[amc] David Cortright: "In This Era of Hope, Obama Must Embrace a Genuine Agenda of Peace"

From: "Ray Gingerich" <rjgingerich@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Austin Mennonite Church" <amc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Milwaukee Mennonite Church" <milwaukee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Austin Center for Peace and Justice" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:27:19 -0800
Friends,

I thought you might like to receive this message.

Ray


*"In This Era of Hope, Obama Must Embrace a Genuine Agenda of Peace"
*By David Cortright, AlterNet
Posted & printed Dec. 18, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/113423/

"To those who would tear this world down -- we will defeat you. To
those who seek peace and security -- we support you ... tonight we
proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from
the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the
enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and
unyielding hope."    -- Barack Obama, Nov. 4, 2008


Dramatic new opportunities for international peace have opened with
the election of Barack Obama. Whether these hopes will be realized,
however, depends upon the continued commitment of those of us who
helped to elect him. An unprecedented grassroots mobilization of
millions of people propelled Obama into office. That same movement
must now remain engaged to promote a more peaceful, less militarized
U.S. foreign policy.

While economic issues dominated the campaign in the final weeks and
clinched Obama's victory, his improbable candidacy was rooted from the
beginning in opposition to the Iraq war. Obama's declared
determination to end the war inspired millions of people to support
the campaign and gave his candidacy a critical advantage when it was
most needed in the Democratic primaries. His election was in
substantial part a mandate for ending the war.

This is true despite the fact that Obama's views on foreign policy
generally conform with conventional thinking. His selections for
secretary of defense and national security adviser suggest continuity
with current policies rather than change. Yet core elements of Obama's
agenda reflect a genuine peace agenda. Three stances are particularly
important -- the commitment to military withdrawal from Iraq, his
promise of diplomatic engagement with Iran and support for the goal of
a world without nuclear weapons. These positions can serve as the
basis for reorienting U.S. foreign policy away from military
unilateralism and toward a more cooperative approach to international
affairs.

Precisely because of this, attempts to implement these positions will
be resisted by powerful vested interests. The war system is deeply
entrenched in Washington and will not be uprooted by the results of a
single election. Conservative and right-wing political forces are down
but not out, and they have wasted no time strategizing on how to
return to power. They are likely to challenge the new administration
on national security issues. Progressives must be prepared to defend
the new administration as it pursues a peace agenda. Citizen activism
remains as necessary after the election as it was before.

Exiting Iraq

The top priority will be bringing the war in Iraq to a responsible
end. Candidate Obama called for the withdrawal of combat forces, but
his plan would leave in place tens of thousands of American troops and
bases. The Baghdad government and the Bush administration have trumped
this position by adopting a security agreement that calls for all U.S.
forces to leave the country within three years. The pact, described
officially as the withdrawal agreement, gives Iraqi officials greater
control over U.S. operations and forbids the use of Iraqi territory or
airspace for attacks against other countries. The exact legal status
of the security pact is uncertain, but its political significance is
undeniable. A timetable for the removal of U.S. troops and bases is
now official policy in Baghdad and Washington, and can be rightly
portrayed as fulfilling the wishes of both American voters and the elected
leaders of Iraq.

Opponents of the war must insist that the process of military
withdrawal begin immediately and that the new administration commit
itself to removing all troops and bases. The exact timeline for
withdrawal is less important than the necessity of early action and an
unequivocal commitment to begin an irreversible process of military
disengagement. If the president adopts such an agenda, we should
mobilize to support him. If the administration fails to act, or offers
only a limited withdrawal, we must be prepared to exert pressure.

Engaging Iran

Diplomatic engagement with Iran is another major peace priority. The
success of any plan for military withdrawal from Iraq depends upon the
cooperation of neighboring states, especially Iran, which has
significant influence with the Baghdad government. Cooperation with
Iran is also needed to address mounting security challenges in
Afghanistan, where Washington and Tehran share common objectives.
Diplomatic engagement is the key to constraining Iran's nuclear
program and stemming nuclear proliferation in the region. All of these
issues are interconnected. They require for their solution a
fundamental break with the past policies of hostility and isolation
and a vigorous commitment to diplomacy and mutually beneficial cooperation.

A number of former U.S. officials have proposed a comprehensive
diplomatic strategy that offers Iran a grand bargain. The United
States and its European allies would agree to a normalization of
relations, including security assurances and an end to sanctions and
military threats. In return, Iran would accept more rigorous controls
on its nuclear program and would support regional stabilization and a
Middle East peace process that guarantees Israel's security alongside
a viable Palestinian state. A commitment to diplomacy would mean
abandoning regime-change policies, which Shirin Ebadi and other
respected Iranian democracy advocates have condemned as
counterproductive and strengthening repressive tendencies in Iran. It
is proper to criticize Tehran's human-rights abuses, but this does not
justify attempting to overthrow the regime.

Successful diplomacy with Iran will require modifying the current
insistence that Iran abandon its uranium-enrichment program. As a
signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Tehran is legally
entitled to produce nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. Iran has
already developed rudimentary enrichment capabilities and is unlikely
to abandon a program in which it has invested so much political and
economic capital. A compromise solution might be the creation of a
multinational enrichment consortium, as proposed by former
Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering and endorsed by former
International Atomic Energy Agency Director Hans Blix. Uranium
enrichment would proceed on Iranian soil, but the facilities would be
owned and operated by a consortium in which France, Germany and other
countries might participate, with all operations subject to strict
international control. Tehran has suggested a similar arrangement in
the past and might be willing to support such a proposal again now.
Negotiation of the proposed agreement would help to resolve the
nuclear standoff and could open the door to cooperation on other
issues.

Eliminating Nuclear Weapons

The effectiveness of U.S. nonproliferation policy in Iran and other
countries depends on Washington's willingness to reduce and eliminate
its own nuclear arsenal. This is the opinion not only of the peace
community but of former senior officials George Shultz, Henry
Kissinger, Sam Nunn and William Perry. The four have publicly
committed themselves to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons
and in the process have transformed the nuclear debate. For the first
time in the Atomic Age, the goal of nuclear abolition has broad
bipartisan credibility. Obama has expressed public support for the
Shultz initiative and has vowed to take action for nuclear weapons
reduction and ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. These
goals exactly match the priorities of the peace community.

Agreement with Russia is needed by the end of 2009 to extend current
weapons reductions and inspection protocols. This provides an
opportunity to negotiate a new, more comprehensive treaty that reduces
nuclear stockpiles to 1,000 weapons or below. As Moscow and Washington
negotiate a new nuclear treaty, they should be urged to commit
publicly to the goal of global zero, which is steadily gaining
international support.

Ratification of the test ban treaty has been, and remains, an
essential international security objective. A global ban on nuclear
testing helps to prevent the development of new weapons and
contributes to the mutual obsolescence of those that remain. When the
United States ratifies the treaty, China will likely follow suit,
which will put enormous pressure on India, and then Pakistan to do
likewise. This would establish a pattern for global denuclearization
that could become a template for achieving comprehensive disarmament.

Taming Terrorism

While the Obama administration is likely to offer progressive
leadership on Iraq, Iran and denuclearization, its approach toward the
global struggle against al-Qaida is more problematic. The deployment
of additional troops to Afghanistan is unlikely to bring lasting
security to the region or stem the flow of recruits and support to
al-Qaida. The presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan is the
problem, not the solution. Political opposition to foreign military
operations has grown in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the deployment
of additional troops will only make matters worse, fueling further
resistance and terrorist attacks.

War and military occupation are not an effective strategy against
al-Qaida. The concept of a "war on terror" is misguided and
counterproductive. Utilizing the rhetoric and policy of war turns the
criminals who commit mass murder into warriors and presumed heroes
within their communities. When the United States bombs and invades
Muslim communities, this undermines our moral standing and validates
Osama bin Laden's warped image of America waging war on Islam. Polls
in Muslim countries have shown as much as 80 percent of the population
agreeing with the view that American policy is directed against Islam.
As long as these attitudes prevail, there will be no end of would-be
recruits willing to blow themselves up to kill Americans and our
allies.

The 9/11 Commission argued that the campaign against terrorism is
primarily a political struggle for hearts and minds. The goal is
"prevailing over the ideology that contributes to Islamic terrorism,"
which means separating al-Qaida from its social support base. This
requires policies that rely not on military force but on political and
economic measures that reduce support for violent extremism. The
solution in Afghanistan is not more troops but a greater commitment to
diplomacy and development. Security experts and senior military
officers have called for power-sharing negotiations with local Taliban
elements as a way of peeling away support from al-Qaida's globalist
agenda. This approach should be combined with major investments in
economic development and support for human rights. These are
strategies that will be more effective, and less costly, over the long
term in reducing the global terrorist danger.

In his Nov. 4 acceptance speech, Obama vowed to "defeat" those who
would "tear down this world" and to support those who strive for peace
and security. This lofty ambition will require a global security
strategy that emphasizes cooperation over unilateralism and peaceful
diplomacy over military action -- an approach based on the force of
law rather than the law of force. The new administration can move
decisively in this direction through military disengagement from Iraq,
negotiations with Iran, action for nuclear disarmament, and a
commitment to diplomacy, development and democracy in the fight
against al-Qaida. These changes could pave the way toward more
comprehensive transformations of U.S. policy -- strengthening the
United Nations, reducing military spending, increasing diplomatic and
peace-building efforts, expanding support for economic development,
defending human rights, acting against mass violence in Darfur and the
Democratic Republic of Congo and facilitating a just settlement
between Israel and the Palestinians. All are elements of a cooperative
security strategy that reduces support for violent extremism and helps
to realize a more peaceful future.

David Cortright is a research fellow with the Kroc Institute for
International Peace Studies.

(c) 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/113423/



-- 
Center for Strength-based Strategies
Ray Gingerich, Associate
5631 Bentwood Lane
Greendale (Milwaukee), WI  53129
phone (414) 331-5957
email rjgingerich@xxxxxxxxx
fax (815) 371-2292
website: www.buildmotivation.com

"Change is possible when I stop trying to become that which I am not and
become that which I am." Frederick Perls
[amc] David Cortright: "In This Era of Hope, Obama Must Embrace a Genuine Agenda of Peace"

Other related posts:
