:: Political Paradigm 'Blog ::

:: Friday, May 16, 2003 ::

US says: cooperate with the war crimes tribunal!

US says: don't cooperate with (that other) war crimes tribunal!

Croatia smells a rat

More:
Independent Student Coalition for the ICC
CICC on "Impunity Agreements"
WICC on "Impunity Agreements"

:: WL 5/16/2003 05:44:00 AM [+]

::
...

What liberals think of the anti-war movement: not much.

Judging from the failure of the anti-war movement to generate much momentum even following the massive rallies of the last few months, one has to ask if it's a lost cause tilting at the windmills. Arguably, the answer is yes, and even very activist, very anti-war liberals realize that. One only has to look back at the debacle that was SLAM's attempted "takeover" of Hunter President Jennifer Raab's office back in February for evidence of this.

A few anti-war students from SLAM, the supposedly "populist" organization in control of student government, demanded that President Raab issue an anti-war statement. She refused, and I would say most students, faculty, and administrators with half a brain applauded her decision. As a former free-speech attorney, Raab understood the power of her office and what it would have meant if she had given in to SLAM. It would have meant open season on anyone with moderate or pro-war views. As liberal as the Hunter community is, we are not all placard-waving floozies who burn Bush effigies.

Which brings me back to the main point. Protesting the war and occupation of Iraq is fashionable. It is also completely ineffective in stopping or changing US policy. Why? Because the protesters do not have access to the halls of power. Bush will listen to Colin Powell's concerns about the Geneva Convention before he will listen to any war protester. He said as much after the February 15 rallies.

Real change will happen when liberals use the ballot box and vote for liberals. No, I don't mean voting for Nader as a protest of the two-party system. I mean voting for Dean, Kerry, Grahm, Edwards, Kucinich, or any other Democrat who may actually have a shot at winning.

Politics is about compromise in order to get the most out of your agenda. That is what the anti-war movement needs to learn. Otherwise, all that banner-waving will just drive the pragmatic liberals into the hands of the conservatives. Yes, I started college as a card-carrying socialist. But no thanks to the protest culture of the anti-war movement, which repulsed me with their nonsense, I risk graduating college more conservative than I ever wanted to be.

Essential reading:
I Left My Bleeding Heart in San Francisco
Can There Be a Decent Left?

:: WL 5/14/2003 04:30:00 AM [+]

::
...

This is just lovely... I want Bush to just try and explain this nomination to Congress... He could have picked any former diplomat or any Middle Eastern studies prof. But no, he picks Daniel Pipes. It's not so much that I'm for or against Pipes' nomination, it's just that the sheer amount of controversey Pipes generates should have sent up some warning flares in the West Wing that this is a filibuster waiting to happen... Grr.

Los Angeles Times May 9, 2003

Peace Institute Suddenly at Center of Controversy Bush's nominee for the board meets with opposition because of his views on Muslims.

By Johanna Neuman Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON - At the U.S. Institute of Peace, veterans of the Middle East peace process from several administrations recently sat around brainstorming about lessons learned in their grueling negotiations with the Israelis and the Palestinians.

The session, designed to offer advice to the White House on the eve of new peace talks, is a favored new program at the institute - a research center, with federal funding of $16.2 million a year, that is dedicated to promoting "the prevention, management and peaceful resolution of international conflicts."

Now this quiet haven of foreign policy advisors is at the center of conflict.

President Bush has nominated to the institute's board Daniel Pipes, a neoconservative Middle East scholar whose writings and sound bites have inflamed Muslim leaders. The nomination has sparked a new war between hawks and doves, complete with charges of Muslim-baiting and whispers of Jewish influence.

Pipes directs the Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia think tank that publishes the Middle East Quarterly. A scholar with a doctorate in history from Harvard who has studied Islam for 30 years, he has long warned of the dangers of Islamic extremism, predicting a war of terror against the United States.

Pipes, 53, son of Soviet scholar Richard Pipes, has been outspoken about Muslims. In his work, which includes 11 books, numerous journal and newspaper articles and a variety of television appearances, Pipes has compared Islam with fascism. He has urged more security profiling of Muslims and has argued that the increased Muslim populations in the United States, France, Holland and elsewhere around the world are a danger to Jews.

He also started Campus Watch, which describes itself as a "review and critique" of professors specializing in Middle Eastern studies, to monitor academic work for alleged pro-Arab bias.

The Council of American-Islamic Relations calls Pipes "the premier anti-Muslim attack dog since 9/11." Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the council, said the nomination is disturbing in light of Bush's visit to a mosque in the days after Sept. 11 to preach religious tolerance. "It sends an enormous message of insensitivity to Muslims," Hooper said. The council is lobbying Capitol Hill to kill the nomination.

The institute's 12 board members include representatives of the State Department, the National Defense University and the Pentagon. The other nine members are nominated by the White House and confirmed by the Senate, with the party in the White House controlling the swing seat. Many on both sides of the debate agree that the controversy is largely symbolic, as the power of one board member probably would be tethered to the policies and direction of the institute, which primarily gives awards to scholars studying conflict resolution.

Beyond the controversy over Pipes, however, is a larger issue of what the Institute of Peace should do at a time of unrivaled U.S. military power. Some see Pipes' nomination as an attempt by the Bush White House to shift the focus of the institute from research on peaceful conflict resolution to advocacy of activist military policy - particularly in Israel.

"This is a sad gesture by an administration influenced by far-right, pro-Likud neoconservatives," said Hussein Ibish, communications director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Citing Pipes' well-known view that Israel must defeat the Palestinians in order to secure its own peace, Ibish added that Pipes is almost "uniquely disqualified" for the board. "Anyone with views like this has no business being on the Institute of Peace," he said. "Possibly the Institute of War."

Pipes declined an interview on the specifics of his nomination, pending the decision by the Senate. But when asked about his views on peace, he said, "The strength of the U.S. military is the greatest peacekeeping force in the world. Peace is not achieved through weakness."

The president of the institute, Richard Solomon, is a former ambassador to the Philippines and a former State Department official. He said the institute, once almost exclusively a research organization, is expanding its mission - for example, by training civilian police officers to stabilize Kosovo and sending advisors to the reconstruction effort in Iraq.

"The world has changed, and we have the flexibility to innovate," he said. "We like to think of ourselves as more of a 'do tank' than a think tank."

Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel research organization, is a friend and colleague of Pipes. He noted that when Pipes served on the Fulbright Scholarship board, he did not prevent Muslims from entering the United States. And Clawson marveled that, even under attack, Pipes keeps stoking the fires - in a column that appeared in the New York Post, he argued that a newly liberated Iraq is not suited culturally for democracy and that what is needed is "a democratically minded Iraqi strongman."

Clawson said he believed that Solomon's observation - that the institute is becoming more of a "do tank" - was all the more reason to include conservatives on the board. "What's the point of becoming a 'do tank' if you don't have people on the board who reflect the opinions of U.S. policymakers?" he said.

Holly J. Burkhalter, advocacy director for Physicians for Human Rights, has been on the board since 2000. A Clinton appointee, she said she had not previously spoken out on Pipes' nomination, believing that his political leanings were not an issue. "There is a wide range of views on the board, and we make a wide range of grants," she said. "Our only litmus test is that the scholarship be excellent."

Her concern, she said, is that Pipes is "well-known for having made a career of imposing a different kind of litmus test, an ideological purity movement." Bringing that kind of tactic to the Institute of Peace, she said, could have "a chilling effect" on scholarship.

:: WL 5/10/2003 02:18:00 AM [+]

::
...

They were once men - great kings of men. Then Sauron the deceiver gave to them nine rings of power. Blinded by their greed, they took them without question. One by one they've fallen into darkness. Now they are slaves to his will. They are the Nazgul, Ringwraiths, neither living nor dead. At all times they feel the presence of the Ring, drawn to the power of the One. They will never stop hunting you. - Aragorn, from the (film) Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

US occupation governor of Iraq Jay Garner names 5 of possibly 9 leaders for an Iraqi interim government.

Coincidence? =)

:: WL 5/06/2003 03:03:00 AM [+]

::
...

From a UN News report from May 5:
"A United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) team arrived today in Taiwan Province of China, to support health authorities there in combating the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak, which has accelerated considerably during the past week."

It's disgusting how much the US, the UN, the EU, and almost everyone else has bent over backwards to accomodate China's "one China" policy of denying Taiwan's sovereign existence. It's a political farce worthy of Leno or Jon Stewart if the stakes didn't include the very identity of Taiwan. When will the PRC grow up and face reality?

WHO Director-General Urged to Support Taiwan's WHA Bid
Taiwan Solidarity Union
New Taiwan, Ilha Formosa
World United Formosans for Independence
Health for All: Let Taiwan Join the WHO
Taiwan Deserves a Place in the United Nations
Formosan Association for Public Affairs

:: WL 5/06/2003 02:06:00 AM [+]

::
...

It doesn't matter if you're Kofi Annan or a lowly NGO grunt like me. The rule is the same: don't piss off the hired help.

:: WL 5/04/2003 10:06:00 PM [+]

::
...

Your political reading of the day:

Timothy Noah's 17th installment of his Kurd Sellout Watch, now at Day 60, on Slate.

The DC neocon-Jewish connection debunked by the Chronicle of Higher Education.

You don't know jack about jihad, sez Canada's National Post.

:: WL 5/02/2003 08:31:00 AM [+]

::
...

You've seen them on the news, now ABC News brings you the deck of cards with Iraq's most wanted!

:: WL 5/01/2003 03:02:00 AM [+]

::
...