The decision by the Bush administration to sue the European Union (EU) over its five-year moratorium on genetically modified (GM) foods has all the earmarks of a “shock and awe” campaign targeted at prying open a major potential market. But the suit before the World Trade Organization (WTO) may be aimed less at the EU than at developing nations, which are far more vulnerable to strong-arm tactics.
On Aug. 14 and 15, the 56th anniversary of the independence of Pakistan and India from British colonial rule, it is a sad commentary on the political condition of South Asia that even though the region has been independent for over half a century, it is still not free.
The joint congressional report on the intelligence community and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon released last month covers the question of official Saudi Arabian support for the attackers, drawing attention once again to troubled Saudi-U.S. relations. Despite the highly controversial White House decision to keep details about the possible Saudi connection classified, the report highlights the need to resolve longstanding contradictions in the relationship.
After the occupation of Iraq, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush appears to be torn between moving from Baghdad on to Tehran, or refocusing on al Qaeda as the main target in the “war on terrorism.”
The invasion and occupation of Iraq posed new challenges to peace and justice activists. The growing credibility crisis of the Bush administration with respect to Iraq, as well as the ongoing crisis on the ground in Iraq, provides us with new opportunities. Below I present four theses on one campaign that could use these opportunities in a creative way: a campaign to turn the administration of Iraq over to the United Nations.
Maybe the relationship is more special than we cynics have given credit. Events in Britain seem to be seriously affecting American politics. Americans are promiscuous with their applause. Broadway audiences clap when curtains open, when the set changes, and when the star comes on stage. To give him his due, Tony Blair did refer to the somewhat different reception he could expect back home, when he performed for George W. Bush at the joint session of Congress. One wonders whether the champion of the Third Way noticed that he had fewer allies in the Democratic benches than among the Republicans.
U.S. President George W. Bush’s administration is using the issue of nuclear weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as a political and economic football, fabricating non-existent threats while turning a blind eye to real ones. That could have severe negative consequences for the longstanding global effort to promote non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
After September 11, Iranians set aside their differences with America and expressed public support for our loss in a candlelight vigil held in “Azadi” (freedom) Square in Tehran. Now, almost two years later, the U.S. may have lost a window of opportunity to improve relations with Iran, and currently faces resentment throughout the Islamic world. By proclaiming Iran as part of an “axis of evil,” continuing to implicate it in state-sponsored terrorism and nuclear weapons production, and threatening regime change, the U.S. has alienated a key regional player.
The Persian emperors used to have courtiers whose job was to whisper regularly in the rulers’ ears the message that they were only mortal. Looking at the Persian Gulf today and the respective pitfalls of U.S. President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in the Iraq war, it appears the courtiers’ profession needs reviving. Someone should be telling modern heads of state to avoid decisions based on weak evidence, unsubstantiated statements, and false hope. Contemporary leaders, like those of yore, ought to heed warnings to discount heady advice brought by people with their own agendas, be they the likes of neoconservative counselors to Bush and Blair or Hussein’s Baathist advisers.