[R-G] Progressive Response: Iran, Africa, Haiti, Bolivia, Aid, Militarism

[james m nordlund]

Progressive Response 28 July 2005 Vol. 9, No. 16
Available online at: http://www.fpif.org/progresp/volume9/v9n16.html
Editor: John Gershman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progressive Response (PR) is produced weekly by the International
Relations Center (IRC, formerly Interhemispheric Resource Center, online
at www.irc-online.org) as part of its Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF)
project. FPIF, a "Think Tank Without Walls," is an international network
of analysts and activists dedicated to "making the U.S. a more responsible
global leader and partner by advancing citizen movements and agendas."
FPIF is a joint project of the International Relations Center and the
Institute for Policy Studies. We encourage responses to the opinions
expressed in the PR and may print them in the "Letters and Comments"
section. For more information on FPIF and joining our network, please
consider visiting the FPIF website at http://www.fpif.org/, or email
feedback at fpif.org to share your thoughts with us.

John Gershman, editor of Progressive Response, is a senior analyst with
the International Relations Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org) and
codirector of FPIF. He can be contacted at john at irc-online.org.

**** We Count on Your Support ****

You can donate online at http://www.irc-online.org/donate.php or send a
check to Foreign Policy In Focus c/o IRC, PO Box 2178, Silver City, NM
88062-2178. Thanks for your support. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
I. Updates and Out-Takes
The U.S. and Iran—Democracy, Terrorism, and Nuclear Weapons | Stephen
Zunes
Bush Overstates Africa Aid Increase | David Bryden
Throwing Gasoline on Haiti’s Fires | Brian Concannon Jr.
Bolivia Steps Back from the Abyss | Ronald Bruce St John
Bolivians Struggle for Democracy | Nadia Martinez and Juan Montecino
South America’s New Militarism | Raúl Zibechi
The Limits of Cotton—White Gold Shows its Dark Side in Benin | Leif
Brottem 
II. Letters and Comments
Surprise on Vietnam Commentary
Response from Ronald Bruce St John 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Updates and Out-Takes
The U.S. and Iran—Democracy, Terrorism, and Nuclear Weapons 
By Stephen Zunes

The election of the hard-line Teheran mayor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, over
former President Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani as the new head of Iran is
undeniably a setback for those hoping to advance greater social and
political freedom in that country. It should not necessarily be seen as a
turn to the right by the Iranian electorate, however. The 70-year old
Rafsanjani—a cleric and penultimate wheeler-dealer from the political
establishment—was portrayed as the more moderate conservative. The fact
that he had become a millionaire while in government was apparently seen
as less important than his modest reform agenda. By contrast, the young
Teheran mayor focused on the plight of the poor and cleaning up
corruption. 

In Iran, real political power rests with unelected military, economic, and
right-wing ideologues, and in the June 25 runoff election, Iranian voters
were forced to choose between two flawed candidates. The relatively
liberal contender came across as an out-of-touch elitist, and his
ultraconservative opponent was able to assemble a coalition of rural,
less-educated, and fundamentalist voters to conduct a pseudopopulist
campaign based on promoting morality and value-centered leadership. Such a
political climate should not be unfamiliar to American voters. 

Of course, Washington did not provide the Iranians with much incentive to
elect another relative progressive to lead their country. Since the 1997
election of the outgoing reformist President Mohammed Khatami, the United
States has strengthened its economic sanctions against Iran and has even
threatened military attack. Although most Iranians would like improved
relations with the United States, they apparently got the message that
U.S. hostility toward their country would continue whomever they chose as
president. 

Washington’s primary criticisms of Teheran focus on the Iranian
government’s suppression of political freedom, its support for terrorism
and subversion, and its nuclear program. Though all three of these are
legitimate areas of concern for the international community, the double
standards exhibited by both the Bush administration and the bipartisan
congressional leadership in pressing these issues have done little to
promote individual liberty, counterterrorism, and nonproliferation in Iran
or the region as a whole. 

Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus
Project (http://www.fpif.org) and a Professor of Politics at the
University of San Francisco. He is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle
East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003). 

See new FPIF Policy Report online at:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/173 
  

Bush Overstates Africa Aid Increase
By David Bryden

Now that the dust has settled from the rush of media reports about Africa
brought on by the Group of Eight summit, it’s worth taking a closer look
at what the United States has actually committed to, in terms of aid for
programs to address poverty and disease in Africa. 

Just prior to the Summit, President George W. Bush said he would double
U.S. assistance to Africa, and announced several new programs totaling
$1.65 billion. A closer look at Bush’s actual spending proposal shows that
only 9% of it consists of new money ($800 million of the $8.8 billion
committed between 2004 and 2010). 

David Bryden is the Communications Director of Global AIDS Alliance
(http://www.globalaidsalliance.org) and a contributor to Foreign Policy In
Focus (online at http://www.fpif.org). 

See new FPIF commentary online at:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/171 
  

Throwing Gasoline on Haiti’s Fires
By Brian Concannon Jr.

On June 23, the U.S. State Department briefed members of Congress on its
plan to distribute thousands of handguns to the Haitian National Police,
continuing a program that sent 2,657 weapons to Haiti for the police last
year, despite an embargo. 

The House of Representatives realized that sending the Haitian police
force more weapons is like dousing a fire with gasoline. Its response to
the State Department plan was an amendment to a spending bill blocking the
weapons transfer. The amendment made so much sense that it was passed only
five days after the State Department briefing, and by a voice vote. The
amendment’s sponsor, Rep. Barbara Lee, declared that the police “are
intimidating, murdering, and executing the poor and political opposition
with weapons transferred free of charge from the United States to the
Government of Haiti, and this is simply unacceptable.” 

It is now up to the Senate to show the same common sense by passing the
House’s amendment and making it official policy that fueling Haiti’s
killings is “simply unacceptable.” 

Brian Concannon Jr. directs the Institute for Justice & Democracy in
Haiti, (http://www.ijdh.org) and is a regular contributor to the IRC
Americas Program (http://www.americaspolicy.org). This article was
originally published in the Boston Haitian Reporter.

See full article online at:
http://www.americaspolicy.org/am/159 


Bolivia Steps Back from the Abyss
By Ronald Bruce St John

Dispensing with three presidents in less than two years, Bolivia enjoys
the dubious distinction of being the most politically unstable state in
Latin America today. After popular protests in October 2003 forced
President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada to flee the country, the ousted leader
was replaced by then-Vice President Carlos Diego Mesa Gisbert. Initially
enjoying an approval rating of over 70%, Mesa eventually agreed to step
down in June 2005 in the face of street riots that he feared were leading
the country to civil war. He was replaced by Supreme Court President
Eduardo Rodríguez Veltzé, after opposition groups rejected the first two
officials in the constitutional line of succession, Senate President
Hormando Vaca Díez and House Speaker Mario Cossío. Bolivia is now out of
wiggle room if caretaker President Rodríguez, the last successor to the
post designated in the constitution, fails to convene elections to pick a
new president. 

The political turmoil coursing through modern-day Bolivia is the product
of an intricate mix of ethnic, social, economic, and regional issues. The
perceived failure of what has come to be known as the “Washington
consensus” on economic policy together with the policies of the George W.
Bush administration have helped to polarize an already volatile policy
climate. In this context, the election of Rodríguez, outside of buying a
little time, changed nothing too dramatic in Bolivia. As the Peruvian
weekly Caretas rightly observed, the current situation is only a truce.
The massive marches have momentarily stopped and the roadblocks are lifted
for a time, but the country remains divided between Indians and
non-Indians, rich and poor, East and West. And key demands regarding
natural gas, constitutional reforms, and regional autonomy have not been
resolved. 

Ronald Bruce St John, an analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus
(http://www.fpif.org), has published extensively on Latin American issues
for almost four decades. Author of The Foreign Policy of Peru (1992) and
La Política Exterior del Perú (1999), he is presently co-authoring a study
of Bolivian foreign policy. 

See new Policy Report online at:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/162 
  

Bolivians Struggle for Democracy
By Nadia Martinez and Juan Montecino

The recent crisis that forced the resignation of Bolivia’s second
president in less than two years stems from a much deeper problem that is
plaguing the entire Latin American region: namely, what is best for the
people and who decides? 

Bolivians have watched as their politicians courted Enron and other
corrupt foreign corporations, and allowed them to take ownership of the
country’s most valuable resource—natural gas. As the world’s energy giants
were logging record profits, the people of Bolivia were becoming poorer,
hungrier and more desperate. 

Nadia Martinez coordinates the Americas program for the Sustainable Energy
and Economy Network (http://www.seen.org), a project of the Institute for
Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. (http://www.ips-dc.org). Juan Montecino
is a student at the University of British Columbia in Canada, and her
research assistant. 

See new article online at:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/164 
 

South America’s New Militarism
By Raúl Zibechi

South American societies are militarizing as a result of the regional
superpower’s intervention, which is undoubtedly a crucial factor on the
continent, but also as a consequence of the profound economic and
political changes we have come to call neoliberalism. 

Several months ago, an official Brazilian commission visited Vietnam. With
the goal of “sharing information about resistance doctrine”, the
commission composed of colonels and lieutenant-colonels visited Hanoi, Ho
Chi Min City (formerly Saigon) and the Cu Chi Province, where 250
kilometers (150 miles) of underground tunnels constructed during the war
with the United States still remain. On the Brazilian army’s webpage, Gen.
Claudio Barbosa Figuereido, head of the Amazon Military Command, asserts
that Brazil will face actions similar to those that have taken place in
Vietnam, and now in Iraq, should the Amazon come into conflict: 

“The resistance strategy does not differ much from guerrilla warfare, and
it is an option the army will not hesitate to adopt facing a confrontation
with another country or group of countries with greater economic and
military power.” He added, “The jungle itself should serve as an ally in
combating the invader.”(1) The news had little impact on the media, but it
demonstrates that Brazil’s armed forces have their own strategic plans and
that they see the United States as a potential military enemy. 

Raúl Zibechi is a member of the Editorial Council of the weekly Brecha de
Montevideo, professor and investigator of social movements at the
Franciscan Multiversity of Latin America, and adviser to various social
groups. He is a monthly contributor to the IRC Americas Program
(http://www.ircamericas.org). 
See full article online at:
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/165 


The Limits of Cotton—White Gold Shows its Dark Side in Benin
By Leif Brottem

One surprise theme of the star-studded resurgence of global concern about
Africa has been cotton farming, an industry on which over 15 million
Africans depend on for their livelihoods. Oxfam, a UK-based charity and
development organization, has led an effective campaign to bring cotton
subsidies in rich countries to the forefront of the debate on extreme
poverty in Africa. 

Eliminating the billions of dollars in handouts to some 25,000 American
cotton growers would benefit countries in West and Central Africa that
depend heavily on exporting the crop. However, the belief that cotton is a
panacea for rural Africans ignores a huge problem: in the regions where
the crop is grown, the land is being destroyed. 

Leif Brottem is a Foreign Policy In Focus scholar (online at
http://www.fpif.org). He wrote this article following two years of
grassroots conservation work with local people in the most productive
agricultural district of Benin. 

See new article online at:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/160 
  

II. Letters and Comments
Surprise on Vietnam Commentary
Re: Economic Reform Outpaces Political Reform in Vietnam—Recent Visit
Highlights Double Standards in Bush Administration's Pro-Democracy
Rhetoric
(http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/145)

I was surprised to see Ronald Bruce St John’s commentary on the recent
visit of Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai to the United States
(Progressive Response, 7 July). Mr. Khai’s visit highlights that U.S.
policy towards Vietnam is one of the few relative success stories that the
Bush administration can point to. Although this policy is not perfect—for
instance, the United States still refuses to accept responsibility for the
health and environmental consequences of Agent Orange used during the
American War in Vietnam—it has resulted in increased development
assistance, aid to clear landmines and unexploded ordnance, an agreement
on religious freedom, and contacts on all levels between the two
governments, including law enforcement and the military. This was unheard
of a decade ago and should be welcomed by progressives. 

I don’t disagree with Mr. St John that economic reform is outpacing
political reform in Vietnam. But that does not mean that no political
reform is occurring, or that Vietnam is “wedded” to China, its traditional
chief competitor. The role of the National Assembly has increased
dramatically here in recent years, including live debates between
delegates and government ministers on national TV. The press—though still
state-owned or affiliated—is asserting a more independent role as
investigators of public and private corruption. And the government’s
policy on “grassroots democracy” has led to greater public participation
in the political system, arguably more than in the United States at
present. The fact that these policies are not leading to an immediate
shift to multi-party democracy should not obscure the progress that
Vietnam is making. Doi moi (“Renewal”) is a political, as well as an
economic process. 

When Mr. St John says American policies are “a real disservice to the
Vietnamese people,” I am not sure which Vietnamese people he is referring
to—perhaps the sad minority of Vietnamese-Americans who protested Khai’s
visit, waving flags of the former South Vietnam? Vietnamese people in
Vietnam, whatever they think of their current government, are delighted to
see an improvement in relations with the United States. They realize that
long-term gains in living standards and human rights are best served by
gradual reform. The real disservice to Vietnamese people occurs when
misguided Americans pile on criticism of Vietnam’s human rights record,
showing their arrogance and historical myopia and handing the remaining
hardliners in Vietnam’s Communist Party an excuse to put the brakes on
reforms. 

Andrew Wells-Dang
Fund for Reconciliation & Development
Hanoi


Response from Ronald Bruce St John 

Political reform in Vietnam has moved at glacial speed since the
introduction of the doi moi package of economic reforms in 1986. And there
is no indication the Communist Party intends to accelerate implementation
of political reforms in the foreseeable future. Instead, the Vietnamese
political elite remains wedded to a Chinese model of economic reform which
stresses the importance of political stability to economic development. 

The essence of Western democracy, separation of powers with checks and
balances within a system of democratic institutions, political parties,
and free elections, has yet to be achieved in Vietnam. On the contrary,
the Vietnamese Communist Party continues to reject central elements of the
democratic process, like freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, dissent,
power sharing, and loyal opposition. These rudimentary elements of a
democracy simply do not exist in Vietnam today. 

Granted, cosmetic changes have been made, as the representative for the
Fund for Reconciliation and Development states. However, his suggestion
that the role of the National Assembly, whose candidates are carefully
vetted by the Communist Party and 90% of whose membership consists of
Communist Party members, has “increased dramatically” only highlights the
weakness of his argument. To suggest that “grassroots democracy” in
Vietnam has led to public participation in the political system at a
higher level than now exists in the United States is to reduce the
dialogue to the obscene. 

Ronald Bruce St John 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please consider supporting Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF). FPIF is a new
kind of think tank—one serving citizen movements and advancing a fresh,
internationalist understanding of global affairs. Although we make our
FPIF products freely available on the Internet, we need financial support
to cover our staff time and expenses. Increasingly, FPIF depends on you
and other individual donors to sustain our bare-bones budget. Click on
http://www.irc-online.org/donate.php to support FPIF online, or for
information about making contributions over the phone or through the mail.

***** We Count on Your Support. Thank you. *****

We're working to make the Progressive Response informative and useful, so
let us know how we're doing, via email to <irc at irc-online.org>. Please put
"Progressive Response" in the subject line. Please feel free to cross-post
the Progressive Response elsewhere. We apologize for any duplicate copies
you may receive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production Information:
Editor: John Gershman
Layout: Chellee Chase-Saiz
Ciao.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com