date:20030321

Published on Monday, March 10, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
A Supreme International Crime
Any Member of a Government Backing an Aggressive War Will Be Open to
Prosecution

by Mark Littman

The threatened war against Iraq will be a breach of the United Nations
Charter and hence of international law unless it is authorized by a new and
unambiguous resolution of the security council. The Charter is clear. No
such war is permitted unless it is in self-defense or authorized by the
security council.

Self-defense has no application here. Neither the United States nor the UK,
nor any of their allies, is under attack or any threat of immediate attack
by Iraq.

Nor is there any authority from the security council. Resolution 1441 does
not constitute any such authority as the reference to serious consequences
is not sufficiently precise to justify war. Whatever the US may have wanted,
the resolution was deliberately vague because the council had not agreed on
the use of force. A new resolution would therefore be required. It would
have to be in unambiguous terms authorizing the use of force.

In the absence of such a resolution, the attack would, be unlawful. On this
point I agree completely with the terms of the letter from 16 eminent
international lawyers to 10 Downing Street published in last Friday's
Guardian.

What would be the consequences of such illegality? Most obvious would be the
human, economic and environmental costs, including any further violence that
a war against Iraq might trigger. An illustration of how unpredictable and
incalculable such costs might be is furnished by a recollection of the
events of 1914. When the Hapsburg empire attacked the Serbs, the campaign
was expected to be short because of the immense military superiority of
Austria/Hungary over the Kingdom of Serbia. Four years later, the Hapsburg
empire, together with those of Germany and Russia, lay in ruins. A residue
of bitterness and hatred was left that bred an even worse war 20 years later
in which there were more than 50 million fatalities. Who can say with
certainty where today's threatened war might lead?

A second consequence would be of immense world significance, for it would
mean the end of the United Nations and with it the final collapse of the
efforts of the past century to create effective international institutions
that would replace perpetual war with perpetual peace.

If attempts to create such international institutions were abandoned, the
clock would be turned back to a time when nations had to depend for their
security on the uncertain and shifting patterns of alliances and their own
military defenses. This would inevitably lead to more being spent on swords
and less on ploughshares.

A third consequence might be grave for members of the governments that
brought about this unlawful war. The United Nations Charter is a treaty, one
to which 192 out of a total of 196 sovereign states in the world are
parties. It takes precedence over all other treaties.

At the Nuremberg trials, the principles of international law identified by
the tribunal and subsequently accepted unanimously by the General Assembly
of the United Nations included that the planning, preparation or initiation
of a war contrary to the terms of an international treaty was a crime
against peace. The tribunal further stated that to initiate a war of
aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme
international crime.

It was for this crime that the German foreign minister Von Ribbentrop was
tried, convicted and hanged. This case and the subsequent case of former
Chilean president Pinochet show that it is not only governments but also
individuals who can be held responsible for such a crime. Jurisdiction to
try such a crime is not, for the foreseeable future, within the scope of the
new International Criminal Court. It is, however, open to any country in the
world to accept such jurisdiction. Some are already moving in that
direction. Instances are the proceedings in the Belgian courts against Ariel
Sharon in relation to alleged crimes in the Lebanon, and the active
involvement of the courts of Spain in relation to alleged crimes against
humanity said to have been committed by Pinochet. Members of any governments
actively involved in bringing about an unlawful war against Iraq would be
well advised to be cautious as to the countries they visit during the
remainder of their lives.

In a remarkable statement to the US Senate on February 12, Senator Robert
Byrd (West Virginia) described the US position. He referred to it as the
extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world
is currently witnessing and said: Our challenge is to now find a graceful
way out of a box of our own making. A refusal by the security council to
authorize hostilities should provide a graceful way out of the box. Our
government could lead the way.

Mark Littman QC is author of Kosovo: War and Diplomacy (Center for Policy
Studies). He has

Wallerstein on Iraq

Bush Bets All He Has
Mar. 15, 2003

The United States is in deep trouble. The President of
the United States has taken an enormous gamble, and
done it from a fundamentally weak position. He decided
a year ago or so that the U.S. would make war on Iraq.
He did this in order to demonstrate the overwhelming
military superiority of the United States and to
accomplish two primary objectives: 1) intimidate all
potential nuclear proliferators into abandoning their
projects; 2) squash all European ideas of an autonomous
political role in the world-system.

Thus far, Bush has been magnificently unsuccessful.
North Korea and Iran (and perhaps others as yet
unobserved) have actually speeded up their
proliferation projects. France and Germany have shown
what it means to be autonomous. And the United States
is not able to get any of the six Third World countries
on the Security Council to vote a second resolution on
Iraq. So, like a reckless gambler, Bush is about to go
for broke. He will launch a war in a very short time,
and bet that he can achieve an overwhelming and rapid
victory. The bet is very simple. Bush believes that if
the U.S. does achieve this kind of military result,
both the proliferators and the Europeans will repent of
their ways and accept U.S. decisions in the future.

There are two possible military outcomes: the one Bush
wants (and expects), and a different one. How likely is
it that Bush achieves the rapid capitulation of the
Iraqis? The Pentagon says they have the weaponry and
will do it rapidly. A long list of retired generals,
both American and British, have voiced their
skepticism. My guess (and for me that is all it is) is
that the outcome of rapid, total victory is not very
likely. I think that a combination of the desperate
determination of the Iraqi leadership plus an upsurge
of Iraqi nationalism plus the announced unwillingness
of the Kurds to fight Saddam (not because they don't
hate him but because they distrust profoundly U.S.
intentions with regard to them) will make it extremely
difficult for the U.S. to end the war in a matter of
weeks. It will probably take many months, and once it
takes many months, who can predict where the winds will
blow, first of all in British and then U.S. public
opinion?

Nevertheless, suppose the U.S. wins quickly. I would
say that, at that point, Bush comes out merely even -
not a winner, but not a loser. Why do I say that?
Because a victory will leave the geopolitical situation
more or less where it is today. First of all, there is
the question of what happens in Iraq the day after
victory? The least one can say is that no one knows,
and it is not at all clear that the U.S. itself has a
clear vision of what it wants to do. What we do know is
that the interests at play are multiple, diverse, and
totally uncoordinated. That is a scenario for anarchic
confusion. For the U.S. to play a significant role in
the postwar decision-making will require a long-term
commitment of troops and a lot of money (really a lot
of money). Anyone who looks at the U.S. economic
situation and the internal politics of the U.S. knows
that the Bush administration would have a very hard job
leaving troops there very long and an even harder job
obtaining the money it would need to play the political
game.

In addition, all the other problems facing the world
would remain intact. First of all, there would be even
less likelihood than now that there could be any
progress towards the creation of a Palestinian state.
The Israeli government would take a U.S. victory as
vindication for its tough line, and simply make it
tougher. The Arab world would get even angrier, if
that's possible. Iran certainly will not stop its drive
for nuclear proliferation. Iran will probably, on the
contrary, be feeling its oats in the region with Saddam
Hussein out of the way. North Korea would step up its
provocations, and South Korea would get even more
uncomfortable with its U.S. ally and the latter's
penchant for military action. And France is likely to
dig in for the long haul. So, as I say, a rapid U.S.
military victory in Iraq would leave us with the
geopolitical status quo - which is certainly not what
the U.S. hawks intend.

But suppose the military victory is not rapid. What
then? In that case, the whole operation is a
geopolitical disaster for the U.S. Pandemonium will
break out, and the U.S. will have as little influence
on its future outcome as say Italy, which is to say not
very much at all. Why do I say that? Think of what will
happen, first of all in Iraq itself. Iraqi resistance
will turn Saddam Hussein into a hero, and he will
certainly know how to exploit that sentiment. The
Iranians and the Turks will both send their troops into
the Kurdish north, and probably end up fighting each
other. The Kurds may side for the moment with the
Iranians. If that happens, the Shiite groups in the
south of Iraq will keep their distance from the U.S.
military efforts. The Saudis may offer themselves as

Re: Re: Article on Illegality of Iraq war

I havent heard that it was explicity written. However Negroponte gave
assurances in the media that there was no automaticity and said there was no
hidden trigger of force. It was on these assurances that everyone signed
on.
Technically I expect you are correct and the CESR is wrong. I am not sure I
have posted this before but here is an article that specifically alludes to
Negrpontes remarks. I am sure his exact words could be found but I got too
much stuff to sift from a Google search.

Cheers, Ken Hanly



A talented lawyer arguing a weak case

The attorney-general's assertion that the use of force against Iraq is legal
without a second UN resolution does not stand scrutiny, says Matthew Happold

Monday March 17, 2003

The attorney-general set out his views today on the legal basis for the use
of force against Iraq. His conclusion was that the use of force against Iraq
would be legal even without a second security council resolution.
According to Lord Goldsmith, authority to use force exists by virtue of the
combined effect of security council resolutions 678, 687 and 1441.
Resolution 678 (1990) was adopted by the security council in response to the
Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait. It authorised the US-led coalition
to use all necessary means to liberate Kuwait and restore peace and
security to the region. Hostilities in the Gulf war were then terminated by
resolution 687 (1991), which imposed a long list of obligations on Iraq,
including several regarding disarmament. Iraq is in breach of these
obligations. Resolution 1441 (2002) found it to be in material breach. In
consequence, according to Lord Goldsmith's argument, the authorisation to
use force granted to the US and the UK by resolution 678 has been
reactivated.

Resolution 1441 gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its
disarmament obligations and warned of serious consequences if it did not.
It did not expressly require a new resolution before force can be used. All
that is needed is an Iraqi failure to comply with 1441 and the reporting to
and discussion of that failure by the security council. Had a further
security council decision been required to sanction the use of force, said
Lord Goldsmith, resolution 1441 would have said so specifically.

There are, however, a number of problems with Lord Goldsmith's analysis. In
the first place, the general view is that security council authorisations of
force are only for limited and specific purposes. In the case of resolution
678, the authorisation to use force terminated with the adoption of
resolution 687. It cannot be revived in completely different circumstances
some 12 years later. Indeed, on the adoption of resolution 687, the USSR and
China specifically stated that it was the task of the security council to
ensure its implementation. This was reflected in the resolution, in which
the security council decided to remain seized of the matter and take such
further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present
resolution and to ensure peace and security in the area. It is for the
security council to determine how to deal with Iraq, not UN member states
acting unilaterally.

In the second place, Lord Goldsmith's arguments have been used before and
have been rejected. Throughout the 1990s, the US and the UK sought to
justify the bombing of Iraqi military facilities by arguing that they were
responding to breaches of Iraq's obligations under resolution 678. In early
1998, after Iraq's withdrawal of cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors,
the US and the UK threatened to use force to enforce the Security Council's
will. The threat was lifted when the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan,
visited Baghdad and secured an agreement permitting the return of the
weapons inspectors.

The security council endorsed the agreement in resolution 1154 (1998).
However, the council rejected British and US proposals that breach by Iraq
of its obligations under the Annan agreement should automatically authorise
the use of force (what is known as automaticity). The view that unilateral
forcible responses to Iraqi violations were permitted was specifically
rejected by the delegations of Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Gambia, Japan,
Malaysia, Pakistan, Slovenia and Sweden. When Iraq again withdrew
cooperation in the autumn of 1998, in resolution 1205 the security council
condemned Iraqi actions as a flagrant violation of resolution 687 and
decided, in accordance with its primary responsibility for the maintenance
of international peace and security, to remain actively seized of the
matter. Again, it was indicated that there should be no automaticity of
response, although in conducting Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 the
US and the UK chose to ignore these views.

In the third place, resolution 1441 does not do what Lord Goldsmith says it
does. It does not authorise the use of force. The term serious

To Ian Murray

Ian, you cite this as an example of my attacking people rather than ideas?

To the contrary, a pacifist (in the sense of being opposed to the
right of the imperialists to make war) position is the only one that
principled Marxists, radicals and progressives can put forward.
Perhaps you should write letters to Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, John 
Pilger, Tariq Ali and Greg Palast as well, who have been making the same 
point all over the place.

In any case, I have two standards. One that I use for people on PEN-L, 
which is fairly restrained. The other is for celebrities not on the list 
(other than those that Doug Henwood favors) like Michael Berube, Russell 
Jacoby, Bill Domhoff and other pro-war, pro-big business, pro-two party 
system scumbags. I have no plans to refrain from heavy doses of sarcasm 
and even--gasp!--ad hominem attacks when addressing such people. If this 
offends you, I invite you to put me into a killfile as some other people 
have crowed that they will do, but somehow never follow up on.

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 535 members of Congress and ...

2003-03-21 Thread Carrol Cox



Robert Scott Gassler wrote:
 
 At the beginning of boht the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, there was a
 draft, and members of Congress may have had draft-age sons. At the
 beginning of WWII 

This is wrong. The draft began in 1940. Then the upper age limit was
reduced, and some who had been drafted were discharged, then the war
broke out, and those in their '30s who had been discharged were
redrafted. Hank Greenberg, the Detroit baseball player, was among those
in-out-ins.

Carrol

RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?

Title: RE: [PEN-L:35855] G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?

Instead of being pelted with petty personal attacks, Domhoff should be given credit for doing excellent research to produce his books. His theory's not very deep (in my humble opinion), but most of the people on pen-l are simply shouting into the wind, to be almost completely ignored by others, unless they're part of a mass movement.

Elite-focused analysis and empirical research (C. Wright Mills, Domhoff) contributed mightily to the theoretical vision of U.S. New Left of the 1960s, which _was_ a mass movement. Unfortunately, a lot of that was replaced by the crudest kinds of ideology masquerading as Marxism -- rather than seeking a Marx/New Left synthesis.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
stop the war now!

-Original Message-
From: e. ahmet tonak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 7:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: G. William Domhoff; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:35855] G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?

Lou,

If it is not too personal, it would be a good idea to forward
Domhoff's
entire response. Did you do it already?

Louis Proyect wrote:

Bill Domhoff wrote:

for a Marxist, you don't seem to have much appreciation for
structure, except of course in the economyat least so I gather
from reading your last paragraphthe recent I didn't
waste my time
on...but your arrogance is breath taking, of course, and
what else is
new, and why not bother to read the book, and maybe learn
why we have
failed so miserably, and if you think anyone who did what
I suggest
would do less well than Marxism, that is pathetic...

Sorry, Bill, I don't have much time for dreams. Nor Yoga, nor
transcendental meditation, nor mystical peyote insights.
(Now, if you
know where I can get a hold of some good hashish, that's
another story.)

civil rights movement, feminist movement, and many others
have done
well with help of left, including some marxists, but everything
marxist has failed totally

What do they call that now? The god that failed? Oh well. I
worry more
about my arches falling.

read the book, but I won't be opening any more of your arrogant
emails...

Yes, you will since I have cast a magical spell on you.
Ooooga-boooga!

Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

E. Ahmet Tonak
Professor of Economics

Simon's Rock College of Bard
84 Alford Road
Great Barrington, MA 01230

Tel: 413 528 7488
Fax: 413 528 7365
www.simons-rock.edu/~eatonak

PK on deficit fears

Title: PK on deficit fears

March 21, 2003/New York TIMES
Who Lost the U.S. Budget?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The Onion describes itself as America's finest news source, and it's not an idle boast. On Jan. 18, 2001, the satirical weekly bore the headline Bush: Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over, followed by this mock quotation: We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it.

Whatever our qualms about how we got here, all Americans now hope that the foreign front proceeds according to plan. Meanwhile, let's talk about the fiscal front.

The latest official projections acknowledge (if you read them carefully) that the long-term finances of the U.S. government are in much worse shape than the administration admitted a year ago. But many commentators are reluctant to blame George W. Bush for that grim outlook, preferring instead to say something like this: Sure, you can criticize those tax cuts, but the real problem is the long-run deficits of Social Security and Medicare, and the unwillingness of either party to reform those programs.

Why is this line appealing? It seems more reasonable to blame longstanding problems for our fiscal troubles than to attribute them to just two years of bad policy decisions. Also, many pundits like to sound balanced, pronouncing a plague on both parties' houses. To accuse the current administration of wrecking the federal budget sounds, well, shrill - and we don't want to sound shrill, do we?

There's only one problem with this reasonable, balanced, non-shrill position: it's completely wrong. The Bush tax cuts, not the retirement programs, are the main reason why our fiscal future suddenly looks so bleak.

I base that statement on a new study that compares the size of the Bush tax cuts with that of the prospective deficits of Social Security and Medicare. The results are startling.

Accountants estimate the actuarial balance of Social Security and Medicare the same way a private insurance company would: they calculate the present value of projected revenues and outlays, and find the difference. (The present value of a future expense is the amount you would have to invest today to have the money when the bill comes due. For example, if $1 invested in U.S. government bonds would be worth $2 by the year 2020, then the present value of $2 in 2020 is $1 today.) And both programs face shortfalls: the estimated actuarial deficit of Social Security over the next 75 years is $3.5 trillion, and that of Medicare is $6.2 trillion.

But how do these shortfalls compare with the fiscal effects of recent and probable future tax cuts?

The new study, carried out by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimates the present value of the revenue that will be lost because of the Bush tax cuts - those that have already taken place, together with those that have been proposed - using the same economic assumptions that underlie those Medicare and Social Security projections. The total comes to $12 trillion to $14 trillion - more than the Social Security and Medicare shortfalls combined. What this means is that the revenue that will be sacrificed because of those tax cuts is not a minor concern. On the contrary, that revenue would have been more than enough to top up Social Security and Medicare, allowing them to operate without benefit cuts for the next 75 years.

The administration has tried to deny this conclusion, inventing strange new principles of accounting in the process. But the simple truth is that the Bush tax cuts have utterly transformed our fiscal outlook, for the worse. Without those tax cuts, the problems of an aging population might well have been manageable; with them, nothing short of an economic miracle can save us from a fiscal crisis.

And there's a lesson here that goes beyond fiscal policies. On almost every front the outlook for the United States now seems far bleaker than it did two years ago. Has everything gone wrong because of evildoers and external forces? In the case of the budget - and the economy and, yes, foreign policy - the answer is no. The world has turned out to be a tougher place than we thought a few years ago, but things didn't have to be nearly this bad.

The fault lies not in our stars, but in our leadership.
--
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
stop the war now!

Re: To Ian Murray

- Original Message -
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 6:02 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:35853] To Ian Murray

 Ian, you cite this as an example of my attacking people rather than
ideas?

 To the contrary, a pacifist (in the sense of being opposed to the
 right of the imperialists to make war) position is the only one that
 principled Marxists, radicals and progressives can put forward.

===

Only that the notion of pacifism includes, is consistent with, an
obligation to engage in communication that refrains from attempts at
character assassination.

 Perhaps you should write letters to Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, John
 Pilger, Tariq Ali and Greg Palast as well, who have been making the same
 point all over the place.

=

I have no intention of  'using up' the time those people have. They're
busy enough trying to craft messages that will reach large audiences
without engaging in pre-emptive contempt for them.

 In any case, I have two standards. One that I use for people on PEN-L,
 which is fairly restrained. The other is for celebrities not on the list
 (other than those that Doug Henwood favors) like Michael Berube, Russell
 Jacoby, Bill Domhoff and other pro-war, pro-big business, pro-two party
 system scumbags. I have no plans to refrain from heavy doses of sarcasm
 and even--gasp!--ad hominem attacks when addressing such people. If this
 offends you, I invite you to put me into a killfile as some other people
 have crowed that they will do, but somehow never follow up on.

==

There are no celebrities here. Your sarcasm looks a lot like adolescent
name calling and facile attempts at character assassination to me and a
lot of other people, especially those on the receiving end of your
communication. What is it, objectively?

Ian

Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?

2003-03-21 Thread Michael Perelman

I think with the killing of people in Iraq, Palestine,  we don't need
to center on personalities.

On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 07:56:11AM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
 Instead of being pelted with petty personal attacks, Domhoff should be given
 credit for doing excellent research to produce his books. His theory's not
 very deep (in my humble opinion), but most of the people on pen-l are simply
 shouting into the wind, to be almost completely ignored by others, unless
 they're part of a mass movement. 
 
 Elite-focused analysis and empirical research (C. Wright Mills, Domhoff)
 contributed mightily to the theoretical vision of U.S. New Left of the
 1960s, which _was_ a mass movement. Unfortunately, a lot of that was
 replaced by the crudest kinds of ideology masquerading as Marxism -- rather
 than seeking a Marx/New Left synthesis. 
 
 
 Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
 stop the war now!
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: e. ahmet tonak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 7:41 AM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Cc: G. William Domhoff; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: [PEN-L:35855] G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
  
  
  Lou,
  
  If it is not too personal, it would be a good idea to forward 
  Domhoff's 
  entire response.  Did you do it already?  
  
  Louis Proyect wrote:
  
   Bill Domhoff wrote:
  
   for a Marxist, you don't seem to have much appreciation for 
   structure, except of course in the economyat least so I gather 
   from reading your last paragraphthe recent I didn't 
  waste my time 
   on...but your arrogance is breath taking, of course, and 
  what else is 
   new, and why not bother to read the book, and maybe learn 
  why we have 
   failed so miserably, and if you think anyone who did what 
  I suggest 
   would do less well than Marxism, that is pathetic...
  
  
   Sorry, Bill, I don't have much time for dreams. Nor Yoga, nor 
   transcendental meditation, nor mystical peyote insights. 
  (Now, if you 
   know where I can get a hold of some good hashish, that's 
  another story.)
  
   civil rights movement, feminist movement, and many others 
  have done 
   well with help of left, including some marxists, but everything 
   marxist has failed totally
  
  
   What do they call that now? The god that failed? Oh well. I 
  worry more 
   about my arches falling.
  
   read the book, but I won't be opening any more of your arrogant 
   emails...
  
  
   Yes, you will since I have cast a magical spell on you. 
  Ooooga-boooga!
  
  
   Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
  
  
  
  
  -- 
  
  
  
  E. Ahmet Tonak
  Professor of Economics
  
  Simon's Rock College of Bard
  84 Alford Road
  Great Barrington, MA 01230
  
  Tel:  413 528 7488
  Fax: 413 528 7365
  www.simons-rock.edu/~eatonak
  
  
  
  
  

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?

Title: RE: [PEN-L:35859] Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?





 I think with the killing of people in Iraq, Palestine,  
 we don't need
 to center on personalities.


That's what I was saying: petty attacks on Domhoff and the like are distractions (at best). 



Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
stop the war now!

Re: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?

I did forward the whole thing. It was just interspersed by my own 
comments. I did get another message from him that is not worth 
commenting on.

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?

Devine, James wrote:
Instead of being pelted with petty personal attacks, Domhoff should be 
given credit for doing excellent research to produce his books. 
What for? Professors are paid to do excellent research. Last night I 
told my wife that 90 percent of the people on lists like PEN-L and PSN 
have absolutely nothing to show for their radicalism except the books 
and articles they write, which is a little bit like me being saluted for 
writing Java code.

a revolutionary career does not lead to banquets and honorary titles, 
interesting research and professorial wages. It leads to misery, 
disgrace, ingratitude, prison and a voyage into the unknown, illuminated 
by only an almost superhuman belief.

Max Horkheimer

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Re: To Ian Murray

Ian Murray wrote:
There are no celebrities here. Your sarcasm looks a lot like adolescent
name calling and facile attempts at character assassination to me and a
lot of other people, especially those on the receiving end of your
communication. What is it, objectively?
Well, other people like it just fine. That's what makes the Internet 
such a lively place. It is called free speech.

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The wholething?

2003-03-21 Thread Doug Henwood

Michael Perelman wrote:

I think with the killing of people in Iraq, Palestine,  we don't need
to center on personalities.
And who is centering on personalities? Now it's Domhoff, added to a 
long list of ad hominems, including Jim O'Connor and David Harvey - 
three radical scholars who've done really fine work. This kind of 
spurious even-handedness is deeply unfair Michael.

Doug

Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The wholething?

Doug Henwood wrote:
And who is centering on personalities? Now it's Domhoff, added to a long 
list of ad hominems, including Jim O'Connor and David Harvey - three 
radical scholars who've done really fine work. This kind of spurious 
even-handedness is deeply unfair Michael.
The only thing I ever wrote about David Harvey is in the URPE journal 
that can be read at: 
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/indian/Harvey_Indian.htm.

What happened between me and Jim O'Connor is ancient history.

Henwood has complained numerous times privately to Michael Perelman 
about my presence on the list. He cannot stand the fact that I am here. 
He would like to exclude me because my version of Marxism and his 
own--such as it is--clash. But instead of answering me about David 
Harvey or whatever else, he accuses me of flaming David Harvey or not 
honoring the decorum of PEN-L. This kind of exclusionary attitude should 
be condemned by anybody serious about the use of the Internet for the 
free and open exchange of ideas.

In point of fact, the letter to Domhoff was not only accepted by the 
moderators of PSN, it was read by the subscribers with no complaints 
about ad hominem, etc. PSN has over 800 subscribers and is the primary 
voice of leftwing sociologists on the Internet. The furor here is not 
about Domhoff, it is about me.

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

flaming

2003-03-21 Thread Michael Perelman

I am going to have to be off line for the rest of the day.  Please,
everybody involved, cool it.

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?

2003-03-21 Thread Michael Perelman

Please, let's cool it.  There are more important things going on now.  Do
we really need circular firing squads?

On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 12:09:10PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
 Doug Henwood wrote:
  And who is centering on personalities? Now it's Domhoff, added to a long 
  list of ad hominems, including Jim O'Connor and David Harvey - three 
  radical scholars who've done really fine work. This kind of spurious 
  even-handedness is deeply unfair Michael.
 
 The only thing I ever wrote about David Harvey is in the URPE journal 
 that can be read at: 
 http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/indian/Harvey_Indian.htm.
 
 What happened between me and Jim O'Connor is ancient history.
 
 Henwood has complained numerous times privately to Michael Perelman 
 about my presence on the list. He cannot stand the fact that I am here. 
 He would like to exclude me because my version of Marxism and his 
 own--such as it is--clash. But instead of answering me about David 
 Harvey or whatever else, he accuses me of flaming David Harvey or not 
 honoring the decorum of PEN-L. This kind of exclusionary attitude should 
 be condemned by anybody serious about the use of the Internet for the 
 free and open exchange of ideas.
 
 In point of fact, the letter to Domhoff was not only accepted by the 
 moderators of PSN, it was read by the subscribers with no complaints 
 about ad hominem, etc. PSN has over 800 subscribers and is the primary 
 voice of leftwing sociologists on the Internet. The furor here is not 
 about Domhoff, it is about me.
 
 -- 
 
 The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?

2003-03-21 Thread andie nachgeborenen

Let's everybody chill out. Louis' participation in this latest round has been constructive. We needn't have matters degenerate as they have at times. right now there's a war on. Can everyone here be nice to each other over things that don't matter? Louis has actually beeing trying to do that. As for all of you, Poof! I put a spell on you . . . of Comradeship! jks

Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug Henwood wrote: And who is centering on personalities? Now it's Domhoff, added to a long list of ad hominems, including Jim O'Connor and David Harvey - three radical scholars who've done really fine work. This kind of spurious even-handedness is deeply unfair Michael.The only thing I ever wrote about David Harvey is in the URPE journal that can be read at: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/indian/Harvey_Indian.htm.What happened between me and Jim O'Connor is ancient history.Henwood has complained numerous times privately to Michael Perelman about my presence on the list. He cannot stand the fact that I am here. He would like to exclude me because my version of Marxism and his own--such as it is--clash. But instead of answering me about David Harvey or whatever else, he accuses me of "flaming" David H!
arvey or not honoring the decorum of PEN-L. This kind of exclusionary attitude should be condemned by anybody serious about the use of the Internet for the free and open exchange of ideas.In point of fact, the letter to Domhoff was not only accepted by the moderators of PSN, it was read by the subscribers with no complaints about "ad hominem", etc. PSN has over 800 subscribers and is the primary voice of leftwing sociologists on the Internet. The furor here is not about Domhoff, it is about me.-- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.orgDo you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

two people killed in anti-war protest

2003-03-21 Thread e. ahmet tonak

The BBC reported this two deaths.  I am interested in knowing anything 
else like this, i.e. any other deaths, large scale assault, etc.?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2872873.stm

E. Ahmet Tonak
Professor of Economics
Simon's Rock College of Bard
84 Alford Road
Great Barrington, MA 01230
Tel:  413 528 7488
Fax: 413 528 7365
www.simons-rock.edu/~eatonak

Re: The politics underlying the war

2003-03-21 Thread Kendall Grant Clark

 chris == Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  chris obviously futile. But as the stories mount of unnecessary
  chris civilian deaths and maimings, and of deaths through friendly
  chris fire and accidents, this propels the relevance of continued
  chris protests, against an unjust and inappropriate use of force. Yes
  chris even if they find some prisoners in Saddam's jails who have had
  chris their tongues cut out, as they promise us, it will still be
  chris relevant to campaign against the excessive and inappropriate use
  chris of force!

Chris,

But where does that leave us (uh, the left) when or if such stories
don't emerge, either because the Pentagon's (rather brillant, IMO)
'embedding' strategy simply strangles the news before it leaks out or, as
seems more likely, there *aren't* any such stories to tell?

It seems possible, at this very early point, that Bush  Co. will get a
relatively bloodless win against Hussein, who will be spun as a paper
tiger.

In other words, what if Baghdad falls, not with an 'unnecessary' number of
civilian deaths, but with none at all? That seems at least possible right
now, and if it happens that way, it would seem to seriously undercut what
I understand you to be arguing as the basis of an antiwar position.

But perhaps I've misunderstood you? (Reading further, I think I agree with
your broader point about national sovereignty, but I oppose this war not
on those grounds, but because it's neither necessary nor a matter of last
resort. Well, and acquiescing to it seems to me to be acquiescing to the
enactment of imperial power -- and that just *feels* wrong.)

Kendall Clark
-- 
Jazz is only what you are. -- Louis Armstrong

Politics of 'Oil for Food': The big catch

2003-03-21 Thread Paul_A


http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2003/03/20/042.html
Thursday, Mar. 20, 2003. Page 7
Report: U.S. Plans to Tap $40Bln Iraq Account


In itself, the current proposal of Kofi Anon is technical and almost 
required: the residual unspent amounts left over from the sale of Iraqi oil 
under the sanctions (in the billions) will be needed by desperate and 
suffering people.  So the U.N. Secretariat should be authorized to use the 
residual funds quickly on its own since there will be no Iraqi government 
in the picture (the current Resolution requires the UN Secretariat to use 
lengthy procedures involving the Iraqi government and the Security Council).

The catch - who will control the NEXT batch of Iraqi oil to be sold (and, 
of course, for the long term)?  The Military Government?  Under what 
rules?  For example:

- Will 'humanitarian needs' include 'public safety' and thus 
reimburse the U.S./UK for the costs of the occupation?
- The current 'Oil for Food' took billions (25% or maybe some $10 
billion?) from Iraq and gave it to other countries as war 
reparations  (surpassing Versailles).  Now will the US/UK receive 
reparations for the cost of the war using this precedent?
- Until there is a legally recognized national Government, who 
will control the oil fields and sell the oil?  U.S./UK oil companies under 
a leasing arrangement with the Military Government?  (Of course this leads 
to the issue of the ultimate privatization of the oil fields themselves.)

There is one big point of leverage over the US/UK.  To export Iraqi oil 
legally (other than through 'Oil for Food') there will have to be a 
Security Council Resolution.  Could the US/UK try to attach the first steps 
in this direction to a more innocuous Resolution?  The press reports that 
the US/UK have floated a private draft of a new 'Oil for Food' 
resolution.  Alternatively they may have to wait for some weeks or months, 
when there is an impending crisis as the residual funds run out and when 
they have some sort of local Iraqi partners.

spat upon veterans

2003-03-21 Thread marty

For those intested in the history of the spat upon veteran and attempts 
to create a new myth about the contemporary military, read the 
newspaper story at:

http://www.mountainx.com/news/2003/0319troops.php

Marty Hart-Landsberg

butcher

2003-03-21 Thread Dan Scanlan

Title: butcher




-- 
--
Drop Bush, Not Bombs!
--

During times of universal deceit, 
telling the truth becomes a revolutionary
act.

George Orwell

-

END OF THE TRAIL SALOON
Live music, comedy, call-in radio-oke
Alternate Sundays, 6am GMT (10pm PDT)
http://www.kvmr.org 



I uke, therefore I am. -- Cool Hand
Uke
I log on, therefore I seem to be. -- Rodd
Gnawkin

Visit Cool Hand Uke's Lava Tube:
http://www.oro.net/~dscanlan

attachment: bush.jpg

RE: Politics of 'Oil for Food': The big catch

Title: RE: [PEN-L:35871] Politics of 'Oil for Food': The big catch





also, despite all the possible aid to the Iraqi people, the overhead and clean-up will be likely supplied by Bush cronies, who will profit mightily.

JD


(hi, Paul!)
-Original Message-
From: Paul_A
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 3/21/2003 10:00 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:35871] Politics of 'Oil for Food': The big catch




http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2003/03/20/042.html
Thursday, Mar. 20, 2003. Page 7

Report: U.S. Plans to Tap $40Bln Iraq Account




In itself, the current proposal of Kofi Anon is technical and almost 
required: the residual unspent amounts left over from the sale of Iraqi
oil 
under the sanctions (in the billions) will be needed by desperate and 
suffering people. So the U.N. Secretariat should be authorized to use
the 
residual funds quickly on its own since there will be no Iraqi
government 
in the picture (the current Resolution requires the UN Secretariat to
use 
lengthy procedures involving the Iraqi government and the Security
Council).


The catch - who will control the NEXT batch of Iraqi oil to be sold
(and, 
of course, for the long term)? The Military Government? Under what 
rules? For example:


 - Will 'humanitarian needs' include 'public safety' and thus 
reimburse the U.S./UK for the costs of the occupation?
 - The current 'Oil for Food' took billions (25% or maybe some
$10 
billion?) from Iraq and gave it to other countries as war 
reparations (surpassing Versailles). Now will the US/UK receive 
reparations for the cost of the war using this precedent?
 - Until there is a legally recognized national Government, who 
will control the oil fields and sell the oil? U.S./UK oil companies
under 
a leasing arrangement with the Military Government? (Of course this
leads 
to the issue of the ultimate privatization of the oil fields
themselves.)


There is one big point of leverage over the US/UK. To export Iraqi oil 
legally (other than through 'Oil for Food') there will have to be a 
Security Council Resolution. Could the US/UK try to attach the first
steps 
in this direction to a more innocuous Resolution? The press reports
that 
the US/UK have floated a private draft of a new 'Oil for Food' 
resolution. Alternatively they may have to wait for some weeks or
months, 
when there is an impending crisis as the residual funds run out and when


they have some sort of local Iraqi partners.

NO TO WAR in Cochabamba, Bolivia

2003-03-21 Thread Tom Kruse

Title: PK on deficit fears









Just got back from our rally and march. A great group of about 400 people, highschoolers, retired workers, nuns and anarchists
gathered at noon in the central plaza, did a couple of rounds, and then marched
to the US Consulates office in a fancy office building some 10 blocks
away. (Also in that building is
Duke Energy, who generates the power I am at this moment consuming, and TransRedes, the Shell/Enron affiliate,
that pipes Bolivian carries gas and oil to buyers.) All along the way we received supportive
waves, honks, cheers.



Arriving at the US Consulates office, we did all kinds of
chanting, singing, and general carrying-on. The nuns led a rousing rendition of Leon
Giecos Solo le pido
a dios, now a standard anti-war number, made
famous up there by Mercedes Sosa.
Not to be outdone, the radical students stared chanting for parts of
Bushs genitalia. I was next
to the nun contingent, and was delighted to see some of them chanting along,
and when the chant died down, cracking up over their public transgressions.



What an awful day; what a great day.



--

Tom Kruse

Casilla 5812

Cochabamba

BOLIVIA

Tel/Fax: (591-4) 424-8242

eFax: (413) 280-5234

[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--

homeland security signs

2003-03-21 Thread Ann Li

http://titaniumcounter.com/temp/emergency/

Report on Anti-War Actions from Columbus, OH

2003-03-21 Thread Yoshie Furuhashi

Protests in Columbus, OH have never been able to match those of 
Chicago, San Francisco, and other big cities, but we're making 
progress in number, breadth, and militancy.

Tuesday, March 18:
* Die-ins at 15th Ave. and High St., Noon-1 PM (about 30 people) and 
5-6 PM (124 people).

Thursday, March 20:
* a walkout of high school students, led by Rachel Levine.  Columbus 
has strong secular Jewish voices for peace.
* an interfaith prayer service for peace at First Congregational 
Church, 7 PM.  Through the planning of this prayer service, a new 
group Faith Communities United for Peace was formed, led by a 
wonderful Methodist man John Wagner, who had already organized 
Methodists for Peace here.
* a protest at the Federal Building, from 9 PM.  About 1,000 showed 
up, chanting, drumming, speechifying, primal-screaming.  Most drivers 
honked for peace enthusiastically, with only a few giving us thumbs 
down.  We were wildly popular.  Small groups decided to provide 
round-the-clock presence of dissenters at the Federal Building. 
We'll come out in force tonight at 9 PM again.

Our regular anti-war activities will also continue:
* Weekly Vigils (Women in Black), every Friday, 5:30-6:30 PM, 15th 
Ave. and High St., Columbus, OH
* Weekly Demonstrations, every Saturday, Noon to 1 PM, N. Broadway 
and High St., Columbus, OH
* Weekly Demonstrations, every Saturday, Noon to 1 PM, Rt.161 (Dublin 
Granville Rd.) and High St. in Worthington
* Weekly Demonstrations, every Saturday, Noon to 1 PM, Broad and 
Drexel in Bexley
* Weekly Demonstrations, every Sunday, 5-6 PM, 15th Ave. and High 
St., Columbus, OH
As you may see from the above locations, we now have neighborhood 
protest groups taking actions in places other than downtown and the 
OSU campus area.

--
Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: 
http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html
* Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/
* Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio
* Solidarity: http://solidarity.igc.org/

Re: Re: The politics underlying the war

2003-03-21 Thread Waistline2

In a message dated 3/20/03 11:21:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

At 2003-03-20 08:10 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
Chris Burford wrote:
We will see how the peace movement responds and evolves, and we can each make our personally minuscule contribution to the debate. Peace now, or Cease fire now, may remain the main slogans, but a purely pacifist position will isolate the movement from its wide hinterland, and so I suggest would a campaign based mainly on a rearguard defence of national sovereignty.
To the contrary, a "pacifist" (in the sense of being opposed to the right of the imperialists to make war) position

By pacifist, I mean someone absolutely opposed to war under all circumstances. I see the peace movement as composed of pacifists, anarchists, and liberals who think the present war is disproportionate and a manifestation of hegemonism.

is the only one that principled Marxists, radicals and progressives can put forward.
I do not see the main objection to imperialism being that it claims a right to go to war, and I am genuinely puzzled by this emphasis on "right" as if our struggles are mainly about whether we uphold or oppose a moral right. Imperialism in the sense of the highest stage of capitalism is now a global system of oppression and exploitation. Of course it uses war. But its prefered policy is increasingly one of peaceful domination and manipulation, G W Bush not withstanding.

I think there is a serious criticism of imperialism that it trashed Africa and did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda. I might be right or wrong, but a lot of other people think that. Why absolutise a concept of the "right" of imperialism to go to war, or absolutise opposition to it?

I absolutely uphold not the right but the duty of imperialism to go to war against Nazi Germany in alliance with Soviet Russia. Louis Proyect and I have well-known and quite unsurprising differences on that. Louis Proyect supports Lenin's position at Zimmerwald. I support the turn in the international communist movement at its seventh congress in 1935.

Comment

Imperialism in the sense of the highest stage of capitalism is the domination of financial-industrial, which has been driven to a new phase wherein the speculative sector of finance capital writes the global agenda for the world total social capital.

In our current era of history what has emerged within the world total social capital is a financial sector with no interest in geographical boundaries that have in the past defined the economic and political authority of various sectors within the world total social capital.

The social force called imperialism drives economic development. Imperial means the export of primarily a superior mode of production and its corresponding social organization to a less developed area - as abstraction. The human toil of this export is always written in blood on a parchment of genocide. Thousands of generations of humanity have opposed war on any grounds and each generation produces anti-war warriors.

It is incorrect factually to speak of national states in today's world, when in fact most states in the world today are composed of various peoples, at various stages of national development. Even Iraq, which is being subjected to an intense military assault at the hands of my imperialist bourgeoisie, is a multi-national state, with a historically evolved and defined territorial authority.

Imperial finance capital is of course a system of "global system of oppression and exploitation" but more than that it is a system of specific property relations, which a corresponding mode of accumulation of the social wealth of society.

War as a social institution in human history arises on the basis of the division of labor in human society and the seeking of privileges based on the subjugation, containment or amalgamation of peoples unable to resist a stronger peoples.

In today's world no country on earth - or rather, no geographic area on earth can exist and maintain sustenance for its population that does not export and import. The export of industrial relations of production to every corner of the earth has qualitatively reconfigured the world market during the past 150 years.

Industrial production relations can be isolated as a specific quality or a specific method of production, distinct from other methods of social production. This "quality" called industrial production has gone through various stages and phases of quantitative expansion. In as much as a more efficient method of production always - always, replaces a less efficient method of production, because it saves time for human individuals to pursue activity outside of reproduction. Imperial expansion on the basis of war and the destruction of productive forces has always been undesirable and unacceptable to immense sections of humanity. This includes a vast section of the dominating peoples.

What is called imperial expansion or the

Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...Thewhole thing?

2003-03-21 Thread Michael Hoover

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/21/03 11:52 AM 
Devine, James wrote:
 Instead of being pelted with petty personal attacks,  Domhoff should be 
 given credit for doing excellent research to produce his books. 

What for? Professors are paid to do excellent research. 


whatever gave you above idea?

re. domhoff, his study of social backgrounds of powerful white men was significant 
contribution to wright's 'power elite' theory in indicated further interlocking 
directorate of such types...

still, if origins of this theory were leftist, it was
attractive and popular enough to be appropriated by
political right via dye's 'irony of democracy' notion that masses are asses such 
that it is 'responsible elite' that guarantees democracy as well as more generalized 
rightist claim of 'eastern liberal establishment'...   michael hoover

Re: Re: Jazz corruption.

2003-03-21 Thread andie nachgeborenen

Gil Skillman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

For what it's worth, I think the original connection went corruption--brothels and speakeasies and underground clubs--jazz and sometimes blues.
Right, like I said, New Orleans jazz was whorehouse music to entertain the girls or the customers while waiting.
A prominent source of "corruption" was Prohibition, during which jazz was the hot dance music of the day.
Well, yes, but the hothouse licensed corruption of the Storyville Red Light District antedates Prohibition, and the corruption of the swing era and swing-to-bop period postdates it. But there is no doubt that the gangsters who thrived off Prohibition muscled their way into music and clubs big time afterwards as well as during.
Btw, "hot" jazz was the hot jazz of its day, but there was also sweet jazz of the Paul Whiteman Band variety, mainly done by white performances, that was not hot. Some of it was marvelous. You can't beat Bix Beiderbecke on the horn, unless you're Louis Armstrong.
Nowadays corruption has no particular musical connection
Oh, yeah? See Hit Men: Power Brokers Fast Money Inside the Music Business.by Fredric Dannen
A great read, and really horrifying stories behind the music we love. Makes you long for the days of Al Capone, who after all just wanted his cut.
--cf.Providence RI or swingin' Bridgeport, CT. As for rock n roll, well, different clientele. Were he alive today, I suspect Boss Tweed wouldn't be into heavy metal.
Hmm. What would BossTweed listen to were he alive today? Sousa or the Sex Pistols? This is an old condundrum about subjunctive conditionals. If Caeser were alive today, he would uise (a) catapults, (b) the MOAB. You pick.
jksDo you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

protection rents redux

U.S. Set to Award 7 Contracts for Rebuilding of Iraq
Initial Work Will Go to American Firms

By Paul Blustein and Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 21, 2003; Page A30


The U.S. Agency for International Development said yesterday that it will
shortly award seven contracts to American companies for the initial stages
of reconstruction in postwar Iraq -- two of them as early as today.

Justifying the decision to restrict the contracts to U.S. firms, Andrew S.
Natsios, the USAID administrator, said one reason is the need for the
firms' personnel to have security clearances, because there are
classified documents they have to see.

Natsios and other officials emphasized, however, that they expect the
long-term reconstruction effort to go well beyond the USAID contracts and
include international organizations and aid agencies from other countries,
which would presumably award contracts to non-U.S. firms.

We expect U.N. agencies will be involved in a major way, Natsios said,
adding that he has also been talking below the radar screen . . . for
three or four months now to his counterparts at the aid agencies of other
wealthy countries in the expectation that they, too, would play
significant roles in rebuilding Iraq after U.S.-led forces unseat
President Saddam Hussein.

Other U.S. officials said they envision important contributions from the
International Monetary Fund and World Bank as well. The IMF has
established a task force to study the Iraqi economy, although any
financial support from either it or the World Bank probably would take
considerable time because the two institutions last worked in Iraq in the
1970s and early 1980s.

The U.S. officials' comments may go at least part way toward defusing a
controversy that has arisen over USAID plans to limit its contracts to
U.S. firms. The agency almost always awards American companies a large
portion of its contracts, but international criticism erupted after recent
news reports that the USAID had limited the selection process for the
biggest contracts to a handful of huge U.S. multinational firms, some of
which are well connected to the Bush administration. Those firms include a
subsidiary of Halliburton Co., the company once headed by Vice President
Cheney.

The agency's handling of the matter, and the implication that
international organizations and other aid agencies would be left out, was
denounced as exceptionally maladroit by Chris Patten, the European
commissioner for external relations. The amount of aid that is needed for
reconstruction, although still far from determined, is certain to dwarf
the sum that the USAID is planning to spend on the contracts in question,
and that is one major reason that U.S. officials say they would welcome
involvement by international agencies and other countries. Many experts
have cited estimates ranging from $25 billion to $100 billion for the full
reconstruction, while the largest contract the USAID is planning to award
at this stage is for about $600 million.

That contract, to repair the country's infrastructure, including roads and
bridges, is to be awarded early next week. The field of competitors was
narrowed from seven to two or three, and the companies have been asked to
submit their best and final offers, agency officials said. Two contracts
to administer Iraq's seaport and airports may be awarded as soon as today.

The total cost of the USAID's plan is still unknown, Natsios said, and
will be allocated in a supplementary appropriation bill that President
Bush plans to submit to Congress soon. According to people who have seen
contract documents that have been distributed to some of the firms, the
USAID effort is intended to provide tangible evidence to the people of
Iraq that the U.S. will support efforts to bring the country political
security and economic prosperity.

Even if Washington does not intend to have U.S. firms dominate Iraq's
reconstruction, officials of many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
that have been actively involved in aid are upset about the USAID plan
because it apparently envisions a minor role for them. NGO officials
contend that they have far more expertise than giant companies in the
on-the-ground work in local communities that is required to build
successful health and education systems.

We've received verbal assurances from the U.S. government that NGOs will
be involved in reconstruction activities, but we'll believe it when we see
it, said Sid Balman Jr., a spokesman for InterAction, an umbrella group
of NGOs. There's been a worrisome trend we've been seeing, based on what
we saw in Afghanistan, where the Bush administration seems to be turning
to a small pool of mainly large U.S. contractors for most reconstruction
activities.

RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?

2003-03-21 Thread Sabri Oncu

Now that I have been away from this list for the past two days,
spending some time with the Peace Initiave friends over at
Turkey, look what happened.

Justin,

Apparently your spell did not work.

Could you please give it a second try?

Sabri

PS: By the way, there are many fights going on on Turkish lists
too. Sorry, but to engage in another fight, I need to go there.
Keep up the good work.

Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?

Michael Hoover:

What for? Professors are paid to do excellent research.

whatever gave you above idea?
I have no idea. It just popped into my head like any other outrageous 
thought. In any case, here's what a friend of mine, who teaches at a funky 
NYC community college and who attended Domhoff's panel, had to say:

---

Good letter. I happen to have attended the panel at which he spoke, and no 
one in the audience or on the stage agreed with him. He's obviously become 
another complacent ex-Marxist academic sucking on the public tit (be it 
teaching at a state school or getting federal grants), teaching one or two
courses a year for a six figure salary, attracting good graduate students 
though his previously good name.



Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?

2003-03-21 Thread Joel Blau




Domhoff names names in the structure without conceptualizing it adequately.
It's a much more "American" way of going at the issue. At the other extreme,
people conceptualize the structure elaborately but do not name any names.
Though each has its advantages and disadvantages, a blend of both is best.

Joel Blau

Michael Hoover wrote:

  

  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/21/03 11:52 AM 



Devine, James wrote:

  Instead of being pelted with petty personal attacks,  Domhoff should be given credit for doing excellent research to produce his books. 
  
  What for? Professors are paid to do excellent research. whatever gave you above idea?re. domhoff, his study of social backgrounds of powerful white men was significant contribution to wright's 'power elite' theory in indicated further interlocking directorate of such types...still, if origins of this theory were leftist, it wasattractive and popular enough to be appropriated bypolitical right via dye's 'irony of democracy' notion that "masses are asses" such that it is 'responsible elite' that guarantees democracy as well as more generalized rightist claim of 'eastern liberal establishment'...   michael hoover

Re: protection rents redux

Are there any articles or data on the distribution of contracts for
reconstruction in Afghanistan that Penners would commend?

Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pen-l [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 4:30 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:35881] protection rents redux

 U.S. Set to Award 7 Contracts for Rebuilding of Iraq
 Initial Work Will Go to American Firms

 By Paul Blustein and Renae Merle
 Washington Post Staff Writers
 Friday, March 21, 2003; Page A30

 The U.S. Agency for International Development said yesterday that it will
 shortly award seven contracts to American companies for the initial stages
 of reconstruction in postwar Iraq -- two of them as early as today.

 Justifying the decision to restrict the contracts to U.S. firms, Andrew S.
 Natsios, the USAID administrator, said one reason is the need for the
 firms' personnel to have security clearances, because there are
 classified documents they have to see.

 Natsios and other officials emphasized, however, that they expect the
 long-term reconstruction effort to go well beyond the USAID contracts and
 include international organizations and aid agencies from other countries,
 which would presumably award contracts to non-U.S. firms.

 We expect U.N. agencies will be involved in a major way, Natsios said,
 adding that he has also been talking below the radar screen . . . for
 three or four months now to his counterparts at the aid agencies of other
 wealthy countries in the expectation that they, too, would play
 significant roles in rebuilding Iraq after U.S.-led forces unseat
 President Saddam Hussein.

 Other U.S. officials said they envision important contributions from the
 International Monetary Fund and World Bank as well. The IMF has
 established a task force to study the Iraqi economy, although any
 financial support from either it or the World Bank probably would take
 considerable time because the two institutions last worked in Iraq in the
 1970s and early 1980s.

 The U.S. officials' comments may go at least part way toward defusing a
 controversy that has arisen over USAID plans to limit its contracts to
 U.S. firms. The agency almost always awards American companies a large
 portion of its contracts, but international criticism erupted after recent
 news reports that the USAID had limited the selection process for the
 biggest contracts to a handful of huge U.S. multinational firms, some of
 which are well connected to the Bush administration. Those firms include a
 subsidiary of Halliburton Co., the company once headed by Vice President
 Cheney.

 The agency's handling of the matter, and the implication that
 international organizations and other aid agencies would be left out, was
 denounced as exceptionally maladroit by Chris Patten, the European
 commissioner for external relations. The amount of aid that is needed for
 reconstruction, although still far from determined, is certain to dwarf
 the sum that the USAID is planning to spend on the contracts in question,
 and that is one major reason that U.S. officials say they would welcome
 involvement by international agencies and other countries. Many experts
 have cited estimates ranging from $25 billion to $100 billion for the full
 reconstruction, while the largest contract the USAID is planning to award
 at this stage is for about $600 million.

 That contract, to repair the country's infrastructure, including roads and
 bridges, is to be awarded early next week. The field of competitors was
 narrowed from seven to two or three, and the companies have been asked to
 submit their best and final offers, agency officials said. Two contracts
 to administer Iraq's seaport and airports may be awarded as soon as today.

 The total cost of the USAID's plan is still unknown, Natsios said, and
 will be allocated in a supplementary appropriation bill that President
 Bush plans to submit to Congress soon. According to people who have seen
 contract documents that have been distributed to some of the firms, the
 USAID effort is intended to provide tangible evidence to the people of
 Iraq that the U.S. will support efforts to bring the country political
 security and economic prosperity.

 Even if Washington does not intend to have U.S. firms dominate Iraq's
 reconstruction, officials of many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
 that have been actively involved in aid are upset about the USAID plan
 because it apparently envisions a minor role for them. NGO officials
 contend that they have far more expertise than giant companies in the
 on-the-ground work in local communities that is required to build
 successful health and education systems.

 We've received verbal assurances from the U.S. government that NGOs will
 be involved in reconstruction activities, but we'll believe it when we see
 it, said Sid Balman Jr., a spokesman for InterAction, an umbrella group
 of NGOs. There's been a worrisome trend we've been seeing, based

Pearls from Perle

This is a prime example of the sort of absolute nuttiness and radical
imperialism that drives the Bush policy. Won't even international capital
recoil at this stuff. It promises instability and constant intervention and
a world race to develop WMD's. What other option is there to stop a power
hungry arrogant imperialist who seems to believe in his own
rhetorical madness. And at some stage the opponent will not be an Iraq which
probably has  few if any WMDs. In fact the US may be forced to plant them
after the war. I assume they would not allow unreliable people such as Blix
back in or at least not until they had planted stuff and then given
inspectors intelligence about where they were.


Cheers, Ken Hanly

PS. Notice that at every opportunity now the Iraq war is tied in with the
war against terrorism. US media dont seem to even remark on this. At least
CBC has pointed this out several times.

Thank God for the death of the UN

Its abject failure gave us only anarchy. The world needs order

Richard Perle
Friday March 21, 2003
The Guardian

Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but
not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not
the whole UN. The good works part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping
bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to
bleat. What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new
world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the
better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of
safety through international law administered by international institutions.
As free Iraqis document the quarter-century nightmare of Saddam's rule, let
us not forget who held that the moral authority of the international
community was enshrined in a plea for more time for inspectors, and who
marched against regime change. In the spirit of postwar reconciliation
that diplomats are always eager to engender, we must not reconcile the
timid, blighted notion that world order requires us to recoil before rogue
states that terrorise their own citizens and menace ours.

A few days ago, Shirley Williams argued on television against a coalition of
the willing using force to liberate Iraq. Decent, thoughtful and
high-minded, she must surely have been moved into opposition by an argument
so convincing that it overpowered the obvious moral case for removing
Saddam's regime. For Lady Williams (and many others), the thumb on the scale
of judgment about this war is the idea that only the UN security council can
legitimise the use of force. It matters not if troops are used only to
enforce the UN's own demands. A willing coalition of liberal democracies
isn't good enough. If any institution or coalition other than the UN
security council uses force, even as a last resort, anarchy, rather than
international law, would prevail, destroying any hope for world order.

This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great
moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of
Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France. When challenged with the
argument that if a policy is right with the approbation of the security
council, how can it be wrong just because communist China or Russia or
France or a gaggle of minor dictatorships withhold their assent, she fell
back on the primacy of order versus anarchy.

But is the security council capable of ensuring order and saving us from
anarchy? History suggests not. The UN arose from the ashes of a war that the
League of Nations was unable to avert. It was simply not up to confronting
Italy in Abyssinia, much less - had it survived that debacle - to taking on
Nazi Germany.

In the heady aftermath of the allied victory, the hope that security could
be made collective was embodied in the UN security council - with abject
results. During the cold war the security council was hopelessly paralysed.
The Soviet empire was wrestled to the ground, and eastern Europe liberated,
not by the UN, but by the mother of all coalitions, Nato. Apart from minor
skirmishes and sporadic peacekeeping missions, the only case of the security
council acting during the cold war was its use of force to halt the invasion
of South Korea - and that was only possible because the Soviets were not in
the chamber to veto it. It was a mistake they did not make again.

Facing Milosevic's multiple aggressions, the UN could not stop the Balkan
wars or even protect its victims. It took a coalition of the willing to save
Bosnia from extinction. And when the war was over, peace was made in Dayton,
Ohio, not in the UN. The rescue of Muslims in Kosovo was not a UN action:
their cause never gained security council approval. The United Kingdom, not
the United Nations, saved the Falklands.

This new century now challenges the hopes for a new world order in new ways.
We will not defeat or even contain fanatical terror unless we can carry the
war to the

Michael Albert: Support our Troops

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=3255sectionID=15

Support Our Troops

by Michael Albert; March 17, 2003

If war comes even despite the historic, tenacious, and comprehensive
opposition now raging across the planet, the U.S. government will proclaim
triumphantly that everyone who isn't a traitor needs to rally around
Washington to support our troops. Opponents of the war could opt for many
possible replies.


We could point out that our troops in Iraq are barely in danger at all
because they are assaulting a tenth-rate opponent that has no serious means
to defend Iraq much less to attack the world's sole superpower.


We could point out that while perhaps a few hundred U.S. troops will die in
this war, way over 50,000 U.S. citizens will die in the next 12 months due
to workplace accidents and death by industry-caused diseases and automobile
accidents (not to mention the impact of pollution and unsafe products). We
could then query why this massive yearly blight on our population, roughly
15 times as devastating as 9/11, doesn't provoke a war on corporations'
profit-seeking violations of their employees' and consumers' health and
safety.


Or we could point out that the lives of American troops are no more worthy
of compassionate support than the lives of Iraqis, and that we didn't kill
Hussein a million times over with our decade- long sanctions but we instead
killed a million Iraqis once each -- with Hussein getting stronger as each
new corpse was added to the carnage.


And of course we could explain how unleashing a campaign to shock and awe
a country is unjust and immoral, how it is an archetype example of the
terrorism we say we are against.

But for myself, I think that perhaps a different approach might work
better, and so if war does come, I intend to reply to the demand to support
our troops by saying that yes, I too support our troops.


I will reply that I support our troops not having to kill people in Iraq.


I support our troops not being ordered to assault defenseless populations,
towns, farms, and the infrastructural sinews of life that sustain a whole
country's citizenry.


I support our troops not having to carry out orders from Commander in Chief
George Bush and then having to live the rest of their lives wondering why
they obeyed such a barbaric buffoon rather than resisting his illegitimate,
immoral authority.


And for the same reason, I support the Pope and the Dalai Lama going to
Iraq in the place of our troops, as human shields and also to aid those
Iraqis who have already suffered under our sanctions and bombs as well as
under the violence of Hussein who was, of course, previously the recipient
of U.S. military aid and even U.S. guidance in his horrible undertakings.


In fact, I support all rabbis and priests and other moral leaders going to
Iraq as human shields - and all past Noble Peace Prize winners -- and all
past winners of any big peace or humanitarian prize at all, anywhere -- and
heads of state, for that matter.


I support our troops not dying in Iraq figuratively or literally,
physically or psychologically. I support our troops coming home with their
hearts not broken, retaining humanity and compassion essential to feeling
true solidarity with those who confront tyrannical behavior abroad, or
right here in the U.S. with its 30 million tyrannized poor.


I support our troops coming home with their minds ravenous to comprehend
what is wrong with war for empire, what is wrong with war to obliterate
international law, what is wrong with war to control oil and use it as a
bludgeon against allies and enemies alike, what is wrong with war for
profit, what is wrong with war to intimidate whole nations and continents,
what is wrong with war to subordinate a planet and even to test and trumpet
the tools of war.


What must it do to one's mind and soul to engage as a soldier in a war in
which the enemy is defenseless, in which the motives of one's leaders are
vile, and in which one's own say over the events is nil?


I support our troops refusing to kill on behalf of politicians and
profiteers. I support our troops rebelling against orders, not obeying
them. I support our troops rejecting reasons of state. And I support our
troops coming home to where their real battle is.


We must battle to reinvest our society with aspirations for justice and
equality and with respect for diversity, solidarity, and self-management.


We must battle to eliminate the scourge of private ownership that makes a
few people as rich as whole populations and that leaves many people less
rich than the pets of profiteers.


We must battle to totally eradicate the racism and sexism that denigrate
whole sectors of the population, to free sexuality and culture, to free
creativity, and to sustain the environment.


Bush tells us to bomb Iraq on grounds Iraq may have bombs. He tells us to
bomb Iraq on grounds Iraq curtails freedoms. He tells us to bomb Iraq on
grounds Iraq may be abetting

Napalm used

From Sydney Morning Herald

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749944836.html

The destruction of Safwan Hill was a priority for the attacking forces
because it had sophisticated surveillance equipment near the main highway
that runs from Kuwait up to Basra and then Baghdad. The attacking US and
British forces could not attempt to cross the border unless it was
destroyed.

Marine Cobra helicopter gunships firing Hellfire missiles swept in low from
the south. Then the marine howitzers, with a range of 30 kilometres, opened
a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. They were supported by US
Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US
officer told the Herald.

A legal expert at the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva
said the use of napalm or fuel air bombs was not illegal per se because
the US was not a signatory to the 1980 weapons convention which prohibits
and restricts certain weapons. But the US has to apply the basic principles
of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and take all precautions to protect
civilians. In the case of napalm and fuel air bombs, these are special
precautions because these are area weapons, not specific weapons, said
Dominique Loye, the committee's adviser on weapons and

Sacramento peace protest, 3/21

2003-03-21 Thread Seth Sandronsky

37 arrested Friday at Sacramento peace protest
By Dorothy Korber -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:33 p.m. PST Friday, March 21, 2003
At downtown Sacramento's federal building Friday morning, 37 anti-war 
demonstrators were arrested for staging a die in and blocking the 
courthouse doors. The event was peaceful, with federal security officers 
gently helping older protesters to their feet before placing plastic 
handcuffs on their wrists.
About 100 people showed up for the 9 a.m. protest, many of them dressed in 
black and carrying photos of Iraqi people. When a siren blared, dozens 
dropped to the cold marble tile and sprawled motionlessly until they were 
arrested.
We are here to ask our government to stop this illegal invasion, to listen 
to people around the world who want peace, said Maggie Coulter, speaking 
through a bullhorn.
Using their own public address system, Federal Protective Services officers 
announced that the assembly was unlawful and asked them to disperse. No one 
left.

Full:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/6314611p-7268029c.html
Seth Sandronsky



_
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

will it pay?


Does Conquest Pay? : The Exploitation of Occupied Industrial Societies
Peter Liberman, Richard H. Ullman (Editor), Jack L. Snyder (Editor)
Princeton University Press
ISBN: 0691002428
September 1998


From the Publisher:

 Does Conquest Pay? demonstrates that expansion can, in fact, provide
rewards to aggressor nations. Peter Liberman argues that invaders can
exploit industrial societies for short periods of time and can maintain
control and economic performance over the long term. This is because
modern societies are uniquely vulnerable to coercion and repression.
Hence, by wielding a gun in one hand and offering food with the other,
determined conquerors can compel collaboration and suppress resistance.
Liberman's argument is supported by several historical case studies:
Germany's capture of Belgium and Luxembourg during World War I and of
nearly all of Europe during World War II; France's seizure of the Ruhr in
1923-24; the Japanese Empire during 1910-45; and Soviet hegemony over
Eastern Europe in 1945-89. Does Conquest Pay? suggests that the
international system is more war-prone than many optimists claim.
Liberman's findings also contribute to debates about the stability of
empires and other authoritarian regimes, the effectiveness of national
resistance strategies, and the sources of rebellious collective action.

Japan

The Japan Times: March 22, 2003
Tokyo peace protest draws thousands
The Associated Press

Thousands of demonstrators marched Friday through downtown Tokyo to
protest the war in Iraq and Japan's plans to support the U.S.-led campaign
with nonmilitary aid.
The protests came hours after Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi conferred
by telephone with U.S. President George W. Bush for the first time since
hostilities were launched Thursday. Bush told Koizumi military operations
were going well, officials said.

Koizumi supports efforts by the United States, Japan's main ally, to
disarm Saddam Hussein and has promised to provide aid for refugees and
help rebuild Iraq after the fighting is over.

But the conflict is extremely unpopular in a country with bitter memories
of the crushing defeat it suffered in World War II.

Chanting World peace, no war, thousands took advantage of warm spring
weather and a national holiday to march for peace in Tokyo on Friday
afternoon.

Police estimated about 8,000 marchers set out from downtown Shiba Park.

Organizers said they had hoped for up to 50,000 people to take part.

Students and families carrying placards in Japanese and English were
joined by representatives of opposition parties and the country's labor
unions.

When I thought of children in Iraq, I felt like I had to come, said
housewife Fumiko Nakajima, 38, who was marching with her husband and their
two children. If our government can't stand up to the United States, then
we citizens have to.

They wore signs around their necks reading, We love peace.

Some said they were marching despite a sense of futility.

What I do may not make much of a difference, but I had to do something,
college student Hajime Nakatsuji said. Innocent people are going to
suffer.

The spoils of war to the victors aka Iraq Freedom project

US delays announcement of contracts to run Iraqi air, sea ports
This all copyright by Agency Freedom Press...aka Agence France Press.
Cheers, Ken Hanly


WASHINGTON (AFP) Mar 22, 2003
US President George W Bush's administration delayed the award Friday of a
contract to a US firm to run Iraqi seaports after the war, an official said.
US Agency for International Development (USAID) spokesman Luke Zahner said
the announcement of the winner of the seaports management contract,
originally scheduled for Friday, would now be made Monday.

A separate contract to run airports in postwar Iraq would be announced early
next week, and another contract for the reconstruction of infrastructure
such as bridges and roads was also expected to be awarded Tuesday or
Wednesday.

Delays in contacting the firms involved were blamed for the postponement.

The deals are among eight civilian contracts for the postwar reconstruction
of Iraq, tendered by USAID since January 31 to a select group of US
companies.

The process has been criticised by some analysts because of its secrecy and
the small number of firms involved. No foreign companies were invited to
tender.

The four remaining contracts cover logistical support to manage the
reconstruction efforts in the fields of health, schooling and local
governance.

One deal has already been struck. A 7.1 million dollar personnel contract
was awarded to Washington-based International Resources Group on February
21.

The value of all eight contracts is being kept secret until Bush tells
Congress how much he wants to finance the war, according to Alfonso Aguilar,
a second USAID spokesman.

US press reports said the value could exceed 900 million dollars.

The urgent need to award the contracts prompted a special provisions for an
fast-track procurement process, in which only firms that met certain
criteria were invited to apply, USAID said.

Those criteria included technical capabilites, proven accounting mechanisms,
and the ability to field qualified technical teams at short notice.

Importantly, firms also were required to have personnel cleared to view
classified information.

This is one of the reasons why US firms only are being included in this
first phase, because their personnel need to have security clearance. They
will need to view classified documents, Aguilar said.

Given the size of the contracts, USAID expected the work to require
subcontractors, he said.

In that process of subcontracting, we are making sure it is open to any
firm from anywhere, including foreign firms, he added

Perle has Global connections.






March 21, 2003
Pentagon Adviser Is Also Advising Global Crossing
By STEPHEN LABATON


ASHINGTON, March 20 - Even as he advises the Pentagon on war matters,
Richard N. Perle, chairman of the influential Defense Policy Board, has been
retained by the telecommunications company Global Crossing to help overcome
Defense Department resistance to its proposed sale to a foreign firm, Mr.
Perle and lawyers involved in the case said today.

Mr. Perle, an assistant defense secretary in the Reagan administration, is
close to many senior officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld, who appointed him to lead the policy board in 2001. Though the
board does not pay its members and is technically not a government agency,
it wields tremendous influence in policy circles. And its chairman is
considered a special government employee, subject to federal ethics rules,
including one that bars anyone from using public office for private gain.

Mr. Perle and his lawyer said yesterday that his involvement with Global
Crossing did not violate the ethics rules.

According to lawyers involved in the review and a legal notice that Global
Crossing is preparing to file soon in bankruptcy court, Mr. Perle is to be
paid $725,000 by the company, including $600,000 if the government approves
the sale of the company to a joint venture of Hutchison Whampoa, controlled
by the Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, and Singapore Technologies
Telemedia, a phone company controlled by the government of Singapore.

Lawyers said today that Mr. Perle had been helping Global Crossing for
several weeks. They said he was brought in as a prominent Republican with
close ties to the current officials. He has taken on a particularly
important role, they said, since the company recently pulled back its
request for the government to clear the sale in the face of opposition from
the Defense Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Those agenci
es have said that the proposed deal presents national security and law
enforcement problems, because it would put Global Crossing's worldwide fiber
optics network - one used by the United States government - under Chinese
ownership.

Mr. Perle and his lawyers were preparing to file an affidavit dated March 7
and a legal notice dated today, March 20, that said he was uniquely
qualified to advise the company on the matter because of his job as head of
the Defense Policy Board.

But after a reporter raised questions today about whether Mr. Perle was
using his job at the Defense Policy Board for the benefit of a client, they
said the references to his job should not have been in the legal papers and
would be deleted before they were filed in the bankruptcy proceeding.

In the March 7 affidavit, Mr. Perle said, As the chairman of the Defense
Policy Board, I have a unique perspective on and intimate knowledge of the
national defense and security issues that will be raised by the CFIUS review
process that is not and could not be available to the other CFIUS
professionals. The company used similar language in its legal notice.

CFIUS refers to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a
government group that includes representatives from the Defense Department
and other agencies. It has been considering the deal and has the power to
block it. CFIUS professionals refers to the other lawyers and lobbyists
who have been trying to get the committee to approve the deal.

Mr. Perle, in an interview late this afternoon, said that he had not noticed
the language in the affidavit and that it was an erroneous reference because
the Defense Policy Board has nothing to do with reviewing the sale of
American companies to foreign investors.

It was drafted by the lawyers, and I frankly didn't notice it, he said.

Shortly after that interview, Mr. Perle called back and said that he
remembered that the language concerning the Defense Review Board had
appeared in an earlier draft of the affidavit and that he had struck it out
because it was incorrect.

You have a draft that I never signed, he said.

After consulting with a company lawyer, Mr. Perle called back and in a third
conversation said that he had taken the phrase out of the affidavit because
it seemed inappropriate and irrelevant but that someone put it back in the
document and he signed it without noticing it.

This was a clerical error, and not my clerical error, he said.

An adviser involved with one of the parties in the case said tonight that
Mr. Perle had not read the affidavit closely and that he had, in fact,
signed it but that it would be changed before it was filed.

Mr. Perle said he did not seek an ethics opinion as to whether he could work
on the Global Crossing matter, because he said it posed no legal problems.

I've abided by the rules, he said. The question, I should think, is have
I recommended anything to the secretary or discussed this with the

law and economics of war rents