NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/misc/activism/progress/9396

Text File | 1992-12-16 | 6.1 KB | 146 lines

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!daemon
From: Andrew Lang <[e-mail]>
Subject: CT SANE/FREEZE on Somalia
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:03:37 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 131

/* Written  1:54 pm  Dec 16, 1992 by [e-mail] in igc:pn.alerts */
/* ---------- "CT SANE/FREEZE on Somalia" ---------- */
From: <peacenet>
Subject: CT SANE/FREEZE on Somalia

From freezect Wed Dec 16 13:39:20 1992
From: Global Security Education Fund <freezect>

            CONNECTICUT SANE/FREEZE STATEMENT ON
               THE US INTERVENTION IN SOMALIA

     30,000 US troops are being deployed to Somalia for what
is described as a purely humanitarian mission.  Of course
something must be done to alleviate the terrible tragedy in
Somalia, but we question whether sending US troops -- who
are not operating within United Nations peacekeeping forces
-- is the right thing to do.  We also question whether the
stated mission is the real mission.

     If there ever was a time to begin establishing a
strong, truly multilateral, peacekeeping force with the
capability of responding to crises like Somalia, this is it.

     But instead of paying our UN dues, adequately funding
UN peacekeeping forces, and sending troops as part of a
blue-helmeted UN force, President Bush has once again
invoked the supremacy of the United States and refused to
allow our troops to participate under UN command.
Meanwhile, the US is the largest debtor to the United
Nations, owing more than $700 million in back dues and
peacekeeping assessment.

     There are other serious problems with the mission:  The
troops were committed without the consent of Congress,
raising a serious question of constitutionality.  It also
sets a dangerous precedent for US intervention in other
parts of the world.  If this is truly a mission to save the
starving people of Somalia, then why not Bosnia, the Sudan
or Mozambique, to name just a few situations where the
people also face desperate conditions and where hundreds of
thousands are also starving?  Some say because it's "easy";
we can fix this one, with minimal risk to our troops.  But
if that's the new criteria for US foreign policy, the moral
implications are stunning.

     There are also many other questions raised by the
deployment:  Why now?  When hundreds of thousands have
already died and thousands of others face irreparable
physical and mental damage?  Does the US really understand
the situation in Somalia?  Are the right people within
Somalia being consulted and negotiated with?  What will
happen when the US troops leave?

     Even more fundamental questions include:  Is this a
cover for the US to reestablish a strategic military base
close to the Persian Gulf?  Is the military seeking to
redefine itself now that it faces the prospect of deeper
cuts under a Clinton administration?  Why does the United
States continue to lead the world in the sale and delivery
of weapons, creating tomorrow's catastrophes even as we
intervene to fix this one?

     The chaotic "new world order" requires a dramatic new
approach to US foreign and military policy.  Instead of
picking and choosing which tragedies and conflicts demand
response, the United States must promote a new vision of
cooperative security among nations, recognizing that the
security of one nation is predicated on increased security
of all nations.  Such a system of international security
must be based on arms control, demilitarization,
cooperation, and economic justice.  It must include:

     o a strengthened United Nations, democratically
governed by the nations of the world and adequately funded
to respond to human suffering and crises wherever they
occur;
     o strengthened diplomatic mechanisms within the United
Nations to prevent or minimize conflicts before they become
full-blown crises;
     o full payment of back dues and assessment for
peacekeeping forces by all member nations;

     o payment of future dues and peacekeeping from military
budgets, not foreign affairs budgets;

     o deployment of troops only as part of a multilateral
peacekeeping force authorized and commanded by the United
Nations for the purpose of keeping the peace, ensuring
delivery of humanitarian aid, and encouraging diplomatic
solutions to conflict -- unless a nation is directly
threatened at its borders;

     o scaling back of national military forces for
defensive purposes only;

     o a halt to the development, production, and deployment
of weapons of mass destruction, beginning with a
multilateral comprehensive ban on nuclear testing;

     o a halt to the transfer of weapons and technology for
the development and production of weapons, both conventional
and nuclear;

     o promotion of economic conversion for nations with
high levels of dependence on military industry.

     In addition, a United States President should never
deploy troops without the explicit authorization of
Congress, unless it is to defend against imminent attack on
our own nation.  To do so threatens our Constitution and our
democracy.

     Military force does not solve problems and often
creates new ones.  Using military force in militarized or
highly weaponized situations like Somalia sends the message
that those who have military force have power, and continues
the spiral of global violence.  Instead, the United States
must work with other nations to fundamentally reorder
systems of security to create a foundation of lasting peace
and justice.
ACTION:   Write to your Senators and Member of Congress:
    U.S. Senate                U.S. House of Representatives
    Washington DC 20510        Washington DC  20515

Call the White House Comment line:  [phone]

Write to President-elect Bill Clinton, Little Rock AR 72201
and Vice President-elect Al Gore, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20270

Write a letter to the editor of your local paper.