A Portal for the Writings of Lawrence S. Wittner:
 www.theportlandalliance.org/wittnerhttps://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608047346712510740&pid=15.1&P=0

“Modernizing” the Opportunities for Nuclear War

 



By Lawrence S. Wittner

 

A fight now underway over newly-designed U.S. nuclear weapons highlights how far the Obama administration has strayed from its commitment to build a nuclear-free world.

 

The fight, as a recent New York Times article indicates, concerns a variety of nuclear weapons that the U.S. military is currently in the process of developing or, as the administration likes to say, “modernizing.”  Last year, the Pentagon flight-tested a mock version of the most advanced among them, the B61 Model 12.  This redesigned nuclear weapon is the country’s first precision-guided atomic bomb, with a computer brain and maneuverable fins that enable it to more accurately target sites for destruction.  It also has a “dial-a-yield” feature that allows its handlers to adjust the level of its explosive power.

 

Supporters of this revamped weapon of mass destruction argue that, by ensuring greater precision in bombing “enemy” targets, reducing the yield of a nuclear blast, and making a nuclear attack more “thinkable,” the B61 Model 12 is actually a more humanitarian and credible weapon than older, bigger versions.  Arguing that this device would reduce risks for civilians near foreign military targets, James Miller, who developed the nuclear weapons modernization plan while undersecretary of defense, stated in a recent interview that “minimizing civilian casualties if deterrence fails is both a more credible and a more ethical approach.”    

 

Other specialists were far more critical.  The Federation of Atomic Scientists pointed out that the high accuracy of the weapon and its lower settings for destructiveness might tempt military commanders to call for its use in a future conflict. 

 

General James E. Cartright, a former head of the U.S. Strategic Command and a retired vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded that possessing a smaller nuclear device did make its employment “more thinkable.”  But he supported developing the weapon because of its presumed ability to enhance nuclear deterrence.  Using a gun as a metaphor, he stated:  “It makes the trigger easier to pull but makes the need to pull the trigger less likely.”

 

Another weapon undergoing U.S. government “modernization” is the cruise missile.  Designed for launching by U.S. bombers, the weapon—charged William Perry, a former secretary of defense—raised the possibilities of a “limited nuclear war.”  Furthermore, because cruise missiles can be produced in nuclear and non-nuclear versions, an enemy under attack, uncertain which was being used, might choose to retaliate with nuclear weapons.

 

Overall, the Obama administration’s nuclear “modernization” program—including not only redesigned nuclear weapons, but new nuclear bombers, submarines, land-based missiles, weapons labs, and production plants—is estimated to cost as much as $1 trillion over the next thirty years.  Andrew C. Weber, a former assistant secretary of defense and former director of the interagency body that oversees America’s nuclear arsenal, has criticized it as “unaffordable and unneeded.”  After all, the U.S. government already has an estimated 7,200 nuclear weapons.

 

The nuclear weapons modernization program is particularly startling when set against President Obama’s April 2009 pledge to build a nuclear weapons-free world.  Although this public commitment played a large part in his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize that year, in succeeding years the administration’s action on this front declined precipitously.  It did manage to secure a strategic arms reduction treaty (New START) with Russia in 2010 and issue a pledge that same year that the U.S. government would “not develop new nuclear warheads.”  But, despite promises to bring the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification and to secure further nuclear arms agreements with Russia, nuclear disarmament efforts ground to a halt.  Instead, plans for “nuclear modernization” began.  The president’s 2016 State of the Union address contained not a word about nuclear disarmament, much less a nuclear weapons-free world.

 

What happened?

 

Two formidable obstacles derailed the administration’s nuclear disarmament policy.  At home, powerful forces moved decisively to perpetuate the U.S. nuclear weapons program:  military contractors, the weapons labs, top military officers, and, especially, the Republican Party.  Republican support for disarmament treaties was crucial, for a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate was required to ratify them.  Thus, when the Republicans abandoned the nuclear arms control and disarmament approach of past GOP presidents and ferociously attacked the Obama administration for “weakness” or worse, the administration beat an ignominious retreat.  To attract the backing of Republicans for the New START Treaty, it promised an upgraded U.S. nuclear weapons program.

 

Russia’s lack of interest in further nuclear disarmament agreements with the United States provided another key obstacle.  With 93 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons in the arsenals of these two nations, a significant reduction in nuclear weapons hinged on Russia’s support for it.  But, angered by the sharp decline of its power in world affairs, including NATO’s advance to its borders, the Russian government engaged in its own nuclear buildup and spurned U.S. disarmament proposals.

 

Despite these roadblocks, the Obama administration could renew the nuclear disarmament process.  Developing better relations with Russia, for example by scrapping NATO’s provocative expansion plan, could smooth the path toward a Russian-American nuclear disarmament agreement.  And this, in turn, would soften the objections of the lesser nuclear powers to reducing their own nuclear arsenals.  If Republican opposition threatened ratification of a disarmament treaty, it could be bypassed through an informal U.S.-Russian agreement for parallel weapons reductions.  Moreover, even without a bilateral agreement, the U.S. government could simply scrap large portions of its nuclear arsenal, as well as plans for modernization.  Does a country really need thousands of nuclear weapons to deter a nuclear attack?  Britain possesses only 215.  And the vast majority of the world’s nations don’t possess any.

 

Given the terrible dangers and costs posed by nuclear weapons, isn’t it time to get back on the disarmament track?

 

--end--

Dr. Lawrence Wittner, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany.  His latest book is a satirical novel about university corporatization and rebellion, What’s Going On at UAardvark?

​~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who Are the Nuclear Scofflaws?

 

By Lawrence S. Wittner

Given all the frothing by hawkish U.S. Senators about Iran’s possible development of nuclear weapons, one might think that Iran was violating the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

 

But it’s not.  The NPT, signed by 190 nations and in effect since 1970, is a treaty in which the non-nuclear nations agreed to forgo developing nuclear weapons and the nuclear nations agreed to divest themselves of their nuclear weapons.  It also granted nations the right to develop peaceful nuclear power.  The current negotiations in which Iran is engaged with other nations are merely designed to guarantee that Iran, which signed the NPT, does not cross the line from developing nuclear power to developing nuclear weapons.

 

Nine nations, however, have flouted the NPT by either developing nuclear weapons since the treaty went into effect or failing to honor the commitment to disarm.  These nine scofflaws and their nuclear arsenals are Russia (7,500 nuclear warheads), the United States (7,100 nuclear warheads), France (300 nuclear warheads), China (250 nuclear warheads), Britain (215 nuclear warheads), Pakistan (100-120 nuclear warheads), India (90-110 nuclear warheads), Israel (80 nuclear warheads), and North Korea (<10 nuclear warheads).

 

Nor are the nuclear powers likely to be in compliance with the NPT any time soon.  The Indian and Pakistani governments are engaged in a rapid nuclear weapons buildup, while the British government is contemplating the development of a new, more advanced nuclear weapons system.  Although, in recent decades, the U.S. and Russian governments did reduce their nuclear arsenals substantially, that process has come to a halt in recent years, as relations have soured between the two nations.  Indeed, both countries are currently engaged in a new, extremely dangerous nuclear arms race.  The U.S. government has committed itself to spending $1 trillion to “modernize” its nuclear facilities and build new nuclear weapons.  For its part, the Russian government is investing heavily in the upgrading of its nuclear warheads and the development of new delivery systems, such as nuclear missiles and nuclear submarines.

 

What can be done about this flouting of the NPT, some 45 years after it went into operation?

 

That will almost certainly be a major issue at an NPT Review Conference that will convene at the UN headquarters, in New York City, from April 27 to May 22.  These review conferences, held every five years, attract high-level national officials from around the world to discuss the treaty’s implementation.  For a very brief time, the review conferences even draw the attention of television and other news commentators before the mass communications media return to their preoccupation with scandals, arrests, and the lives of movie stars.

 

This spring’s NPT review conference might be particularly lively, given the heightening frustration of the non-nuclear powers at the failure of the nuclear powers to fulfill their NPT commitments.  At recent disarmament conferences in Norway, Mexico and Austria, the representatives of a large number of non-nuclear nations, ignoring the opposition of the nuclear powers, focused on the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear war.  One rising demand among restless non-nuclear nations and among nuclear disarmament groups is to develop a nuclear weapons ban treaty, whether or not the nuclear powers are willing to participate in negotiations.

 

To heighten the pressure for the abolition of nuclear weapons, nuclear disarmament groups are staging a Peace and Planet mobilization, in Manhattan, on the eve of the NPT review conference.  Calling for a “Nuclear-Free, Peaceful, Just, and Sustainable World,” the mobilization involves an international conference (comprised of plenaries and workshops) on April 24 and 25, plus a culminating interfaith convocation, rally, march, and festival on April 26.  Among the hundreds of endorsing organizations are many devoted to peace (Fellowship of Reconciliation, Pax Christi, Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Veterans for Peace, and Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom), environmentalism (Earth Action, Friends of the Earth, and 350NYC), religion (Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, Unitarian Universalist UN Office, United Church of Christ, and United Methodist General Board of Church & Society), workers’ rights (New Jersey Industrial Union Council, United Electrical Workers, and Working Families Party), and human welfare (American Friends Service Committee and National Association of Social Workers).   (see more at  A Portal for the Writings of Lawrence S. Wittner: www.theportlandalliance.org/wittner"

 

Of course, how much effect the proponents of a nuclear weapons-free world will have on the cynical officials of the nuclear powers remains to be seen.  After as many as 45 years of stalling on their own nuclear disarmament, it is hard to imagine that they are finally ready to begin negotiating a treaty effectively banning nuclear weaponsor at least theirnuclear weapons.

 

Meanwhile, let us encourage Iran not to follow the bad example set by the nuclear powers.  And let us ask the nuclear-armed nations, now telling Iran that it should forgo the possession of nuclear weapons, when they are going to start practicing what they preach.

-30—

Lawrence Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com), syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. He is the author of Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement (Stanford University Press).


Nationalist Illusions

AVAILABLE FOR REPRINT. Copy and use freely. Please help PeaceVoice by notifying us when you use this piece: PeaceVoiceDirector@gmail.com

LawrenceWittner
“After thousands of years of bloody wars among contending tribes, regions, and nations, is it finally possible to dispense with the chauvinist ideas of the past?”

Author: Lawrence S. Wittner
Published in: Las Vegas Informer http://lasvegas.informermg.com/2014/09/14/nationalist-illusions/, Counter Punch http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/15/nationalist-illusions/, War is a Crime http://warisacrime.org/content/nationalist-illusions, Pagadosa Daily Post http://www.pagosadailypost.com/news/26774/ESSAY:_Nationalist_Illusions/, Press TV http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/09/16/378907/us-empire-and-nationalist-illusions/, Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/15/1329879/-Nationalist-Illusions#, Baltimore Nonviolence Center http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/2014/09/us-empire-and-nationalist-illusions.html
Date: September 14,15,16,2014

For the full article: Read more

September 15, 2014 |


Will the U.S. Government Stand Alone
in Rejecting Children’s Rights?


By Lawrence S. Wittner
 


Within a matter of months, the U.S. government seems likely to become the only nation in the world still rejecting the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Sometimes called “the
most ratified human rights treaty in history,” the Convention
has been ratified by 195 nations, leaving the United States
and South Sudan as the only holdouts.  South Sudan is expected
to move forward with ratification later this year.  But there is
no indication that the United States will approve this children’s defense treaty.

In the words of Human Rights Watch, the Convention establishes “global standards to ensure the protection, survival, and development
of all children, without discrimination.  Countries that ratify the treaty
pledge to protect children from economic and sexual exploitation,
violence, and other forms of abuse, and to advance the rights of
children to education, health care, and a decent standard of living.” 

It is hard to imagine why the U.S. government, which often lectures other countries about their human rights violations, should object to these humane standards for the protection of children.  The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush played an important role in drafting the treaty, which was signed by the U.S. government in 1995.  Although the U.S. Senate has never ratified (or even considered ratifying) the pact, U.S. ratification is endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of University Women, the American Baptist Churches, the American Bar Association, the Catholic Health Association of the United States, the Child Welfare League of America, Church Women United, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, Kiwanis, the National Education Association, the United Food & Commercial Workers, the United Methodist Church, and about a hundred other organizations.

What, then, is the problem?  The problem is that treaty ratification requires support from two-thirds
of the U.S. Senate―a level of support that has been lacking thanks to Republican Party opposition
and, especially, the fierce hostility of the conservative Republican base, including groups like the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and the John Birch Society.

A key allegation of conservatives is that the Convention “poses a serious threat to parental rights.” 
In fact, though, as Human Rights Watch observes, the treaty “refers repeatedly to the rights and responsibilities of parents to raise and provide guidance for their children.”  Indeed, 19 articles
of the treaty
explicitly recognize the importance of parents and family in children’s lives.

In addition, conservatives argue that the Convention, as an international treaty, would override
the Constitution of the United States, as well as federal and state legislation, thereby destroying American sovereignty.  And, in fairness to the critics, it must be acknowledged that some current American laws do clash with the Convention’s child protection features.  For example, in the
United States, children under the age of 18 can be jailed for life, with no possibility of parole. 
Also, as Human Rights Watch notes, “exemptions in U.S. child labor laws allow children as young
as 12 to be put to work in agriculture for long hours and under dangerous conditions.”  Moreover,

the treaty prohibits cruel and degrading punishment of children―a possible source of challenge to
the one-third of U.S. states that still allow corporal punishment in their schools.  But most U.S. laws
are thoroughly in line with the Convention.

Perhaps the underlying objection of conservatives is that the Convention calls for government action
to promote the health, education, and welfare of children.  And conservatives oppose such action for everyone, including children, often quite effectively.  Thus, despite America’s vast wealth, it ranks
near the bottom
of industrialized nations in child poverty (one out of six children), the gap between
rich and poor, low birth weight, infant mortality, child victims of gun violence, and the number of children in jail.

Given the conservative opposition to the Convention, it is ironic that, even if it were ratified by the
U.S. Senate, it would have little immediate impact upon the United States.  As Amnesty International
points out, “the Convention contains no controlling language or mandates,” and “no treaty can `override’ our Constitution.”  Any changes in U.S. law would be implemented through federal and state legislation in a timeframe determined by the U.S. legislative process.  Nor would any changes in American laws necessarily occur, for the U.S. government generally ratifies human rights treaties with the qualification that they not override existing American laws.  In addition, “the United States can reject or attach clarifying language to any specific provision of the Convention.”

Even so, U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child would have
an important effect on the treatment of children in the United States, just as the ratification of the Convention has affected behavior in other lands, for it would establish agreed-upon guidelines.  Like other human rights treaties, the Convention would set humane standards that can be invoked in calling for appropriate government action.  Kul Chandra Gautam, a former Assistant Secretary General
of the United Nations, has termed it “a moral compass, a framework of accountability against which all societies can
assess their treatment of the new generations.” 

Praising the treaty, Anthony Lake, UNICEF Executive Director and a former White House National Security Advisor, stated recently:  “The central message of the Convention is that every child deserves a fair start in life.  What can be more important than that?”

Unfortunately, some Americans don’t think giving children “a fair start in life” is important at all.

Lawrence Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com), syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is "What's Going On at UAardvark?" (Solidarity Press), a satirical novel about campus life.


How Rich Are the 400 Richest Americans – and What Do They Do with Their Money?

 By Lawrence S. Wittner

 In the supposedly classless society of the United States, the wealthiest Americans are doing remarkably well.

 According to Forbes, a leading business magazine, the combined wealth of the 400 richest Americans has now reached the staggering total of $2.3 trillion.  This gives them an average net worth of $5.7 billion--an increase of 14 percent over the previous year.

 With fortunes far beyond the dreams of past kings and potentates, these super-wealthy individuals enjoy extraordinary lifestyles.  Larry Ellison, the third wealthiest man in the United States (with $50 billion, an increase of 22 percent) reportedly has “15 or so homes scattered all around the world.”  Among his yachts are two exceptionally big ones, each over half as long as a football field.  In fact, they’re large enough for him to play basketball while on board.  If a ball bounces over the rail, Ellison has a powerboat following along to retrieve it.

Other Americans aren’t doing nearly as well.  According to the Census Bureau, more than 45 million Americans are living in poverty, which it defines as under $11,490 a year for an individual and under $23,550 for a family of four.  Many of them endure lives of hunger, misery, and despair, helped along by a Congress that has slashed billions from government food stamp programs, ended extended unemployment benefits, and refused to raise the minimum wage.

 America’s middle class, plagued by stagnant income and declining wealth, has also suffered.  According to the Federal Reserve, between 2010 and 2013 median income in the United States fell by five percent.  Indeed, since 1989, the median net worth of the statistical middle class--the middle 20 percent of Americans--has dropped by nearly 18 percent.

 Not surprisingly, economic inequality is growing in the United States.  From 1978 to 2013, CEO compensation, inflation-adjusted, grew by 937 percent, while the typical worker’s compensation over that same period grew by only 10 percent.  Thus, although the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20-to-1 in 1965, it stood at 296-to-1 in 2013.  The same pattern prevails when it comes to wealth.  From 1989 to 2013, the wealthiest three percent of Americans increased their share of the wealth from 44.8 percent to 54.4 percent, while the bottom 90 percent found their share of the wealth dropping from 33.2 percent to 24.7 percent.  Today, the United States has the fourth most uneven income distribution among economically developed nations.

 Against this backdrop, Americans might consider whether the richest among them really deserve their privileged status.  After all, many of them have simply inherited great wealth and sat back as it grew still greater.  Others, such as owners of multinational corporations, have acquired vast wealth through government favors, including financial subsidies, tax breaks, and expensive weapons procurement programs. Still others have “earned” their wealth through employment of dubious value.  According to Forbes, the top “industry” among the 400 richest Americans is “Investments.”  Are these stock market and hedge fund speculators really the most valuable members of American society?

 Also, many of the wealthiest Americans have grown richer at the expense of others.  In 2005, Larry Ellison (#three, of the giant yachts) bought out PeopleSoft, an 11,000-employee competitor, and then eliminated the jobs of 5,000 of them.  Or consider the four members of the Walton family--owners of Wal-Mart, the country’s biggest private employer--who rank among the top 10 richest Americans, with a combined net worth of $143.7 billion.  Most of their full-time workers are paid less than $25,000 a year.  Wal-Mart’s cashiers, for example, average $8.48 an hour, and thousands of Wal-Mart workers receive no more than the minimum wage ($7.25 an hour).  These low wages keep many of the company’s workers mired in poverty and dependent upon government assistance.  Indeed, it is estimated that Wal-Mart’s low-wage workers cost American taxpayers $6.2 billion a year in public assistance, including food stamps, Medicaid, and subsidized housing.

 Furthermore, the richest Americans often use their wealth to campaign against the public good.  Pre-eminent among them are Charles and David Koch, the sons of a wealthy founder of the John Birch Society, as well as the fourth and fifth richest Americans (with $84 billion).  Over the years, the Koch brothers have used their vast wealth to champion the abolition of public schools, the postal system, minimum wage laws, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency.  Bankrolling a broad variety of rightwing groups and foundations, they have zealously opposed legislation providing for environmental protection, health care reform, and limits on campaign contributions.  As massive financers of rightwing election campaigns--including more than $400 million to960 words candidates in 2011-2012 alone--they have been very effective in pulling the Republican Party and American politics rightward.

 Even Americans who place some of their enormous wealth in tax exempt foundations often use them for questionable purposes.  Since 2008, the Gates Foundation--funded by Bill Gates (the nation’s wealthiest individual, with $81 billion)--has spent at least $2 billion to undermine public schools by promoting charter schools, high-stakes standardized testing, and other corporate educational initiatives.  The Gates Foundation has also played a key role in creating organizations opposing teacher unions and teacher tenure.  Meanwhile, the Walton Foundation contributed more than $750 million to these efforts.  In Milwaukee, the Walton Foundation funded the organizations that developed and pushed through that city’s school voucher program.  In addition, both the Gates and Walton Foundations have funded the work of ALEC, the rightwing operation that has successfully promoted the passage of state laws that restrict voting rights, weaken unions, privatize education, harass immigrants, encourage “Stand Your Ground” behavior, and, of course, provide big tax cuts for the rich.

 Americans talk fondly of equality, but, to paraphrase a statement in George Orwell’s satire about another allegedly classless society, in this country some people are more equal than others.

​--

30—

Lawrence Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com), syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is "What's Going On at UAardvark?" (Solidarity Press), a satirical novel about campus life.


Nationalist Illusions

By Lawrence S. Wittner

After thousands of years of bloody wars among contending tribes,
regions, and nations, is it finally possible to dispense with
the chauvinist ideas of the past? 

To judge by President Barack Obama’s televised address on the evening of September 10, it is not.  Discussing his plan to “take out” ISIS, the extremist group that has seized control of portions of Syria and Iraq, the president slathered on the high-flying, nationalist rhetoric.  “America is better positioned today to seize the future than any other nation on Earth,” he proclaimed.  “Our technology companies and universities are unmatched; our manufacturing and auto industries are thriving. Energy independence is closer than it's been in decades. . . .  Our businesses are in the longest uninterrupted stretch of job creation in our history. . . . I see the grit and determination and common goodness of the American people every single day -- and that makes me more confident than ever about our country's future.”

This rhetoric, of course, is the lead-in to yet another American-led war in the Middle East.  “American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world,” he stated.  “It is America that has the capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists. It is America that has rallied the world against Russian aggression. . . .  It is America that helped remove and destroy Syria's declared chemical weapons so they cannot pose a threat to the Syrian people -- or the world -- again. And it is America that is helping Muslim communities around the world not just in the fight against terrorism, but in the fight for opportunity, tolerance, and a more hopeful future.”

 

America’s greatness, he added, carries “an enduring burden.  But as Americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead. From Europe to Asia -- from the far reaches of Africa to war-torn capitals of the Middle East -- we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity.  These are values that have guided our nation since its founding.  Tonight, I ask for your support in carrying that leadership forward.  I do so as a Commander-in-Chief who could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform.”

 

Can anyone acquainted with American history really take this nationalist drivel seriously?  When contemplating the “freedom,” “justice,” and “dignity” that “have guided our nation since its founding,” is there no recollection of slavery, the seizure of a continent from its native people, lynching, child labor, the flouting of civil liberties, the exploitation of workers, legalized racial discrimination, and the war crimes committed by U.S. troops, most recently in Iraq?

 

Furthermore, all of this forgotten history is topped off with the ritualized “May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.”  God, apparently, is supposed to ride shotgun for the U.S. military.  Or is it really that the U.S. military and the nation are the emissaries of God?

 

In fairness to the president, it could be argued that he doesn’t actually believe this claptrap, but -- like so many of his predecessors -- simply dons a star-spangled uniform to sell his foreign policy to the American public.

 

But, in fact, the policy outlined in Obama’s speech is almost as nationalist as the rhetoric.  Although the president promised that the United States would participate in a “broad coalition to roll back” ISIS, this would be a coalition that “America will lead.”  Yes, there would be “partners” in American efforts “to address broader challenges to international order,” but not all the time -- only “wherever possible.”  In short, Americans should get ready for another Coalition of the Willing, led by the United States and, sometimes, limited to it alone.

 

Ironically, American “leadership” of military operations in the Islamic world has not only done much to spark the creation of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other extremist groups, but has destabilized and inflamed the entire region.  American-led wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya -- coupled with U.S. military meddling in Syria, confrontations with Iran, arming of Israel, and drone strikes in many nations -- have left the region awash with anti-Americanism, religious strife, and weapons (many now directed against the United States).

 

Against this backdrop, the U.S. government would be well-advised to adopt a very low profile in the Middle East -- and certainly not “lead” yet another war, particularly one against Muslims.  This restraint would mesh nicely with the U.S. government’s signature on the UN charter, which prohibits the use of force by any nation except in self-defense.

 

The current situation provides a particularly appropriate time for the U.S. government to back off from yet another military crusade in the region.  After all, ISIS is heartily disliked by a large number of nations.  At the moment, it seems likely that the governments of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Russia, and other lands would welcome the demise of ISIS and support UN action against it.  Furthermore, this action need not be military.  The United Nations could play an important role in halting the flow of financing and weapons to this terrorist group.  The United Nations could restrict the movement of militias and foreign fighters across borders.  The United Nations could resume negotiations to end the civil war in Syria.  And, particularly in light of the hostility toward the United States that has developed in recent years among many Muslims, the United Nations could demand the disarmament and dismantling of ISIS with far greater effect than would similar action by the U.S. government.

 

But can a nation shed its belief that it is uniquely qualified to “lead” the world?  It can, if its citizens are ready to cast aside their nationalist illusions and recognize their interdependence with the people of other nations.

—30—

Lawrence Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com), syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is "What's Going On at UAardvark?" (Solidarity Press), a satirical novel about campus life.




By Lawrence S. Wittner              
             
Is overwhelming national military power a reliable source of influence in world affairs?
If so, the United States should certainly have plenty of influence today. 
For decades, it has been the world's Number 1 military spender.  And it continues in this role.

 
Dr. Lawrence Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. 
His latest book is a satirical novel about university corporatization and rebellion,
What's Going On at UAardvark?   

America’s Peace Ship

By Lawrence S. Wittner

Is there an emotional connection between the oceans and the pursuit of peace?  For whatever reason, peace ships have been increasing in number over the past century.

Probably the first of these maritime vessels was the notorious Ford Peace Ship of 1915, which stirred up more ridicule than peace during World War I.

Almost forty years later, another peace ship appeared― the Lucky Dragon, a Japanese fishing boat showered with radioactive fallout from an enormous U.S. H-bomb explosion on March 1, 1954, in the Marshall Islands.  By the time the stricken vessel reached its home port in Japan, the 23 crew members were in advanced stages of radiation poisoning.  One of them died.  This “Lucky Dragon incident” set off a vast wave of popular revulsion at nuclear weapons testing, and mass nuclear disarmament organizations were established in Japan and, later, around the world.  Thus, the Lucky Dragon became a peace ship, and today is exhibited as such in Tokyo in a Lucky Dragon Museum, built and maintained by Japanese peace activists.

Later voyages forged an even closer link between ocean-going vessels and peace.  In 1971, Canadian activists, departing from Vancouver, sailed a rusting fishing trawler, the Phyllis Cormack, toward the Aleutians in an effort to disrupt plans for a U.S. nuclear weapons explosion on Amchitka Island.  Although arrested by the U.S. coast guard before they could reach the test site, the crew members not only mobilized thousands of supporters, but laid the basis for a new organization, Greenpeace.  Authorized by Greenpeace, another Canadian, David McTaggart, sailed his yacht, the Vega, into the French nuclear testing zone in the Pacific, where the French navy deliberately rammed and crippled this peace ship.  In 1973, when McTaggart and the Vega returned with a new crew, French sailors, dispatched by their government, stormed aboard and beat them savagely with truncheons.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, peace ships multiplied.  At major ports in New Zealand and Australia, peace squadrons of sailboats and other small craft blocked the entry of U.S. nuclear warships into the harbors.  Also, Greenpeace used the Rainbow Warrior to spark resistance to nuclear testing throughout the Pacific.  Even after 1985, when French secret service agents attached underwater mines to this Greenpeace flagship as it lay in the harbor of Auckland, New Zealand, blowing it up and murdering a Greenpeace photographer in the process, the peace ships kept coming.

Much of this this maritime assault upon nuclear testing and nuclear war was inspired by an American peace ship, the Golden Rule.

The remarkable story of the Golden Rule began with Albert Bigelow, a retired World War II U.S. naval commander.  Appalled by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, he became a Quaker and, in 1955, working with the American Friends Service Committee, sought to deliver a petition against nuclear testing to the White House.  Rebuffed by government officials, Bigelow and other pacifists organized a small group, Non-Violent Action Against Nuclear Weapons, to employ nonviolent resistance in the struggle against the Bomb.  After the U.S. government announced plans to set off nuclear bomb blasts near Eniwetok in the Marshall Islands―an island chain governed by the United States as a “trust territory” for the native people―Bigelow and other pacifists decided to sail a 30-foot vessel of protest, the Golden Rule, into the nuclear testing zone.  Explaining their decision, Bigelow declared:  “All nuclear explosions are monstrous, evil, unworthy of human beings.”

In January 1958, Bigelow and three other crew members wrote to President Dwight Eisenhower, announcing their plans.  As might be expected, the U.S. government was quite displeased, and top officials from the State Department, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the U.S. Navy conferred anxiously on how to cope with the pacifist menace.  Eventually, the administration decided to ban entry into the test zone.

Thus, after Bigelow and his crew sailed the Golden Rule from the West Coast to Honolulu, a U.S. federal court issued an injunction barring the continuation of its journey to Eniwetok.  Despite the legal ramifications, the pacifists set sail.  Arrested on the high seas, they were brought back to Honolulu, tried, convicted, and placed on probation.  Then, intrepid as ever, they set out once more for the bomb test zone, were arrested, were tried, and—this time―sentenced to prison terms.

Meanwhile, their dramatic voyage inspired an outpouring of popular protest.  Antinuclear demonstrations broke out across the United States.  The newly-formed National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy went on the offensive.  Moreover, an American anthropologist, Earle Reynolds, along with his wife Barbara and their two children, continued the mission of the Golden Rule on board their sailboat, the Phoenix.  In July 1958, they entered the nuclear testing zone.  That August, facing a storm of hostile public opinion, President Eisenhower announced that the United States was halting its nuclear tests while preparing to negotiate a test ban with the Soviet Union. 

Even as test ban negotiations proceeded fitfully, leading to the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 and, ultimately, to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1996, the Golden Rule dropped out of sight.  Then, in early 2010, the vessel was discovered, wrecked and sunk in northern California’s Humboldt Bay.  Contacted by historians about preserving the Golden Rule for posterity, officials at the Smithsonian Museum proved uninterested.  But peace activists recognized the vessel’s significance.  Within a short time, local chapters of Veterans for Peace established the Golden Rule Project to restore the battered ketch. 

Thanks to volunteer labor and financial contributions from these U.S. veterans and other supporters, the ship has been largely rebuilt, and funds are currently being raised for the final stage of the project.  Veterans for Peace hope to take the ship back to sea in 2014 on its new mission: “educating future generations on the importance of the ocean environment, the risks of nuclear technology, and the need for world peace.”

As a result, the Golden Rule will sail again, restored to its role as America’s most important peace ship.

—30—

Lawrence Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com), syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is "What's Going On at UAardvark?" (Solidarity Press), a satirical novel about campus life.


Corporate Welfare or Education?  America’s Public University System

 

By Lawrence S. Wittner

Should a public university be transformed into a corporate welfare project?  That’s the key question surrounding “Tax-Free NY,” a new plan zealously promoted by New York State’s Democratic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, with nation-wide implications. 

Under the provisions of his Tax-Free NY scheme, most of the 64 campuses of the State University of New York (SUNY), some private colleges, and zones adjacent to SUNY campuses would be thrown open to private businesses that would be exempted from state taxes on sales, property, the income of their owners, and the income of their employees for a period of 10 years.  According to the governor, this creation of tax-free havens for private, profit-making companies is designed to create economic development and jobs, especially in upstate New York.

Joined by businessmen, politicians, and top SUNY administrators, Cuomo has embarked on a full court press for his plan.  Tax-Free NY, he announced, was “a game-changing initiative that will transform SUNY campuses and university communities across the state.”  Conceding that these tax-free zones wouldn’t work without a dramatic “culture shift” in the SUNY system, Cuomo argued that faculty would have to “get interested and participate in entrepreneurial activities.”  As he declared in mid-May, the situation was “delicate, because academics are academics. . . .  But you can be a great academic and you can be entrepreneurial, and I would argue you’d be a better academic if you were actually entrepreneurial.”

In fact, the commercialization of American college and university life has been advancing steadily in recent years. Thousands of U.S. students are paid by businesses to market products on their campuses, large numbers of university presidents serve on one or more corporate boards, administrators sport new titles such as Kmart Chair of Marketing and BankAmerica Dean, and for-profit universities now dot the American landscape.  Indeed, some universities run their own industrial parks, venture capital funds, and joint business-university research centers.

Even so, Tax-Free NY appears to be an important milestone in the corporatization of higher education, for SUNY is the nation’s largest public university system.  Only a few years ago, New York State law prohibited businesses from operating on SUNY campuses.  But that barrier has been swept away, and SUNY Chancellor Nancy Zimpher is now a leading cheerleader for Tax-Free NY.

SUNY’s faculty and staff, on the other hand, have a greater stake in preserving the university’s traditional role of education and the advancement of knowledge.  United University Professions (UUP), the union that represents 35,000 faculty and other professional staff on SUNY campuses, has been disturbed for years by the state government’s abandonment of its legal commitment to fund public higher education.  Over a four-year period, SUNY lost nearly $700 million in state support through budget cuts, and state funding has remained flat over the past year. Today, nearly 75 percent of the university’s operating budget comes from ever-rising tuition and fees.  A decade ago, the state covered 75 percent of SUNY’s budget.

Naturally, then, UUP has promised to fight against this latest assault on the university.  Rejecting Tax-Free NY, it argues that any available space on SUNY’s campuses should be dedicated to improving education through smaller class size and improved student services, that there are no assurances that business entities would support the academic mission of campuses, and that the tax-cutting plan would diminish tax revenues that could be used for public education.

Also, there is considerable doubt that Tax-Free NY will spur economic growth.  The Citizens Budget Commission, a business-backed group, has reported that New York State already spends about $7 billion annually to foster economic development without any evidence that this funding has been productive.  The Alliance for a Greater New York, a group with a liberal orientation, has noted that, in the past year, the state gave away $490 million to businesses for projects through its Industrial Development Agencies.  Of these projects, half failed to create any jobs and another quarter lost a total of 17,000 jobs.  Criticizing Tax-Free NY, Crain’s New York Business, a leading commercial publication, stated that “history tells us these kinds of strategies don’t work.”  During the administration of Republican George Pataki, “the state created Empire Zones . . . with special tax breaks and incentives. . . .  No area ever showed any real economic gains.  They were eventually phased out when it became clear they had achieved virtually nothing.”  In addition, these economic development programs were riddled with abuse and fraud by unscrupulous companies.

As a result, significant criticism of the governor’s plan has begun to emerge.  The small Conservative Party -- a key ally of the Republican Party -- formally denounced Tax-Free NY, arguing that “government should not be deciding what businesses receive government handouts that give them advantages over other businesses.”  Journalists asked the governor what would stop the favored companies from simply packing up and leaving after their decade of tax breaks.  According to the president of the Civil Service Employees Association: “The governor doesn’t get the fact that more corporate welfare is no answer to New York’s economic challenges.”

Why, then, despite the obvious limitations of Tax-Free NY, is the governor promoting it so vigorously?  One reason, some observers contend, is that Cuomo is a very ambitious man, with his eyes on a run for the White House. Determined to win re-election by a huge margin, he needs to strengthen his sagging appeal in upstate New York to do so.  In addition, Cuomo has been closely allied with the state’s corporate leaders, who have poured millions of dollars into promoting his pro-business agenda.  Championing tax cuts to business helps cement this alliance.

Ironically, it’s quite possible that the governor could spur economic growth and job creation if he just reversed his proposal.  Instead of throwing more tax dollars at profit-making businesses while starving public education, he could channel that same money into the SUNY system.  In this fashion, he would help build the kind of university that, through its intellectual excellence, would foster advanced scientific experimentation, economic innovation, and a highly-educated workforce.  But that’s not at all his plan. Corporations, politicians, and educators across the country are watching closely.

—30—

Dr. Lawrence Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany and writes forPeaceVoice.  His latest book is "What’s Going On at UAardvark?” – a satire on the corporatization of higher education.]


Maryland model: Welfare for the richest “persons”

by Lawrence S. Wittner

At this time of severe cutbacks in government funding for food stamps, early childhood education, and Meals on Wheels, some Maryland legislators are hard at work looking out for the welfare of one of the world’s wealthiest corporations. Under a bill rapidly advancing in the legislature of that state, the Lockheed Martin Corporation will have the taxes on its luxurious Montgomery County hotel and conference center reduced by approximately $450,000 a year and will also receive a $1.4 million refund for the period since 2010.

Maryland model: Welfare for the richest “persons”

by Lawrence S. Wittner

At this time of severe cutbacks in government funding for food stamps, early childhood education, and Meals on Wheels, some Maryland legislators are hard at work looking out for the welfare of one of the world’s wealthiest corporations. Under a bill rapidly advancing in the legislature of that state, the Lockheed Martin Corporation will have the taxes on its luxurious Montgomery County hotel and conference center reduced by approximately $450,000 a year and will also receive a $1.4 million refund for the period since 2010.

Lockheed Martin would seem to be an unlikely recipient of this lavish government handout, at least on the basis of need. Indeed, it is one of the world’s largest business enterprises, with sales that reached $47 billion in 2012. It is also America’s largest defense contractor, and in fiscal 2012 its U.S. military sales topped $29 billion.

The effort to shovel millions of additional taxpayer dollars to this giant corporation (and of course the US Supreme Court says corporations have “personhood”)goes back to 2010, when the state legislature passed a bill that exempted Lockheed Martin’s hotel guests from paying the state hotel tax. Then, in 2011, the company asked to be exempted from the 7 percent hotel tax levied by Montgomery County, a suburb of Washington, DC. Accordingly, the Montgomery County Council reviewed a bill that would change the definition of a hotel to exempt Lockheed Martin from this tax, too. Nevertheless, after citizen testimony at a public hearing, the Council refused to rewrite the law. As a result, patrons of the hotel, grandly named the Center for Leadership Excellence, are forced to pay a lodging tax, just like patrons of all the other hotels in the county.

It should be noted that, when Lockheed Martin’s employees stay at the hotel, the company can usually pass on the costs to the appropriate federal contract. Thus, in most cases, the federal government already compensates Lockheed Martin for any hotel tax it pays. 

In 2012, Ike Leggett, the County Executive, spearheaded a new effort to subsidize Lockheed Martin by proposing that the corporation be given a no-strings “grant” of $900,000 to compensate it for the hotel taxes it paid in 2011 and 2012. But the county’s legislative analyst suggested that providing such a grant, without any information as to the extent to which the company had already been reimbursed by the federal government, would not be advisable.  Ultimately, the County Council refused to allocate the grant to Lockheed Martin. 

Lockheed Martin maintains that its conference hotel is a “private” facility solely devoted to training its employees, and for this reason its guests should not have to pay the tax. And it is true that Lockheed Martin decides who can reside there.

But the 183-room hotel is not, in fact, limited to Lockheed Martin employees. It is available for contractors, vendors, and anyone else the company welcomes. For example, the business school of the University of Southern California held a conference there in October 2012, with attendees offered the option of staying at the hotel for $225 per night or finding their own accommodations. Benchmark Hospitality International, which manages the facility, advertises it online as “a private, full-service business-class lodging and conference center,” with a sports bar, fitness facility, lounge, and other amenities.

Faced with the unwillingness of the County Council to provide a multi-million dollar giveaway to this giant corporation, Lockheed Martin and its local enthusiasts have turned to the Maryland State Legislature for assistance. Senator Nancy King, the chief sponsor of the new bill, argues that it is necessary to keep the Lockheed Martin hotel operating - although she has not specified why a corporation with $47 billion in revenues cannot manage this feat on its own. She has acknowledged that, under the legislation, Lockheed Martin will be the only company throughout the State of Maryland that qualifies for the exemption from the hotel tax.

With the bill for tax exemption and a refund already approved by a Maryland Senate committee, it seems likely that the bill will be brought to the Senate floor for a vote on March 11, 2013. Maryland’s House of Delegates will consider it thereafter.

Citizen activists, especially from Montgomery County, are outraged by what they are calling the “Corporate Welfare for Lockheed Martin” bill. Montgomery County Peace Action coordinator, Jean Athey, terms it “blatant corporate welfare for one of the wealthiest, most profitable companies in the nation.” She asks: “Why, in a time that WIC supplements for babies and pregnant women are being cut, when children are being deprived of Head Start, when unemployment benefits are being reduced . . . should one of the wealthiest companies . . . receive this kind of special tax favoritism?”

It’s a question well worth considering.

Dr. Lawrence Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany, his latest book is "Working for Peace and Justice:  Memoirs of an Activist Intellectual” (University of Tennessee Press), and he writes for PeaceVoice.

Lockheed Martin would seem to be an unlikely recipient of this lavish government handout, at least on the basis of need. Indeed, it is one of the world’s largest business enterprises, with sales that reached $47 billion in 2012. It is also America’s largest defense contractor, and in fiscal 2012 its U.S. military sales topped $29 billion.

The effort to shovel millions of additional taxpayer dollars to this giant corporation (and of course the US Supreme Court says corporations have “personhood”)goes back to 2010, when the state legislature passed a bill that exempted Lockheed Martin’s hotel guests from paying the state hotel tax. Then, in 2011, the company asked to be exempted from the 7 percent hotel tax levied by Montgomery County, a suburb of Washington, DC. Accordingly, the Montgomery County Council reviewed a bill that would change the definition of a hotel to exempt Lockheed Martin from this tax, too. Nevertheless, after citizen testimony at a public hearing, the Council refused to rewrite the law. As a result, patrons of the hotel, grandly named the Center for Leadership Excellence, are forced to pay a lodging tax, just like patrons of all the other hotels in the county.

It should be noted that, when Lockheed Martin’s employees stay at the hotel, the company can usually pass on the costs to the appropriate federal contract. Thus, in most cases, the federal government already compensates Lockheed Martin for any hotel tax it pays. 

In 2012, Ike Leggett, the County Executive, spearheaded a new effort to subsidize Lockheed Martin by proposing that the corporation be given a no-strings “grant” of $900,000 to compensate it for the hotel taxes it paid in 2011 and 2012. But the county’s legislative analyst suggested that providing such a grant, without any information as to the extent to which the company had already been reimbursed by the federal government, would not be advisable.  Ultimately, the County Council refused to allocate the grant to Lockheed Martin. 

Lockheed Martin maintains that its conference hotel is a “private” facility solely devoted to training its employees, and for this reason its guests should not have to pay the tax. And it is true that Lockheed Martin decides who can reside there.

But the 183-room hotel is not, in fact, limited to Lockheed Martin employees. It is available for contractors, vendors, and anyone else the company welcomes. For example, the business school of the University of Southern California held a conference there in October 2012, with attendees offered the option of staying at the hotel for $225 per night or finding their own accommodations. Benchmark Hospitality International, which manages the facility, advertises it online as “a private, full-service business-class lodging and conference center,” with a sports bar, fitness facility, lounge, and other amenities.

Faced with the unwillingness of the County Council to provide a multi-million dollar giveaway to this giant corporation, Lockheed Martin and its local enthusiasts have turned to the Maryland State Legislature for assistance. Senator Nancy King, the chief sponsor of the new bill, argues that it is necessary to keep the Lockheed Martin hotel operating - although she has not specified why a corporation with $47 billion in revenues cannot manage this feat on its own. She has acknowledged that, under the legislation, Lockheed Martin will be the only company throughout the State of Maryland that qualifies for the exemption from the hotel tax.

With the bill for tax exemption and a refund already approved by a Maryland Senate committee, it seems likely that the bill will be brought to the Senate floor for a vote on March 11, 2013. Maryland’s House of Delegates will consider it thereafter.

Citizen activists, especially from Montgomery County, are outraged by what they are calling the “Corporate Welfare for Lockheed Martin” bill. Montgomery County Peace Action coordinator, Jean Athey, terms it “blatant corporate welfare for one of the wealthiest, most profitable companies in the nation.” She asks: “Why, in a time that WIC supplements for babies and pregnant women are being cut, when children are being deprived of Head Start, when unemployment benefits are being reduced . . . should one of the wealthiest companies . . . receive this kind of special tax favoritism?”

It’s a question well worth considering.

Dr. Lawrence Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany, his latest book is "Working for Peace and Justice:  Memoirs of an Activist Intellectual” (University of Tennessee Press), and he writes for PeaceVoice.


How Hawkish Are Americans?

By Lawrence S. Wittner

 

Description: http://hnn.us/sites/default/files/5798722228_f089cbb52c_z.jpg
U.S. Army gunner during a mission in Afghanistan. Credit: Flickr/Zoriah.

In the midst of a nationwide election campaign in which many politicians trumpet their support for the buildup and employment of U.S. military power around the world, the American public’s disagreement with such measures is quite remarkable. Indeed, many signs point to the fact that most Americans want to avoid new wars, reduce military spending, and support international cooperation.

The latest evidence along these lines is a nationwide opinion survey just released as a report (Foreign Policy in the New Millennium) by the highly-respected Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Conducted in late May and early June 2012, the survey resulted in some striking findings.

One is that most Americans are quite disillusioned with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars of the past decade. Asked about these conflicts, 67 percent of respondents said they had not been worth fighting. Indeed, 69 percent said that, despite the war in Afghanistan, the United States was no safer from terrorism.

Naturally, these attitudes about military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan fed into opinions about future military involvement. Eighty-two percent of those surveyed favored bringing U.S. troops home from Afghanistan by 2014 or by an earlier date. Majorities also opposed maintaining long-term military bases in either country. And 71 percent agreed that “the experience of the Iraq war should make nations more cautious about using military force to deal with rogue states.”

Certainly Americans seem to believe that their own military footprint in the world should be reduced. In the Chicago Council survey, 78 percent of respondents said that the United States was playing the role of a world policeman more than it should. Presented with a variety of situations, respondents usually stated that they opposed the use of U.S. military force. For example, a majority opposed a U.S. military response to a North Korean invasion of South Korea. Or, to take an issue that is frequently discussed today – Iran’s possible development of nuclear weapons -- 70 percent of respondents opposed a U.S. military strike against that nation with the objective of destroying its nuclear facilities.

Yes, admittedly, a small majority (53 percent) thought that maintaining superior military power was a “very important goal.” But this response was down by 14 points from 2002. Furthermore, to accomplish deficit reduction, 68 percent of respondents favored cutting U.S. spending on the military -- up 10 points from 2010. Nor are these opinions contradictory. After all, U.S. military spending is so vast – more than five times that of the number 2 military spender, China – that substantial cuts in the U.S. military budget can be made without challenging U.S. military superiority.

It should be noted that American preferences are anti-military rather than “isolationist.” The report by the Chicago Council observes: “As they increasingly seek to cut back on foreign expenditures and avoid military entanglement whenever possible, Americans are broadly supportive of nonmilitary forms of international engagement and problem solving.” These range from “diplomacy, alliances, and international treaties to economic aid and decision making through the UN.”

For example, the survey found that 84 percent of respondents favored the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty (still unratified by the U.S. Senate), 70 percent favored the International Criminal Court treaty (from which the United States was withdrawn by President George W. Bush), and 67 percent favored a treaty to cope with climate change by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. When asked about China, a nation frequently criticized by U.S. pundits and politicians alike, 69 percent of respondents believed that the United States should engage in friendly cooperation with that country.

The “isolationist” claim falls particularly flat when one examines American attitudes toward the United Nations. The Chicago Council survey found that 56 percent of respondents agreed that, when dealing with international problems, the United States should be “more willing to make decisions within the United Nations,” even if that meant that the United States would not always get its way.

Overall, then, Americans favor a less militarized U.S. government approach to world affairs than currently exists. Perhaps the time has come for politicians to catch up with them!

—30—

Dr. Lawrence S. Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is "Working for Peace and Justice: Memoirs of an Activist Intellectual” (University of Tennessee Press).


The Republican "Small Government" Fraud

 By Lawrence S. Wittner 
The F-22 Raptor. $150 million per aircraft, $66 billion for the program, never flown in combat, and subject to technical problems so serious the fleet was temporarily grounded twice! Supported by small-government Republicans! (Photo credit: Wikipedia.)

One of the most widely-advertised but falsest claims in American politics is that the modern Republican Party stands for “small government.”

In the distant past, leading Republicans were indeed sharp critics of statism. And even today a few marginal party activists, like U.S. Representative Ron Paul, have championed limited government -- even libertarian -- policies. But this is not at all the norm for the contemporary GOP.

For example, the Republican Party has stood up with remarkable consistency for the post-9/11 U.S. government policies of widespread surveillance, indefinite detention without trial, torture, and extraordinary rendition. It has also supported government subsidies for religious institutions, government restrictions on immigration and free passage across international boundaries, government denial of collective bargaining rights for public sector workers, government attacks on public use of public space (for example, the violent police assaults on the Occupy movement), and government interference with women’s right to abortion and doctors’ right to perform it.

And this barely scratches the surface of the Republican Party’s “big government” policies. The GOP has rallied fervently around government interference with the right of same-sex couples to marry, government provision of extraordinarily lengthy imprisonment for drug possession (for example, in the “war on drugs”) and numerous other nonviolent offenses, government interference with voting rights (for example, “voter suppression” laws), and government restrictions on freedom of information. Where, one wonders, is the Republican outrage at the U.S. government’s crackdown on people like Bradley Manning who expose government misconduct, or on whistle-blowing operations like WikiLeaks and its leading light, Julian Assange?

If the Republican Party were a zealous defender of civil liberties, as it claims to be, it would laud civil liberties organizations. But, in fact, the GOP has kept its distance from them. During the 1988 presidential campaign, George H. W. Bush, the Republican presidential candidate, publicly and repeatedly ridiculed his Democratic opponent as a “card-carrying member of the ACLU.”

Of course, the biggest arena of U.S. government action is the military. Here is where 57 percent of U.S. tax dollars currently go, thereby creating the largest national military machine in world history. A Republican Party that wanted to limit government would be eager to cut funding for this bloated giant. But the reality is that the modern GOP has consistently supported a vast U.S. military buildup. Today, its presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, assails his Democratic competitor for military weakness and champions a $2 trillion increase in U.S. military spending over the next decade.

Moreover, the Republican Party is an avid proponent of the most violent, abusive, and intrusive kind of government action -- war. In recent decades, as U.S. military intervention or outright war raged in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and other nations, the GOP was a leading source of flag-waving jingoism, as it is today in the U.S. government’s confrontation with Iran. This is not a prescription for creating limited government. As the journalist Randolph Bourne remarked in the midst of U.S. government mobilization for World War I: “War is the health of the State.”

Yes, admittedly, there is plenty of GOP support for small government when it comes to cutting taxes on the wealthy, limiting regulation of big business, gutting environmental regulations, weakening legal protections for workers and racial minorities, and slashing government funding for public education, public health, and social welfare services. But there is a common denominator to this kind of small government action. It is all designed to serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of everyone else. Thus, the Republican Party opposes government alleviation of hunger through the distribution of food stamps, but supports government subsidies to corporations.

Just take a look at the platform that will emerge from the GOP national convention. There will be plenty of rhetoric about freedom and limited government. But the party’s actual policies will reflect a very different agenda.

For those people who can see beyond the deluge of slick campaign advertisements, it should be clear enough that the Republican Party’s claim to support “small government” is a fraud. That claim is only an attractive mask, designed to disguise a party of privilege.

—30—

Lawrence S. Wittner is professor of history emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is "Working for Peace and Justice: Memoirs of an Activist Intellectual” (University of Tennessee Press).


The Shame of Nations: A New Record is Set for Spending on War

By Lawrence S. Wittner

On April 17, 2012, as millions of Americans were filing their income tax
returns, the highly-respected Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute (SIPRI) released its latest study of world military spending. In
case Americans were wondering where most of their tax money -- and the tax
money of other nations -- went in the previous year, the answer from SIPRI
was clear: to war and preparations for war.

World military spending reached a record 
,738 billion in 2011 -- an increase of 
38 billion over the previous year. The United States accounted for 41 percent of that, or $711 billion. Some news reports have emphasized that, from the standpoint of reducing reliance on armed might, this actually represents progress. After all, the increase in “real” global military spending -- that is, expenditures after corrections for inflation and exchange rates -- was only 0.3 percent. And this contrasts with substantially larger increases in the preceding thirteen years. But why are military expenditures continuing to increase -- indeed, why aren’t they substantially *decreasing* -- given the governmental austerity measures of recent years? Amid the economic crisis that began in late 2008 (and which continues to the present day), most governments have been cutting back their spending dramatically on education, health care, housing, parks, and other vital social services. However, there have not been corresponding cuts in their military budgets. Americans, particularly, might seek to understand why in this context U.S. military spending has not been significantly decreased, instead of being raised by 
3 billion -- admittedly a “real dollar” decrease of 1.2 percent, but hardly one commensurate with Washington’s wholesale slashing of social spending. Yes, military expenditures by China and Russia increased in 2011. And in “real” terms, too. But, even so, their military strength hardly rivals that of the United States. Indeed, the United States spent about five times as much as China (the world’s #2 military power) and ten times as much as Russia (the world’s #3 military power) on its military forces during 2011. Furthermore, when U.S. allies like Britain, France, Germany, and Japan are factored in, it is clear that the vast bulk of world military expenditures are made by the United States and its military allies. This might account for the fact that the government of China, which accounts for only 8.2 percent of world military spending, believes that increasing its outlay on armaments is reasonable and desirable. Apparently, officials of many nations share that competitive feeling. Unfortunately, the military rivalry among nations -- one that has endured for centuries -- results in a great squandering of national resources. Many nations, in fact, devote most of their available income to funding their armed forces and their weaponry. In the United States, an estimated 58 percent of the U.S. government’s discretionary tax dollars go to war and preparations for war. “Almost every country with a military is on an insane path, spending more and more on missiles, aircraft, and guns,” remarked John Feffer, co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus <http://www.fpif.org/>. “These countries should be confronting the real threats of climate change, hunger, disease, and oppression, not wasting taxpayers’ money on their military.” Of course, defenders of military expenditures reply that military force actually protects people from war. But does it? If so, how does one explain the fact that the major military powers of the past century -- the United States, Russia, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and China -- have been almost constantly at war during that time? What is the explanation for the fact that the United States -- today’s military giant -- is currently engaged in at least two wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan) and appears to be on the verge of a third (with Iran)? Perhaps the maintenance of a vast military machine does not prevent war but, instead, encourages it. In short, huge military establishments can be quite counterproductive. Little wonder that they have been condemned repeatedly by great religious and ethical leaders. Even many government officials have decried war and preparations for war -- although usually by nations other than their own. Thus, the release of the new study by SIPRI should not be a cause for celebration. Rather, it provides an appropriate occasion to contemplate the fact that, this past year, nations spent more money on the military than at any time in human history. Although this situation might still inspire joy in the hearts of government officials, top military officers, and defense contractors, people farther from the levers of military power might well conclude that it’s a hell of a way to run a world. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~30~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lawrence S. Wittner <http://lawrenceswittner.com/> is professor of history emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is "Working for Peace and Justice: Memoirs of an Activist Intellectual” (University of Tennessee Press).


Navigation:
Front Page !  / Activism / Interactive Calendar / Donate! /  Flyer / YouTube / Poster! / Subscribe! / Place Ad! / Ad Rates / OnlineAds / Advertising


Calendar / Twitter / News! / Previous Issues / Jobs / Live Music & Arts / Blog / Myspace / Poetry / Progressive Directory / Facebook1 / Facebook2
Features:  Active Community / Arts & Culture / Cartoons / Civil Rights Letters / Occupy Blog / Peace / Persian / Union / Viewpoints & Commentary
Columns: / William Beeman, Ellen Brown, Tom Engelhardt / Dennis Kucinich / Michael Munk / William Reed / Schwebke / Norman Solomon / Vorpahl
* Partners:Alliance for Democracy AFD / Albina Ministerial Alliance AMA / CAUSA / CLG News / Socialism FSP / ISO / Jobs with Justice / KBOO /
Labor Radio / LGBTQ Occupy / Occupy PDX / The 99% / Peaceworker / PCASC / StreetRoots
Truthout / Urban League / VFP / Voz /
  Topics: Coal / Death Penalty / Environment /
Health / Middle East / Police / VDay / War & Peace / Women / Writing / WritingResource
Coming Soon: A Few Words / MRG / Service Directory / Editing / Flyers / Ground View / Flying Focus / Literacy / Rashad