From: Andrew Lang <lang@igc.apc.org>
Subject: CT SANE/FREEZE on Somalia
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:03:37 GMT

/* Written  1:54 pm  Dec 16, 1992 by peacenet@igc.apc.org 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:  (202) 456-1111

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.