DesperatelyObvious.com

The White House urged Congress today to renew fast track trade authority, which gives the President immense power to negotiate trade agreements with foreign countries. Currently, fast track legislation gives Bush the power to “negotiate trade agreements with foreign countries without consulting Congress” and “sign an agreement before Congress votes on it.” When Congress does vote on the trade agreement they are “only permitted a yes or no vote” with no opportunity to amend the agreement.

From 1994 to 2002 the fast track authority was not in effect. Bush successfully regained the authority by pushing through the 2002 Trade Act by a narrow margin in 2002 (215-212 in the House). The legislation expires on July 1st, 2006, unless Bush is able to renew it.

It is important to understand the intended purpose of the fast track authority. Why would the President want to negotiate a trade agreement without allowing input from Congress?

First, Bush is trying to combat the “least hospitable environment for trade liberalization in recent memory” where “57 percent of Americans believe that trade destroys more jobs than it creates” and as a result American popular support for free trade agreements is even lower than European support for free trade. Congress is at least indirectly responsive to these public opinions.

For example, the America public might want guarantees that jobs are not going to go overseas with the next trade agreement. With fast track authority, the President doesn’t have to worry about these concerns because the agreements are done behind closed doors. By the time the signed deal goes to Congress for approval, legislators are likely to approve the deal even if they have some reservations.

With fast track authority, the trade agreements can be negotiated with virtually no regard to any democratic interests, as if the actual terms of the agreement didn’t affect people. This gives the President power to leverage deals in the interests of the United States, meaning the interests of those who own and run the country.

In return for increased corporate profits Bush will sacrifice labor and environmental interests. That entails more of the same for neoliberal globalization, meaning removing jobs and driving down wages both at home and abroad. It also means outsourcing pollution and other environmental problems to poor countries.

There is a lot at stake for free trade agreements. Last year the Doha Rounds, the WTO talks, fell through when developing nations got tired of being bullied around by the great economic powers. It is critical for Bush to save the next round of negotiations. There is a lot at stake for U.S. corporate interests.

For starters, free trade agreements allows unrestricted access for U.S. corporations to foreign markets. But not only are corporations allowed access to sell to foreign consumers, they are also given free reign to force their propaganda on foreign consumers to convince them that they need their products. This means whole new markets of impressionable consumers to buy useless products they don’t need or even really want.

Free trade also means using protectionist measures likes subsidizing American agribusiness to dominate foreign agriculture markets. And if our subsidized agriculture aren’t enough to completely flood a country’s markets, we will force genetically modified seeds on them to destroy their indigenous crops and create permanent dependencies on our agribusinesses.

This is the current reality of so-called free trade agreements like NAFTA. The economic “masters of the universe” are looking to keep the profits flowing into the right hands.

An alternative to fast track trade authority would be allowing real participation in the negotiation of the trade agreements by those who are actually affected. That means the farmers at home and abroad, the factory workers who will lose their job, the sweatshop workers, the local citizens who will have their water and air polluted, and everyone else who is impacted but unable to buy influence.

A trade deal that takes these parties into account would create an agreement that is much more fair, and would be positive for those actually involved. On the other hand, as long as globalization and trade are simply tools of the powerful few, they will continue to be used to exploit the rest of the world, producing horrendous results.

The military launched another air strike in Somalia. Fortunately, these operations aren’t the type that should concern the people financing them. Pentagon spokesperson explains, “The very nature of some of our operations are not conducive to public discussions and there will be times when there are activities and operations that I can talk to you about and there will be other times when I just won’t have anything for you. I don’t have anything for you on Somalia.”

Once again, it is not known whether the attacks were successful at killing the “suspected terrorist targets.”

The Pentagon and the media will judge success or failure based on whether or not these “high-value target” suspects were killed. Failure means wasted effort and money. Success means making ground in the war on terror.

A more honest judgement might consider the fact that the strikes violate international law and kill innocent civilians. One might also question why the U.S. military has a license to kill anyone it suspects of terrorism.

How much different is an air raid in rural Somalia and an Al-Qaeda car bomb? Neither offender even attempts to offer a legitimate reason for attacking it’s victims, most of whom are innocent civilians. In the eyes of the victims and honest observers both are acts of terrorism.

So the War on Terror, in the Orwellian sense of the term, continues to be exactly what one would expect: a war of terror directed by the strongest military in the world against some of the poorest and most oppressed people in the world.

As various candidates are announcing their bid for the presidency in 2008, concerned citizens should begin looking now to see which candidate supports ending the Iraq war.

Recently, the two most publicized bid announcements have come from Democratic Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It is easy to compare their respective positions on the war since they are essentially the same. Obama is introducing a bill to cap troop levels at the level they were at on January 10th, while Clinton has submitted a similar proposal that will cap troop levels to their January 10th mark.

Obama calls for “gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces,” while failing to mention a hard deadline in an effort to “protect American troops without causing Iraq to suddenly descend into chaos.” He calls on Congress to act now to “prevent even more mistakes and bring this war to a responsible end.”

Clinton says she doesn’t support cutting funding for the war, but instead will support “cutting funding for Iraqi forces if the Iraqi government does not meet set conditions.” On the other hand, we need more troops and military funding in Afghanistan whose government is “committed to promoting national interests over sectarian ones, is making tangible progress in governance,” and “sincerely wants more US help” unlike Iraq. The gist of her stance is that we should recognize that Iraq is a failed attempt at creating a U.S. client state, but meanwhile in Afghanistan we still have a chance to salvage some form of effective control.

John Edwards takes a similar though slightly stronger position. “You have to actually have the courage to stop the escalation. And the way Congress can stop the escalation is by not funding the escalation.” Again, he opposes the troop “surge,” thinks the war was a mistake, and we should withdrawal within some undisclosed time frame. On his own presidential campaign website the only issue that might pertain to Iraq is labeled as “Restoring America’s Moral Standing in the World.” Since he isn’t currently in office, no one can be quite sure what type of restoration Edwards has in mind.

One of the early favorites for the Republican race is John McCain. There isn’t much to say here, since McCain supports the surge. He plays his role well in using fear to shape public opinion, nothing, “If we leave Iraq, I am convinced that al-Qaida and terrorist organizations will want to follow us home.”

Dennis Kucinich is perhaps the only Democratic presidential hopeful who is pushing for cutting funding for the war and an immediate exit from Iraq. He is a cosponor of H.R. 508 that calls for withdrawal within six months in addition to paying millions to help restore Iraq. Unlike the other candidates, Kucinich actually represents the majority of the Democratic voter base who prefer a timetable for withdrawal.

Although it is uncertain who the Green Party candidate will be, if the party’s history and stated platform is any indicator of the future then any Green candidate will certainly be for the immediate end of the war.

The goal of anti-war activists should not necessarily be limited to promoting the handful of peace candidates, but instead we must work to create a climate where it is impossible for any presidential hopeful to support continued war.

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D) submitted a bill into the House to withdrawal troops from Iraq within the next six months. House Bill H.R. 508 accurately states, “In the United States elections held on November 7, 2006, the American people clearly voted for a change in United States policy in Iraq and in favor of United States military disengagement from Iraq.”

Although the bill falls short of being honest about U.S. military aggression, it does in fact attempt to heed the will of both the majority in America and Iraq. The bill calls for ending funding to the war and likewise prohibiting permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

The bill authorizes the president to spend over a billion dollars on reconstructions funds to go towards “damage to Iraqi civil society and infrastructure as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom,” and to fix various other problems caused by the occupation. Also the bill includes appropriations for compensating civilian casualties in Iraq. These financial efforts are necessary and should be labeled accurately as reparations not aid.

Read more about the bill at this article or at this blog.

Other bills that are receiving a lot more news coverage, fall short of actually taking a stance on the war. In the Senate, a bi-partisan group is likely to pass a “non-binding resolution… opposing the increased deployment of troops.”

Aside from the obvious point that a non-binding resolution accomplishes nothing other than saving political face for its supporters, those who oppose the surge but then fail to oppose the continued occupation are simply not diverging from the current administration’s ideology. The majority of Democrats and the handful of Republicans who support this bill are simply debating strategy over the best way to handle an illegal occupation. Supporters are ultimately complicit in the occupation and should be held accountable by citizens.

Either the war is legitimate and we should try to win it, or the invasion was illegal and we should get out as soon as possible. Anyone who takes a halfway objective look at the war and also assigns at least minimal value to the most basic principles of international justice is able to see that our invasion and continued occupation is illegitimate.

For this reason, I advocate supporting H.R. 508, the only bill currently calling for an end to this horrible war.

The Human Rights Watch (HRW) released its annual “World Report.” It is instructive to take a look at how the American press reported the publication.

A brief news search shows that there were basically two different stories on the report. The first type of article reports the HRW has concluded that the U.S. has fallen behind on human rights and the European Union must now take the lead. Their are more articles of the second type which reports on the organization’s criticism of Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez.

For anyone who even skimmed the World Report, it is clear that HRW was significantly more critical of the United States than Venezuela. The human rights organization, however, offers a critique on most major players of the world and does specifically single out any single country as the worst offender. The report recognized that the current trajectory of human rights in the United States is very disturbing and worrisome for the entire world.

In their 2004 report, the organization warned of Bush’s dangerous moves to consolidate power while removing protection of individual rights. After this year they realize they “underestimated the extent and tenacity of those efforts.”

In the past five years the administration has authorized torture and other abusive interrogation techniques, “disappeared” dozens of suspected terrorists into secret prisons, twisted domestic law to permit indefinite detention without charge of persons suspected of links to terrorism, and confined hundreds at Guantanamo Bay without charge while denying them information about the basis for their detention and meaningful opportunity to contest it. The administration has sought to exempt its actions from court oversight.

They cite that in 2006, George Bush was undeterred by constitutional checks to his rights abuses. Following the Supreme Courts ruling that even “unlawful combatants” are “legally entitled to humane treatment ‘in all circumstances,’” the President responded by asking “Congress to authorize a system of military commissions akin to those that had been struck down.” Additionally he asked Congress to “rewrite and to redefine the humane treatment requirements of the Geneva Conventions so that the CIA’s ‘enhanced’—and abusive—interrogation program could continue”

As a result of the legislation that he pushed through, Bush secured protection for his administration from being tried for War Crimes that they are surely guilty of. The World Report touches on a few of these crimes. Most of the report focuses on Guantanomo Bay and the unlawful and inhumane detainment of those deemed “enemy combatants”.

Approximately 450 men remain in long-term, indefinite, and largely incommunicado detention at Guantanamo Bay. The United States continues to assert its authority to hold these men as “unlawful enemy combatants” without charge and without regard to the laws of armed conflict.

Concerning the Military Commissions Act, “Most seriously,” the HRW cites, “the legislation prohibits any detainee the US government has labeled an ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ from ever challenging in court his treatment while in US custody, even after his release.”

The report touches briefly on the practice of America sending detainees abroad to “secret prisons” in countries known for their human rights abuses. The administration has shut down the secret prisons, but assures us they still maintain the right to continue secretly out sourcing torture at any point.

Not all of the rights abuses concern “counterterroism” issues. HRW politely points out that the United States currently has “the highest incarceration rate in the world,” and furthermore poor people and minorities are disproportionately imprisoned. The organization mentions the horrible condition of U.S. prisons including cases of sexual abuse, staff violence, and a policy of controlling prisoners with attack dogs.

The American press mentions very little about the actual content of the HRW’s report on U.S. human rights abuses. Instead it focuses on the groups recommendation that the European Union take the lead in human rights since “Washington’s once-powerful role as a prime defender of human rights had effectively ended.”

Several reports were published with titles like “Rights group blasts Chavez over courts.” The group did, in fact, “blast” the Venezuelan government, along with the United States and ten other countries in the Western Hemisphere.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Chavez was singled out by the American press. Chavez has been a strong critic of neoliberal globalization and American military and economic imperialism. And to make matters worse, he just dealt a huge blow to corporate media by denying a Venezuelan media company their license renewal, drawing “harsh criticism” from American critics. Nevermind the fact that the company assisted in the coup attempt of Chavez in 2002.

One does not have to think too hard about how the United States would respond to a similar situation here. An independent journal calls for the forceful, violent removal of the President from office. The offending journalist would certainly be thrown in jail, most likely labeled an “enemy combatant” and handled accordingly.

In the United States, we throw our suspected “enemy combatants” in secret prisons and strip them of their rights and dignity. In Venezuela, they wait until their enemy’s license is up for renewal and then deny them the right to control public air waves.

Nevertheless, there is certainly room to criticize Venezuela. But as always, we are responsible first and foremost for our own crimes and those crimes we support. In America, a country once described by Martin Luther King Jr. as the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world,” there is even greater importance for us to take responsibility for our crimes. Ending the human rights breaches that we carry out and directly support goes a long way to stopping abuses worldwide.