IS BACK IN STYLE
University professors Margaret and Melvin DeFleur have updated their study
of attitudes about America in different countries of the world. Click
here to see the an interactive guide.
here for the full report as a pdf file
Isenberg's critique of Homeland Security and recommendations for improvements
[click on image to go to the executive summary]
SEARCH FOR A NUCLEAR WEAPON FOR LIMITED CONFLICTS
Bromley and David Grahame report on the Pentagon's search for a nuclear
FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL
an interactive assessment
of nuclear disarmament after the Moscow Summit,
to the Global Beat?
Send an e-mail to:email@example.com
the word "subscribe" in the subject line.
unsubscribe, send an e-mail with "unsubscribe" in the
problems, comments or mail, click here:
PEACE MARCHES8 MILLION PEOPLE -- FROM MELBOURNE TO ROME, NEW YORK
TO BURBANK, VOTED WITH THEIR FEET IN A WORLDWIDE MARCH AGAINST THE WAR.
For many, it was the first time ever that
they had joined in a protest demonstration. The bottom line: whether its
objectives are right or wrong, the Bush administration now stands increasingly
isolated in the world. As one British World War II veteran puts it: "I
have nothing against America. It is just a case of a bunch of bad
politicians in Washington." How long the administration or
the United States can remain dramatically out of sync in an otherwise
globalized world remains to be seen.
BBC: London's "biggest demonstration ever"
Guardian: A million and they kept coming...
Los Angeles Times: The biggest protests took place in countries whose
governments nominally support the U.S. on Iraq.
Washington Post: Millions marching show an extraordinary degree of coordination.
BLAIR IS UNDER ENORMOUS PRESSURE
will try to muster support at the Labor Partys Spring conference
this week, but he faces an uphill struggle, that only promises to intensify
after his meeting with Frances Jacques Chirac this week.
(The Financial Times, February 15, 2003)
NEW YORK POST CAPTURES THE MOOD OF THE EXTREME RIGHT.
a newspaper for people with deep thoughts, the New York Post published
a cover on Friday in which the tabloids photo editors had superimposed
the heads of weasels over the faces of the foreign ministers of France
and Germany. The accompanying headline read: "U.N. MEETSweasels
to hear new Iraq Defense." It was, said one New Yorker, the kind
of mindless, thuggish caricature that one saw the extreme right publishing
in Europe in the period leading up to the outbreak of World War II. The
Post may have provided the most telling measure yet of the extent to which
the Bush administrations war fever is separating the United States
from the rest of the world. The only significant ally in favor of war
with Iraq now is Tony Blair, and the embattled British prime minister
admits that his career is hanging on by a thread.
NEW YORK TIMES WAFFLES
the Post's weasel cover and recent incidents of rhetorical vitriol directed
against allies, the Times seemed more amused than offended.
DID FRANCE ACTUALLY SAY?
Foreign Minister Villepins speech to the Security Council earned
a round of applause from the other delegates present. Colin Powells
Here is an excerpt of what Villepin actually said:
Let us be clear. Not one of us feels the least indulgence
towards Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime.
In unanimously adopting Resolution 1441, we collectively expressed our
agreement with the two-stage approach proposed by France: disarmament
and, should this strategy fail, consideration by the Security Council
of all the options, including the recourse to force. It was clearly in
the event inspections failed and only in that event that a second resolution
could be justified.
The question today is simple. Do we believe in good conscience that disarmament
via inspections is now leading us to a dead end, or do we believe that
the possibilities regarding inspections presented in 1441 have still not
been fully explored?
In response to this question, France believes two things. First, the option
of inspections has not been taken to the end. It can provide an effective
response to the imperative of disarming Iraq.
Secondly, the use of force would be so fraught with risk for people, for
the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned
as a last resort
Dominique Villepin, the UN Security Council, February 14, 2003
all the comments at the U.N. Security Council
ADMINISTRATION VOICES ITS DISDAIN FOR THE U.N.
multiplying invective against the United Nations from the administration
is beginning to resemble an annual confab of the John Birch Society.
By Stephen Zunes, Foreign Policy in Focus
happens when the candidate owns the company that manufactures the voting
machinees that put him in power? Thom Hartmann in Common Dreams,Jan. 31,
BLACK HAWK DOWN? SADDAM PINS HIS LAST HOPES ON DRAWN OUT URBAN WARFARE
forcing the U.S. into urban fighting, Saddam hopes to make the U.S. responsible
for the maximum number of Iraqi civilian casualties. Even if Saddam does
not survive, the tactic is designed to make the U.S. a pariah to the rest
of the world for the foreseeable future.
The New York Times, February 15, 2003
ALBRIGHT AND BRENT SCOWCROFT DISSECT THE CURRENT IRAQ SITUATION
is the temper in the Security Council? Colin Powell delivered a virtuoso
performance, but the applause went to France and Germany.
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCES ASSESSMENT OF THE TERRORIST THREAT
Administration rhetoric, the threat from Al Qaeda remains. Vast stretches
of lawless territory provide a breeding ground for new terrorist movements.
Societies excluded from the global economy present another danger. The
CIAs George Tenet details a gloomy future.
George Tenet, DCIs world-wide threat briefing, 11 February 2003
FBIs take on the War on Terrorism(Robert Mueller) "The
terrorist enemy is far from defeated
Robert Mueller, FBI, February 11, 2003
Intelligence:current and projected threats
State Departments Bureau of Intelligence and Research:
to pose the most immediate and dangerous threat of attack against the
US homeland and against Americans and American interests around the world
DOUBTS WITHIN THE CIA
the White House applied pressure, the CIA did not see Iraq as an immediate
threatunless, that is, the U.S. threatened war. Neil McKay details
the history of the spin that changed the CIA s assessment and turned
George Tenet into a compliant hawk.
(Neil McKay in the Glasgow Herald, Feb. 16, 2002)
McGovern observes the collapse of George Tenets integrity and
his readiness to reverse earlier threat assessments in order to remain
a team player.
(Ray McGovern in Common Dreams, Feb. 16, 2002)
INTELLIGENCE "FUSION" CENTER WILL CLEAR THE WAY FOR U.S. INTELLIGENCE
AGENTS TO OPERATE IN THE UNITED STATES AND TO COMPARE INFORMATION ON U.S.
in the order of priorities is a National Counter Terrorism Center, currently
billed as the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. (James S. Gilmore,
Senate Hearing on Government Affairs, September 14, 2003)
combination of God-like pretensions and a natural inclination to violent
revenge characterizes some of the worlds powerful leaders. The blend
leads to unexpected behavior patterns. The RAND Corporations latest
study explores the phenomenon.
By David Ronfeldt, RAND (downloadable on-line in pdf format)
JOHN MCCAINS ARGUMENT AGAINST TRYING CONTAINMENT WITH IRAQ
absence of reliable allies makes the prospects doubtful at best. If you
try to put Iraq in a box, you may find it is a box without a lid or a
(Senator John McCain, Feb 12, 2003)
U.S. TRADE POLICY BREEDING TERRORISTS
middle east economic survey points out that a lack of investment in the
region is creating a breeding ground for new terrorists who will willingly
fill the ranks of Al Qaedas next generation.
(MEES, Feb. 10, 2003)
EAST ECONOMIC SURVEY
REPORT ON TRADE IMPACT ON THE WAR ON TERRORISM
STAND PASSIVE AND MUTE:
lone voice on Capitol Hill, Senator Robert Byrd remarks on the silence
of the U.S. Senate in a time of crisis:"...To
contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences.
On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every
American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully
silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the
nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our
own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only
on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion
of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt
to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents
a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in
the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary
doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine
of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can
legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may
be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional
idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international
law and the U.N. Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide
terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will
soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list.
High-level administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons
off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What
could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty,
particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and
security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge
cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are
suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based
on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion and alarming rhetoric from U.S.
leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism
which existed after 9/11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little
guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members
are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration
of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left
with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services
are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is
stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher. ..this administration
has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the
next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see
In foreign policy, this administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden
This administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats,
labeling and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the
intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences
for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating
powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities
can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but
we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation
and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer-found friends
whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will
do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland
that would severely damage our economy. Our military manpower is already
stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations
who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
Robert Byrd, TomPaine.com Feb. 14, 2003
Webforum on current issues in journalism
here, or on the image of the Zoned for Debate web page
information, but having trouble with a broken link? Send an e-mail to
We may be able to help
quick access to the Global Beat, set your bookmark to: