Re: [MAPC-policy] X willing to cosponsor!

Re: [MAPC-policy] X willing to cosponsor!

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-11-13

I remember is well.  The time was Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 01:21:57PM -0600, and
X whispered:

>
> What do you think?  It's later than we had hoped to have it introduced,
but
> it sounds like we'll have a better chance of passing the resolution then
> (given council dynamics), and we'll also have more time to mobilize the
> community in support of the resolution.  It's true that this puts the
> resolution passing just after the timeline humanitarian groups have put on
> needing to start land convoys of aid, but I'm thinking that this is OK for
> two reasons:  First, it's not like the U.S. federal gov't will immediately
> stop bombing because of a Madison city council resolution - this is one
> effort in a much bigger movement that will contribute to opening up
dialogue
> on the issue.  Second - this is tragic and I hope it doesn't come across
as
> insensitive - if there are increased reports of Afghani civilians starving
> just before the council vote, it will make it really hard for alders not
to
> support the resolution (and we should submit copies of any articles like
> this to the alders just before the Dec 4 vote).
>

Actually, I'm getting pretty concerned that recent events in Afghanistan are
working against the strategy of our resolution.  Humanitarian aid is going
(I
predict) to turn from the big weakness of the administration's position to a
propaganda coup.

I predict a *massive* effort will be undertaken (not least because Bush's
indifference to the humanitarian situation was starting to bother even
British
hawks). Now that the NA controls most of Afghanistan, this will be at least
mostly feasible.

Which is a great thing, because I was really starting to despair over the
lives
that seemed doomed to be lost. I can't come to the meeting tonight, but I
think
it is important to consider how to adapt our policy to counter the
possibility.
If we could have gotten this passed sooner, we could have indeed gained an
important rhetorical advantage, but I don't think Dec. 4 will do us much
good.

It's not that there still won't be a humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan.
But
Bush now has the opportunity to appear to be making "all possible effort" to
fix
the situation (which I actually hope he does).  Since most of the dying will
be
happening in the Taliban-controlled south (assuming they stop running near
Khandahar), you can bet they'll be blamed for the starvation.

The Bush team may have dodged the bullet on this.  If they don't, of course,
we
must howl bloody murder and put all our weight behind it--or we will be
talking
about genocide next spring.  I'd really prefer not to.  Let's hope they do
the
(only) moral thing, and think of other ways to make our points.

I'd suggest alternative lines of argument would include urging the
administration
not to consider expanding the scope of the war to include other countries,
such
as Iraq.  We can also stress the need for immediate negotiations over a
peace
deal between Israel and the Palestinians.  Other ideas?

Or am I off base?  I'm just concerned that if this resolution, as written,
is
voted on Dec. 4, it may be in the middle of a *super* publicized
humanitarian
effort, and thus appear almost discredited.  Maybe the administration will
blow this crucial moment and fail to support a massive aid push.  I don't
think
even Bush is that stupid, however.

My .02$, for what they're worth.

X

_______________________________________________
policy@madpeace.org
http://lists.OpenSoftwareServices.com/mailman/listinfo/madpeace-policy

Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:08 AM

Re: [MAPC-policy] X willing to cosponsor!