Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:35:01 +0100
Subject: M-G: Town Meeting Not All It Seemed to Be


I found this on Labor-L.

There is obviously a broad, well-briefed, bold and articulate opposition to
the genocide in Iraq that is capable of rapid mobilization and is appealing
to popular opinion way beyond its own ranks.

Cheers,

Hugh
____________________________


Following is an op-ed piece written by Riad Bahhur, who is a
Palestinian activist who lives in Columbus, Ohio, and who attended the
now-famous town rally where the inability of Albright and other
government representatives to address public concerns about bombing Iraq
was made so abundantly clear.

One can reach Riad Bahhur <bahhur.1-AT-osu.edu>.

*********************************************************************
The failure of last Wednesday's CNN Town Meeting in Columbus to
demonstrate a public mandate for the government's desire to bomb Iraq
underscores the weakness of the Clinton administration's case,
demonstrated by his top foreign policy staff's inability to offer
substantive responses.  Furthermore, the challenges posed by Ohioans,
contrary to the administration's expectation of a docile and
simple-minded midwestern audience, reflected the reservations of a
nation and an international community that is not convinced that a
massive military attack against Iraq is warranted.

Despite the government's public spin on the event as a demonstration of
"democracy at work," their private statements and their determination
never to let such a democratic expression of dissent happen again, is,
in my opinion, almost as troubling as the administration's
saber-rattling.  From my perspective as a red ticket holder (2nd row
seat), it was clear that this was not a town meeting in the traditional
American sense of the term.  First, the overwhelming majority of the
"participants" were allowed in only for decorative purposes - they were
to sit quietly around the arena and provide the widely televised event
with the necessary imagery of  "democracy."

Second, those of us sitting in the section close enough to ask questions
were not given the opportunity to line up at the microphone as is
expected at a real town meeting. We were forced to play investigator,
tracking down CNN employees until we could convince one to put our names
on a list of potential questions.  We were sized up according to the
topic of the question, how we were dressed, and how it would play on
television. One can only speculate on how the phoned-in questions were
screened.

Third, the fact that the meeting was framed as a question and answer
session reflected the paternalistic nature of the government's agenda.
The officials were presented as authoritative sources of knowledge and
we, the citizens, were expected to ask reverential questions and
passively receive answers.   The two most coherent challenges to the
administration's policies came from questioners who would not have been
allowed to speak had it not been for the heckling originating from the
decorative masses.  Several hundred people (a number not even the New
York Times could dispute) from all around St. John's Arena demanded that
they be given a voice.

In an effort to silence the crowds, CNN offered to let one of them
speak, and he asked a critical question about our government's refusal
to apply consistent standards of justice globally.  He pointed out the
government's hypocrisy in attacking Iraq for their challenge of the
make-up of the inspection team, when other countries like Israel and
Indonesia have been invading their neighbors for years with full U.S.
support.   The now-famous rebuttal of the questioner, teacher Jon
Strange, can be applied to the entire staged event: "Madam Albright, you
did not answer the question!"

Other issues not addressed (some not even allowed to be posed) included
the government's failure to make a moral case for causing the civilian
casualties that will number in the thousands if the U.S. strikes.  The
fact that letters were recently sent to the president from several major
American religious groups like the U.S. Catholic bishops and the
National Council of Churches urging him to act compassionately, to lift
the devastating sanctions, and to refrain from military action should
have been raised by the two moderators.  In the bishops' letter, they
referred to United Nations statistics about the number of Iraqi children
who die each month as a direct result of our previous bombing campaigns
and seven years of inhumane sanctions: a devastating 4,500 dead Iraqi
children under the age of five each month.  This is clearly mass
destruction.

The whole world was, and still is, watching.  Three of the five
permanent members of the U.N security council oppose any military
attack, arguing that Iraq's breaches in this current dispute are not
"material" and that a Lone Ranger type U.S. assault would be illegal as
well as immoral.  Expressions of rage against the impending United
States action have ignited the streets of the world's capitals.  The
threat of completely destabilizing the Middle East region is already
more than just a threat, but rather a real consequence of our
government's arrogant and cavalier dismissal of the international
community's attempts to bring about a peaceful resolution.

Our government's credibility has been eroded. A UN spokesman announced
yesterday that the size of the presidential palace complexes in Iraq was
greatly exaggerated by US officials. They are not half as large as
previously claimed by the State Department.  Who knows where the
double-speak ends and where the truth begins when it comes to other
claims by the Clinton administration?

The people of central Ohio have sent a message to the administration,
echoed two days later in Minnesota: We are insulted that you expected us
to play the part of the simple-minded midwesterner who listens passively
and believes everything that comes out of an official's mouth.  While
some cheered when the Secretary of State, in desperation, bandied the
tired "greatest nation on Earth" slogan, many others were offended that
she felt a need to resort to that kind of manipulation to get applause.

By the end of the meeting, the level of applause for the vocal
opposition had increased even beyond the several hundred who had begun
the protests.  The attempt to stage a pep-rally had failed: the
government's rhetoric about the success of democracy aside, their
private comments about the public relations disaster  that can not be
repeated are startling.  The Clinton administration is saying that they
will not allow future democratic dialogues between citizenry and
government if opposing voices are allowed to be represented in any
substantial way.  Calls for "invitation-only" and "more controlled"
interactions with the public are a direct threat to democratic
traditions, especially in times of grave decisions like embarking on a
costly war that is neither morally justifiable nor even likely to
achieve its stated objectives.

--Riad Bahhur


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
**   To unsubscribe, mail to unsubscribe-AT-foil.org with the sole line :  **
**                       unsubscribe foil-l                             **
**   To subscribe, or for assistance, e-mail                            **
**                          info-AT-foil.org                               **
-------------------------------------------------------------------------




     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---