|
|
 |
|
|
|
register |
bbs |
search |
rss |
faq |
about
|
|
|
meet up |
add to del.icio.us |
digg it
|
|
|
|
Progressive News - Political news with an alternat
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
/------\
|
|
/------\ | ------ R E S S I V E
| | | \
| | | |
+-------\ | | \-------/ N E W S
| | | |
| | | |
+------\ +-------/ \------/
| | | \
| | | \
+------/ | \
|
|
| A collection of news for progressive-minded people
Editor: Randy Edwards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
1. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Cuba Exposes U.S. War Moves .................................. 1
Kids for Peace Project ....................................... 3
Bernie Sanders & Media ....................................... 5
2. ARTICLES
Persian Gulf Teach-ins? ...................................... 7
Mailings for Peace ........................................... 9
Resistance to Gulf War Spreading ............................. 12
Marine says he won't fight for big oil ....................... 14
Egypt unlikely to stay in West's pocket ...................... 17
Forcing Japan to Re-Arm ...................................... 20
Central America: Children - The Main Victims of War .......... 22
No peace without linkage in the Middle East .................. 26
3. NEWS SHORTS
GreenPeace Reveals Unique Footage of War Gas Dump Sites ...... 37
British Missile Show Disarmed ................................ 39
US Catholic Bishops to Soldiers: `Don't Kill Noncombatants' .. 40
McLibel case over burger leaflet ............................. 43
Another mass grave found in Panama ........................... 45
The Untouchable Ally ......................................... 46
4. OPINION & EDITORIALS
From the Editor's Desk ....................................... 49
Puerto Rican report .......................................... 52
5. NOTICES
Notice of Publication ........................................ 53
Progressive News Page i
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A N N O U N C E M E N T S
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuba Exposes U.S. War Moves
Antiwar activists seeking ways with which to combat the lies and
hypocrisy of the U.S. drive for war in the Mideast can find the
necessary ammunition in the form of a newly released booklet. "U.S.
Hands Off the Mideast! Cuba Speaks Out at the United Nations" is
the record of Cuba's U.N. delegation's attempts to expose before
the world Washington's maneuvers.
The following is from the introduction of the booklet:
"As Washington shifted its war machine into gear, it orchestrated a
political campaign to prepare U.S. and world public opinion for a
military onslaught against the people of Iraq. As the following
pages document, the UN Security Council has been a central arena of
confrontation in Washington's propaganda offensive.
"The government of Cuba, now serving a two-year term on the
Security Council, has been the sole voice in the United Nations to
speak out clearly and consistently against the administration's war
preparations, which are backed by the bipartisan Democratic and
Republican coalition in Congress.
"This booklet, in addition to a chronology that readers will find
helpful, contains each resolution adopted by the UN Security
Council on the Iraq-Kuwait crisis, together with the statements
related to these measures by Cuban President Fidel Castro and
Cuba's permanent representative to the UN, Ricardo Alarcn. Week by
week, and sometimes day by day, as events unfolded from August 2
through the end of September, the pretexts and rationalizations for
Washington's war moves were exposed and rebutted by Cuba in the
Security Council debates. Coverage of speeches by the U.S.
delegation to the United Nations and by President George Bush were
aired on television every morning and evening and featured as
front-page news in the daily papers. Given Washington's thirty-year
record of aggressive hostility toward the Cuban revolution,
however, it comes as no surprise that Cuba's concrete and reasoned
arguments have rarely been reported in the U.S. mass media.
"That is what makes this booklet so useful."
"In his remarks to the August 6 session of the Security Council,
Alarcn emphasized Cuba's commitment to "the principals of
noninterference in the internal affairs of states, no matter what
the reason may be; of the nonuse of force in international
relations; of the peaceful settlement of disputes between states;
and of respect for the independence, sovereignty, and territorial
integrity of all nations."
"Based on those principals, Cuba voted August 2 in favor of the
Progressive News Page 1
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
Security Council resolution condemning the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait. Cuba also voted for subsequent resolutions opposing Iraq's
annexation of Kuwait and insisting on the rights of citizens of
other countries to freely leave Iraq and Kuwait. On each occasion,
Cuba used the opportunity to lay bare the facts surrounding
Washington's aggressive actions and the hypocrisy of its newfound
principals.
"Cuba refused to vote for economic sanctions against Iraq or to
endorse military steps to force compliance with the trade embargo.
Cuba denounced as inhuman--and as an unconscionable violation of
fundamental human rights--the measures denying food and
medicine to the people living in Iraq and Kuwait. Cuba was the only
member of the Security Council to vote against an air embargo of
Iraq.
"'Is the defense of the legitimate interests of the Kuwaiti
government really the concern that has led the United States
delegation to act as it is doing now." Alarcn asked the Council on
August 6, "or is it the ambition of the United States to intervene
in and dominate the Middle East?'"
"U.S. Hands Off Mideast: Cuba Speaks Out at the United Nations"
can be ordered from Pathfinder Press, 410 West Street, New York, NY
10014, U.S.A. $6.00. In Britain: 47 The Cut, London, SE1 8LL; in
Australia, 19 Terry St., Surry Hills, Sydney, NSW 2010.
Source: PeaceNet - mideast.forum
Progressive News Page 2
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
KIDS FOR PEACE PROJECT - KIDS '91
I'm coordinating a project called KIDS-91. The objective is
to get as many kids as possible in the age group 10 -15
to participate in a global dialog from now and until May 12
1991. Some of it will be electronic - for those who have
access to modems and computers - some of it will be by mail
or in other forms.
We want to collect the childrens' responses to these four
questions:
1) Who am I?
2) What do I want to be when I grow up?
3) How do I want the world to be better when I grow up?
4) What can I do NOW to help this come true?
We also want them to draw themself in their future role/world.
The responses will be turned into an exhibition that will
be sent back to the kids of the world.
There are many countries in the world, and I was hoping that
you could help get in contact with the kids of your country.
You can help in two ways:
1. By sending me electronic mail addresses of teachers or
other people in your country, who are involved with kids
in this age group.
2. Distributing information about KIDS-91 to people that
you believe would be interested, for example through
local Bulletin Board Systems, which you know have many
teachers as users.
I can send you/them the following 'documents':
- an invitation letter to teachers
- a letter describing various ways of participating in
KIDS-91 (from diskette based to online involvment)
- the various issues of the KIDS-91 newsletter telling
what is happening in connection with the project
globally.
Please send me a message if you want your email address to
be added to the KIDS-91 mailing list. More information is
also available for subscribers to the "KIDS-91" discussion
LIST. Send mail to [email protected] (or LISTSERV@NDSUVM1
on BITNET) with the BODY or TEXT of the mail containing the
command
SUB KIDS-91 Yourfirstname Yourlastname
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Progressive News Page 3
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
Yours sincerely,
Odd de Presno,
KIDS-91 Project Director
.-----------------------------------------------------------.
| Mail: 4815 Saltrod, Norway (Europe). |
| Phone: +47 41 31204 Fax: +47 41 27111 |
| Electronic mail addresses: |
| Internet: [email protected] |
| CompuServe: 75755,1327 |
| MCI Mail: OPRESNO |
| MicroLink (United Kingdom): MAG220, |
| DASnet: [DEZNDP]opresno |
| BBS at +47 41 31378 |
| (300-9600 bps CCITT. V.22bis, V.32 up to MNP-5, 24 hours).|
`-----------------------------------------------------------'
Source: PeaceNet - pn.announcements
Progressive News Page 4
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
BERNIE SANDERS & MEDIA
This Message Is Followed by a Call to Action
IS BERNIE NEWS?
Absent from the news this election has been all news about the
election of Bernard Sanders to Congress. Two lines mentioned him in
our local paper, David Brinkley's very off the cuff comment, and the
only interview I heard in a day of listening to NPR was on the
Canadian programme:__ As It Happens__. A whole night of listening
and watching the news did tell me who had won.
Bernard Sanders' election was the only unique event this election.
It is the only unique HR election in the last 25 years. The silence
around this event is deafening and astounding. It is as if it had
never happened!
Can anyone suggest an explanation for this? If this type of news
black-out is not planned, then how is it done so well? It is very
easy to see who benefits from this "NOT BEING NEWS" but how do we
explain such conformity? I'm not asking this in a rhetorical way,
does anyone know of some good books that show some insight in
explaining this de-facto censorship?
VOTE TWICE THIS ELECTION
BERNARD SANDERS NEEDS OUR VOTE OF CONFIDENCE
Bernard Sanders will now be the only openly socialist member of
the US House of Representatives. Sanders will be the only member of
congress not beholden in any way to Democrat or Republican mafiosi,
cum political parties. An effort will now be made to ignore, isolate
and avoid the new Rep. from Vermont.
A 15 cent stamp is all that is needed to send B.Sanders a vote of
confidence. Let him, and the people of his state know that he is not
alone, and that he represents in a general way, many outside Vermont
because of his open campaign for citizen democracy and socialist
reform.
It is important for the rest of us to underline the fact that
Bernard Sanders is the first modern representative of the most
under-represented group in the country. Thousands of votes went out
to "liberal democrats" 3rd party socialists or just stayed home. The
more support mail votes of confidence Sanders receives, the more we
put these liberal free-loaders on notice. Not to mention cheer
Bernie up with the tough job he has ahead of him, in that ugly town.
So send your mail, comments, cash (if you have any), flowers (red
roses preferred) and your warm regards to:
REPRESENTATIVE BERNARD SANDERS (VT)
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON D.C.
Progressive News Page 5
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
The Sanders election also puts the little Hitlers of private
enterprise on notice, and they can be expected to react in their
usual inflexible, intolerant and aggressive way. They will be ready
for the counterattack in 92, and so must we be. It is in no
Americans interest to see this spark of hope blown away in the wind.
Bernard Sanders is not important because he is a great man, he is
important because he is not one. Bernard Sanders' message is one of
common sense for the common people brought to us by a majority of
the common voter of the state of Vermont. This is not a fluke nor a
fanatic event, it is a political development that took years to come
about, one that every type of American Socialist in every state
could do well to examine thoughtfully.
For the first time during my lifetime someone has openly gone to
congress to represent me. This is not a time to split hairs or argue
among ourselves, its a time to join hands.*
Source: PeaceNet - udc.media
9:04 pm Nov 9, 1990 by detta
Progressive News Page 6
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A R T I C L E S
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Persian Gulf Teach-ins?
As the world hurtles towards war with little consideration of the
consequences, some of us who experienced the Vietnam conflict in our
college years recall the usefulness of a strategy that had a
significant impact on the public debate at that time. In 1965 the
war was not yet the national obsession it became in later years. As
a means of focussing attention on the issue and deepening the
debate, those concerned about the direction of U.S. policy devised
the "teach-in" at major universities around the country.
Starting at the University of Michigan, the idea spontaneously
spread to hundreds of campuses without prior plan or sponsorship by
any national organization. Concerned faculty and students approached
campus specialists from a variety of departments with a wide range
of views to present their perspectives on various aspects of the war
in day-long public symposia. These teach-ins (the name derived from
sit-ins and other "-ins' of the era) drew hundreds and even
thousands of students in overflow crowds at packed auditoriums. They
were not partisan rallies, though they generated plenty of passion
and emotion. They were campus town meetings on an issue of personal
and national import and all points of view were given an equal
airing. Within a few months, a nationally broadcast teach-in was
held. In retrospect, it seems clear that these campus fora provided
an essential impetus to the opposition movement that followed.
In the United States today there is no significant public debate
in Congress, the media, or on college campuses about the aims and
implications of American policy, the likely consequences of an armed
conflict, and practical nonviolent alternatives. It may well be too
soon to expect to be able to organize a mass opposition movement; we
need first to understand the issues at stake. Perhaps some version
of a teach-in movement might once again prove to be a useful
catalyst. While colleges and universities seem a natural starting
place, there is no reason why churches, civic and service
organizations, public interest groups and others should not also
become sponsors. Groups on opposite sides of the debate could
co-sponsor the events, since the point is not to rally support for
a particular point of view but to illuminate the issues.
A few hints to facilitate the process:
1) Draw on your local sources of expertise. In the case of
universities, most have specialists in a number of the fields
affected by the Persian Gulf crisis -- politics, economics, history,
Middle Eastern studies, energy, environment, etc.
2) Make sure all points of view are represented. The event will be
taken more seriously if it genuinely seeks to include all
perspectives, including those of non-experts in the audience.
Progressive News Page 7
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
3) Democratize the debate. Provide opportunities for the public to
participate, perhaps by breaking up into small groups to examine
specific issues.
4) Don't just criticize; invent solutions. Small groups can
brainstorm specific strategies for nonviolent resolution of the
crisis, then report their recommendations to the plenary.
5) Spread word of your events. Knowing that others are doing it
encourages the spontaneous proliferation of the movement.
Source: PeaceNet - cdp:mideast.gulf
Progressive News Page 8
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
MAILINGS FOR PEACE
Here is the current text of postcards that our group is circulating
in our community in the suburbs of New York City.
We are xeroxing them four on an 8 1/2 x 11" sheet, one each to our
congressperson, our two senators, and President Bush. People can
then cut them apart and mail them in.
Geoffrey Barron
Rockland County (NY) Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign
(text:)
Dear Congressman Gilman,
I don't want a war for oil in the Middle East.
I want a negotiated solution -- even if it takes
longer to get Saddam Hussein's armies out of Kuwait.
We should ask the United Nations to take the lead in
resolving the situation in the Middle East. Only those
U.S. forces necessary as part of a U.N. peacekeeping
force should remain.
U.S. men and women should not die for lower prices at
the gas pump or to restore the Kuwaiti princes to power.
We need a national energy policy to reduce dependence
on oil, develop non-nuclear alternatives, and promote
conservation.
Please let me know what you think, and what you will
do to prevent a war.
________________________
signed
Dear President Bush,
I don't want a war for oil in the Middle East.
I want a negotiated solution -- even if it takes
longer to get Saddam Hussein's armies out of Kuwait.
Please ask the United Nations to take the lead in
resolving the situation in the Middle East. Only those
U.S. forces necessary as part of a U.N. peacekeeping
force should remain.
U.S. men and women should not die for lower prices at
the gas pump or to restore the Kuwaiti princes to power.
Progressive News Page 9
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
We need a national energy policy to reduce dependence
on oil, develop non-nuclear alternatives, and promote
conservation.
Please do not start a war with Iraq.
________________________
signed
(address side:)
Name
15 cent
Addr. stamp
here
Congressman Benjamin Gilman
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
(Below is the text of a cover letter we're including with it:)
Dear Rockland neighbor,
We are members of the Rockland Nuclear Weapons Freeze
Campaign and members of Kuwait Watchers of Rockland.
We don't want a war for oil in the Middle East.
The things we believe about the Middle East are spelled
out on the postcards attached to this letter. If you
agree with us, we invite you to cut the cards apart and
send them to President Bush and our representatives in
Washington. They need to know what we want.
The best way to make sure our country doesn't get
involved in a war is to let our leaders know that we
don't want one.
The stronger our voice, the better they will hear us
and the more they will listen to us.
If you would like us to keep you informed about how you
can help prevent a war, use this form to send us your
name and address and we will stay in touch with you --
so you can be part of a bigger voice saying --
"NO WAR FOR OIL!"
--------------------------------------------------------
Progressive News Page 10
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
YES! I/we want to help prevent war in the Middle East.
__ Please keep me/us informed of developments in the
Middle East and activities in Rockland County.
__ Please contact me to help make our programs happen.
__ Here's a contribution to help cover expenses:
__ $25 __ $15 __ $10 __ other: $______
Name:_______________________________________________
Address:________________________________________________
_______________________________ Phone: _________________
Source: PeaceNet - mideast.gulf
by rocklandnwfc
Progressive News Page 11
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
RESISTANCE TO GULF WAR SPREADING
[Peace Media Service] An estimated 100,000 people took part in
a march for peace from Perugia to Assisi on 7 October,
sponsored by a coalition of Italian peace groups. It was
reported as the biggest peace march ever held in Italy. The
marchers condemned Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, called for the
return of the Italian Navy from the Gulf and a resolution to
the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and appealed to world
leaders for a non-military solution to the Gulf crisis.
While the Italian march was the largest rally on the Gulf
crisis to date, it was far from being the only one. There have
been at 250 demonstrations in the US in opposition to
America's role in the Gulf crisis, including ten large rallies
in major cities October 20. The Pledge of Resistance, a
network of people across the US committed to stopping US
intervention in Central America, has broadened its mandate to
include intervention in the Middle East. On 27 September 300
Pledge supporters blockaded the entrance of the US Army base
Presidio in San Francisco and the exit of the Golden Gate
Bridge to protest US military involvement. 32 people were
arrested. 2,000 people attended a teach-in on the Middle East
in New York City on 13 September. The next day a teach-in at
the University of California-Berkeley drew 2,500 people. 1,500
people marched through Sydney on 1 September to protest the
Australian government's decision to send three warships to the
Gulf.
Protest is also coming from within the military.
One of the speakers at the march in Italy was 23-year-old Erik
Larsen, a US Marine Reservist, who is refusing to go to the
Middle East and has applied for special discharge as a
conscientious objector. "I'm a radar mechanic in the Marine
Reserves for the Hawk missile system," he said in Assisi, "the
same missile that Reagan and Oliver North sold to Iran in
exchange for hostages during the Iran-Contra affair.
"I always knew the idea of the military was to desensitize you
to humanity. You're supposed to leave ideas like compassion,
respect and dignity at the recruiter's door. But the US
invasion of Panama and revelations about mass graves of
civilians there really sickened me and compelled me to act. I
began questioning my military role two years ago, after
reading the words of Archbishop Oscar Romero, who said our
actions are ultimately accountable to a higher authority. He
really challenged me to be a Christian. It's difficult to
follow Christ's example, but one way is to follow the laws of
God like `Thou Shalt Not Kill.'"
"I would like to see peace people reaching out to soldiers,"
Erik said. "I've been talking to several American GIs in
Germany who are filing for CO status. They are having trouble
getting civilian lawyers and counselors. There seems to be a
Progressive News Page 12
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
great void D the information is just not getting out to
people. The best way you can support GIs is by getting them
literature on alternatives and the facts about what is really
going on in Middle East."
Jeff Paterson, a Marine in Hawaii, was put in solitary
confinement for two weeks after refusing to board a plane to
Saudi Arabia. He is now restricted to his base. Lt. Col T.P.
Hudson opposed Paterson's release on bail, arguing confinement
should continue because Paterson's "serious criminal
misconduct adversely impacts on the effectiveness, morale,
discipline and readiness of the command and the national
security of the United States."
Another Marine CO, William Gutierrez Depusoy, explained his
stand at a press conference in Seattle September 13. "The only
war worth fighting," he said, "is against the ignorance and
economic violence committed right here daily, in the schools,
in our communities and as well as our government. We need not
raise our children to kill and hate. This January I resolved
that I was going to work for peace from now on and I was not
going to be involved in murder in Panama and that was that. I
will not pick up my rifle anymore."
200 soldiers of the 197th Infantry Brigade stationed at Fort
Benning, Georgia, refused to report to duty after President
Bush called their unit into action. Twelve Army soldiers at a
Kansas base have also refused to go to the Middle East.
In Australia over 100 sailors jumped ship, including Leading
Seaman Terry Jones, who said that he was "not willing to die
to protect US oil lines."
In Spain, the parents of 60 Catalanian sailors sent to take
part in the blockage of Iraq are taking the government to
court for "abuse of its position" and "illegal detention."
They argue that there is no constitutional basis for Spanish
participation in the multi-national military force assembled
in the Gulf.
Italian peace groups launched a national campaign asking
Italian soldiers to sign a pledge that they will not fight in
the Middle East. [compiled by Shelley Anderson and Jim Forest]
Source: PeaceNet - gn.peacemedia
Progressive News Page 13
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
Reprinted from Peace News, November 1990
Marine says he won't fight for big oil
[In August this year, shortly after US president George Bush
announced he was sending US troops to Saudi Arabia, US Marine Corps
reservist Erik Larsen called a press conference to announce that he
would refuse any orders to go to the Middle East. He denounced US
intervention in the region, and stated that he was applying for
conscientious objector status. SHELLEY ANDERSON interviewed Erik
during his recent European speaking tour.]
* Erik Larsen comes across as an average, perhaps rather modest,
young North American. Four years ago, when he was 18, he decided to
join the United States Marine Corps reserve: "I wanted to defend my
country and pay back the United States what it had given my family,"
he told me over the phone from Germany, where he had been speaking
to US and German peace activists. "My mom and dad had emigrated from
Denmark in 1958 and I wanted to protect the constitution and freedom
in the United States."
He explained some of the reasons behind his conversion to an
anti-militarist position, and his decision to go public with his
opposition to the Western military buildup in the Gulf. "I didn't
decide to do what I'm doing because of this [Middle East] crisis.
I've been questioning for the past two years.
"The first thing that really started me thinking was our US
policies in Central America. In college I took a course on Central
American history and discovered the writings of Archbishop Oscar
Romero. I began to question whether I would go or not if I was
called to Central America or another Third World country. I told
myself back in 1989 that I wouldn't go.
"As Oscar Romero said, my actions are ultimately accountable to a
higher authority. Fighting a war against people in Nicaragua or El
Salvador is unjust because the USA is exploiting those countries for
our own self-interest.
"I began to make connections about the different places around the
world where the CIA or the US military operates, and I just could no
longer see any reason for any kind of military solution. I feel that
war is a failure by our leaders to commit themselves to peace."
Erik made contact with the Central Committee for Conscientious
Objectors (CCCO), a group founded in 1948 to provide legal aid and
moral support to conscientious objectors, and began to explore how
he could leave the reserves as a CO. At the same time, inspired by
Oscar Romero and concerned about Latin American issues, he began
working with Pledge of Resistance on the issue of US intervention
in Central America.
"I worked with the Pledge, did some editorials for newspapers, and
also worked with a group called Mustard Seed, whose members are
Progressive News Page 14
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
religious activists in the [San Francisco] Bay area. Romero really
challenged me to be a Christian. I'm not a regular church-goer, but
I do have a lot of faith and I try to follow the law `Thou shalt not
kill'."
He laughed when asked about the military's reaction to his August
press conference. "I only report in one weekend a month, so I had a
whole month to do some damage. I spoke at a lot of rallies and
demonstrations, had an interview on national television, and spoke
to newspaper reporters, so I was very well known. In two words, the
military was disorganised and disoriented. They hadn't done any
homework during the month I was speaking out.
"They hadn't looked up the word <MI>conscientious objector<D>, so
that whole weekend they were busy doing paperwork, finding out what
exactly had to be done for me to apply as a CO. I was immediately
separated from the rest of the unit, to send a message to the other
guys that this was a serious matter and to try and put some fear
into them.
"They wanted to prevent my `infection' from spreading to the other
troops. I'm in a highly contagious stage right now!"
All attempts by the military to the contrary, the infection of
discontent is spreading. More and more military personnel are
refusing to be part of US policy in the Middle East. Two hundred
soldiers of the 197th Infantry Brigade, stationed at Fort Benning,
Georgia, refused to report for duty after George Bush called their
unit into action.
At the 20 October national day of action, more service personnel
made public declarations of conscience. In New York, seven soldiers
and Marines declared themselves to be COs, including two women.
Erik has made connections with people in other countries who are
resisting the US-led Western military intervention in the Gulf. He
spoke at the closing rally of the Perugia to Assisi peace march in
Italy, which attracted 100,000 protestors. A demand of the peace
march was that the Italian navy be called back from the Gulf;
meanwhile, a national campaign is asking Italian soldiers to sign a
pledge that they will not fight in the Middle East.
How can peace activists support military resisters? "I would like
to see people reaching out to the GI community," says Erik. "I've
been talking to several American GIs in Germany who are filing for
CO status. They are having trouble getting civilian lawyers and
counsellors. There seems to be a great void--the information is just
not getting out to people. The best way you can support GIs is by
getting them alternative literature and the facts about what is
really going on in the Middle East."
CONTACTS: Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, 2208
South St, Philadelphia PA 19146 USA (+1 215 545 4626).
Pledge of Resistance, 4228 Telegraph, Suite 100, Oakland, CA
94609 USA (+1 415 655 1181).
Progressive News Page 15
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
Copyright 1990 Peace News Ltd. Permission to reprint
unsigned items WITH CREDIT is given to non-profit groups
sharing PN's aims; otherwise contact author through PN.
Peace News, 55 Dawes Street, London SE17 1EL, England;
tel +44 71 703 7189; e-mail gn:peacenews
Source: PeaceNet - wri.news
Progressive News Page 16
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
Reprinted from Peace News, November 1990
Egypt unlikely to stay in West's pocket
BREWSTER GRACE
In sharp contrast to the portrayal of Jordan as the centre of
resistance to foreign intervention in the Gulf, Egypt, alongside
Saudi Arabia, is viewed as one of the key engines of Arab
opposition to the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is particularly visible because
of his leading role in the 10 August Arab summit in Cairo that
condemned Iraq and called for its unconditional withdrawal from
Kuwait. Since then, Egyptians have formed the vanguard of Arab
forces sent to the Gulf, and President Mubarak has continued to be
one of the most outspoken critics of Saddam Hussein.
The general mood in Cairo contrasts with that of Amman. Support in
Cairo for the western intervention seems less energetic and
committed when compared to the intensity of Jordanian objections to
foreign involvement in what they see as an Arab affair. Under what
conditions might we expect changes in current Egyptian public
opinion and foreign policies now so basically opposed to Iraq?
Public opinion against Saddam Hussein has been widely aroused
following the return of more than 100,000 Egyptian workers from Iraq
and Kuwait, with many more to come. Egyptians had low-paying jobs in
Iraq and have suffered some abuses over the past few years, but the
tales of lost life savings and theft en route to Egypt, prominently
reported in the Egyptian press, have hardened feelings. In addition,
the flow of Egyptians streaming home will have a major impact on the
Egyptian economy. The extent of this is, as yet, not calculable; it
will show up not only as lost foreign revenues from remittances but
also in the added burden of hundreds of thousands of unemployed on
the weak Egyptian economy. To these losses can be added a reduction
of Suez canal revenues as shipping to and from the Middle East
declines. There already is a noticeable reduction in tourism.
It is easy to understand, in these circumstances, the popular
rallying to the Egyptian national cause and the widespread rejection
of Saddam Hussein's calls for Arab nationalism and holy war. Except
for a few small demonstrations, there has been overall public
support for President Mubarak's diplomatic and military initiatives.
Influential Muslim leaders have condemned the invasion and the
Muslim Brotherhood has called for the need to defend Islam's holy
places. Underpinning Egypt's position has been the welcomed economic
support from Saudi Arabia and the United States. While hard figures
of Saudi grants to Egypt are difficult to find, the US
administration's support for forgiveness of the $7.1 billion
military debt will be a major offset to the lost foreign revenues.
The $700 million saved in annual repayments to the US will ease not
only the stringent austerity measures the International Monetary
Fund has placed on the Egyptian budget but also the unwillingness
Progressive News Page 17
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
of western suppliers of essential commodities to extend credit. The
average Egyptian can now hope for more and cheaper food.
Popular support has allowed President Mubarak to pursue his foreign
policy goals of the past few years: to maintain his relations with
Israel, based on the Camp David accords, and his close ties with the
USA and Europe, while at the same time re-establishing his place, if
not Egypt's leadership role, in the Arab "moderates" camp.
"Moderate" hardly appropriate
Until the Persian Gulf crisis, these "rounding the square" policies
were based around Egypt's efforts to mediate in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the Gulf crisis has so recast
the basic Arab League alignments that the term "moderate" hardly
seems appropriate. After the August 10th Cairo summit, Egypt was no
longer mediating anything. President Mubarak, instead, is at the
centre of the majority, anti-Iraq, pro-western bloc in the Arab
league that supports military intervention against Iraq. This bloc
outvoted those Arab league members, including Jordan and the PLO,
that abstained from condemning Iraq, called for some form of joint
Arab action in the Gulf and opposed foreign intervention. The core
of the narrow majority grouping today consists of Egypt, Syria,
Morocco, and the six Gulf states.
In spite of Egypt's position in the Arab League, it is difficult to
see in Cairo a commitment to resist Iraq beyond the immediate effort
to force its withdrawal from Kuwait. Even though Mubarak is
reportedly furious with Saddam for having lied in assuring him that
Iraq would not invade Kuwait, there are signs that there are limits
to Egyptian support for the US-led military venture.
Political observers in Cairo say that Mubarak's advisers are
divided on how to confront Iraq and what the costs of confrontation
would be. There are those who want to see the explicit defeat of
Saddam. They fear his dramatic challenge to fragile social and
political institutions in the Gulf states and do not want in any way
to upset the burgeoning US support for Egypt. But other observers
question this "neo-Sadat" line as short-sighted and dangerous. They
see all the efforts to forge the Egyptian reconciliation with the
Arab world as now threatened. They also see the need for a
sufficiently strong Iraq to defend the Arab world's eastern front,
as Iraq takes credit for having done in the eight years of war with
Iran (albeit Iraq has now concluded peace and reopened diplomatic
relations with Iran). These observers fear potential adverse public
reaction against Egyptian troops alongside Americans fighting Arabs
on Arab soil. They see this possibility as leading to profound
unhappiness with the Mubarak regime.
Caution against getting too close
There are indications that warnings against aligning too closely
with the west against Iraq will probably prevail. One is the present
unwillingness of Mubarak to commit more Egyptian forces in the Gulf
Progressive News Page 18
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
beyond the augmented deployment of 15,000 troops. Moreover, Egypt
still claims emphatically that these forces are only there to defend
Saudi Arabia. In fact, Egypt is reported to have turned down a US
request to send US B-52s to Egyptian air bases because they could
only be used for offensive purposes. In addition, some Egyptian
analysts warn that since Egypt did not formally commit troops to the
Iraqi "defence" against Iran (although numerous advisers and
volunteers were involved), the Egyptian willingness now to commit
troops to the defense of Saudi Arabia against another Arab state
should not be overestimated.
Under the present circumstances of standoff in the Gulf and
majority support in the Arab League for the Gulf states and against
Iraq, the Egyptian commitment seems secure. If these circumstances
change, however, there is less assurance that President Mubarak's
basic policies will hold. It is difficult to envisage an Egyptian
policy shift from a basically defensive to an offensive posture in
the Gulf. The support that an attack on Iraq would receive from
Israel would, at the very least, be deeply embarrassing for
President Mubarak. Egypt would probably alter is current policies if
efforts by Jordan, the PLO and others to find Arab solutions
actually lead to some kind of negotiated Iraqi withdrawal from
Kuwait.
Beyond the short term, therefore, Egypt is not a certain ally for
any western initiatives that go beyond compelling Iraq to withdraw
from Kuwait. For this reason, some Egyptian observers view Mubarak
as another potential card that Saddam may find some means to play.
Arab alliances and coalitions can change at breathtaking speed. Only
a few months ago President Mubarak was enthusiastically attending
summits of the Arab Cooperation Council with Saddam Hussein, King
Hussein and Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh--with Syrian
President Assad noticeably sidelined. But today, Egyptian and Syrian
troops together are dug into Saudi Arabian sands, confronting Saddam
Hussein while King Hussein and President Saleh uncomfortably hold
the middle ground.
Copyright 1990 Peace News Ltd. Permission to reprint
unsigned items WITH CREDIT is given to non-profit groups
sharing PN's aims; otherwise contact author through PN.
Peace News, 55 Dawes Street, London SE17 1EL, England;
tel +44 71 703 7189; e-mail gn:peacenews
Source: PeaceNet - wri.news
Progressive News Page 19
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
Reprinted from Peace News, November 1990
Will the Japanese be bashed into having an army they don't want?
[The Gulf crisis has been used to justify a wide range of
political, economic, and defence objectives. Oil companies have
retreated somewhat from their initial enthusiasm for price-gouging,
as the international spot market adjusts to post-invasion patterns
of supply and demand; but governments are less restrained in reaping
long-term gains from the crisis. One long-term US foreign policy
objective has been a remilitarised Japan: at present the postwar
constitution, imposed on Japan by none other than US general Douglas
Macarthur, limits the country's armed forces to self-defence. But
there is strong domestic opposition to remilitarisation, whether by
decree or by stealth. JOHN MILLER reports on the debate and the
political background.]
* Japan must "do more" to protect Western interests in the Gulf by
increasing spending and despatching troops, the US administration
has insisted over the past two months.
The US pressure for a more active military role for Japan has
sparked a debate about how far to stretch constitutional
prohibitions on the Japan's Self-Defence Forces (SDF). As this is
being written, the Japanese Diet is debating legislation that would
allow the creation of a "UN Peace Cooperation Corps" consisting of
both civilian experts and medical officers and unarmed members of
the SDF.
Soon after Iraq invaded Kuwait, the normally cautious Japanese
government joined in calls for a blockade. Japan, which imports 70
per cent of its oil from the Middle East, also pledged to send
civilian medical personnel to the region and promised $1 billion in
materials for the multinational force and for the transportation of
supplies.
Japan has come under sharp criticism from the US Congress, where
Japan-bashing is the politically popular response to trade problems
between the two nations. An angry US House of Representatives,
accusing Japan of getting a "free ride," passed an amendment in
mid-September that would require Tokyo to pay the full costs of
stationing US troops in Japan. Each year it failed to do so, the US
would withdraw 5000 of its 50,000 troops. While the legislation is
unlikely to become law in this form, Tokyo responded by pledging
another billion dollars for the multinational force and $2 billion
in aid to nations hurt by the embargo of Iraq. The Japanese
government is also working to increase its support for US forces
stationed in Japan, freeing US resources for military use in the
Saudi desert. Tokyo currently contributes just under $3 billion,
about 40 per cent of the cost.
The SDF law limits most of its operations to Japanese territory and
nearby waters (after US pressure, now defined as 1000 km from the
Progressive News Page 20
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
coast), with the exceptions for overseas port calls and naval
exercises with US forces. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)
is exploring amending the law to allow deployment of troops abroad
for UN peacekeeping operations and other emergencies.
Recognising that such a move would be extremely controversial both
at home and with Japan's Asian neighbours, where memories of
Japanese militarism linger, the LDP has introduced more limited
legislation. Even this may have trouble passing.
The Japanese Socialist Party (JSP), which leads the opposition
coalition in the Upper House -- although it has gradually lessened
its once staunch opposition to the legitimacy of the SDF -- has
expressed its opposition to the law. So have most of its coalition
partners, as has the Communist Party. All are concerned that any
move to deploy the SDF overseas is "in defiance of the spirit of
the Constitution." Elements of the SDF, while eager to show their
skills, are worried about entering a war zone unarmed.
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution forbids the threat or use of
force to settle international conflicts and prohibits acts of
collective self-defense and the use of armed forces abroad. While
there has long been right-wing pressure to amend or abolish the
constitution, imposed by the United States on Japan after World War
II, public opinion generally still favors a limited role for the
SDF. In the 1980s, domestic and international concern caused
withdrawal of announced plans to deploy several minesweepers to the
Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war.
Copyright 1990 Peace News Ltd. Permission to reprint
unsigned items WITH CREDIT is given to non-profit groups
sharing PN's aims; otherwise contact author through PN.
Peace News, 55 Dawes Street, London SE17 1EL, England;
tel +44 71 703 7189; e-mail gn:peacenews
Source: PeaceNet - wri.news
Progressive News Page 21
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
CENTRAL AMERICA: CHILDREN - THE MAIN VICTIMS OF WAR
Extracts from an article by Euridice Gomez Laurent of AFP in
"El Nuevo Diario" October 2, 1990
Around a million Central American children were physically
and psychologically victimized by war during the last decade
according to a series of studies that warn about the ominous
effects of this tragedy on the future of the region.
"And when they kill the children they don't use rifles.
They carry arms, but they don't use them to kill the
children. Sometimes they kill them with their own hands.
Sometimes they use machetes. My uncle saw them kill seven
relatives of mine.... He saw how they grabbed the children
by the feet and smashed their head against a post and how
they took a cord and tied the child, with three pulling in
one direction and three pulling in the other. That's how
they kill people.... Then they threw gasoline on the bodies
and burned them."
60,000 Orphans
This is the testimony of a Guatemalan child who was witness
a massacre in that Central American country where 60,000
children had been orphaned by 1986 according to statistics
included in an analysis of "the psychological impact of
violence on children," done this year in the Costa Rican
capital by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).
In the cases of children who are witnesses to massacres, the
transmission of terror through the mutilation of bodies is
very strong and becomes a direct experience, renewed
whenever the child sees another dead body, explains a
preliminary study on "Violence in Central America and the
Mental Health of the Child" by the Costa Rican researchers
Cecilia Claramunt and Corina Flores.
Mutilated bodies, they add, "continue to appear. They
pursue the children in dreams and nightmares and on
occasion, a process of getting used to it occurs, as in this
example: a father finds his daughter beside a decapitated
body. The little girl has the head in her hands and she
says to her father: "I'm taking ants out of this man's
head."
"For children, there is a very high degree of becoming used
to violence and a great deal of difficulty in maintaining
their feelings of hatred and aggression to the extent that
violence and cruelty increases around them", the researchers
insist.
The Child Is Defenseless
Adults, they point out, can defend themselves even when they
Progressive News Page 22
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
are submitted to the contradictions of society and "choose,
in the manner that their subconscious allows them, to refuse
to adapt, but the child does not do this." The child is
defenseless and can only modify his or her psychic reality.
"One of the most serious impacts of war is the psychological
effect on children," states UNICEF, and the disorders at
that level will affect future generations of Central
Americans, the specialists warn.
The decade of the 1980's, with armed conflicts in three of
the five Central American countries -Nicaragua, El Salvador,
and Guatemala- has had crudely negative effects on the
children affected in different ways and to different degrees
by the armed conflicts.
"The experience of a war situation definitely has an impact
on the formation of the content of thought and the language
forms of children." This is shown in the drawings and
testimonies of the displaced and in their language, where
terms related to war, such as helicopter, machine gun, and
rocket predominate, the experts argue.
The child of the region must faces many privations and
experiences derived to a great extent from the war situation
that are difficult to overcome due to the present conditions
that are found in Central America.
Alarming Statistics
According to reports released this year in San Jose during
the meeting to analyze the impact of the Central American
conflict on children, in Guatemala "the problem is greater
than the figures suggest" and in addition to the 60,000
orphans there are 5000 abandoned or injured children in the
capital, as well as more than 100,000 displaced and some
40,000 refugees.
In Nicaragua, 150,000 children under 15 years of age are
considered displaced by the war. More than 15,000 were
orphaned, and some 20,000 wounded and handicapped by the end
of the war. El Salvador -with more than 70,000 dead in the
last 10 years- has more than 500,000 displaced (11% of the
population) and of those, 40% are children including some
5000 orphans and an undetermined number of handicapped
infants.
"It can be affirmed that war has constituted itself in the
Central American countries into something more than a factor
in the emotional and psychological life of the child, and it
has become a dramatic problem above all because of the
prolongation of the conflict," affirms the study by
Claramunt and Flores.
So for example, displacement, which before was considered as
Progressive News Page 23
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
something transitory or provisional, "is becoming so
prolonged that it appears to be taking on a permanent
character." At the same time, the problem of families which
were separated even before the war has been aggravated by
the displacement, disappearance, or death of one of the
family members or loved ones.
Two Million Refugees
Some two million Central Americans live as refugees or as
displaced persons and "the feeling of powerlessness that
this problematic can generate, can bring people to change
their sense of values and relationships, increasing
delinquency and prostitution," they state.
Even the fortunate children who have their basic needs as
refugees met by international organizations, the researchers
indicate, "live in an overprotected and artificial
environment" and learning problems are frequent, with many
forgetting how to read and write, besides having problems
such as attention seeking and aggression.
At the same time, Claramunt and Flores point out that these
same children demonstrate a lot of terror and fear of
helicopters, planes, soldiers, and of everyone that is an
authority figure.
In spite of its importance, the effects of violence on the
mental health of children in Central America has been
studied very little. Literature on the problematic of war
lived by children, their experiences about death, being
uprooted, separation, and loss tend to be scattered and
incomplete.
Manifestations Of Fear and Anxiety
A study called "Children and War" done in 1987, highlights
the manifestations of fear and anxiety besides the problems
in schooling of displaced Salvadoran children.
Another study on children that had directly experienced
attacks, the violent death of family members, or the
abandonment of their home before the presence of armed
elements shows evidence of difficulty in sleeping, phobic
avoidance, difficulties in interpersonal relations, and
depression, and in serious cases, the children can become
autistic and reach a stage of child psychosis.
A study with children under 8 years of age in 1988, directed
by Jean Claude Metraux to look into the psychological
effects of armed violence in Nicaragua, disclosed frequent
problems of learning, conduct, and withdrawal.
This investigation determined that the separation of the
parents increased the children's problems, as did moving
Progressive News Page 24
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
away from their place of origin.
The most severe problems on the emotional level appear in
those cases where children have experienced the death of one
or more of their family members, or when the family has had
to change everything in their daily routine, as in the case
of the displaced.
War refugees in Costa Rica present psychosomatic symptoms
such as headaches, gastritis, anxiety, insecurity, diverse
fears, distortions of reality, and paranoia.
After becoming an orphan or being a witness to or victim of
torture, the burning of your possessions, and the
assassination of their relatives, among other traumatic
experiences, the children frequently have a devalued self
image and present regressive and aggressive conduct, and
psychosomatic disorders.
At the same time, studies with children suffering from these
pressures reveal that the symptoms of acute anxiety are
related to the emotional problems of their parents and other
stressful conduct displayed by significant persons in their
life.
Another Study
According to another study, young children who are victims
of war present "anxiety, excessive demands for affection and
security from their parents or adults that take care of
them, and strong feelings of revenge, and as a result of
these, guilt feelings and depression."
Nevertheless, experts point out that there doesn't exist a
"syndrome" of the child or adult victim of war, torture, or
exile. What does exist are "recurrent problems framed
within the experience of loss: loss of country, loss of
loved ones, loss of identity, loss of hope, the loss of
one's livelihood."
It is in this context that Central America must place a
priority on attending to children affected by violence,
understanding that it is a problem of all Central Americans
that must be resolved with a regional program whose
principal objective should be to end the wars that still
persist in El Salvador and Guatemala.
(We encourage feedback. Send comments, suggestions, etc. to
us via e-mail. Address: ni!criesdif or GeoNet: CRIES )
END CRIES-PENSAMIENTO PROPIO ENGLISH SPECIAL SERVICES END
Source: PeaceNet - cries.regionews
Progressive News Page 25
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
WHAT LIES BEYOND U.S. INTERVENTION:
NO PEACE WITHOUT LINKAGE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
A special report by The Middle East Justice Network
As the Middle East crisis enters its fourth month, a diplomatic
solution seems further away than ever. In August Americans may not
have been aware that negotiations were an option, so reluctant was
the media to publicize peace proposals that were being floated,
including Iraq's own.
Now we have some sense of what we may be missing: "IRAQ HINTS AT
COMPROMISE; US REJECTS TERMS," read a New York Times headline on
October 17th. But we may not fully comprehend just how isolated is
the group of nations -- the United States, Israel, Britain -- that
are pushing for war as an option to the UN embargo. While President
Gorbachev in late October was calling for "an inter-Arab meeting,
some Arab mechanism... we could reach agreement more quickly that
way," the US was discouraging Saudi Arabia from even contemplating
an "Arab solution" to the crisis.
Amid shifting justifications for the dispatch of up to 500,000
troops to Saudi Arabia, and their shift from a defensive to an
offensive posture, George Bush has projected only one consistent
theme: he will not negotiate the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait with
a man he now terms even worse than Hitler. Nearly a year ago the
President ordered a "surgical strike" on Panama, causing thousands
of casualties and widespread destruction. On December 29, 1989 the
US vetoed a UN resolution deploring its aggression against Panama.
As Daniel Moynihan (D-NY) pointed out in the Senate on October 26th:
"The President has...invoked standards of international law by which
we have not, within this very year, abided ourselves."
Is George Bush now prepared to unleash an unfathomable and
terrifying chain reaction of calamity on the Middle East because
negotiating Iraq's withdrawal would violate the "principle" that
aggression cannot be rewarded? Is he prepared for the explosion of
oil prices and possible devastation of the oil fields with
unimaginable consequences to the world economy? Is he really
contemplating the extinction of an estimated 100,000 lives, in
pursuit of a "principle" which the US has violated more frequently
than any other country? Are we prepared to let him?
The Growing Opposition
One thing is clear: Americans do not want a war in the Middle East.
Poll results published in The Boston Globe on September 30 indicated
that only only 9% of those polled would advocate going to war even
if they were assured the US would win. Nearly 70% preferred waiting
for the blockade against Iraq to work. And even if Iraq invaded
Saudi Arabia, less than half favored a massive counterattack. This
message is increasingly being taken to the streets and finds growing
expression in Congress. Although the legislature has refused to
invoke the War Powers Act to limit the President's ability to wage
Progressive News Page 26
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
war without its approval, a third of the Democrats in the House
signed an October 26th statement asserting they were "emphatically
opposed to any military action" and demanding "that the
Administration not undertake any offensive military action
without the full deliberation and declaration required by the
Constitution."
The US peace movement -- which has long deemed the Middle East off
limits to avoid the "contentious issue" of Israel -- has been
familiarizing itself with the region to organize teach-ins and
anti-war protests. Grassroots organizations have been vocal in their
demands for the post Cold War "peace dividend" to be brought home
where it is critically needed, and not squandered to make profits
for oil companies. At last important connections are being made
between our domestic and our foreign policy, and our posture as the
world's top hired gun is being openly challenged.
But is it enough to demand that the troops come home, as many
groups around the country are doing? Will this bring a lasting
peace to the region, or merely put the anticipated war on hold?
"US troops out of the Gulf" is a necessary component of any
peaceful resolution of the crisis, but is it a sufficient one?
Would returning to the pre August 2nd status quo enable the
countries of the Middle East to manage their own affairs and
resources free from US manipulation? Would it defuse the regional
powderkeg or could it prove a short-term gain for which everyone
could pay dearly in the long run?
To answer these questions we must look beyond the fact of our armed
intervention in the Gulf to the larger regional picture. We can no
longer afford to turn a blind eye to the less visible but more
insidious form of American intervention which has for decades
prevented any solution of the region's core problem: the question
of Palestine and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza
Strip, subsidized with our tax dollars at a rate of $11 million per
day. The Bush Administration insists that there can be no "linkage"
of the region's occupations as Saddam Hussein suggested in his first
peace overture of August 12, when he offered to withdraw from Kuwait
if Israel would withdraw from the lands it conquered in 1967 and
Syria and Israel would withdraw from Lebanon.
Hussein's offer may well have been a cynical ploy. But since August
the case for a consistent UN response to the region's occupations
has been forcefully made in the international arena. The issue of
"linkage" now runs like a fatal fault line under the fragile
anti-Iraq coalition Washington has put together. Indeed, as the Gulf
crisis enters its fourth month, the refusal by the US to extend to
the Israeli occupation the same "principle" it claims to be acting
on in the Gulf threatens to split the Security Council and crack the
coalition's "Arab cover" beyond repair.
Israel, the "Dynamic State"
Linkage draws Israel's 23 year long occupation of the West Bank and
Gaza, its 12 year long occupation of south Lebanon and its
Progressive News Page 27
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights into a common
frame of reference with Iraq's three months' occupation and
annexation of Kuwait. Both are violations of a key tenet of
international law -- the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by
force. In both cases, the international community has acted with
near unanimity to demand an end to occupation. But there the
similarities end. For in one case -- that of Iraq's occupation --
the international consensus has been actively moulded by the US,
with the result that an embargo and hundreds of thousands of troops
are now deployed against Saddam Hussein. In the case of Israel, the
US has stood shoulder to shoulder with the occupier to defy the
international consensus.
Few Americans even seem aware of the fact that the West Bank and
Gaza came under Israel's control through a war which it started. No
one challenged Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) when he told his
colleagues in mid October that the only instance of linkage in the
Middle East was that Kuwait and Israel were both "innocent victims
of attack." In fact, the June 1967 war began when Israel attacked
and destroyed Egypt's airforce on the ground in the early morning
hours of June 5th. At the time it justified its war on its neighbor
as "pre-emptive." But before long several Israeli generals publicly
questioned Israel's claim that it had launched its attack to prevent
"extermination." Former minister Mordechai Ben-Tor even claimed
that "the entire story of the danger of extermination was invented
in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the
annexation of new Arab territory" (Al Hamishmar, April 14, 1972).
Israel emerged from the June 1967 war with territory at least three
times larger than it had been granted under the UN partition plan in
1947. A few weeks after the war was over it proclaimed its
sovereignty over East Jerusalem, whose municipal borders were
extended to include an additional 16,500 acres containing part or
all of 28 Palestinian villages.
Even the US has refused to recognize Israel's annexation of East
Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The expansionist vision of Israel's
early leaders spans the political spectrum, from Menachem Begin who
argued as early as 1951 in The Revolt: The Story of the Irgun that
"Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it.
And forever" to David Ben-Gurion who in his 1954 Rebirth and Destiny
of Israel claimed that "to maintain the status quo will not do. We
have set up a dynamic state, bent upon creation and reform, building
and expansion." After the Six Day War Moshe Dayan made territorial
aggression fundamental to Zionism's past and future project: "During
the last hundred years our people have been in a process of building
up the country and the nation, of expansion, of getting additional
Jews and additional settlements in order to expand the borders here.
Let no Jew say the process has ended. Let no Jew say that we are
near the end of the road" (Ma'ariv, July 7, 1968). Yitzhak Shamir
could not have put it better.
The Israeli Occupation and the US Veto
For 23 years Israel's urge to expand has been at the expense of the
Palestinians under occupation, now numbering 1,800,000, as well as
Progressive News Page 28
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
neighboring Lebanon. Israel has set aside between 50% and 60% of the
West Bank land and 40% of the Gaza Strip for exclusive Jewish use.
It has appropriated 83% of the West Bank's water. Some 2,500 Jewish
settlers in the Gaza Strip use 19 times more water per capita than
600,000 Palestinians. Palestinians under occupation, governed by
more than a thousand military orders, are denied literally all the
civil liberties that Americans take for granted. According to Red
Cross figures, there were at least 500,000 detentions on security
grounds during the first twenty years of occupation. For more than
twenty years Palestinians as a people have suffered a range of
"collective punishments" - their houses have been demolished and
olive trees uprooted, their leaders expelled, their villages and
refugee camps put under lengthy curfews and their schools and
universities closed for months -- or years -- at a time.
Palestinians are considered "protected persons" under the 1949
Fourth Geneva Convention by all countries except Israel, which warns
the world community not to interfere with its rule over the
territories. In stark contrast to its marshalling the Security
Council to pressure Iraq to retreat from Kuwait, the US has vetoed
or abstained on nearly all the 43 major Security Council resolutions
critical of the Israeli occupation since 1967. In 1988, during the
first year of the Palestinian uprising, when more than 400 unarmed
civilians were killed by Israeli security forces, thousands beaten
and tortured, more than 40,000 wounded seriously enough to require
medical attention and 30,000 arrested (with 5,000 imprisoned without
trial), the US vetoed five Security Council resolutions on the
occupation because they "lacked balance." In 1989, during the
uprising's second year, the State Department could not disguise the
pattern of increasingly barbaric punishments in its annual report on
human rights, citing official Israeli figures of 304 Palestinians
killed during the single year, up to 20,000 wounded, 9,000
imprisoned with 1,272 detained without trial or charges for at least
12 months. But still the US vetoed three draft resolutions on the
occupied territories and abstained on two condemning Israel's
expulsion of Palestinians. During that year the Security Council
adopted 20 of the 25 resolutions which it debated: the US vetoed the
remaining five. The veto which caused the Palestinians most pain,
and which demonstrated how little impact the PLO's embrace of a two
state solution based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and
a popular uprising of more than two years' duration had made on the
Bush Administration, occurred just two months before Iraq invaded
Kuwait and the Security Council "redeemed" itself in US eyes.
Following the massacre in late May of seven Palestinian workers at
Rishon LeZion by a former Israeli army reservist and the Israeli
army's subsequent killing of l7 more Palestinians and wounding of
over a thousand in the space of a few days, the Security Council
demanded that a UN observer mission be dispatched to the occupied
territories.
Clovis Maksoud, the UN observer from the League of Arab States,
argued in the Security Council session of May 31 that "Israel has to
be judged by a normal standard. It has to answer the question,
whether it is or is not an occupying power? Is it or is it not
willing to comply with international and UN resolutions? Is it or is
Progressive News Page 29
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
it not willing to recognize the right of Palestinians to
self-determination?" Israel never had to give an answer. It was once
again let off the hook by the US, whose lone veto sank the
resolution 14-1, causing Palestinians to abandon any faith in
America as arbiter of a "peace process." In the words of US
Ambassador Thomas Pickering, the proposed mission "would too easily
become a vehicle which could be misused to generate more needless
controversy and dispute in the region."
Linkage: "Completing the Agenda"
But despite America's attempt to avoid "needless controversy," the
questions of Israel as occupier and of the US double-standard in
condemning some occupations but not others would not go away. The
"low profile" which Israel was urged to adopt in the Gulf crisis was
more than a matter of expediency -- it was a matter of necessity, if
Washington were to have any Arab support for its actions in the
Gulf. European leaders did not hesitate to draw parallels between
the two occupations, urging Israel to negotiate with the PLO without
delay. On September 24th French President Mitterand laid a concrete
peace proposal before the UN General Assembly. It called for the
Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait as a first stage, democratic elections
in Kuwait as a second stage, and a third stage which would enable
Lebanon to recover "complete sovereignty over her soil" and the
Palestinians to "satisfy their legitimate aspiration to the
possession of a land which they could call their homeland," all
guaranteed by an international peace conference. A fourth stage
would deal with arms reduction and issues of regional cooperation.
In early October British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd argued that
the five Security Council members must cooperate on the Palestinian
problem at an international peace conference with the other parties
to the conflict: "This is not overloading but rather completing the
agenda...The issues are not identical but their importance is." With
reference to Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 demanding the
withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories, Hurd said
pointedly, "Security Council resolutions should be implemented, not
rejected." On Ocober 7th Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir
flatly rejected what he called the "linkage conspiracy" and vowed
that Israel would never withdraw from the territories. But the
following day gave arguments for linkage a new prominence when
Israeli Border Police opened fire with live ammunition on
Palestinians gathered to defend the "Dome of the Rock" from
fundamentalist Jews seeking to make it the site of the "Third
Temple." At least 20 Palestinians at the holy site and elsewhere in
the occupied territories were killed by live ammunition on October
8th, and more than 300 others wounded.
"The US is Not Doing Comparisons"
After the massacre, Palestinian community leaders cabled the
Security Council demanding international protection and the
implementation of international law: "We do not understand how oil
in the Gulf can be valued more highly than Palestinian blood...or
how the Security Council can ignore our plea for protection when
Progressive News Page 30
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
it is prepared to send troops to fight a war in the Gulf region."
While students in the country whose support against Iraq was most
critical to the US -- Egypt -- took to the streets in their
thousands, demanding that the guns in the Gulf be turned against the
real enemy, three of the five permanent members of the Security
Council, France, USSR and China, said the massacre made it
imperative to convene an international peace conference without
delay. In Mitterand's words, "one cannot try to defend human rights
here and neglect them there. Rights are rights." But the US
continued to insist that there was no linkage, although its
arguments were looking increasingly threadbare. Here is the best
State Department spokesperson Margaret Tutwiler could do in an
October 10th press conference:
Question: "I want to go back to the linkage. I know it's been said
that there is no comparison between the occupations of the two. But
just for the record, can the US give specific reasons why there is a
distinction between violent resistance by Palestinians against
Israeli occupation and violent resistance by Kuwaitis against Iraqi
occupation, as a principle?"
Tutwiler: "We don't have any trouble with it at all.... The two
issues are, in our minds...not linked, and we're not going to link
them, and there is no inconsistency in the US policy....The
situation in Kuwait is nothing more than aggression and a totally
different situation. And no, we are not going to do comparisons and
to tell you that the two are one and the same; they're not."
Question: "I understand. So the basic...the basic point of
distinction that you make is that the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait is
the product of pure aggression, whereas the Israeli..."
Tutwiler: "Well, I don't think there's any doubt about that."
Question: "No, I'm not questioning you. I just want to get it on
the record why they're different, that's all. And...is that correct,
the pure aggression, the aggressive nature of the occupying forces?"
Tutwiler: "These two things are very different things. And we are
not doing comparisons."
But the rest of the Security Council was. As the October 14th
Boston Globe stated, "The days and nights of acrimonious debate
behind closed doors brought home to the Administration that much of
the world buys Saddam Hussein's charge that there are double
standards applied in Washington's pursuit of principle. The
argument was forcefully made that Palestinians deserve to be saved
from Israel's occupation."
Rather than cast a veto and place its entire Gulf strategy in
jeopardy, the Bush Administration persuaded the Security Council to
drop the idea of sending its own mission to Israel's occupied
territories, fearing that this could lead to a permanent UN
involvement and eventually to an international peace conference. It
then framed and pushed through the Security Council a resolution
Progressive News Page 31
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
which it could support. The resolution, which passed unanimously on
October 12th, requested the Secretary General to send a mission to
investigate the killings, but side-stepped the whole issue of
international protection, leaving it to the Secretary General to
explain in a separate statement that the purpose of the mission was
to make recommendations about how to ensure the safety of civilians
living under occupation. Although it had upheld a Security Council
resolution criticising Israel for the first time since 1982, the US
was no more committed in October to doing something about the
Israeli occupation than it had been at the time of the Rishon LeZion
massacre in May.
As a US official involved in drafting the resolution told the
October 11th New York Times, "We had to get out ahead of this thing
and try to channel and control the diplomacy so Saddam and the PLO
won't get the mileage out of it that they are looking for. Sure, it
may cause the Israelis some grief, but they have as much interest as
us in seeing this thing put back in the bottle as quickly as
possible."
But linkage could not be put back in the bottle. The unanimous
refusal of the Israeli cabinet to accept the UN mission on the
grounds that this would impinge on Israeli sovereignty over annexed
East Jerusalem led to another unanimous Security Council rebuke of
Israel. At an October 17th Arab League meeting pro-America Morocco
crossed the floor to condemn the "double standards" employed by the
US. The next day the Arab League passed its first unanimous decision
since the Iraqi invasion, deploring Washington's pro-Israel bias and
demanding that the Security Council apply international law
impartially and impose sanctions on Israel.
Israel was equally harsh on the Administration. Prime Minister
Shamir said that the US was "humiliating" Israel. Foreign Minister
David Levy had his own interpretation of the linkage argument:
"The US is held captive by the very coalition it formed against
Saddam Hussein. This surrender ...created the linkage between what
is happening in the Gulf and the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Two weeks earlier Levy had promised the Administration that Israel
would not use $400 million in US housing loan guarantees to settle
Soviet Jews across its 1967 borders. But shortly before the Dome of
the Rock massacre Shamir again talked openly of new settlements in
East Jerusalem. On the same day as it rejected the UN mission,
Israel announced a new settlement for 25,000 in "Greater Jerusalem,"
counting on major American Jewish organizations and the US Congress
to rally in support. In striking contrast to the European
Parliament, which reimposed sanctions against Israel after the Dome
of the Rock killings and issued the strongest condemnation of Israel
it had ever adopted, American Senators criticized the Administration
for its UN votes against Israel. Shortly afterwards, on October
19th, they vetoed by 90-8 an amendment drafted by Senators Dole and
Byrd which condemned Israel's newly announced settlement program for
violating UN resolutions 242, 338 and 339 and the assurances given
earlier in the month on the housing loan guarantees. A few days
Progressive News Page 32
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
later, by a vote of 97-1, the Senate added to the Foreign Aid bill
an additional allocation of weapons for Israel amounting to $700
million.
"How Israel is like Iraq"
As Congress rallies around Israel, and elected representatives like
Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Mel Levine (D-CA) doggedly deny any
linkage between the two occupations, the "damage" may already have
been done in the Security Council. The Boston Globe for October 28th
reported that "Although the US wanted to avoid any linkage between
Iraq's presence in Kuwait and Israel's occupation of the West Bank
and Gaza Strip, a linkage is now firmly established. The Security
Council realizes it can have no credibility condemning Iraq if it
turns a blind eye on Israel's refusal to accept its resolutions."
Equally worrying for the Administration may be the way the case for
linkage is beginning to reach the American public. The October 29th
issue of Time Magazine featured this startling headline: HOW ISRAEL
IS LIKE IRAQ. Writer Strobe Talbott had the audacity to compare
Saddam Hussein, Bush's new Hitler, with Yitzhak Shamir, finding them
both (like the original Hitler) guilty of "irredentism" -- using
history to claim land belonging to another: "Saddam says that since
Kuwait and Iraq were part of the same province under the control of
the Ottoman Turks, they should be rejoined now. For their part, many
Likud leaders believe that since the West Bank was ruled by
Israelites in biblical times, not one square inch should be traded
away as part of an Arab-Israeli settlement. Yitzhak Shamir's talk of
`Greater Israel' is as ominous for the prospects of there ever being
real and lasting peace in the region as Saddam's militant nostalgia
for Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian empire."
Comparing Likud's creation of "new facts" in the form of Jewish
settlements with Saddam's obliteration of Kuwait's nationhood,
Talbott concludes that Likud's policies have jeopardized "the
viability and credibility of Israel's democracy," putting at risk
"its support from the rest of the world."
Peace: "the worst of all possible outcomes"
On November 1st UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar called
for the Security Council to make Israel live up to its obligations
under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. Claiming that Palestinians
had expressed "a profound feeling of vulnerability at all times,
whether in the work place, at school, in places of worship or simply
walking down the street," de Cuellar recommended all 164 signatories
to the Geneva Convention be summoned to consider ways to extend the
Palestinians protection.
Israel immediately announced that it would have nothing to do with
any such meeting and the Bush Administration again faced a quandary
of its own making: should it act in accordance with its own stated
policy that Palestinians were "protected persons" under the Geneva
Convention or should it support Israel which alone in the world
denied that the Convention extended to Palestinians? The
Progressive News Page 33
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
implications were far-reaching.
As The New York Times reported on November 2nd, it had to "choose
again: back Israel or threaten the gulf alliance." If the US thinks
Israel is sympathetic to its dilemma, it is probably mistaken.
Respected Israeli political commentator Amir Oren believes that
Israel welcomes the Bush Administration's discomfiture: "In the
Iraqi-American conflict there is one leader whom Yitzhak Shamir
wants to see weakened now. His name is not Saddam Hussein. According
to Shamir's view of the world, George Bush constitutes a greater and
more persistent threat to Israel than Saddam or any other strongman
in the Arab or Islamic world" (Middle East International, October
26).
Why is this the case? Because of Shamir's resentment at having to
keep a low profile in the Gulf crisis while Washington moves towards
a new "strategic alliance" with Saudi Arabia, and because of fears
that Washington might resolve the crisis without a war. As Yosef
Goell wrote in The Jerusalem Post of October 17th, a solution which
left Iraq intact would be, for Israel, "the worst of all possible
outcomes of the Gulf crisis." For months Israel has urged Washington
to launch a military attack on Iraq, arousing fears that it might
even create a pretext for war to pre-empt a negotiated settlement.
This possibility is given grim consideration by the Israeli
publication The Other Front. Appalled by public indifference to
Palestinian deaths in the Dome of the Rock massacre, The Other Front
states: "The distorted and sick vision of reality shared by the
majority of the Israeli public and its leaders is liable to lead the
whole region to a holocaust. At a time of serious international
tension, we can't exclude the possibility of the use of nuclear
weapons by Israel, with a claim that Saddam Hussein or someone else
`intended' to use chemical weapons. Then there will be hundreds of
thousands killed and maybe more -- but the surviving Jewish remnant
will continue to claim, `they attacked us. Our hands did not spill
this blood' (October 17)."
Peace through Linkage
In December 1989 a UN resolution, which the US opposed, declared
peace in the Middle East to be "indivisible" -- a view which seems
indisputable today. For if we did succeed in getting Iraq out of
Kuwait and US troops out of Saudi Arabia without a war breaking out,
would the regional crisis really be over, or merely put on hold?
What sort of peace could prevail if Israel feels threatened by Iraq
and the US pumps ever greater quantities of weapons of mass
destruction into the region?
In early November four of the non aligned nations in the Security
Council put forward a peace proposal calling for the withdrawal of
Iraq from Kuwait and the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the
Gulf, their replacement with UN peacekeeping forces and the
convening of an international peace conference. Such a conference
has been demanded by the non aligned nations ever since their 1976
Colombo summit, and by the UN General Assembly repeatedly during the
Progressive News Page 34
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
1980's. It has always been opposed by the US. But now its time has
come. For the first time in years the US has a strong incentive to
back its own policy, outlined by Secretary of State James Baker when
he claimed on May 22, 1989 that Israel must "lay aside, once and for
all, the unrealistic vision of a Greater Israel."
The need to keep the anti-Iraq coalition together means that the
US might finally be encouraged to break the pattern of its
uncritical support for Israel and join the world consensus on an
international peace conference to address the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. As William Pfaff wrote in a late October syndicated
column, "the time to hold that conference is now. It should be
called to complete the isolation of Saddam Hussein and pre-empt
the Palestinian issue that provides his claim to wider support....
there will be no lasting settlement anywhere in the region until the
Palestinian affair is settled." To the objection that "a peace
conference would reward Saddam Hussein," Pfaff responded: "Put
aggression against Kuwait on the agenda and he becomes the
defendant. We might thereby escape that war of unforeseeable
consequences that now awaits us in the sands." Indeed, the
intertwining of the question of Palestine and the question of
Kuwait over the last few months has shown how artificial it is to
keep these two issues in separate compartments.
"Linkage" could be pursued in any number of ways. It does not
necessarily imply the type of simultaneously-implemented settlements
called for by Saddam Hussein which could delay indefinitely his
withdrawal from Kuwait. It could mean parallel consideration is
given the issues, as Egyptian journalists recommended after the Dome
of the Rock massacre, or President Mitterand's four stages, or King
Hussein's sequential treatment, outlined in a September 22nd
interview on CNN: "Under the circumstances, priority must be given
to defusing the explosive situation in the Gulf. But credible
assurances must be given to insure that other problems of a similar
nature would definitely and urgently be addressed thereafter ideally
within the context of a long-sought after international peace
conference."
As well as dealing with territorial disputes, such a peace
conference could tackle issues which threaten the security of
everyone in the region, including the viciously spiralling arms
race, Iraq's chemical weapons and developing nuclear technology and
Israel's chemical and nuclear weapons.
What might this mean for Israel? Arguing that Israel's
international isolation was mounting while its internal divisions
and the nature of its electoral system were making it incapable of
making peace, William Pfaff declared that "it is time to do Israel a
favor" by having the international community involved in the
peace-making process. Israel, pressured by the US to attend a peace
conference, could finally be forced to say whether it supported UN
Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and was prepared to
recognize the right of Palestinians to self-determination. If Israel
refused to give up its "unrealistic vision of a Greater Israel," the
international community could show its resolve to enforce UN
Progressive News Page 35
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
resolutions, as it is now doing in the case of the embargo against
Iraq. As for Israel's security concerns, what better forum to
address its legitimate security needs and guarantee its
internationally recognized borders than an international conference,
representing a global consensus, this time with the full backing of
the United States?
We must strive for a peace which is "indivisible" as we work to
prevent armed conflict and bring US troops home. The anti-war
movement we build together must put pressure on the US government to
abandon its double-standard toward occupations in the region and to
seek, in the words of the December 1989 UN resolution, a
"comprehensive, just and lasting solution" to the region's problems.
There is no rational alternative.
###
The Middle East Justice Network PO Box 558 Cambridge, MA 02238
Tel (617) 666-8061 Fax (617) 776-8926
The Middle East Justice Network was formed by Americans drawn
together by a common concern about our government's role in
supporting the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Our
goal is to pressure our policy-makers and elected representatives
to be evenhanded in their treatment of Israel and Palestine and
recognize the justice of Palestinian claims to statehood.
We publish a bimonthly newsletter Breaking the Siege and frequent
legislative action alerts. To join The Middle East Justice Network's
nationwide campaign send $12 to us.
Progressive News Page 36
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
----------------------------------------------------------------------
N E W S S H O R T S
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GREENPEACE REVEALS UNIQUE FOOTAGE OF WAR GAS DUMP SITES
LONDON, October 29, 1990 (GP)--At the opening of one of the most
crucial meetings of the London Dumping Convention (LDC), Greenpeace
has handed its chair unique footage of two huge ocean dumpsites of
World War II poison gas.
The release of the footage comes during a week in which a proposal
to phase-out all ocean dumping of industrial and toxic waste by 1995
will be discussed.
One of the dumpsites, in the southern Baltic Sea east of the Danish
Island, Bornholm, is thought to contain 50,000 tonnes of unused
German mustard gas dumped just after World War II. The barrels
containing the gas are heavily corroded and are showing signs of
leakage.
At the other, previously unknown, site in the North Sea off
Gothenburg, Sweden, nine warships loaded with more than 18,000
tonnes of nerve gas, were scuttled by British and American
authorities in 1946.
Since 1945, more than 750,000 tonnes of munitions--mostly from the
disarmament of Germany -`have been dumped at sea off the coasts of
Europe, Japan, the USA and Australia.
Greenpeace's representative at the LDC, Remi Parmentier, described
the dumped war gas as "a time bomb on the ocean floor." He said the
legacy of past dumping had yet to be dealt with.
"Governments do nothing about the dumping that happened in the
past," he said, "but by supporting the proposal to phase-out future
industrial waste dumping, at least they would prevent the oceans
from being used any longer as a rubbish bin."
The phase-out proposal, put forward by the Nordic nations, is
expected to be strongly opposed by Japan, the USA, the UK, France,
Ireland, Canada and Switzerland.
The LDC is the main international treaty regulating the ocean
dumping of industrial and radioactive wastes. More than 60 countries
are members.
Editor's Notes:
1. The LDC is meeting, from 29 October to 2 November, at the
International Maritime Organisation, 4 Albert Embankment, London
SE 1, Phone: 071 735 7611
2. War gas is no longer dumped at sea. It is a prohibited material
under the London Dumping Convention.
Progressive News Page 37
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
For more information, contact: Elisabeth Mealey, Greenpeace
Communications: 071-515-0275 Video footage of war gas dumpsites and
industrial waste dumping also available from Greenpeace
Communications.
Progressive News Page 38
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
BRITISH MISSILE SHOW DISARMED
[Peace Media Service] The "Gulf War Resisters" staged a
symbolic disarmament action on September 9 at the Farnborough
Air Show, Britain's annual public display of military aircraft
and weapons. The five jumped over the barrier around the
British Aerospace stand at the fair. Two clambered onto the
Tornado, unfurled a banner reading "No war in the Gulf D
Swords into Ploughshares," while another two painted slogans
on the missiles. One Skyflash had its logo amended from
"Active Skyflash" to "Active Skyflash kills." The five were
taken into custody for suspected criminal damage. [Gulf War
Resisters, 101 Leighton Rd., Enfield EN1 1XW, England/Peace
News]
Source: PeaceNet - gn.peacemedia
Progressive News Page 39
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
US CATHOLIC BISHOPS TO SOLDIERS: `DON'T KILL NONCOMBATANTS'
[Peace Media Service] Twenty-six American Catholic bishops
have signed a statement on the Gulf Crisis in which they urge
US soldiers to refuse to obey orders or policies aimed at
killing noncombatants, voice support for conscientious
objectors, condemn any blockade of food or medical supplies,
and appeal to Christians to fast and pray for a non-military
solution. The bishops were assisted in issuing the declaration
by Pax Christi USA.
Among the 26 signers were Bishops Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit,
Walter Sullivan of Richmond, Raymond Hunthausen of Seattle,
and Leroy Matthiesen of Amarillo. One of the signers, Bishop
Michael Kenny of Juneau, Alaska, is presently representing Pax
Christi on a delegation to Jordan and Iraq sponsored by the
Fellowship of Reconciliation.
The text of the Bishops' Statement on the Persian Gulf Crisis
follows:
"As pastors and leaders, our faith compels us to speak out on
the crisis which now envelops the Persian Gulf. First, we
unequivocally condemn the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Not only
did the Iraqi invasion initiate a world crisis, but it has
meant untold suffering for hundreds of thousands of innocent
victims. Our hearts reach out to the hostages and war refugees
from all over the world. We also remember the soldiers on both
sides who are facing the threat of war directly.
"We are encouraged by the active role being played by the
United Nations. We believe that this international body can
play a significant role in finding a diplomatic solution to
the crisis. This is vitally important because we believe that
a grave danger exists for further bloodshed and an even more
deadly regional war.
"While applauding the strongly worded condemnation of Iraqi
aggression by the United Nations Security Council, we are
concerned that the call for withdrawal of Iraqi troops is so
unconditional that it does not leave room for addressing the
legitimate grievances between Iraq and Kuwait that existed
before the invasion. In outlining the conditions of a just war
in [the 1983] peace pastoral [issued by the American Catholic
bishops] we stated, "During the conflict, right intention
means pursuit of peace and reconciliation, including avoiding
unnecessary destructive acts of imposing unreasonable
conditions (e.g., unconditional surrender)." [par. 95 d]
"Should the world's nations allow this position of
unconditional withdrawal to stand in the way of finding a
diplomatic solution to the crisis? Are we not compelled by the
just war principle of last resort to seek a way that will
provide justice to the Kuwaiti people while guaranteeing that
Iraqi grievances will be addressed with their withdrawal from
Progressive News Page 40
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
Kuwait?
"We are also alarmed by the nature of the US-led military
build-up taking place in the Persian Gulf and the discussion
of launching offensive strikes against Iraq D including the
bombing of targets in populated areas. If deterring further
Iraqi aggression is the goal of such a build-up, it seems
clear to us that the nature of the weapons systems being
deployed goes far beyond deterrence and poses an offensive
threat to Iraq. This would seem to violate the concept of
"sufficiency" as an adequate deterrent outlined in our peace
pastoral. In addition, our leaders have refused to rule out
the option of initiating military strikes against Iraq. In
this regard we must speak clearly. The same principle applied
to Iraq should be applied to the United States: disagreements
between nations must not be settled by force.
"We are particularly concerned for the Catholic men and women
of the armed forces currently stationed in the Persian Gulf.
If the US should launch an unprovoked attack against Iraq,
what should Catholic soldiers do? This is a question that must
be answered by each individual in their own hearts. Catholics
in the military service should be aware that church teaching
upholds the right of selective conscientious objection--the
right to object to some wars but not to others.
"In regard to participating in acts of war which would result
in the death of non-combatants, we are reminded of the words
from our peace pastoral: "No Christian can rightfully carry
out orders or policies deliberately aimed at killing
noncombatants (par. 148). Just response to aggression must be
discriminate; it must be directed against unjust aggressors,
not against innocent people caught up in a war not of their
own making" (par. 104).
"This principle of noncombatant immunity should also be
extended to include the thousands of internationals being held
against their will in Kuwait and Iraq, as well as to the
citizens of Iraq and Kuwait who are facing starvation and
death as a result of the blockade of food, medicine and other
essential humanitarian aid.
"Any act of war directed against noncombatant civilian
populations is immoral and must be condemned. This principle
applies to the taking of hostages and placing them in
hazardous situations; it should also apply with no less force
to the blockade of food and medicine.
"Finally, we want to speak to the rising tide of fear, anger
and hatred which is sweeping our country. We wish to offer our
prayers and support for the families of those being held
hostage in Iraq and Kuwait. We also offer our prayers and
support for the families of US service men and women now
stationed in the Gulf.
Progressive News Page 41
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
"Given the real danger of war, Christians should make every
effort to look beyond the slogans and rhetoric which seek to
reduce this conflict to simplistic terms. We encourage
everyone to make a special effort to pray and fast for peace.
A peaceful solution to this crisis is only possible if we take
the time to understand the historical, political and economic
forces at work in the Persian Gulf and here at home.
"In particular, we are concerned by the realization that our
primary reason for sending troops to the Persian Gulf is, in
the words of President Bush, "to protect our way of life."
This crisis has shown the need for a national energy policy
which reduces our dependence on imported oil through
conservation and the development of renewable energy sources.
As we stated in our peace pastoral, "If future planning about
conservation and use of resources is relegated to a pure
struggle of power, we will guarantee conflict in the future."
"We must also resist attempts to portray Iraqis, and Arabs in
general, in a negative manner. What is needed now is more
dialogue and more understanding of our different cultures and
beliefs.
"Above all, we must continue to firmly believe that a peaceful
solution is possible. As Pope Pius XII reminds us, "Nothing is
lost by peace; everything may be lost by war."
Source: PeaceNet - gn.peacemedia
Progressive News Page 42
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
Reprinted from Peace News, November 1990
McLibel case over burger leaflet
* The hamburger giant McDonald's is trying to use the courts to
take its revenge on a group of London activists who drew up a
pamphlet attacking the fast-food economy.
The Greenpeace (London) pamphlet "What's wrong with McDonald's?"
has been widely circulated around the world. It makes connections
between the multinational corporation and Third World hunger,
environmental destruction, and unfair working conditions, but also
draws attention to the wider questions involved in junk food
culture, attacking other chain restaurants that maintain a similar
attitude and style of operation.
Greenpeace (London) first published the pamphlet in 1984, when it
began an annual campaign against McDonald's, tied to United Nations
World Food Day (16 October). Environmental, food politics, and
human and animal rights groups worldwide have joined in every year
in taking action against what the London group calls the "hamburger
society".
McDonald's have attempted to counter the negative propaganda of
these and other protests by recourse to the courts. As most
protesting groups are small and unable to afford costly court
actions, the corporation usually succeeds in forcing protesters to
make apologies and out-of-court settlements. This time, writs have
been served on five individuals--all members of Greenpeace (London),
which cannot be sued, as it is not a limited company--for libel.
McDonald's is claiming that Paul Gravett, Helen Steel, Andrew
Clarke, Dave Morris, and Jonathan O'Farrell libelled the
corporation through the publication of the "What's wrong with
McDonald's?" leaflet.
Members of the group say: "If McDonald's think we will apologise to
them they are wrong. We are going to fight them every inch of the
way." This year on 16 October, they launched the McLibel 5 Support
Campaign to raise money and draw public attention to their case.
"It is going to be extremely costly to fight this action but we
know from the past six years that we will have huge public support.
McDonald's are going to regret ever taking us to court."
Contact: McLibel 5 Support Campaign, c/o London Greenpeace, 5
Caledonian Road, London N1, England (+44 71/071 837 7557).
Copyright 1990 Peace News Ltd. Permission to reprint
unsigned items WITH CREDIT is given to non-profit groups
sharing PN's aims; otherwise contact author through PN.
Peace News, 55 Dawes Street, London SE17 1EL, England;
tel +44 71 703 7189; e-mail gn:peacenews
Source: PeaceNet - wri.news
Progressive News Page 43
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
NEWS FLASH: MCDONALD'S AGREES TO STOP USING STYRENE CLAMSHELLS.
ADDENDUM -- According to Pacifica News on November 1, 1990 the
Environmental Defense Fund has announced the successful conclusion
of its months-long persuasion effort with McDonalds.
McDonald's has agreed to CEASE ALL USE of polystyrene "clamshell"
containers that are so destructive to the environment. The products
will be gone within the next two months, effectively eliminating
80% of McDonald's polystyrene containers. The company will continue
to use polystyrene containers for beverages and breakfast products
until a suitable substitute has been found.
Progressive News Page 44
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
Another mass grave found in Panama
Almost 11 months after the US invasion of Panama, mass graves
continue to be uncovered in that nation. The committee of families
of those who were killed during the invasion announced this week
that another site has been discovered in El Chorillo, one of the
hardest hit areas from US air bombardment.
This mass grave is one of more than 15 graves that have now been
identified by several human rights groups in Panama. The first, also
in Panama City, was exhumed on April 20. In it were more than 120
dismembered bodies with broken bones. According to eyewitness
accounts, they were buried by US soldiers during the invasion.
The latest group includes several children buried in one plastic
bag, bodies with their hands tied behind their backs and showing
signs of bullet wounds and a bag with the dismembered body of a
woman. Human rights workers who were at the site with the families
of missing people say no autopsies were performed, despite the
presence of 15 doctors from the Medical Examiner's office of the
Guillermo Endara government.
Endara's US-installed and backed regime has yet to issue any
official report or release any evidence about the findings from the
exhumations. With the discovery of more mass graves, human rights
groups who have been compiling figures of known dead since the
invasion, now put the number of civilians killed at between
2000-4000. This estimate was echoed in a report from the UN
Commission on Human Rights, which concluded that 2500-4000 civilians
were murdered. Others say the numbers are even higher, pointing to
the fact that some people did not report their missing friends and
loved ones for fear of reprisals. In addition, they say, more mass
graves may show up.
Olga Mejia, president of the Panamanian National Human Rights
Committee, has been present at most of the graves' exhumations. She
recently told reporters that "these human beings were thrown like
garbage, like trash, worse than animals." (Radio Havana 11/16)
From WORLD PERSPECTIVES monthly of alternative news from
shortwave sources. Box 3074, Madison, WI 53704
Progressive News Page 45
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
The Middle East Justice Network
Action Alert #25.2 November 6, 1990
$400 MILLION IN LOANS TO ISRAEL:
DOLE/BYRD PROPOSAL CRITICAL OF ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS DEFEATED 90-8
On October 19 Senators Bob Dole (R-KS) and Robert Byrd (D-WV)
proposed an amendment responding to the Israeli decision to
encourage new settlements of Soviet Jews across the "Green Line."
Congress approved a $400 million loan in housing guarantees which
the Adminstration delayed releasing until Israel had give it the
assurance that it would not Rdirect or settle Soviet Jews beyond the
"Green Line." Three days after the Israeli assurance were received
Prime Minister Shamir made a speech at a religious yeshiva in
Palestinian East Jerusalem, promising the yeshiva would soon be
surrounded by new settlements. On October 14 Israel announced it
would be encouraging Soviet Jews to settle in East Jerusalem.
The Dole/Byrd amendment states that Congress sees plans for
settlements in East Jerusalem and any part of the occupied
territories as contrary to longstanding U.S. policy supporting U.N.
resolutions 242, 338 and 339. It calls Israel's new plans for
expanding settlements contrary to the loan agreement. (The
Amendment is printed on the back page of this Alert.)
In an important attempt to put into law close observation of how
Israel spends US funds, the amendment asked the Administration to
submit a twice yearly report to Congress with Ra detailed assessment
of Israeli law, government policies, financial subsidies or other
incentives for new settlements in any of the Occupied Territories.
The report shall specifically address United States-Israeli
negotiations over the loan guarantee program for housing enacted in
Public Law 101-302.S
The amendment was immediately killed (90 to 8), in a vote called
for by Senator KASTEN (R-WI) with the backing of: Arlen SPECTER
(R-PA), Charles GRASSLEY (R-IA), Alan CRANSTON (D-CA), Herb KOHL
(D-WI), Connie MACK (D-FL), John HEINZ (R-PA). The eight Senators
voting in support of the Amendment were: Robert BYRD (D-WV), Bob
DOLE (R-KS), E.J. GARN (R-UT), James JEFFORDS (R-VT), Nancy
KASSEBAUM, James MCLURE (R-ID), David PRYOR (D-AR), Malcolm WALLOP
(R-WY). Not voting were Phil GRAMM (R-TX) and Donald REIGLE (D-MI).
All other Senators voted against the Amendment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Write your Senators and let them know that you
are opposed to Israeli settlements in the occupied territories
including East Jerusalem and that you support measures that make
Israel accountable for the aid and loan guarantees it receives.
CALL 202-224-3121. Or WRITE: The Honorable ____ , United States
Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Let them know that you strongly
support the Dole/Byrd Amendment (#3602) to the Foreign Operations
Bill. The amendment sought to monitor how US funds for the housing
of Soviet Jews are spent and to assure that $400 million of U.S.
Progressive News Page 46
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
guaranteed loans would not be spent in the West Bank, Gaza or East
Jerusalem. This seems unlikely, since in an October 18th letter to
Secretary Baker, Israel's foreign minister stated that Israel shall
NOT Rrefrain from construction within Jerusalem --or anywhere else,
including Judea, Samaria and Gaza.S You may also want to send a copy
to: Secretary of State James Baker, Department of State, 2201 C
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20520. (The State Department Public
Relations Office telephone number is 202-456-7639).
Amendment 3062 to Foreign Operations Bill (relevant to part II)
Introduced by Senators Dole R-KS and Byrd D-WV, October 19, 1990
1. It has been the long-standing policy of the United States :
(a) to support United Nations Resolution 242, 338 and
339, relating to the peaceful resolution of the Middle
East, and to oppose actions by any party which are
contrary to the intent or spirit of those resolutions; and
(b) to view official Israeli Governmental subsidies or
other incentives for new settlements in any of the
Occupied Territories as contrary to the intent or spirit
of those resolutions, and as not advancing the prospects
for peace in the region.
2. The Congress regrets the October 14, 1990 decision of a
subcommittee of the Israeli Cabinet to encourage an increase
in the settlement of Soviet Jewish refugees in East Jerusalem,
as being contrary to the October 2, 1990, assurance provided
by Israel in conjunction with the U.S. guarantee of $400
million in loans for the construction of housing for Soviet
refugees not to direct or settle Soviet Jews beyond the "Green
Line."
3. Within 60 days after enactment, the President shall report
to the Foreign Relations, Intelligence and Appropriations
Committees of the Congress on settlement activity in all
Occupied Territories. The report should be in classified form
and shall include a detailed assessment of Israeli law,
government policies, financial subsidies or other incentives
for new settlements in any of the Occupied Territories, and
on the number of Israeli citizens residing there. The report
shall specifically address United States-Israeli negotiations
over the loan guarantee program for housing enacted in Public
Law 101-302. The report shall also assess whether United
States' sources of goods and services, including advisory
services, are able to compete equitably for contracts let by
the Israeli Government for housing or other activities
underwritten by funds obtained under the aforementioned loan
guarantee program. The report shall be updated every 180
days.
MEJN, PO Box 558 Cambridge, MA 02238
Or for more information we encourage you to contact us at:
Progressive News Page 47
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
Tel (617) 666-8061 Fax (617) 776-8926
The Middle East Justice Network was formed by Americans drawn
together by a common concern about our government's role in
supporting the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Our
goal is to pressure our policy-makers and elected representatives
to be evenhanded in their treatment of Israel and Palestine and
recognize the justice of Palestinian claims to statehood.
We publish a bimonthly newsletter Breaking the Siege and frequent
legislative action alerts. To join The Middle East Justice Network's
nationwide campaign send $12 to:
Source: PeaceNet - mideast.levant
Progressive News Page 48
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
----------------------------------------------------------------------
O P I N I O N & E D I T O R I A L S
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Editor's Desk:
Well, we've seen a lot of changes recently in the Middle East
situation. No longer is Washington and Baghdad content to hurl
insults and to swap propaganda with each other. Instead, the
military aspect of the crisis has been escalated greatly by
Washington by Bush's announcement of adding another couple of hundred
thousand troops to the Gulf area.
This troop buildup is clearly for one purpose -- to prepare to
conduct offensive military operations. When the President ordered
our troops into the area, he told the country and world that it was
because Saudi Arabia was threatened with an immediate attack.
However, now many questions are being raised asking if there was ever
any Iraqi intentions to attack Saudi Arabia.
Our President told us initially that this was not a fight against
oil, it was a military move to protect Saudi Arabia. That changed in
short time to the President saying that this was a crisis of the need
to confront "naked aggression." Even with this change the President
still clung to his fig leaf claiming that the crisis STILL was not
over oil.
This week, however, the truth finally has come out and some of the
Bush administration's previous lies have been laid to rest. Both the
President and the Secretary of State have admitted that the crisis
REALLY IS OVER OIL. It's over oil and who controls the oil.
So much for our high-sounding propaganda about fighting tyranny,
protecting little countries (except of course, nations like Panama
and Grenada) from big countries, and confronting aggression. Like
most things, it seems our morals -- even when they're propaganda
morals -- are either artificial or disposable.
The announcements by the Bush administration that the conflict in
the Gulf was over oil were really pretty amazing. I personally found
them quite interesting. The administration said that the Middle East
could not be controlled by a "dictator" and that a "dictator" could
not be the most powerful member of OPEC.
That's interesting -- and quite hypocritical. During the 70s
another dictator, the Shah of Iran, was by far the largest military
power in the Mid East and was arguably the most powerful member of
OPEC. Yet the U.S. did not object to THAT dictator having such
power.
Why? The reason is simple. The Shah of Iran was OUR dictator, he
was in the U.S. pocket and was a "good" dictator.
It makes no difference that the Shah killed tens of thousands of
Progressive News Page 49
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
Iranians, and that he tortured untold numbers of people -- he was a
product of a CIA coup in Iran and he had the welcome mat out for any
U.S. military, business or CIA operatives that cared to enter his
country. He was literally a whore for the U.S. and treated his
country in a similar manner.
So let's get past the crap and get to the heart of this Gulf
crisis matter.
We know that the crisis is not over aggression. The U.S. has
invaded and occupied countries ourselves, breaking international
laws and various provisions of the Geneva Convention rules of war
treaties. We still trade and sell arms to aggressor nations, such
as Israel and others, so the aggression argument is nonexistent or
at best, extremely weak.
We know that the war is not over protecting Saudi Arabia -- the
U.S. had enough troops in Saudi Arabia months ago to protect the
Saudis in case of a very unlikely Iraqi attack.
This crisis, and the war that could likely happen as a result of
this crisis, is over oil and who controls the oil -- PERIOD.
We simply aren't happy with Saddam Hussein. He's not OUR
dictator. He's proven, like another famous dictator -- Noreiga of
Panama, to be a nationalist, interested in his own country and region
far and above the interests of the U.S. and the U.S.-based
trans-national oil monopolies that seek to control the Middle East's
oil supplies.
In our own country, we call the type of people that put the U.S.
ahead of all other nations or regions of the world patriotic. We
call people in other countries who put their own country or region
ahead of all other countries nationalists and "threats to American
national security" or threats to "American [business] interests."
It's sad, this whole crisis in the Middle East. What's going to
happen? Who knows, but myself, a disabled veteran, I am fearful of
thousands of American troops coming home dead and disabled and I am
equally fearful that the Arab peoples of the Middle East will be
subjected to decades more of tyrannical governments, probably
dominated by U.S. and Western European powers -- puppet governments
in a real sense, or psuedo-colonies in another sense...
This crisis is not a crisis of the American people. The American
people are not threatened and neither is our much-hailed "national
security." After all, the Iraqis are not going to drink their oil.
It's also sad because the average American is caught in the middle
of this crisis. We're being screwed by Saddam Hussein on one side,
wanting to charge a decent price for his region's only natural
resource, and we're being screwed by the other side by "our own" oil
companies. That's not much of a choice. I'd call it a toss-up as to
who I'd rather be aligned with. While Hussein has committed many
human rights abuses, "our" oil companies have a long history of
Progressive News Page 50
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
screwing over the American consumer and calling it capitalism or the
free market.
Even now, as this crisis supposedly threatens our "national
security" -- as the administration puts it, "our" oil companies are
selling Texas crude oil to the Europeans and making a fat profit
from the deal. Now that's patriotism, isn't it?! The American
people are losers all the way around in this crisis.
The only winners will be the Rockefellers, the DuPonts, the
Mellons, the Quayles, and other similar families. You can bet
their sons and daughters aren't sweating their butts off in the
Arabian desert.
When one looks at the huge numbers of people participating in the
"Operation Desert Shield" (Shield? Maybe they ought to change that to
"Sword" now.) it's truly amazing at what our government can do when
it mobilizes for a crisis.
Just imagine ... 400,000 young, eager and energetic Americans
being sent into the cities of the United States to educate people
about drugs and AIDS ... or ... 400,000 young Americans starting to
build housing for homeless people or engaged in teaching illiterate
Americans how to read ...
Or just imagine that the tens of billions of dollars now being
wasted on Operation Desert Shield were being put into an alternative
energy program -- who knows, in a decade or two we might not need to
worry about the Middle East's oil. Or just imagine those same tens
of billions of dollars being spend on a MODERN mass transit system
for the country ... or ... a large program of recycling plants and
environmental cleanup programs...
George Bush, you're going down the wrong road with this military
escalation of the Gulf crisis.
Instead of adding troops to the Middle East pot and waiting for it
to boil over, we should be withdrawing U.S. troops, replacing them
with more Arab and United Nations troops, and seeking to tighten the
sanctions on Iraq and to work out a diplomatic solution to this
crisis. This is not our war. Bring the troops home. Don't trade
blood for oil.
Progressive News Page 51
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
PUERTO RICAN REPORT
After Namibia won its independence this year the Caribbean Island
of Puerto Rico, in US hands since 1893, is the number one place on
the international agenda for de-colonization. Last year a poll of
Puerto Ricans living in New York to see what they preferred for
their homeland: statehood, annexation, or independence.
Like on the island the majority were for statehood, 36 percent.
However, there were some important differences on those that were
polled. Three times more people said they would vote for
independence in the US than did their compatriots at home. Puerto
Rican independence fighters and the president of the Island's
Socialist Party argues that this is the reason why there is so
much opposition from the White House to allow Puerto Ricans living
in the US to vote in the 1991 plebescite.
The right of the Puerto Ricans living in the US to vote in the
plebescite has been called for by all Puerto Rican organizations and
representative sectors. This is important because it shows how
strong Puerto Rican nationalism is. It should be pointed out that
these people were born in the US and speak english better than
spanish and have spent their whole lives in the US. However, they
think of themselves as Puerto Ricans and they argue that they should
have the right to decide their homeland's destiny. But there are
differences between the parties participating in the negotiating
process.
The New Progressive Party is the party demanding statehood and
doesn't want Puerto Ricans in the US to have the right to vote.
Historically the Puerto Ricans have seen themselves as one nation,
a nation of with 3.5 million people in Puerto Rico and two and a
half million in the US, Puerto Ricans who left their country
because of the socio-economic crisis. This is one of the most
important issues around the plebescite debate The three parties
participating in the plebescite must decide by a two thirds majority
if Puerto Ricans residing in the US will have the right to vote. It
is well known that two parties will argue against this. So the
congressional loophole is seen as a blow against Puerto Ricans
living in the US.
The plebescite is not designed so that Puerto Ricans can decide the
future status of their island. The aim of the legislation is not to
give Puerto Rico the right to true self-determination. It is
designed to protect US interests, even though it is try to appear
neutral. However Washington doesn't even except that there is a
colonial problem in Puerto Rico, so there never could be a transfer
of power to sovereign Puerto Rico and there is no guarantee that the
US Congress would accept the results of a Puerto Rican plebescite.
(Radio Havana 10/25)
from WORLD PERSPECTIVES magazine PO box 3074 Madison Wi. 53704
Progressive News Page 52
Volume 1, Number 5 November 17, 1990
----------------------------------------------------------------------
N O T I C E S
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF PUBLICATION:
Progressive News is a collection of news stories and articles
collected by the editor and published in this electronic newsletter
form. No copyright is taken by the editor and the source of all
articles is quoted. The editor is not responsible for any errors,
typographical or otherwise.
At this time the frequency of publication is officially "irregular."
However, it is planned to publish Progressive News on a monthly
basis, if enough material can be scrounged together to put an issue
together. This is where you, the reader, can help out. We need
your articles!
If you would like to submit an article to Progressive News, please
file-request the document PROGSPEC.TXT from node 1:141/552 in the
FidoNet; Good Egg Net 99:9300/552; HobbyNet 57:2300/1 or directly
via the BBS at 203-274-4639; 300-9600 bps HST/MNP/V42bis.
Articles should be of a topic of a progressive nature and final
acceptance of any submitted articles will rest with the editor.
Comments and suggestions are welcome.
Progressive News is distributed through the FidoNet computer
bulletin board network and through compatible networks. You are
encouraged to distribute Progressive News, either in its electronic
form or in print form, to any interested individual or organization.
Much of the information in Progressive News originated on the
PeaceNet computer system. Progressive News is not affiliated with
PeaceNet; this newsletter should not reflect on the PeaceNet and
vice versa. If you are interested in gaining access to the PeaceNet
system, call or write to the Institute for Global Communications
(IGC), 3228 Sacramento Street, San Francisco, California, USA,
94115, phone: 415-923-0900. Give PeaceNet a try, you'll like it.
Progressive News Page 53
|
|
|
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.
totse.com certificate signatures
|
|
|
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
