The Progressive ResponseVolume 4, Number 25
Editor: Tom Barry (IRC)
Table of ContentsAROUND THE WORLD
By Tom Barry U.S.-NORTH KOREAN RELATIONS: A NEW ERA? ASSAD'S MIXED LEGACY
AROUND THE WORLD Seattle Coalition Has New "Friends" The Seattle Coalition is expanding--and that should concern those who believe that rules and institutions that manage economic globalization need substantial reform. The loosely knit coalition of activists that took to the streets in Seattle signaled a coalescing of numerous sectors--from human rights advocates to environmentalists and fair traders to labor unions. The coalition--dubbed affectionately by some as the "Turtles to Teamsters" coalition--pointed the way toward a more cohesive progressive agenda in the face of corporate-driven globalization. The coalition of citizens that came to Seattle to protest the WTO in November 1999 added new partners when the anti-PNTR campaign directed by Citizens Trade Campaign, a branch of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, chose to rally the anti-globalization forces against PNTR status for China. These included such conservative groups as the Family Research Council. Straying from their focus on economic globalization into security issues and international relations, CTC sought to win allies by portraying China as a security threat both to the Asia-Pacific and the United States. This brought such America-first and decidedly militaristic groups as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars into the coalition. CTC Director Lori Wallach makes no apologies for this type of unprincipled coalition-building. Strategizing about the upcoming battles of the fair trade movement, Wallach is optimistic because of the movement's new allies. "The Seattle Coalition has new friends from the China PNTR fight. National veterans groups, such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion, worked on Republican House Members, often in conjunction with local small business people. Indeed, the intense local organizing that was developed in an attempt to counter the corporate cash revealed a potentially powerful overlap between the memberships of VFW, American Legion, and other fraternal groups and main street business associations and union members." Wallach is now calling for a "retribution" campaign against those who supported PNTR. In a sample letter that CTC recommends that coalition members send to congressional members who support normal trading relations with China, CTC again ventures beyond its globalization focus, saying that the pro-PNTR vote "rewarded Chinese dictators' saber rattling against Taiwan"--not mentioning that Taiwan supports WTO entry for China. A common thread of the Seattle Coalition is, as Wallach notes, the belief in the need "to rewrite the rules of globalization to suit the public interest." CTC and leaders of the fair trade movement endanger this mission by blustering forays into international security issues and opportunistic alliances. United States Opposed to International Criminal Court This past week Senator Helms launched his new attack on the proposed International Criminal Court (ICC) at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he chairs. Helms used the hearing to promote the American Service Members Protection Act, which he and several other rightwing senators introduced for the senate's consideration. Two other anti-ICC initiatives introduced by Helms have already become law: one prohibiting U.S. funds from going to the ICC, and the other prohibiting extradition of U.S. citizens to the ICC. According to Sen. Rod Grams, a supporter of the newly proposed anti-ICC legislation: "The greatest force for peace on this earth is not an international court; it is the U.S. military. Ironically, the very nations that have created a court which inhibits our ability to project force have repeatedly called on the U.S. to be the global enforcer. They should recognize that a treaty which hinders our military is not only bad for America, but it is also bad for the international community." Also testifying at the hearing, former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger argued that there was no need for the ICC since the U.S. already has ways to prosecute international criminals. "We have a very good example of an international criminal who has been brought to justice. Mr. Noriega is in jail. He was taken as a result of military action." Testimony by Jeremy Rabkin of Cornell's Department of Government caused Helms to say that "this is the most interesting [hearing] I have ever presided over." Rabkin, following the common theme that there should be no greater power on earth than the U.S. government, said: "As a sovereign state, there is no other state, there is no other power on earth which is above us. God is above us as above all other states. And that is very important. To set up an international authority that is higher than our own government really is, I think, as the founding generation [signers of the U.S. constitution] would have said, and I agree with them, is almost blasphemous. It is putting them [ICC judges] in the place of God. The international tribunal will be the judge of the rectitude of nations. No. That is not the earth we live on. There should not be anything higher than the United States." The introduction of the American Service Members Protection Act is another assault by Helms and the Republican leadership on multilateralism and the concept of international treaties--from the Geneva Convention to the Biodiversity Convention and Kyoto Protocol. Helms said he hopes the proposed legislation, which will bar all U.S. cooperation with the ICC, will have a "rather chilling effect on some countries that are considering whether they want to formally ratify this treaty since it will ban U.S. military assistance to any country ratifying the Rome Treaty to create the ICC (waivers will be granted to countries that protect Americans from extradition). Given that the U.S. is a superpower that should remain beyond the jurisdiction of any international treaty, Helms says the new act "will make certain that the United States does not acknowledge the legitimacy of the ICC's bogus claim of jurisdiction over American citizens." He notes, however, that he is not against ad hoc criminal tribunals created by the Security Council (in other words, approved by the U.S.) that have jurisdiction over non-U.S. citizens. (For a differing perspective on the ICC, see Joe Stork, "International Criminal Court," Foreign Policy In Focus, http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol3/v3n4icc.html.) World Leaders Will Again Face Protesters The G8 will hold its next summit in Okinawa on July 21-23 in an event certain to be marked by large citizen demonstrations against U.S. militarism in East Asia. Under the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, U.S. forces are stationed in Japan for "the sake of peace and security of Asia and the world." Seventy-five percent of U.S. military facilities in Japan are located in Okinawa. On July 20, there will be a human chain formed around Kadena Air Force Base, the largest in Okinawa. Another focus of protesters will be the failure of the G8 to fulfill the promises of the earlier summits to provide significant debt relief. (For more information about G7/8, see Andrew Parkin, "G-7 Summit," Foreign Policy In Focus, http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol2/v2n36g7.html.). According to the Japan Peace Committee, "The U.S. military forces, occupying Okinawa in the Second World War, built their bases by force, sending surviving citizens to concentration camps and taking their land without payment. It was a clear violation of The Hague Convention that prohibits the confiscation of private property even during war, and that obliges them to pay for their property requisitioned even in the case of military necessity. Today these bases are the root cause of the violation of human rights and security of Okinawan people. According to the statistics of Japanese government as well as of Okinawa prefecture, the number of crimes committed by U.S. soldiers for these 30 years has reached around 5,000, and more than 10% of them are violent crimes such as murder, burglaries, and rapes. However neither Japan's domestic laws nor U.S. laws are applied to the U.S. forces in Japan, and in fact U.S. soldiers committing crimes are protected by prerogatives. Those who are disturbed by the noise pollution by U.S. bases reaches 37% of whole Okinawa's population." (Around the World is a weekly column in the Progressive Response by FPIF codirector Tom Barry)
U.S.-NORTH KOREAN RELATIONS:
A NEW ERA?
After more than fifty years of conflict, the Korean Peninsula is poised for a dramatic breakthrough. The successful June summit between the leaders of North and South Korea is only the latest in a series of diplomatic advances. Over the past year, North Korea has been patching up relations with friends and adversaries alike. In South Korea, meanwhile, a strong political consensus continues to favor engagement with the north. The United States can play a critical role in hastening progress in Korea, if the Clinton administration can overcome cold war resistance in Congress, the Pentagon, and the State Department. From Washington's point of view, the chief obstacles to peace in the region are Pyongyang's missiles and weapons of mass destruction. In 1994 the U.S. considered bombing North Korea's suspected nuclear weapons facilities. The Agreed Framework, negotiated at the last moment, committed the two countries to a set of sequenced compromises. The U.S. agreed to provide heavy oil, begin lifting economic sanctions, and help construct two light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea to compensate Pyongyang for the freezing of its nuclear program. In 1998-99, the two countries again collided--over North Korea's rocket launch in August 1998 and accusations from both sides of noncompliance with the Agreed Framework. A turning point occurred in September 1999, when the United States recommitted to lifting economic sanctions and North Korea promised to suspend testing of its long-range missiles. This year, the two countries have discussed a U.S. visit by a high-ranking North Korean official and, once again, the possible exchange of liaison offices. This U.S.-North Korean rapprochement is taking place within the context of a much larger process of engagement. North Korea has been dubbed the most isolated country in the world, as manifested by the 1993-94 nuclear crisis. But in the past year, North Korea has made up for lost time in improving relations with the most powerful capitalist countries in the world. This policy bore fruit in January, when North Korea established its first official tie with a G-7 country, Italy. Normalization of relations between North Korea and Australia followed in May. In April, North Korea and Japan restarted talks that may lead to formal recognition. If issues such as alleged North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens are resolved, Japan will provide billions of dollars in compensation for its colonial crimes. North Korea is extending diplomatic feelers in many directions, but the approach is not scattershot. Normalized relations with the Philippines have eased entry into the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum (ARF). The wooing of Kuwait will better cement relations with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which is currently financing a major North Korean irrigation project. At the same time, North Korea has not abandoned its previous alliances, concluding a new treaty with Russia and strengthening relations with China through a visit by leader Kim Jong Il in late May. The most important developments in the past year, however, have taken place across the divided Korean Peninsula. The June 13-15 summit, when South Korean leader Kim Dae Jung visited Pyongyang, has paved the way for a crisis hot line, a rail link between the two countries, reunions of families divided by the Korean War, a reciprocal visit to the South by Kim Jong Il, and more economic assistance flowing northward. This official meeting had been preceded by numerous nongovernmental initiatives. Over 200,000 South Koreans have now visited Mt. Kumgang in the north, thanks to the Hyundai corporation. Joint soccer games and musical concerts have expanded unofficial contacts. Relatively speaking, business across the divided peninsula is booming. Inter-Korean trade hit an all-time high in 1999, a 50% increase over the year before. Hyundai, although suffering from recent cash-flow problems, is at the head of the pack, with plans to build a major industrial park and tourism complex in the north. Samsung has established a North-South Korean joint venture in Beijing to produce computer software. Despite these developments, the fate of the Korean Peninsula remains uncertain. North Korea, increasingly dependent on foreign aid, is still gripped by a food crisis and a severe energy shortage. The region remains heavily militarized, and North Korea's neighbors continue to be suspicious of its motives. The inter-Korean summit may help to reverse these trends, and Washington could take several steps to help tip the balance in a peaceful direction. Despite its initially cautious response to the summit, the United States can still move boldly to end the cold war in Asia if it holds to its earlier economic promises and begins to rethink its security position in East Asia. The Clinton administration should start by taking North Korea off the terrorism list, which will improve economic relations between the two countries and remove an obstacle that has prevented a high-level North Korean delegation from visiting the United States. The U.S. must begin to address the security issues in the region. Both sides talk of "keeping their powder dry." It is the responsibility of the stronger party to make the first move. Washington's offensive posture--bases, military presence in South Korea, TMD, joint maneuvers--does nothing to allay Pyongyang's fears of invasion. The U.S. must consider the following steps:
The U.S. must accept that it is not the boldest actor in its relations with North Korea. Italy has led the way by establishing diplomatic relations; Russian President Vladimir Putin will visit Pyongyang in July; South Korea is pushing ahead with concrete economic projects. The two Koreas will have to work out unification largely by themselves. But the U.S. can still make an important contribution by removing barriers that discourage economic cooperation with North Korea and retiring some of the huge and costly U.S. arsenal in Asia, before disengaging from the peninsula and allowing "slow motion" unification to gather momentum. (John Feffer <eaqiar@aol.com> works for the American Friends Service Committee in the East Asia Quaker International Affairs Program based in Tokyo. He travels regularly to North and South Korea and China to encourage dialogue on peace and justice issues.) Sources for More InformationContactsAmerican Friends Service Committee, Asia Desk Asia Pacific Center for Peace and Justice Korean American Peace Institute National Council of Churches of Christ (USA) Nautilus Institute U.S. Department of State WebsitesFederation of American Scientists Institute of North Korean Affairs Korea Overseas Information Service Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization Korea Web Weekly Stratfor.com Global Intelligence Update United Nations
ASSAD'S MIXED LEGACY President Hafez Assad leaves a mixed legacy. He brought relative stability in his thirty-year reign to a country which had been wracked with coups and counter-coups in the preceding years, yet it came at an enormous price in terms of basic human rights. He maintained a commitment to socialism and nationalism, yet did so through a cult of personality and insular style which alienated Syrians from across the political spectrum. He successfully curbed the influence of extremist Islamic movements, but at a cost of many thousands of lives in a brutal 1982 crackdown. Recent years had seen a substantial degree of political and economic liberalization from the totalitarian days of the 1970s and early 1980s. While the country remained autocratic and the state continued to play a major role in the economy, most political prisoners were released and private enterprise was encouraged. There was less fear and far more openness. There was a revival of the country's centuries-old entrepreneurial spirit, yet without the gross inequalities and excesses found in the Arab monarchies to the south. While Assad was an Arab nationalist angered at the injustice he saw arising from Western political, economic and strategic domination of the region, he was also a pragmatist, willing to bend his principles to maintain power and avoid isolating his country completely from the rest of the world. Though Assad had many conservative critics, many on the left were angered at his 1976 military intervention in Lebanon on the side of the right-wing Phalangists against the leftist Lebanese National Movement and their allies. Syrian troops remain in Lebanon to this day, and the Syrians have effective control over that country's foreign policy and some other key government decisions. As head of the air force in 1970, he refused to support Palestinian and Jordanian leftists in their uprising against King Hussein, even as other segments of the Syrian armed forces prepared to intervene to topple the pro-Western monarch. And, in the fall of 1990, he contributed thousands of Syrian forces in Operation Desert Shield to support the U.S. effort to protect Saudi Arabia and prepare for the war against Iraq soon thereafter. Like many Arab leaders, he manipulated the Palestinian cause to advance his political agenda, often at the expense of the Palestinians themselves, backing extremist factions and sending his army against Fatah and other Palestinian parties unwilling to tow the Syrian line. Assad's major ambition in recent years was to recover the Golan from Israel, which seized the territory in the 1967 war. For more than a decade, Assad has accepted the principle of providing security guarantees to Israel in exchange for the return of their land, which are outlined in UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which the United States long insisted were the basis of negotiations. Ironically, however, after years of criticizing Assad for refusing to accept 242 and 338, the U.S. more recently criticized him for insisting on its full implementation. Indeed, Israel--with the Clinton Administration's support--essentially kept moving the goal posts, such as insisting that Assad grant full diplomatic and economic relations with Israel prior to that country's withdrawal. The final sticking point was Israel's insistence that they not withdraw to the 1967 borders, but to a 1923 line drawn by British and French colonialists to the disadvantage of the Syrians. The Clinton administration sharply criticized Assad in his final weeks for not being willing to accept yet another Israeli demand. Getting Syria's occupied land back will have to be left to his successor, likely to be his son Bachar, a 34-year old ophthalmologist. It is ironic that the man who led Syria's Ba'ath Party, founded on principles of socialism and republicanism, would leave a legacy of dynastic succession. The minimum age for president was recently lowered by six years to make that possible and Bachar is almost certain to assume the post within the next couple of months. For better or worse, it is doubtful that Bachar will be as strong or effective a leader as his father. Yet the desire to maintain a course independent of overbearing Western influence, the insistence on having the Golan returned and a desire to maintain greater social equality than found elsewhere in the Arab world goes far beyond the late president. It would be naive for the United States to hope that this will change with the passing of Hafez Assad. (Stephen Zunes <zunes@usfca.edu> is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco.)
Subscribe to The Progressive Response!
This page was last modified on Thursday, June 20, 2002 6:19 PM |
|
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2000 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved. |