• A publication of Mennonite Central Committee • July–August 2006 • Volume XXXVIII • No. 4 ton hing o as Mem THE WAR ON TERROR W A Five-Year Retrospective

The (Disastrous) Rise of (Misplaced) Power

BY LORA STEINER

n his farewell speech in 1961, President of the world by insulating them in a cocoon IDwight D. Eisenhower warned of the dan- that is impervious to what scientists term gers of a permanent military establishment. ‘disconfirming evidence.’” Noting the recent rise of both a large stand- ing army and an arms industry, he said that In this issue, we include a tribute to Delton its influence—“economic, political, even Franz, the first director of the Washington spiritual”—was being felt everywhere in Office (pg. 2); Angong Acuil explains how Since Sept. 11, U.S. military the United States. military bases have affected the environment spending has risen so much (pg. 3); Peter Dula writes about the U.S. Forty-five years later, Eisenhower’s words bases being built in (pg. 4); Daryl Byler that it now accounts for half still ring true: since Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. mil- examines the tension between the United of all global expenditures for itary spending has risen so much that it now States and Iran (pg. 5); and Lora Steiner war preparations. accounts for half of all global expenditures writes about relations with Latin America for war preparations. The Bush administra- (pg. 6), while Ed Martin analyzes the tion is considering plans to develop a new nuclear deal with India (pg. 7). We’ve also generation of nuclear weapons, and U.S. included several graphs which look at U.S. troops and bases are being moved to new spending trends for war and the military. locations predicated on U.S. strategic inter- ests. While demanding that some countries How are the priorities of the U.S. govern- (like Iran) eschew a nuclear program, the ment affecting its people? How are they United States is supporting others (such as affecting our relationship with the rest of India) in the development of their programs. the world? What would be the most appro- priate response on the part of the U.S. gov- During a recent hearing, Rep. Henry Hyde ernment? IN THIS MEMO (R-IL), who is the chair of the House Inter- Eisenhower didn’t believe that the devel- Tribute to Delton 2 national Relations Committee, offered this caution: “It is a truism that power breeds opment he observed was inherently bad, Environmental Effects 3 arrogance. A far greater danger, however, but said, “We must not fail to comprehend Capital Quotes 3 stems from the self-delusion that is the its grave implications . . . We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted Bases in Iraq 4 more certain companion.” Hyde, who is Catholic and has been in Congress since influence, whether sought or unsought, Reproach or 1975, added, “For individuals and countries by the military industrial complex. The Rapprochement? 5 alike, power inevitably distorts perceptions potential for the disastrous rise of mis- Latin American Relations 6 placed power exists and will persist.” I Nuclear Deal With India 7

THE OTHER SIDE A Tribute to Delton OF THE HILL elton W. Franz opened the MCC Wash- Delton’s vision for prophetic witness was Dington Office in July 1968 and served contagious. As I have traveled across the as its director until December 2003. Delton church these past dozen years, many per- died on March 6, 2006, after a long strug- sons have told me how their lives have gle with Alzheimer’s disease. A memorial been touched and changed by attending one service was held on Capitol Hill on June 3. of the seminars that Delton helped organize in Washington, D.C. Long before talk of the United States as empire became popular, Delton was writing Delton was a founding member of Churches BY J. DARYL BYLER about this theme and calling for a less dom- for Middle East Peace and attended the ineering U.S. foreign policy—one rooted in Oslo agreement signing ceremony at the the practice of justice and concern for vul- White House in 1993. He worked tirelessly nerable people. on U.S. policy affecting Latin America and built relationships with many congressional In offering an alternative witness in Wash- offices. ington, Delton was not discouraged by the small size of the Anabaptist community. John Stoner, who was executive secretary “The insignificance of our small numbers of the MCC U.S. Peace Section during part The best tribute to Delton need not deter us if the authenticity of our of Delton’s tenure, remembers Delton as might be to renew our servant role in the world represents the “prophetic and courageous.” Delton “was ground from which we speak,” he wrote patient with people, but also wonderfully commitment to advocate in 1978. persistent on the task and the goal,” says for just and compassion- Stoner. For Delton, writes Stoner, “the first Indeed, Delton held deep convictions about ate policies that help move of political action was always to clar- the significance of the faith community’s ify and deepen the church’s understanding” communities around the voice. “Our call is no less important than of an issue. Only then could the church world to flourish. that of the ancient prophets in warning give “witness to that understanding to the Israel’s kings of the folly of pursuing war powers in Washington.” at the expense of justice to the poor and oppressed in their midst,” he stated in In the early 1990s, Keith Graber Miller, 1975. “In so doing, we reaffirm our com- professor of religion at Goshen College, mitment to the King of Kings.” wrote his doctoral dissertation on the work of MCC’s Washington Office. “In my 18 months of research, combing through Del- ton’s files and closets, interviewing dozens of people with whom he worked,” Graber Miller writes, “I heard repeatedly from (Hill) staffers and colleagues . . . about Delton’s gracious, prodding spirit, his authenticity, and his integrity.”

WASHINGTON MEMO is written by Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington Office staff. It Perhaps the best tribute to Delton’s life is interprets national legislation and policy, seeking to reflect biblical concerns for justice and peace to renew our commitment to advocate for as represented in the work and statements of MCC U.S. and Mennonite and Brethren in Christ churches. All biblical quotes are from the New Revised Standard Version, unless otherwise noted. just and compassionate U.S. policies that help communities around the world to Staff: Angong Acuil, J. Daryl Byler (Director), Bethany Spicher Schonberg, Lora Steiner (Managing Editor). flourish. I

To contact the MCC U.S. Washington Office, please see our address on the back page. See our weekly commentary at www.thirdway.com and visit our web site at www.mcc.org/us/washington.

Washington Memo (USPS 130-310) is published bi-monthly by Mennonite Central Committee, Akron, PA. Periodical postage paid at Akron, PA. This issue went to press June 16, 2006.

HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: Washington Memo subscription rates are $10 for one year; $18 for two years. Send request and check to MCC, PO Box 500, Akron, PA 17501-0500. For address changes, send your old address with your new address to MCC. Allow 2–4 weeks for address change. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to MCC, PO Box 500, Akron, PA 17501.

IF YOU ARE A SUBSCRIBER: Please check the top of your mailing label for your subscription’s ending date. If it is within the next three months, please send in your renewal to the address above. Thanks for helping us save paper and energy!

2 MCC Washington Memo / July–August 2006 Militarism and its Environmental Effects

ilitary bases have always provided an But in December 2004, officials from the BY ANGONG ACUIL Meconomic boost for the area around Department of Defense (DOD) sought them, but when those bases are closed, the waivers on environmental rules. It wasn’t closure not only has an economic impact the first time. (According to Greenwatch but also has an environmental impact. Today, in the last several years Congress Recovery is difficult—bases frequently has granted exemptions to compliance with leave behind contaminated water, unex- laws such as the Endangered Species Act, ploded munitions and asbestos-ridden soil, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and making cleanup costly and time-consuming. the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.) Officials argued that the restrictions infringed on In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehen- national security. They requested expansion sive Environmental Response, Compensa- of military exemptions to include several The War on Terror has tion and Liability Act (CERCLA)—more environmental and public health regula- been used has an excuse commonly known as the Superfund pro- tions. The War on Terror has been used gram—as a way to curb uncontrolled and as an excuse to get around environmental to get around environmental abandoned hazardous waste. regulations, a trend disturbing to many regulations, a trend dis- who hoped that the DOD would take more The Superfund has a National Priority List turbing to many who hoped responsibility in cleaning up after itself. (NPL), which lists the most contaminated that the DOD would take areas in the United States and its territories. After decades of working with the most more responsibility. Since 1988, more than 34 closed bases deadly weaponry and toxic substances, the have been added to the list, and not one DOD has been left with vast tracts of lands has been completely cleaned up. that are uninhabitable. Because of the cost and time required for environmental cleanup, However, the problem isn’t just domestic: the DOD seems reluctant to play its part. in the 1980s, the General Accounting I Office found the U.S. military to be one of the worst violators of environmental laws. The Filipino American Coalition for Envi- CAPITAL QUOTES ronmental Solidarity (FACES) says that the U.S. military “produces environmental con- “Good fences make good neighbors. Fences don’t make bad tamination in every major domestic and neighbors.” foreign base.” —Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), on the proposed border wall In the last two decades, legislation has been “I think the youth of Iran will do that job. You don’t need the passed and programs initiated to minimize Marines in there.” the damage from military bases. In 1996, —Hamid R. Moghadam, adovocating for internal change in Iran. the Pentagon even issued a directive which New York Times, May 9, 2006 vowed to “display environmental security “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of leadership within [Department of Defense] activities worldwide.” power! I hope we don’t have to wait ’til oil and coal run out before we tackle that.” —Thomas Edison (1847–1931)

MCC Washington Memo / July–August 2006 3

Permanent Bases in Iraq

BY PETER DULA n article in The Washington Post a few On the other hand, President Bush himself months ago titled, “Biggest Base in Iraq has generally said that the future of Ameri- Peter Dula has spent the A past two years working Has Small Town Feel,” described Balad Air can troops in Iraq will be up to future presi- with MCC in Iraq. Base, which houses 20,000 American troops dents and leaders of Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld 40 miles north of . At 27,500 said last Christmas that “at the moment flights a month, it is the busiest airport in there are no plans for permanent bases” the world, busier than London Heathrow in Iraq. (A carefully worded denial: there or Chicago O’Hare. Of the 20,000 troops were never any “plans” for bases in Korea, there, fewer than a thousand ever actually but U.S. troops have been there for 55 leave the base and have contact with Iraqis. years now.) The base has a , , and . It also has a miniature Because of these mixed signals, Rep. golf course. Balad still needs a lot of work, Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced an amend- however; of the $81 billion war appropria- ment to a recent emergency spending bill tions bill recently passed by Congress, $231 for the war, stipulating that no funds in million was for new construction at Balad. the bill could be used to enter into military base agreements with Iraq that would is one of the biggest Amer- lead to permanent U.S. bases. The House ican bases in Iraq. Camp Victory (the approved the amendment in March. The Baghdad International Airport and the Senate later approved a similar amend- surrounding area) and the Green Zone ment. Yet these amendments have no real (the area around the Saddam’s presidential power over presidential policy. palace and the U.S. Embassy) are among The United States has the others. All together, the United States Why is this important? After all, the United has spent at least $4.5 billion on bases. States has hundreds of bases around the kept military bases in world. What’s the big deal about a few every country in which The administration doesn’t like to call these more? First, the presence of U.S. troops it has fought a war since bases “permanent.” The preferred word is on Saudi soil has been a major cause of “enduring.” That is, bases that will endure Islamic (especially Saudi fundamentalist, World War II, with the until they complete the job of installing a i.e. Al Qaeda) resentment of the United exception of Vietnam. functioning democratic regime, beating the States. It has been named as one reason for insurgency and training a competent Iraqi Sept. 11. Second, promising “no permanent army. But as the achievement of those goals bases” sends a clear and necessary signal drags on with no end in sight, people are to the Iraqi people that perhaps the invasion starting to think “enduring” is just another was not simply about American control of Bush administration word for permanent. Iraqi oil reserves. It also sends a message After all, the United States has kept military to the people of the region that the United bases in every country in which it has States does not intend to use Iraq as a fought a war since World War II, with the launching pad for future attempts at exception of Vietnam. regional transformation. I The suspicion is warranted. In April 2003, The New York Times reported that the United States planned four permanent bases in Iraq. In March 2006, General Abizaid, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, told a House committee that the United States could end up with permanent bases in Iraq in order to protect our oil interests and to “help the moderates prevail” over extrem- ists in the region.

4 MCC Washington Memo / July–August 2006

U.S.-Iran Relations: Reproach or Rapprochement?

f you ask most Americans about the his- While President Bush has not responded BY J. DARYL BYLER Itory of strained U.S.-Iran relations, they directly to Ahmadinejad’s letter, U.S. would probably talk about 1979—the year Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Iranian students took 52 Americans hostage announced in late May that the United at the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held States will talk directly if Iran first sus- them for 444 days. pends its uranium enrichment program. From Iranians, you would likely hear a U.S. leaders will do well to engage in direct different date and story. In 1953, the CIA talks with Iran with as few conditions as joined the British government to support a possible. There is ample room for U.S. coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically humility given its own gigantic nuclear elected leader, Mohammed Mossadeq. The program and its checkered past with regard stated U.S. rationale was to contain com- to Iran. In a piece in the Summer 2002 munism and Soviet influence in Iran. But issue of World Policy Journal, Iranian the fact that Iran holds the world’s second scholar Mostafa T. Zahrani, writes: “It is a largest oil reserves can hardly be dismissed reasonable argument that but for the coup as a contributing factor. Indeed, U.S. firms [in 1953] Iran now would be a mature emerged from the coup with 40 percent of democracy.” Iran’s oil output. Second, U.S. leaders will do well to focus The United States cut diplomatic ties with on incentives rather than threats. Hadi Iran in 1979 and has since imposed a vari- Semanti, visiting public policy scholar ety of economic sanctions. In 2002, U.S. at the Woodrow Wilson International Cen- President George W. Bush labeled Iran as ter, says Iranians are looking for a broad part of an “axis of evil.” change in U.S. policy: “They want a new U.S. leaders should paradigm of rapprochement.” engage in direct talks In recent months, U.S.-Iranian tensions have escalated to dangerous levels. Iran’s Third, U.S. leaders will do well to support with Iran with as few new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a regional approach to weapons of mass conditions as possible. has made inflammatory anti-Israel remarks destruction. If, in fact, Iran intends to build and declared that Iran will enrich uranium nuclear weapons, it is not likely to be dis- for its nuclear program. suaded unless Israel—believed to have some 300 nuclear weapons—also fore- U.S. leaders fear that Iran is trying to build swears nuclear weapons. The Forward nuclear weapons, rather than produce reports that, on a recent visit to Israel, nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as Mohamed El Baradei, head of the Interna- Iran insists. Some U.S. policymakers are tional Atomic Energy Agency, told Israeli calling for U.S. military strikes—including officials: “We need to discuss this and the the use of nuclear weapons—against Iran’s sooner the better. We shall either succeed or suspected nuclear sites. fail together. This is a matter of survival.” The stakes could not be higher. The United Finally, having already thwarted a fledgling States and Iran must sit down for face-to- democratic movement in Iran 50 years ago, face talks. the United States will do well not to repeat its mistake. Today, Iran’s large and youthful There are some promising signs that this population overwhelmingly supports demo- may happen. President Ahmadinejad cratic reforms. Shirin Ebadi, 2003 winner recently sent a letter to U.S. President of the Nobel Peace Prize, says that U.S. George W. Bush—the first official commu- attacks would undermine the human rights nication in a quarter of a century. And sev- and civil society movement in Iran. eral high-level Iranian officials have called for direct talks. Reproach or rapprochement? Mutual respect or military might? That’s the choice facing U.S. and Iranian leaders today. I

MCC Washington Memo / July–August 2006 5 Militarism and Latin America

BY LORA STEINER n the early stages of his tenure as the overthrew or undermined more than 40 IUnited States’ forty-third president, Latin American governments. George W. Bush once suggested that the United States’ most important ally was Many Latin Americans remember the his- Mexico, and placed high priority on rela- tory of U.S. involvement in their region tions with Latin America. In turn, at the and are concerned when the U.S. govern- time, Mexican president Vicente Fox was ment begins conducting military exercises looking forward to a new immigration or signing agreements to use bases in the agreement between the two countries. region. When the United States signed such an agreement with the government of Then came the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, Paraguay exactly one year ago, it created 2001, and in the five years since, relations much speculation and controversy: what The United States has a with Latin America have soured and Wash- were the intentions of the U.S. govern- long history of intervention ington’s popularity among Latin Americans ment? Were there plans for a permanent in Latin America, having has plummeted. base? overthrown or undermined Since War on Terror was launched, much of The U.S. government has also quietly more than 40 Latin American the United States’ foreign policy has turned begun pushing an agreement known as governments in the twentieth towards counter-terrorism efforts. Prior to Article 98, which would exempt American 2001, for example, aid to Colombia was citizens from being tried in the Interna- century alone. sent as a part of the war on drugs; after tional Criminal Court (ICC). In accordance the War on Terror began, the talk turned to with a law passed by Congress in 2002, the “narco-terrorism” and cooperation in U.S. United States has begun to deny funding to efforts to strengthen its security. any country that refuses to sign and ratify Article 98. While not a significant chunk The United States has a long history of of money, the act has created some resent- intervention in Latin America. In 1846, ment; the citizens of many of the countries it went to war with Mexico and gained involved haven’t been able to prosecute roughly a third of Mexico’s territory. In war crimes in their own countries, so they the twentieth century alone, Washington hold the ICC in higher regard than many Americans. In a continent with the widest gap between FEDERAL SPENDING ON WAR VS. HUMAN NEEDS, 2001–2006 rich and poor, Washington’s push for liberal $ in Billions economic policies is often seen as a threat National defense* to the region’s food security and even its 600 Income support** sovereignty. Partly as a result, Latin Ameri- can countries are voting in populist govern- ments and leaders they believe will speak 500 with them and for them, and that has often meant speaking out against what are viewed as strong-arm policies by the United States. 400 Former Nicaraguan president Violeta Chamorro once told a journalist that Wash- ington politicians could always find money 300 for wars in Latin America, but rarely for peace. Just a small slice of what Congress has allocated for the War on Terror could 200 build a new world for average Latin Ameri- 2001 2002 2003200420052006 cans, and go a long way towards fostering *includes costs of war in Iraq and Afghanistan better relations with the entire region. I **includes food stamps, public assistance and earned income tax credits

Source: the Office of Management and Budget

6 MCC Washington Memo / July–August 2006 India’s Bid for Nuclear Energy IN OTHER’S WORDS n March 2006, when President Bush produced nuclear weapons, is likely to sit BY ED MARTIN made his first visit to India, he pleased his back and allow India to increase its nuclear I Ed Martin is the director of hosts by signing an agreement allowing the arsenal without doing the same. Clearly, MCC’s Central and Southern United States to export nuclear technology it would seem, the agreement with India Asia program department. to India. Because of existing U.S. law for- weakens international nonproliferation bidding such exports, this agreement will efforts. However, some experts argue that need congressional approval. this agreement will bring India part way under nuclear regulations and limit some- The United States Atomic Energy Act of what the expansion of nuclear weaponry. 1954 prohibits the export of nuclear tech- nologies to countries that have not signed One of the reasons the Bush administration the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). wants to make nuclear technology available This act has been the cornerstone of U.S. to India is that it wants it to produce more Promoting more energy efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear of its electricity through nuclear power weapons. The United States is one of 188 plants. As India, with a population of more conservation and the nations that have endorsed the NPT, which than one billion, grows economically, its development of other bans the export of nuclear technology to demand for energy will increase greatly. sources of energy would countries that do not agree to international The mounting competition for the world’s inspections of their nuclear program. limited energy resources, particularly fossil be a safer way of address- fuels, is a concern of the United States. ing the energy problem India is one of the few countries, including Promoting more energy conservation and than exporting nuclear Pakistan and Israel, that have not signed the development of other sources of energy the NPT, and it does not allow international would be a safer way of addressing the technology. inspections of its nuclear program. In 1974, energy problem than exporting nuclear India exploded a nuclear weapon using technology and the promotion of nuclear nuclear material provided by the United power plants. It would also give more cre- States for civilian purposes. India sees dence to the United States’ push for other itself as a rapidly modernizing democracy countries to adopt other energy sources, with the right to be a member of the including nuclear. I nuclear weapons club.

On the other hand, Iran is a signatory of the U.S. MILITARY SPENDING VS. THE WORLD—2005 NPT, and until recently, has allowed strict $ in Billions inspections of its nuclear program. It has not 550 developed nuclear weapons and maintains that it has no intention of developing nuclear 500 522 weapons and only wants nuclear technology to produce electricity. The United States is 450 trying to stop Iran’s nuclear program, hold- 400 ing that it is a cover for developing nuclear weapons. Its agreement to supply India with 350 nuclear technology, despite it not having 300 signed the NPT and having developed nuclear weapons, weakens the ability of the 250 United States to gain support for its position 200 on Iran. Many countries see the United States’ policy on India and Iran as a double 150 standard. 100 While the Bush administration asserts 50 63 62 that the agreement will not contribute to a 45 14 nuclear arms race in Asia, critics argue that 0 the agreement will enable India to produce U.S. China* Russia* Japan “Adversadversaries**aries”* nearly 50 nuclear weapons per year, while *2004 figures **combined budgets of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Sudan at present, it can produce six to ten. Neither Pakistan nor China, both of which have Source: International Institute for Strategic Studies, Department of Defense

MCC Washington Memo / July–August 2006 7 Mennonite Central PERIODICALS POSTAGE PAID Committee AT AKRON, PA

21 South 12th Street PO Box 500 Akron, PA 17501-0500

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

USEFUL ADDRESSES SOUND THE TRUMPET!

MCC U.S. Washington Office 920 Pennsylvania Ave SE ISSUE SUMMARY ADVOCACY NEEDED Washington DC 20003 (202) 544-6564 [email protected] U.S.-IRAN Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) has introduced a Urge President Bush to Senator ______RELATIONS non-binding resolution, H.Con.Res. 391, which engage in direct talks with U.S. Senate expresses “the sense of Congress that the the Iranian government, Washington DC 20510 President should not initiate military action without conditions. Urge (202) 224-3121 against Iran with respect to its nuclear pro- your representative to sup- gram without first obtaining authorization port H..Con. Res. 391, but Representative ______from Congress.” (For a list of co-sponsors, to also go a step further in U.S. House of Representatives go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search calling for direct talks with Washington DC 20515 “H.Con.Res. 391.) The bill does not call for Iran. (202) 224-3121 direct talks with Iran. President George W. Bush The White House DEMOCRATIC A bipartisan group of U.S. senators have Urge your senators to Washington DC 20500 REPUBLIC OF introduced S.2125, a bill to promote relief, support S.2125. Ask them (202) 456-1111 CONGO (DRC) security and democracy in the Democratic to consider co-sponsoring [email protected] Republic of Congo. The bill, sponsored by the bill, if they are not Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Sam Brown- already doing so. back(R-KS), Mike DeWine(R-OH) and Richard Durbin (D-IL), would establish core principles of U.S. policy to save lives and rebuild this war-torn country.