|
Freethought
Association of West Michigan
Meeting Minutes for April 23, 2003; #137
Topic:
U.S. Foreign Policy and the Middle East
Mark your
calendars for this year's Freethought Picnic. It will be on Saturday,
June 14th from 10-10:30AM to 4PM at Palmer Park in Wyoming, MI
at the Open Shelter in Section "C." Palmer Park is between
44th and 52nd streets (north-south), and Clyde Park and Burlingame
(east-west) and just west of the 131 Expressway. Palmer Park is
a spacious area with Buck Creek running through it, nature trails,
playground equipment, activity areas and our shelter itself is
in a shady spot near restrooms and parking in Section C. Take
Palmer Park Drive off 52nd Street into the park, and follow it
to parking and you will be by the FAoWM picnic area. Bring a dish
to pass and table service and beverages.
The next
Freethought Movie Night is April 27 at 7PM at Jason and Deanna
Pittman's house. For more information call 616-634-2471 or e-mail
to jpittman@backpacker.com.
May 10th
is the date for the Michigan Godless March on Lansing, organized
by the Michigan Atheists. Meet at the State Capitol Bldg., Lansing,
MI. It is scheduled from 12-3PM for speakers. The march itself
begins at 11:30AM at Ferris Park. www.michiganatheists.org for
more information.
Our next
scheduled meeting will be on May 14. "Whither Humanity? What
does evolution teach us about the current human condition and
how do we go about affecting social change?" will be presented
by FAoWM member James Kulig. Meeting time: 7PM.
May 14 is
also the next FAoWM Board Meeting. It will be held at 5:30PM,
prior to the regular meeting (see above). All are invited. This
is a follow-up meeting regarding growth issues and organizational
considerations.
Jeff reminded
meeting attendees that our group is a 501c3 educational non-profit
organization and as such donations to the Freethought Association
are tax deductible, as well as welcome and necessary for our continued
existence. Thanks to all who contribute! Your comments, questions
and suggestions are always welcome. www.freethoughtassociation.org
or info@freethoughtassociation.org.
The June
11th meeting topic is new to our calendar. Marshall Grate, attorney
and FAoWM member will present "Affirmative Action."
Visit our
website for the full schedule of topics and events or watch for
more info in upcoming minutes.
Our topic
for this meeting was "US Foreign Policy in the Middle East"
presented by Keith St. Clair, Political Science Instructor at
GRCC and FAoWM member. Since the Middle East takes in vast area,
contains a diverse ethnic and religious population and has a long,
tumultuous and full history, St. Clair began by narrowing the
focus initially to Iraq. Specifically, he began with the division
in our country over going to war in Iraq, sharing that he had
been on "the losing side" on that debate, since we went
to war before the diplomatic and inspection approaches were fully
realized.
He laid out
the arguments and responses in this way: On the one side, it was
argued that war would liberate the Iraqi people from an evil dictator.
He conceded that yes, Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator but
that we cannot liberate everyone everywhere and where do we stop?
And why was Iraq our main focus again, suddenly, when there are
perhaps more pressing concerns?
It was argued
that Hussein would sacrifice himself, but St. Clair's rebuttal
was that Hussein, would actually do anything to save his own skin,
including sparing no expense and taking big risks.
War will
hinder terrorism, it had been argued. His reply was that it would
actually potentially fuel terrorism by igniting the already bad
Arab feelings toward the U.S. By making ourselves the focal point
in the war, without garnering large scale support and by laying
out the specific goals poorly, the administration made it easier
for the U.S. to be portrayed as attacking Islam or having ulterior
motives; i.e. gaining access to the large oil reserves.
Another volley
lobbed in the debate was that inspections are not effective, so
more time spent in the pursuit of WMDs (weapons of mass destruction)
would be pointless. His response was that we will never know now.
This option was shut down before the efficacy of this mechanism
had been fully utilized. It also made it look bad that one of
the reasons stated to commence this war was that they had stockpiles
of WMD and then, to pull the inspectors out before any were found
(and at the time of this writing still nothing concrete has been
found) was perhaps premature. It seems to have taken away the
main stated purpose for our mission.
It has been
argued that by overwhelming Iraq with our superior firepower,
we will send a message to other nations harboring WMDs and would
make them think twice about attacking or defying us. St. Clair
responds that wars only encourage other nations to gird up their
own loins by accumulating weapons and taking on a more threatening
stance. Now that a pre-emptive strike scenario has been played
out by the U.S., other countries may be more likely to wonder
if they are next and do all they can to present the greatest deterrent
they can muster to our striking them. As an example, our presenter
mentioned that North Korea is now less likely to give up known
WMDs.
"Containment
is too expensive" was another reason given by war- promoters
for us to wage war in Iraq. In the anti-war camp it was conversely
stated that actually occupation is and will be a more expensive
venture. The war itself, pushing 80-100 billion, is staggering
in these times of our own economic ill- health, let alone having
troops stationed there for the duration, rebuilding, and the other
projected future expenses. And, as our speaker mentioned, loss
of lives has to be taken into account in the "expense"
tally sheet.
St. Clair
showed us a map delineating the divisions within Iraqi society.
There is a Kurdish majority that expected to have its own state
and was seemingly shepherded toward independence, but really used
by other countries for their own purposes. Hussein used chemical
weapons to keep the Kurds down and in their place. There is a
Muslim majority but there are secularists as well as more Fundamentalist
and orthodox in the mix.
There is
the further division between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims who hold
divergent views regarding various tenets of their religion, including
the authority of the prophet Mohammed's lineage and about the
degree of fallibility of the Koran and its authorship. St. Clair
gave us an overview of many of the beliefs and customs of these
two groups and explored their history together.
Due to the
clannishness and family loyalties in Iraq, with different factions
desiring a place at the table, if not headship at the helm, our
American version of democracy may not be a smooth and easy fit
there.
Oil is the
main resource of this land and a major focal point in any considerations
of U.S. involvement in Iraq. The president and his cabinet, nearly
all coming from "big energy" is understandably perceived
with suspicion by many as to our returning this valuable commodity
to total Iraqi control for the restoration and running of their
country. It is a potential alternative for the U.S. to Saudi Arabia.
Returning
to the WMD question, St. Clair noted the many possibilities given
for the difficulty in locating any "smoking gun." Perhaps
they were moved to other countries, or destroyed before the war,
etc. But this all points to a break- down in intelligence and
if we were not aware of WMDs actually extant and within Iraq,
then, again, this shoots down one of the main spearheading factors
for going to war in the first place.
Our official
stance was that we wanted to try the leadership of the regime
for human rights violations in the International Criminal Court.
However, the U.S. is not a part of that and it is a further hard
sell to other nations since we do not accept our own citizens
submitting to this system. If we had not taken ourselves out of
this process, we could have gained world support by seeking justice
against heinous acts perpetrated by a cruel dictator by employing
this mechanism.
We next looked
at Israel, founded shortly after WWII. Like the Kurds, the Jews
wanted a place of their own-a homeland to return to (or find sanctuary
in during the times of extreme persecution). The Turks lost control
of the land after WWI with the British taking over next. Jewish
migration was small before Nazi Germany brought the Holocaust
upon them; making up only eight percent in 1919 but rising to
about one third by 1939. Now it is slightly over half. There were
hostilities emerging between the Jews and Arabs and a growing
Arab resentment as increasing amounts of land was lost to the
Jewish influx. The British departed after things got too bloody,
all without any official transfer of power. That the land was
seen as ancestral to differing groups and with three ancient world
religions springing from the land that had sacred and inviolate
places to each made for tensions that are still seen today. Palestinians
who did not flee from the "Occupied Territories" found
themselves behind enemy lines and became nomads in their own native
land. They never got citizenship, for to do so, meant loss of
still more land.
Jerusalem
was divided, with the eastern region being the prize. As alluded
to, this is the Holy Land, with sacred places for Christians,
Jews and Muslims and further complicating matters, some iconic
spots are in one and the same geographical location. To rebuild
the Temple of Solomon, for example, a Holy Mosque would need to
be destroyed. Some sacred artifacts for one group are buried under
the foundations of a holy site for another. Christianity has a
stake in the rebuilding of the Temple-at least the most Fundamentalist
stripe-as they believe this will usher in the End Times, as breathlessly
accounted in books such as those by author Tim LaHaye.
"Sovereignty"
became an important term in all this. The Israelis said the Palestinians
could have certain power but Israel was to retain sovereignty.
Settlements were built, requiring people to take long treks out
of their way to get from place to place in a complicated undulating
boundary bordering on many "hot spots" between groups.
Frustrations led to outbursts, reaching the intensity that created
the Palestine suicide bomber. In times past, they would bus in
and back home again to and from work. But now they have no home
to return to, being citizens of nowhere. St. Clair said that we
needed to get into the heads more of people who would resort to
the drastic means the Palestinians have taken. It is not about
who is right or wrong, but about why things have unfolded as they
have. Another aspect in all this talked about was how America
was correctly perceived by much of the world as being so biased
in this Middle Eastern conflict, in favor of the Israelis (including
giving them billions of dollars per year).
Taking the
last item mentioned, it seems strange that a country such as ours,
built upon pluralism and religion/ government separation would
promote a people who have so completely intertwined the two. A
visual that St. Clair showed us, had the Israeli flag, shown in
its colors of a Jewish prayer shawl and with the Star of David
as its central emblem. It would be like the U.S. having a Christian
cross (though there are certainly segments in our nation that
already seem to see this in their own mind's eye) as the visual
symbol on our flag. And just as non-Christians would find difficulty
in "pledging allegiance" to such a hypothetical theocratic
American flag in the U.S., non-Jews have the same challenges in
Israel. About one in five non-Jews must adopt it currently, effectively
relegating them to second- class citizens. There is also the strange
circumstance that Jews can immigrate to Israel and automatically
have full citizenship. It would be like the Roman Catholic Church
sending immigrants with the same carte blanche conditions to America.
Because of our financial support of Israel, they are an investment
we have interest in. We even have a different view of the capital
of Israel; the U.S. regarding it as Tel Aviv while the Israelis
consider Jerusalem for this designation.
The stated
reason for the terrorist attacks on the U.S., as given by our
administration was that "they hate freedom." It was
pointed out in this talk that no sentient creatures hate freedom.
We turned instead to what Osama bin Laden actually said. He called
for the U.S. to stop support of the Saudi government. And to halt
support for Israel. He called for the U.S. military to withdraw
from Saudi Arabia and to end sanctions against Iraq. The methods
undertaken to underline this message were deplorable, but the
reasoning behind the actions were not as simpleminded as given
by our governmental head. The items bin Laden called for have
massive appeal in the Arab world, as ideas, no matter what the
views are of the man stating them. The Palestine grievances were
never addressed as the kingdom of the regime in S. Arabia kept
"the goodies" while the people suffered. We were a wish-fulfillment
for bin Laden, taking Saddam Hussein out of the picture, thereby
creating a vacuum for his presence. We have gained little clout
or support in the region with our lack of regard for genuine grievances,
favoritism of some people over others and a perceived elitist
attitude where all must bend to our will and system of government.
We are therefore, our speaker concluded, not winning the war of
public relations.
The phrase
"War on Terrorism" was discussed as analogous to a "war
on rape" or "….murder." How does one ever
hope to "win" such a war? There has to be a narrowing
of focus to what matters most critically to U.S. interests and
this more focused battle would be aided and abetted by garnering
larger support in the world by not having the my-way-or-the-highway
approach we seem to be employing now.
In discussing
the leadership in our administration, it was noted how hard it
is to nail the president down on specific matters. Others speak
for him and if he takes flak for some statements, he can genuinely
assert that he himself did not say those things.
In our discussion
portion of the meeting, we talked about these times where political
dissent is more readily labeled "unpatriotic" and unchecked
invasion of privacy is looming through such vehicles as the "Patriot
Act" where "unlawful combatants" can be imprisoned
without access to an attorney. St. Clair himself was amazed at
how much Bush has been able to "get away with" including
the power of war- making being granted to him by Congress. We
discussed the conditions of refugee camps for Palestinians and
we explored to what extent Bush's Christian ideology plays a part
in his decision making process. There was talk of the U.N. role
in future events and the motivations of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz
and others.
Secretary:
Charles LaRue
|
