Are Congressional Democrats Leading Us to War with Iran?

Until recently, the power struggle within the Bush administration over whether to attack Iran seemed to be going badly for the hawks. Their disastrous record in Iraq coupled with flimsy arguments for attacking Iran meant they were gaining little support. But now it appears congressional Democrats may be riding to the rescue of those pushing for war.

In the fall of 2007, top Bush administration officials began stoking up the rhetoric about the danger of Iran and its nuclear weapons program. But then the National Intelligence Estimate came out showing that efforts to develop nuclear weapons were dropped in 2003, in large part because of international pressure. Wow -- diplomacy does work!

Claims that Iran was arming insurgents fell apart due to flimsy evidence -- weapons that were supposedly supplied by the Iranian government appear to have been purchased on the open market or acquired through means other than official Iranian support.

So with the case for attacking Iran in tatters, why are congressional Democrats taking up the cause?

House Resolution 362, sponsored by Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, is moving quickly through the House. The resolution urges the Bush administration to prohibit the export to Iran of refined petroleum products, impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran," and to prohibit all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program from travel outside the country.

Imposing "stringent inspection requirements" would amount to a naval blockade, many believe, and thus constitute an act of war. At the very least, it would be perceived by Iranians of all political persuasions as a hostile act, further marginalizing moderate voices, unifying the country behind the most belligerent leaders, and bolstering the argument of those within Iran who are pushing for the rapid development of nuclear weapons as a defense against U.S. attack.

Why are 96 House Democrats (along with 111 House Republicans) co-sponsoring this resolution? Aren't these the Democrats who rode into majorities in both houses on public revulsion against war in the Middle East?

According to a recent story on CBS News, the answer seems to be a "full-court press" by the government of Israel and the American-Israeli lobby AIPAC. CBS ran the story Tuesday as Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen was on his way to the Middle East to confer with Israeli government officials. "Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next [U.S.] administration vis-à-vis Iran," CBS consultant Michael Oren says in the report.

Hence the rush to war?

There are alternatives. In his article in the foreign policy issue of YES! Magazine, Robert Naiman, of JustForeignPolicy.org shows that we avert the killing and maiming of Iranian civilians, by talking with Iran instead of bombing their country. Doing that could avert taking Middle East mayhem to a new level. Even better, we could actually work with Iran in an international effort to bring stability back to the region.

Indeed, Iran offered to negotiate peace in 2003 -- including a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict (thereby recognizing Israel's right to exist), full cooperation with inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and pressure on Hizbollah to join the political process in Lebanon, rather than act outside the law. In exchange, Iran asked for a halt to hostile U.S. actions, an end to sanctions, and recognition of Iran's security interests. We ignored their overtures.

What about the nuclear threat? In my interview with George Shultz, secretary of state under Ronald Reagan, Shultz calls for the abolition of all nuclear weapons. He's not alone. His partners in this effort include former Senator Sam Nunn, William Perry, who was secretary of defense under Bill Clinton, and Henry Kissinger.

How much easier it would be to hold Iran accountable to the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if we complied with it ourselves, including the provisions calling for the nuclear powers to reduce stockpiles eventually to zero. How extraordinary it would be to, as Shultz says, do "something that people feel good about."

Such a move would not be naive. In fact, it may be naive to think we can allow nuclear fuels and weapons to continue to fall into the hands of governments that are feeling cornered by U.S. threats and into the possession of stateless militants. Even during the time Shultz held office, when there were fewer fingers on fewer nuclear triggers, "there were more close calls than you were comfortable with," he told me. An international agreement to abolish nuclear weapons could bring these dangerous loose nukes back under control and eventually eliminate them.

The reduction in the world's nuclear stockpiles, combined with an assurance that the U.S. will not attack Iran unless Iran attacks another country, would be major steps towards building the foundations for peace and the restoration of stability and security for all parties in the Middle East. And it would begin repairing the damaged reputation of the United States, showing that we can be a leader for global peace and democracy.

Whatever your views on war with Iran, now may be your last best chance to speak out.

Note:
As has become the norm lately, the most sane policies are coming not out of Washington, DC, but out of state and local government. In her article in YES! with Ben Manski, Karen Dolan, of Cities for Peace, shows local governments setting a different direction on issues ranging from climate change to foreign policy; in her recent op-ed, she tells of the 32 U.S. mayors who have passed resolutions opposing war on Iran.

You can find additional resources on stopping the next war here.

Offshore drilling-No! Smart energy-YES!

Proposals by presidential hopeful John McCain and Florida Governor Charlie Crist to drill for oil offshore is the wrong direction for the United States, and most Americans know it.

We have only a short time to make a turnaround on climate change or the weather disasters we're seeing in the Midwest could become the norm, and we could find ourselves in runaway cycles that could make much of the planet inhospitable to human life.

Instead of drilling for more of the very carbon-based fuel that is causing the problem, the American people by large majorities favor conservation and the development of renewable energy. And the alternatives are well within our means.

Buildings are responsible for 30-40 percent of the climate impact. By retrofitting existing buildings and making new construction climate friendly, we'll create green jobs where they are most needed, and jump start a stalling economy, while reducing our carbon footprint.

Americans are driving much less then they were a year ago -- 1.4 billion fewer highway miles in April 2008 compared to April 2007, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.  Many are scrambling to find alternatives, and public transportation and electric vehicle are available, as we outlined in the YES! Climate Change issue. But a bit of leadership at the federal level would go a long way towards softening the blow of high fuel prices while reducing our climate impact.

To make sure that there is enough clean electricity to run these climate-friendly forms of transportation, we need a major investment in wind, solar, geothermal, tidal energy. This is all quite do-able. Sweden is making progress on its pledge to go oil free in 15 years. And Germany is a leading country in solar installation, not because it is especially sunny, but because it made the commitment. Many of the best energy policy ideas we found as we researched our climate change issue are being implemented in Germany. All of these policies are well within our reach here in the U.S. All of them would provide new areas for economic growth and buffer us from the long-term shock of high oil prices.

Despite all these option, you'll still hear people say that increasing offshore drilling would be a favor to American families. But what do the American people say?

• An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken June 6-9 shows 27 percent of us favor the development of wind and solar power, while just 16 percent favor offshore exploration.
• A March 2008 Gallup poll shows that 61 percent of Americans favor conservation of existing energy supplies over production of more oil, gas, and coal supplies.
• Sixty-four percent of those surveyed last year (I don't have 2008 numbers) were even willing to pay higher energy taxes if the money was used for the development of renewable energy alternatives.

On this issue, like a number of others, the American people are out ahead of their leaders.

Maybe this will be the election season when the American people offer our representatives clarity about what we want, and insist that they do their jobs representing us--not big oil and coal--and our aspirations for a sustainable future for all.

Correction: Two states (not one) have apologized to Native people

In my earlier blog on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's apology to Canada's First Peoples, I wrote that "one state" in the U.S. had also apologized to Native People. A commenter on the Common Dream posting of this blog points out that another state legislature also apologized. Virginia's House and Senate, in March of 2007 adopted a resolution of regret to both Native Americans and African Americans. 

RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the General Assembly hereby acknowledge with profound regret the involuntary servitude of Africans and the exploitation of Native Americans, and call for reconciliation among all Virginians; and, be it

RESOLVED FURTHER, That on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the settlement at Jamestown, the General Assembly call upon the people of the Commonwealth to express acknowledgment and thanksgiving for the contributions of Native Americans and African Americans to the Commonwealth and this nation, and to the propagation of the ideals of liberty, justice, and democracy

Other states have considered such apologies, but so far as I know, only Colorado and Virginia have actually adopted resolutions apologizing for the treatment of Native peoples. 

Please correct me if I missed any others!

Canada says "sorry." Will we?

Canada said sorry on Wednesday. Four months earlier, it was Australia. Now it's our turn.

All three countries have a history of mistreatment of the original peoples of their respective lands. All three forcibly separated children from their families, communities, and cultures. And ironically, these same three countries were among the four (including New Zealand) who voted against the recently adopted UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Wednesday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper did what was long overdue. The Conservative leader in a speech in the House of Commons apologized for Canada's policy of forcing First Nations children into residential schools. He acknowledged the suffering of individual children who were often abused, inadequately housed and fed, prevented from speaking their language and learning their culture. And he recognized that the harm has had far-reaching ripple effects. You can watch the Canadian Prime Minister's apology here.

"We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions, that it created a void in many lives and communities, and we apologize for having done this. We now recognize that, in separating children from their families, we undermined the ability of many to adequately parent their own children and sowed the seeds for generations to follow, and we apologize for having done this. We now recognize that, far too often, these institutions gave rise to abuse or neglect. ..."

And, addressing the First Nations' leaders who listened to his statement on the floor of the House of Commons, he added:

"You have been working on recovering from this experience for a long time and in a very real sense, we are now joining you on this journey. The government of Canada sincerely apologizes and asks the forgiveness of the aboriginal peoples of this country for failing them so profoundly."

The day was marked by ceremonies in 30 locations across Canada, where First Nations people gathered to remember and to commemorate the apology.

Canada's apology follows a similar one by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to the Aboriginal peoples in February of this year. Like in Canada, young Aboriginals were taken from their families, often by force, and sent to schools and homes where they were often abused, exploited, and prevented from speaking their language or practicing their way of life.

The United States has a similar legacy, but has yet to apologize. One state has stepped up and issued a somewhat different sort of apology, though. In a non-binding resolution, the Colorado Legislature apologized in late April for the intentional deaths, "cruelty, and inhumanity" inflicted on Native peoples. According to an article in Indian Country Today, the resolution specifically mentions the forced removal of the Cherokee Nation in 1838 and the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864, when as many as 200 Native people -- mostly elderly men, women and children -- were killed by members of the Colorado militia.

That's one state that's acted, 49 to go, plus the federal government. There's some good news from Washington, D.C., though. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican, and Michigan Democrat Dale Kildee, head of the House's Native American Caucus, are pressing for congressional action, and they could succeed.

An apology to Native peoples is an important first step, but it should be accompanied by a commitment to discontinue the old practices of taking Native land and taking away Native peoples' political rights. And there are a lot of old wrongs that we can still make right.

While we're at it, the United States also owes an apology to the descendants of the slaves whose uncompensated labor built so much of the wealth of this country.

Barack is in, air travel is out

Today marked the beginning of one era and the ending of another.

Today is the first day in U.S. history that an African-American will carry the banner for president from one of our major political parties. It wasn't long ago that African Americans in many parts of the U.S. couldn't even register to vote without risking their lives. And even today, the suppression of voting in communities of color continues. This moment does not mean we have vanquished the mean spirit of racism and all the selfish opportunism that goes with it. In fact, we could see much more in the general election.

Yet it is a moment when people of all the colors chose a nominee based on the content of his character, his intelligence, his nuanced understanding of policy and politics, and perhaps most important, his evident passion that we as a nation reach for the best of who we are. His unwillingness to pander or to fling mud has already raised the bar of this campaign season--already made it easier to get into the political fray without feeling the need to shower immediately after.

Barack Obama represents many things to many people, but perhaps most importantly, he represents a tipping point--a moment when we realize how much stronger our nation can be when we can draw for leadership on all the communities that make up the United States, not just on those who have led in the past.

And we're going to need that strength, creativity, and unity of purpose as we confront the crises caused by eight years of the Bush administration and also caused by our collective denial of the world we have all helped to create.

Which brings me to what may be another tipping point reached today. United Airlines joined American and Continental Airlines in announcing major cutbacks in staff, routes, or the number of planes they'll be flying. USA Today has a good summary of who is affected as the high price of fuel hits an already unstable airline industry. The lower supply of airplane seats will likely lead to higher prices and shortages of seats for those outside business class.

We may look back at the summer of 2008 as the time when cheap travel ended in the United States.

Many, including YES!, have been predicting the end of cheap oil for some time. In the Fall of 2004, we published an issue entitled: Can We Live Without Oil? As I read about the airlines, I reread my opening editorial, written when oil was still about $25 a barrel (it had nearly doubled that by the time we went to press):

Can we live without oil? Can I?
Like it or not, I'm realizing that before long, we're going to have to learn how to live with a lot less. This is true for several reasons, any one of which would be motivation enough, but together, the picture is stark:

• Scientists, normally wary of emotional appeals, are issuing alarming warnings about the dangers of climate change. [See the Spring 2008 issue of YES!]
  
• The war in Iraq is not going well, and the continued use of military force to guarantee access to oil supplies is deeply problematic.
• Exploration and exploitation of oil supplies continues to degrade what remains of pristine habitats and the lands of indigenous peoples.
• Production of oil is at or near its peak, and even the most optimistic estimates say production will begin an inexorable decline within a generation. Meanwhile, consumption continues to rise, notably in the U.S. and China. It is difficult to imagine that oil will remain cheap and available as this gap between supply and demand widens. [Italics added]
  

What will it mean to live in a 21st century that is phasing out dependence on fossil fuels? No one knows the answer to that, but as we enter this new world, we do know one thing. We'll need to work together if we are to have a chance. Barack Obama's nomination is an important sign that we might in fact be able to do that.