senior, in 1996 for Dole, in 2000 for Bush Jr (I could not imagine he would be as bad as he was), in 2004 for Kerry. In 2008 I would have voted for Ron Paul. If forced to choose between McCain and Hillary, it would be McCain, but between McCain and Obama it would be Obama hands down. I.e., if not Ron Paul then Obama, if not Obama then McCain, and I would have wasted a vote before voting for Hillary and her husband. (I think a case can be made that her candidacy as it stands breaches the 22nd Amendment.)

In any case I can’t vote in America and never did. I voted for the Labour Party in England twice as a Commonwealth student at age 18 (though at age 48 I created the book Margaret Thatcher’s Revolution: How it Happened and What it Meant) and have voted for Mamata Banerjee twice in India’s elections as a vote against the entrenched communists. Generally, in Britain if the Tories are in power I would be Labour and if Labour is in power I would be Tory.

Hearing Mike Huckabee make a “victory speech” in Little Rock, I thought he was about to admit he is lifting Ron Paul’s ideas as and when he needs to. Ron Paul won’t mind I am sure if (and only if) Huckabee becomes a full 100% Paulista. Stealing political ideas is as common as stealing scientific ideas. E.g. Tony Blair passed off a lot of stuff as his own without admitting it really came from Margaret Thatcher’s Tories.  And of course it has happened in India too where Manmohan Singh and his fellow apparatchiks claimed to be economic reformers when they had never had a liberal idea in their life.

January 10, 2008 The Ties That Strangle by Rep. Ron Paul

“I recently highlighted the irony of sending nearly $1 billion overseas in military earmarks as we close down bases here at home to save money. Our government’s flawed foreign policy troubles me especially in light of recent events in Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto’s assassination was a great tragedy. Pakistan is now more than ever teetering on chaos. And all the money we have sent Musharraf has inadvertently drawn a target on our backs. Musharraf, unfortunately, appears to have learned how to work our system, much in the way a career welfare recipient has learned to do the same. The perpetual welfare recipient promises to look for a job. Musharraf has promised to look for Bin Laden. Both are terrible investments of American taxpayer dollars, however with Musharraf, its been an astonishing $10 billion loss over the last few years. But it is even worse than that. With his recent actions declaring martial law, and dismissing the justices of the supreme court, he is to the rest of the world, and to Pakistanis, a wildly unpopular, power hungry, brutal military dictator. The perception by most is that we are propping him up while simultaneously urging Ms. Bhutto back into Pakistan as a lamb to the slaughter…..

More at

http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=12180

Ron Paul is the only principled anti-war candidate on the Republican side.  The 8-10% of votes he won in Iowa and New Hampshire were from loyalists who believe in his principles.  Those voting for the so-called front-runners receiving 33%, 25% or whatever now are fickle and unprincipled.  If one clear unambiguous front-runner emerges among the Republicans, where will those who oppose that person go?    Ron Paul’s “core” supporters may just be those 8-10% but he could yet seek to win over  those for whom he would be a second-choice above any unambiguous front-runner that emerges to whom he could then pose the main challenge.  I.e. he and only he is the antiwar candidate while the pro-war candidates may face a split vote which he might be able to put to his advantage.

Ron Paul has been the most principled and most clear-headed US Presidential candidate. He has been the most articulate against all American wars that cannot be justified on traditional grounds of self-defence, and has also spoken of a Non-Interventionist foreign policy for the USA. The fact he is receiving not enough support in the New Hampshire primary to make him a so-called “front-runner” may indicate that America’s “War Party” — represented by everyone else like Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama, Mr Giuliani, Mr McCain, Mr Romney, Mr Huckabee, Mr Thompson etc — is likely to win in November 2008. That would be a great pity.

The Statesman, Kolkata and New Delhi, lead editorial January 5 2008, www.thestatesman.net

American voting starts

What the Iowa caucuses mean

The US Presidential election process has finally started in the sense the first step has been taken in “warm-body” voting (as opposed to informal “polling” by marketers, news organizations etc). Iowa is a small quirky Mid-Western state where, amid the corn-fields, groups (or “caucuses”) of Democrats and Republicans met in schools, farm-houses and fire-stations to indicate whom they wished to see their party’s candidate in November. Mr Barak Obama is by birth half “black” and half “white” which, in American terms, makes him count as a “black man”, not a “white man”. In Iowa’s caucuses he has significantly trounced his main rivals for the Democratic Party nomination, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Mr Edwards was expected to “win” Iowa as he had invested most time and resources there; that he came second is bad for him. Similarly, Mrs Clinton is the nationwide poll front-runner among Democrats; that she came third and not second is bad for her. None of these three has anything like the experience of other Democratic candidates like Joe Biden or Chris Dodd but neither of them placed anywhere at all, and have now dropped out as a result. On the Republican side, the one-time front-runner Rudy Giuliani gave Iowa a deliberate miss, and expectedly came last. Iowa is deeply Christian and the Republican lead was split as expected between the evangelical Mike Huckabee and the rich businessman, Mitt Romney. But Iowa numerically means nothing and nor will the next early state, New Hampshire, where there at least is a “primary vote” using ballots. Indeed neither Iowa nor New Hampshire or any other early state is very meaningful – the date to watch out for is “Super Tuesday” or “Tsunami Tuesday”, 5 February, when a large number of states will hold their primaries, including heavyweights like California and New York. Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton will likely still remain standing after that on the Democrat side; Mr John McCain and perhaps a few others including the maverick Ron Paul on the Republican side. The world can expect America to be wholly self-absorbed until November’s Presidential vote is over.

Brazil for Ron Paul, Venezuela for Ron Paul, Canada for Ron Paul, Bavaria for Ron Paul, Europe for Ron Paul, Britain for Ron Paul, France for Ron Paul, Germany for Ron Paul, Holland for Ron Paul, Belgium for Ron Paul, Poland for Ron Paul, Romania for Ron Paul, Finns for Ron Paul, Hungarians for Ron Paul, Italians for Ron Paul, Israeli libertarians for Ron Paul, Australian libertarians for Ron Paul, Indian & Pakistani libertarians for Ron Paul — may we please hear from Taiwan, China, Russia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Africa, Arabia, Iran, New Zealand?

And how about America herself? Can America hope to lead the world again without Ron Paul as President?

Ron Paul is far too modest and self-effacing, i.e. genuinely Christian, to speak much of his personal life as a Christian. But his views on just and unjust wars are clearly based on traditional Christian teaching. He may be the only candidate who has used the term “just war” in the debates. That is the basis of his opposition to the Iraq war and others. Compare that with the opposition of most US churches to the Iraq war(A), and contrast it with Mike Huckabee’s aggressive jingoism (B).

A. US church leaders oppose war on Iraq

http://www.warc.ch/update/up122/index.html

Update

2002: Volume 12
# May

Volume 12 numbers 2 & 3 (October 2002)
US church leaders oppose war on Iraq

“With heavy hearts we hear once again the drumbeat of war against Iraq,” the UCC collegium of officers said on September 13.
John Thomas, UCC
John Thomas, UCC     “As United Church of Christ leaders committed to God’s reign of justice and peace in the world and to the just conduct of our nation, we firmly oppose this advance to war.”

“Rather than lining nations up against an ‘axis of evil’, our nation should engage in honest and open consultation with parties around the world and especially in the Middle East to seek a non-military solution to the threat that Iraq may pose. That solution should begin with ending economic sanctions, which have only strengthened Iraq’s leader while weakening its people.”

Mainstream US church leaders are surprisingly unanimous in what they say about war against Iraq, and surprisingly ready to criticize the policies of their country’s government.

Leading the charge is the United Methodist Church. “President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are members of our denomination,” says Jim Winkler, staff head of the UMC’s church and society board. “Our silence now could be interpreted as tacit approval of war.”

In a forthright statement issued on August 30, Winkler said that “with unprecedented disregard for democratic ideals and with an astonishing lack of evidence justifying such a pre-emptive attack, the president has all but given the order to fire.”

“I ask United Methodists to oppose this reckless measure… Our church categorically opposes interventions by more powerful nations against weaker ones. We recognize the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among nations.”

WARC member churches have taken a similar stance. An action alert from the Reformed Church in America in August said that there were “serious questions about the wisdom and justifiability of the use of military force aimed at overthrowing the government of Iraq”. The general synod of the RCA in June had already voted to petition the US governing authorities “to use all possible political and diplomatic means to achieve US policy goals rather than using violence, which will only lead to further destruction and death of innocents and foment ill-will throughout the region”.

In September, the general assembly council of the Presbyterian Church (USA) called on US political leaders to speak in ways that encourage peace, rather than war; oppose ethnic and religious stereotyping; guard against a unilateralism that perpetuates the perception that “might makes right”, and sets the US over against the larger community of nations; and allow UN decisions regarding the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq to run their appropriate course without undue pressure or threats of pre-emptive, unilateral action.
Where’s the just cause?

The Roman Catholic Church takes “just war” theology as seriously as anyone. September 13 saw a sharply-worded letter to Mr Bush from Wilton D Gregory, president of the US conference of Catholic bishops. Given the lack of “clear and adequate evidence of Iraqi involvement” in September 11 or of “an imminent attack” on the US “of a grave nature”, Gregory asked him, “what is the casus belli for a military attack on Iraq?”

“We respectfully urge you to step back from the brink of war and help lead the world to act together to fashion an effective global response… that conforms with traditional moral limits on the use of military force.”
Strike first?

Pre-emptive attack is a major concern in the church letters and statements.

Sharon A Brown Christopher”A pre-emptive war by the United States against a nation like Iraq goes against the very grain of our understanding of the gospel, our church’s teachings and our conscience,” wrote Sharon A Brown Christopher, president of the United Methodist council of bishops, in a letter to church members on October 4.
Welsey Granberg-Michaelson
Welsey Granberg-Michaelson     “The pre-emptive use of military force by the United States… establishes a dangerous precedent… [and] heightens concern in other countries about American respect for their integrity as nations, as well as for international law,” said church leaders in a letter to Mr Bush on September 12.
The letter was signed by the PCUSA moderator and stated clerk, Fahed Abu-Akel and Clifton Kirkpatrick, and the RCA general secretary, Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, among many others.     Fahed Abu-Akel
Fahed Abu-Akel     Clifton Kirkpatrick
Clifton Kirkpatrick

The PCUSA’s Washington Report (September/October 2002) notes that in 1981, when Israeli warplanes targeted and destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, the Reagan administration called the airstrike a shocking violation of international law, compared it with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and joined with other UN Security Council members in a resolution condemning it. Israel argued that the pre-emptive action was in its own defence. The US rejected this argument.

Earlier, in 1956, the US challenged three of its closest allies - Great Britain, France, and Israel - when they invaded Egypt in an attempt to overthrow the radical nationalist regime of Gamal Abdul-Nasser. The Eisenhower administration insisted that international law and the UN charter must be upheld.

The Report sketches the debate within the US establishment between the neo-conservatives who argue that the war against terrorism requires the US to assume an aggressive and unilateral role; the realists who argue against too strong a use of power as it will ignite an international backlash; and the “Wilsonians” who argue that the US should work with other countries and within the framework of international law.

James Rubin, an assistant secretary of state under Bill Clinton, criticizes the Bush administration for breaking with decades of US policy.

The September policy statement, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Rubin says, “appears to make first strikes the rule rather than the exception” and is just “the latest in a series of actions by the administration that have been extremely controversial internationally and have raised troubling questions about our commitment to traditional norms of international politics.”

“These steps include the withdrawal from the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty prohibiting missile defences, the rejection of the Kyoto protocol on the environment, aggressive steps aimed at undermining the international criminal court, and the initial decision not to apply the Geneva conventions to the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.”
Sanctions and bombing

Church leaders didn’t stop at rejecting war against Iraq. They also addressed the undeclared war that has been waged by the US and the UK for more than ten years.

“The most severe impact of a military assault on Iraq would be on its already suffering civilian population,” says the United Church of Christ collegium. “Over a decade of containment and isolation, of crippling comprehensive sanctions, and of routine US and British bombing have created miserable conditions inside Iraq. The sanctions have induced poverty, malnutrition, and starvation on the most vulnerable of the Iraqi people, including millions of children. These civilians, innocent of the atrocities Saddam Hussein has committed, should not bear the burden of deprivation and death such a war would surely exact from them.”

The UN children’s fund has documented an increase in the under-five child mortality rate in Iraq from 56 to 131 per thousand in the sanction years 1990-1998. UNICEF projected that there would have been “half a million fewer deaths of children under five” in the 1990s without these economic shackles.
Humility and even-handedness

The Church of the Brethren, a historic peace church, in an October 14 statement by its general board asks the US government and people to “cultivate a deeper humility and accept more responsibility for the conflict with Iraq”.

It reminds them that “during the 1980s, the US materially and diplomatically supported the government of Iraq in its brutal war against Iran; the 1991 Gulf War did not resolve our conflict with the government of Iraq; the people of Iraq continue to suffer from economic sanctions imposed by the US and other countries, with as many as one million Iraqi citizens having died of sanctions-related causes; these sanctions are unjust, and furthermore, now have little effective impact on the government of Iraq; the negative effects of the Gulf War still plague both US soldiers and Iraqi civilians; [and] the US has evidenced a degree of unevenness in pressing and desiring enforcement of UN security council resolutions pertaining to the Middle East region, which now contributes to resentment both in Iraq and among its neighbours.”

The “degree of unevenness” refers to UN resolutions on the conflict between Israel and Palestine, which are routinely ignored by Israel with Washington’s blessing.

There is another tactful reference to Israel in the September 12 US church leaders’ letter, which calls for a “regional weapons-of-mass-destruction control initiative”. Israel is the only nuclear power in the region.
Congress votes

Early in October, as Congress debated a war resolution, 450 ministers, priests and nuns from across the US fanned out on Capitol Hill in a three-day lobbying and prayer campaign. But on October 10, George Bush got the result he wanted, with the House voting 296-133 and the Senate voting 77-23 to authorize him to wage war on Iraq.

On October 11, a coalition of church leaders on both sides of the Atlantic urged Mr Bush and British prime minister Tony Blair to pull back from the spiral towards war. They reiterated that this could not be justified under the principle of a just war, but would be “illegal, unwise, and immoral”.

“A congressional decision has been made, and many regard this as the end of the national debate on war with Iraq. We are here to say the vote in Congress is simply the beginning of the debate,” said Jim Wallis, editor of the evangelical journal Sojourners and an organizer of the statement.
Pro-peace

The church leaders reject suggestions that they are unpatriotic, anti-American or naïve, and they have no more time for Saddam Hussein than they have for their own politicians’ war fever.

“President Hussein’s demonstrated behaviour leaves any thoughtful person horrified by his treatment of his own citizens and the citizens of Iraq’s neighbouring countries,” says the UMC’s Bishop Brown Christopher.

In the end, the church leaders are driven by a double conviction that is Christian and democratic.

Jim Winkler puts it simply, so simply that even Mr Bush can’t fail to understand.

Jim Winkler”The path upon which the president seeks to embark is counter to the teachings of Jesus [and] threatens the rule of law as a fundamental principle of democracy.”

“It is inconceivable,” Winkler says, “that Jesus Christ, our Lord and saviour and the prince of peace, would support this proposed attack.”

Páraic Réamonn

BBC Monday, 17 February, 2003, 15:08 GMT

“US churches seek peaceful Iraq strategy
Church leaders are among those against war

by Alex Kirby
BBC News Online

US church leaders are to ask Prime Minister Tony Blair to work for the non-violent replacement of President Saddam Hussein. They challenge Mr Blair’s claim that there is a strong moral case for toppling the Iraqi leader by force. Despite all the rhetoric, President Bush and Mr Blair have refrained from indicting Saddam Hussein for war crimes
They say the US is barely using its powers to support opposition groups within Iraq.
The leaders are due to meet Mr Blair on 18 February.
The delegation is headed by the Reverend Jim Wallis of the Sojourners’ Community, a Christian justice and peace group based in Washington DC.
It will tell Mr Blair a non-violent strategy for removing Saddam Hussein could work if it had Western backing. They believe Iraq is ripe for non-violent change because millions of Iraqis detest Saddam Hussein Civilians, they say, could cause disruption around Iraq, dispersed enough to avoid offering convenient targets for repression.
The realisation that open opposition had begun would embolden other Iraqis to take part in “more systematic acts of resistance”. This growing opposition would offer dissidents within the regime a place to which they could defect. The US delegation says non-violent resistance has historically relied on weapons like strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience and even non-violent sabotage. Widespread hatred Its hopes of success rest partly on the assumption that an authoritarian ruler requires services from the population, which he cannot indefinitely compel them to supply. The church leaders say the Iraqi regime is particularly vulnerable over oil - if a limited number of civilian oil workers downed tools they could create a crisis by themselves. If a limited number of civilian oil workers downed tools they could create a crisis by themselves They believe Iraq is ripe for non-violent change because millions of Iraqis detest Saddam Hussein, whose hold on power in any case relies on personal loyalties and repression. A few years ago, in the city of Karbala, they say, civilians effectively encircled troops sent to control them, and similar uprisings on a national scale could stretch the regime’s machinery of repression to breaking point. Crucially, the US delegation will tell Mr Blair the West is failing to give Iraqi dissidents the support they need - the other condition they need for success.
Under the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, they say, the US administration can give opposition groups goods and services - including training - worth up to $97 million. So far it has used $1m of that total. Glaring omission It will tell Mr Blair the choice is not between leaving Saddam Hussein in power and removing him through war, but that there is a third way.
Dan Plesch, of the UK’s Royal United Services Institute, told BBC News Online: “What the delegation is pointing out is something very embarrassing, that the US is not interested in trying for peaceful change, but only in something more squalid and traditional.
“It’s quite remarkable that despite all the rhetoric President Bush and Mr Blair have refrained from indicting Saddam Hussein for war crimes. “The delegation’s approach is certainly worth trying.”

(B) from Mike Huckabee.com

“Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror.
The Democrats deny that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror even as we fight Al Qaeda there. Al Qaeda seeks permanent bases in Anbar province to plot and train against us.
General Petraeus and our troops are giving their all to provide a window of opportunity for the Iraq government to succeed, while the Democrats are running for the exit doors.
The surge is a military means to achieve the political end of sectarian reconciliation among the Iraqis.
Setting a timetable for withdrawal is a mistake. This country has never declared war until “a week from Wednesday,” we have always declared war until victory.
I am focused on winning. Withdrawal would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis.
I support a regional summit so that Iraq’s neighbors become militarily and financially committed to stabilizing Iraq.
Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror. The Democrats delusionally deny that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror even as we fight Al Qaeda there. Al Qaeda is a major ally of the Sunni insurgents in their fight against the Shiite majority. One of the most significant events in the Iraq War was Al Qaeda’s bombing of the Shiites’ Golden Mosque in Samarra in February 2006. That bombing led to the dramatic rise in sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites we’ve seen ever since, furthering Al Qaeda’s goal of fomenting chaos and civil war. What’s in it for them? They need territory, a place to plot their evil and train their murderers for another September 11. Al Qaeda intends to keep and expand its bases in the Sunni area of Anbar province. But we’ve made great progress in denying Al Qaeda that Anbar sanctuary, where the Commandant of the Marines, General Conway, says that “we have turned the corner.” Fourteen of Anbar’s eighteen tribal leaders no longer support Al Qaeda.
General Petraeus and our troops are giving their all to provide a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government to succeed, while the Democrats are running for the exit doors. The surge has only been in place since the middle of June, but progress has already been made. It’s way too early to write an obituary for the surge as the Democrat defeatists are doing. Having unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to lead the surge, the Democrats should let him do the job they sent him to do and await his report in mid-September. They’re Monday morning quarterbacking while we’re still playing the game, and some of us are playing to win.
To pressure the Iraqis into seizing the day before darkness descends, President Bush and Secretary Gates have been emphatic that this window will not remain open forever. At the same time, setting a timetable for withdrawal tells our enemies they don’t have to win, they just have to wait. We have never in our history declared war until “a week from Wednesday,” we have always declared war until victory.
I am focused on winning. Withdrawal would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis. If we leave, Iraq’s neighbors on all sides will face a refugee crisis and be drawn into the war: Iran to protect the Shiites; Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan to protect the Sunnis; and Turkey to protect its control over its own Kurd population. Iraq is a crossroads where Arab meets Persian and Kurd, Sunni meets Shiite, so if it’s not a peaceful buffer, it can easily become a tinder box for the region. When we deposed Saddam, we emphasized Iraq’s central location as a prime place to establish democracy and have it spread. That was the potential dramatic upside. Now we’re faced with the potential dramatic downside that the terrorists are fighting to take advantage of: Iraq’s central location as a prime place to create chaos and have it spread .
I support a regional summit so that Iraq’s neighbors become financially and militarily committed to stabilizing Iraq now rather than financially and militarily committed to widening the war later. This summit will add more voices, Muslim voices, to the pressure to perform we’re already applying to the Maliki government.”

November 15, 2007  www.antiwar.com
Entangling Alliances
by Rep. Ron Paul

In the name of clamping down on “terrorist uprisings” in Pakistan, General Musharraf has declared a state of emergency and imposed martial law. The true motivations behind this action however, are astonishingly transparent, as the reports come in that mainly lawyers and opposition party members are being arrested and harassed. Supreme Court justices are held in house arrest after indicating some reluctance to certify the legitimacy of Musharraf’s recent re-election.

Meanwhile, terrorist threats on US interests may be more likely to originate from Pakistan, a country to which we have sent $10 billion.

Now we are placed in the difficult position of either continuing to support a military dictator who has taken some blatantly un-Democratic courses of action, or withdrawing support and angering this nuclear-capable country. The administration is carefully negotiating this tight-rope by “reviewing Pakistan’s foreign aid package” and asking Musharraf to relinquish his military title and schedule elections.

By the time he complies with the requests of the White House sufficiently to continue to receive his “allowance,” courtesy of the American taxpayer, his mission will be accomplished. A more friendly Supreme Court will be installed and enough of the opposition party will be jailed or detained to assure an outcome of the elections that will meet with his approval. All the while, our administration lauds Musharraf as a trusted friend and ally.

So much for a War on Terror. So much for making the world safe for democracy.

Free trade means no sanctions against Iran, or Cuba or anyone else for that matter. Entangling alliances with no one means no foreign aid to Pakistan, or Egypt, or Israel, or anyone else for that matter. If an American citizen determines a foreign country or cause is worthy of their money, let them send it, and encourage their neighbors to send money too, but our government has no authority to use hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to mire us in these nightmarishly complicated, no-win entangling alliances.

When we look at global situations today, the words of our founding fathers are becoming more relevant daily. We need to understand that a simple, humble foreign policy makes us less vulnerable and less targeted on the world stage. Pakistan should not be getting an “allowance” from us and we should not be propping up military dictators that oppress people. We should mind our own business and stop the oppressive taxation of Americans that makes this meddling possible.

Perverse Pervez
Soldiers unseating judge set world’s worst precedent

Lead editorial in The Statesman, November 6 2007, www.thetatesman.net

There was something obscene about Pakistan Army soldiers entering the hallowed precincts of the country’s Supreme Court where they had no business to be, going to the Chief Justice and saying to him his services were no longer required. Something of this sort happened more than 800 years ago when Henry II sent his goons to murder Archbishop Thomas Becket in Canterbury Cathedral. Pakistan’s eight most senior Supreme Court Justices led by their Chief denounced the perversity immediately, and remain as that country’s supreme legitimate judicial authority. Their detention by house arrest and purported replacement by pliant toadies must be condemned worldwide. It is simply appalling that Pervez Musharraf’s American masters have merely “regretted” what has been happening. Our own reaction in Delhi hardly has been any better ~ but then the Congress Party has always had a soft spot for the word “Emergency” and almost always an evil eye for the judiciary and the Rule of Law. For the largest constitutional democracies to be pathetically silent about such obscenities in Pakistan bodes ill for the whole world.

ervez Musharraf has been in office illegally since October 1999. He had promised free and fair elections for the first time in 2007, and had promised also to shed his beloved uniform this month. Pakistan’s media, judiciary and civil society had become relatively free under his regime, lending him a little legitimacy. Instead of allowing that phenomenon to grow, he has now repressed it viciously, revealing again his own illegitimacy. As Imran Khan said, everyone had been taken in by Musharraf’s “fake sincerity” for a few years. Not anymore. Musharraf has now lost whatever little credibility he had tried to acquire. Any elections held under this regime will have to be bogus. Why might have the Supreme Court been about to rule that his latest election as President was illegal? Simply because, wearing the uniform of Chief of Army Staff, he has been drawing Government wages and therefore holds an “office of profit” already, contradicting the separation of powers implicit in the Constitution. Among his opponents, Benazir Bhutto has been a failure so far, as had been expected by all but woolly-thinking Bush Administration analysts. Nawaz Sharif languishes in impotent exile. New clean, competent leadership potential may exist in persons like Imran Khan, Javed Hashmi and Pervez Hoodbhoy, even perhaps young Fatima Bhutto, Benazir’s niece. But for now, Pakistan must live with an abomination.

NB: I published this a year ago during the 2006 US midterm elections; it may remain of interest on this blog today.

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
Does America need a Prime Minister and a longer-lived Legislature?
First published:The Sunday Statesman Editorial PageNov 5 2006, www.thestatesman.net

republished www.independentindian.com

by

Subroto