Re: [MAPC-policy] revised city resolution

Re: [MAPC-policy] revised city resolution

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-10-25

As the hour struck Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 09:06:05AM -0500, X
raved:

> Also, when we all agree on the wording, we should give this a run by the
> whole MAPC, with an intro on why we feel the humanitarian angle is the
best
> and most productive one to take with the City Council.  I'm expecting
we'll
> hear some disappointment from people who want us to push a politically
> unviable stop the bombing resolution.  But maybe I'm wrong on that (it's
> happened once or twice before, you know).

I've been thinking that a compromise on THAT might be to specifically
condemn
the use of cluster bombs (on which score we can cite really unimpeachable
sources like the ICRC and Princess Diana's Anti-Mine Fund ;) ) and generally
voices skepticism about the effect of bombing on the humanitarian situation.

See below for more specific comments.

>
> -X
>
> > Dear Policy Committee,
> >
> > Due to my own error, I have so far failed utterly at getting myself on
> > the policy e-mail list.  However, 30 minutes ago I discovered the list
> > archive on the web site, and now I am up-to-date!
> >
> > Thank you for your comments!  Wonderful!
> >
> > I incorporated your suggestions.  More edits may be in order--feel free
> > to suggest more edits.
> >
> > After one more round, perhaps we can bring it around to alders--I'll
> > wait for the policy committee's OK.
> >
> > Below is the current draft.  Send me further suggestions for changes.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > X
> >
> > =================================================================
> > 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
> >
> > WHEREAS,    70 percent of these people are women and children, and the
UN
> > estimates 400,000 children under five will likely die this year, an
increase
> > of over 30 percent from last year; and

I don't think I like this phrasing, because it requires one to do a
calculation.

Instead: "UNICEF estimates 100,000 more children under the age of five will
die
this winter than did last winter, and increase of more than 30 percent; and"
?

> >
> > WHEREAS,     food aid shipments have been disrupted due to security
concerns
> > around U.S. military actions in Afghanistan; and

This would be an opportunity to mention bombing obliquely, if we so chose.

> > WHEREAS,    the aid agencies active in the region, including the Nobel
> laureate
> > Doctors Without Borders (MSF), Oxfam International and the World Food
> > Program have stated that the U.S. food
> > drops can not meet the increasing and urgent need for assistance; and
> >
> > WHEREAS,    Madison now participates directly and indirectly in U.S.
military
> > efforts through many channels, including the federal taxes its citizens
pay,
> > and through its citizens' participation in the armed forces; and
> >
> > WHEREAS,    the Mayor and Common Council are appalled at the mass
starvation
> > that will result from these actions to which they are a party if the
> > situation is not speedily addressed, and also appalled at the dishonor
such
> > an outcome would be for the victims of the terrorist attacks of
September
> > 11th;
> >
> > 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 now be a top
priority
> > for U.S. policy toward Afghanistan, especially as there exists a narrow
> > 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 immediately
> > 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
>
> * in the previous clause, I would change to "...and the U.S. and other
> members of the international community must be prepared..."
> Let's make the obligation of the U.S. explicit (bastards, you caused the
> problem...)
>
> >
> > BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the United States must actively support the
work
> > of various agencies to deliver assistance in Afghanistan, particularly
> > through overland truck convoys, and support safe humanitarian access to
> > affected populations, in partnership with humanitarian agencies in
> > quantities sufficient to alleviate a large scale humanitarian
catastrophe;
> > and
> >
> > 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;
> > and
> >
> > BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the United States should support democratic
> > processes in Afghanistan leading to a government which represents all
its
> > people, including women.

If we really wanted to give this resolution some sting (particularly
assuming
that it might in fact get a bit of national press) we could finish this off
this a declaration like:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the people of Madison, in solidarity with the
international community and in their capacity as citizens of the United
States,
will hold the Government of the United States responsible for both the
direct consequences of its military policy in Afghanistan and the results of
indifference to the priority of our humanitarian concerns.

I don't think that's entirely clear, but I like it as a way to unambiguously
push
on what I think will be a more vulnerable spot on the administration's belly
(the
prioritization of humanitarian concerns) than condemning the bombing per se.
It
also emphasizes the responsiblity we have, as citizens, to assert our moral
rights
over the administration of our government, and emphasizes the distinction
between
the Government of the United States, and the citizenry of the United States.

Thoughts?

X

Thursday, October 25, 2001 9:58 PM

Re: [MAPC-policy] revised city resolution