Re: [MAPC-policy] proposed city resolution

Re: [MAPC-policy] proposed city resolution

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-10-25

As the hour struck Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 04:01:15PM -0500, X raved:
> Hi - I agree it looks good, and agree with X that all which may sound
> supportive of bombing should be deleted.  Re: the MASS STARVATION part,
how
> about that quote the X shared on Tues about the 100,000 children
> which will die because of the bombings thus far, according to UNICEF.
>

I traced that quote, and to say that UNICEF is asserting that 100,000
children
will die as a direct result of the bombing is going a shade too far.

They explicitly say that 100,000 more children *under five* will *likely*
die
this year than did last year (300,000 died last year!), and it's clear from
the context of the page that the reason is the refugee crisis that's been
exacerbated by the bombing.

The page is here: www.unicefusa.org/alert/casia/index.html

> > ===============================================================
> > A RESOLUTION regarding the urgent need to provide emergency humanitarian
> > assistance and development assistance to civilians in Afghanistan,
> including
> > Afghan refugees in surrounding countries.
> >
> >
> > SPONSORS: [Alders names here.]
> >
> >
> > WHEREAS, a disastrous humanitarian crisis is underway, with an estimated
> 7.5
> > million people in Afghanistan facing critical food shortage or outright
> > starvation this winter; and
>
> * add: "and 70 percent of these people are women and children; and"
>
> >
> > WHEREAS,  food aid shipments have been disrupted due to security
concerns
> > around U.S. military actions in Afghanistan; and
>
> * let's boost our credibility here by noting the concerns expressed by
> Doctors without Borders, Oxfam, etc: "Whereas, the aid agencies active in
> the region, including the Nobel laureate Doctors Without Borders (MSF),
> Oxfam International and World Food Program, have stated that the U.S. food
> drops can not meet the increasing and urgent need for assistance; and"
>

I agree with X's suggestion.

I also think this might be the place to add the UNICEF statistic.
Logically, it
seems to flow that 7.5 million are at risk, and of those 7.5 million 70% are
clearly noncombatants, and in addition, as of this moment (emphasizing the
time-critical factor here) 100,000 more *children* are expected to die this
year than last year, we must prioritize humanitarian concerns.

I'm just not sure how to phrase it.

> >
> > WHEREAS, Madison supports U.S. military efforts through many channels,
> > including the federal taxes its citizens pay, and through its citizens'
> > participation in the armed forces; and
>
> * DELETE the previous clause!!!!
>
> >
> > WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council deplore their participation in
> actions
> > that cause mass starvation;
>
> * if we delete the clause before the one above, we'll probably need to
> change this one, maybe to something like, "Whereas the Mayor and Common
> Council are concerned at the likely possibility of mass starvation in the
> Afghanistan region, if the situation is not speedily addressed;"

I'd use even stronger language, like "appalled at the likely possibility".
I'd
also like to turn the moral debate around and specifically mention the
dishonor
such an outcome would be for the victims of 9-11.  Again, I'm a decent
colloquial
writer, but the legalese escapes me.  Suggestions?

>
> >
> > NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and Common Council urge a
> > resolution to the situation that minimizes loss of life; and
> >
> > BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT humanitarian concerns must be a top U.S.
> > priority for action in Afghanistan, especially as there exists a narrow
>
> * instead of "action in", put "policy towards"
>
> > window of opportunity for supplying food to the region's population
before
> > winter makes this difficult or impossible; and
> >
> > BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Afghanistan's neighbors should reopen their
> > borders to allow for the safe passage of refugees, and the international
> > community must be prepared to contribute to the economic costs incurred
by
> > the flight of desperate Afghan civilians; and
> >
> > BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT as the United States engages in military
> action
> > in Afghanistan, it must work to deliver assistance, particularly through
> > overland truck convoys, and safe humanitarian access to affected
> > populations, in partnership with humanitarian agencies in quantities
> > sufficient to alleviate a large scale humanitarian catastrophe; and
>
> * I think the previous clause also accepts the ongoing bombing - take out
> the first part, so it reads like, "Be it further resolved that the United
> States must actively support the work of various agencies to deliver
> assistance in Afghanistan, particularly through..."
>

I agree.  If it were deemed a worthwhile risk, I'd mention here that bombing
appears
to be fundamentally incompatible with the delivery of humanitarian aid, and
mention
again the agencies that have gone on record saying so (Oxfam, etc.).

> >
> > BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the United States should contribute to
efforts
> > by the international community to provide long-term, sustainable
> > reconstruction and development assistance for the people of Afghanistan,
> > including efforts to protect the basic human rights of women and
children.
>
> * can we also add something to the effect that the U.S. should support
> democratic processes in Afghanistan leading to a government which
represents
> ALL its people, including women???
>


Yes, and let's not forget to mention that the independence of Afghanistan
must also be
a priority.  The majority of Afghanistan's misery has stemmed from its
neighbors
(Pakistan, Iran, and Russia, primarily) struggle to control its destiny.


Thanks again for such good work!

X

Thursday, October 25, 2001 5:31 AM

Re: [MAPC-policy] proposed city resolution