We must 'go after poverty' to stop terror, Powell says

Seattle Post Intelligencer ^ | February 2, 2002

[sarcasm]

NEW YORK -- Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday that the United States and its allies must battle global poverty as part of the war against terrorism, saying that those seduced by terrorists must be shown "there is a better way."

"We have to go after poverty," Powell said. "We have to go after despair. We have to go after hopelessness."

He spoke to a session of the World Economic Forum, which has brought 2,500 corporate, religious, and political leaders to the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in Manhattan.

There were few demonstrations on the streets surrounding the hotel, but the forum's Web site crashed yesterday morning, and three groups of cyberactivists claimed responsibility. They called themselves Electronic Civil Disobedience, Electronic Disturbance Theater and the Federation of Random Action.

Charles McLean, a forum spokesman, said technicians were struggling yesterday to restore the site, which carries the forum's press releases and other information at www.weforum.org.

McLean said organizers were still trying late last night to determine what brought the site down.

Questions of poverty, terrorism and security dominated the second day of the gathering, moved to New York from its customary Alpine home in Davos, Switzerland, to show solidarity with the city after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Discussions were impassioned, but participants did not always see eye to eye.

Powell said that the war on terrorism should focus on countries that produce weapons of mass destruction, arguing that they might provide them to terrorists. "We can't just stop at a single terrorist organization; we have to go through the whole system."

While Powell emphasized the need for a long-term military commitment, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, president of the Philippines, said she believed that the military fight was nearly over and that it should be replaced by a battle against "the handmaiden of terrorism, poverty."

"The rest (of the military campaign) will be mopping up," Arroyo said. "The coalition should stay on and fight against poverty."

About 4,000 police officers were stationed near the hotel to ward off a repeat of violent protests at financial summits in Seattle and Genoa.

But police spent more time trying to stay dry in the cold drizzle than they did arresting protesters. After arresting eight Thursday, police had made no arrests related to the forum by yesterday afternoon.

"It's all hype," one police officer patrolling the area around the hotel said. "Nothing's going to happen."

But protest leaders said they expect thousands to march in a festive noontime parade today, starting at the southern tip of Central Park and moving past the Waldorf.

Powell, speaking at a panel on building a coalition for a stable world, said the United States is just beginning its campaign against terrorism and will "make sure we root it out, wherever it exists."

But America will also help countries solve problems that make them hotbeds for terrorism, Powell added. He cited Afghanistan, where he said the United States will continue humanitarian efforts to rebuild the shattered country.

In afternoon sessions, other leaders sparred over questions of national security and civil rights raised by the response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"We are in a conflict that is different than just about any conflict we have been in," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Hatch also voiced his support for U.S. plans to convene military tribunals to try accused terrorists.

But Irene Khan, secretary-general of Amnesty International, sharply disagreed on the tribunals.

"There is no need to create a political shadow system to deal with these threats," she said. Treating those accused of terrorist crimes differently from other citizens, she said, sends the message to repressive regimes that it is permissible to deny civil rights.

Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who with Powell, was one of the top two U.S. officials at the five-day conference, said that helping countries overcome their troubles isn't always easy.

"Over the last 50 years, hundreds of billions have been spent in the name of economic development, with so many of the countries that have been major recipients still not showing strong evidence of positive change," he said.

O'Neill added that research is needed "to understand where our efforts have given great results and, maybe more importantly, where there are no results or regression."

Later, Homeland security director Tom Ridge said America and its allies have learned much about how terrorists operate but must learn "to think in terms of unthinkable events."

"We will always have to be prepared, we will always have to be in the business of looking for threats and vulnerabilities," Ridge said.

Several participants said the United States and other wealthy countries need to stop showing indifference to the frustrations of developing nations.

People in poor nations "do not feel that this sort of international order is really helping them," said Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League. "We know that two-thirds of the world's population are poor and hungry, two-thirds are really angry, and we don't have to ask why."

More than 2,700 participants from 106 countries are attending the meeting, including 30 heads of state, 100 Cabinet ministers and 74 ambassadors. Participants include King Abdullah II of Jordan; Kofi Annan, secretary-general of the United Nations; Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates; and Bono, the lead singer for the rock group U2.

[CIB-173RDABN]

It is the product of freedom, and the unhindered pursuit of self interest. Only when one is allowed to create wealth does wealth exist...JFK

---

When “wealth” is just given to someone as opposed to earning it is fleeting.

There are plenty examples of people (and countries) that have suddenly acquired “wealth” only to squander it away. I read recently that Saudi Arabia is on the edge of financial trouble. This small country did not “earn” the oil wealth that flowed into their treasury (others discovered the oil, drilled the wells, set up the infrastructure and al they did was pocket the revenue. And now, even with trillions of dollars having flowed through their hands, they may be in financial trouble if the price of oil drops.

The point is as old as the story of give a man a fish, he eats for a day, show a man how to fish, he eats everyday.

So, you do not end poverty by giving someone money, you end it by creating the environment for them to earn the money.

This is real close to “nation building”, and I am not sure if I like that. (Honest) wealth can not be created where there are no laws, or government to enforce those laws. Wealth can not be created where property rights are respected. This is where all attempts at communism fail. If you do not own something, you don’t care about it.

The only thing that would help these third world country is something the elite would refuse to do, and that is make them colonies, and impose a rule of law (by force if necessary). This is not going to happen (and I am not really interested in the United States having any more dependants).

So what is the solution? I don’t know. I do know transferring my tax money to a third world dictator is not the answer.

This is like the problem we have with the "homeless" in our major cities. I could end the problem tomorrow (open up the mental hospital for those that can not take care of themself. Arrest and harrass vagrants so they move on, and stay out of site. Mandatory drug treatment for addicts. Shelters for those really down on their luck, and orphanages for those children whose parents just can not make it in this world. Harsh, yes. Is it going to happen, no. Those that oppose these acts would rather these people continue to suffer life on the streets instead of, gasp, they lose the right to self distruct).

We do not have the will to solve poverty in our own back yard, why does Powell think we can do it elsewhere?

[Faithfull]

Perhaps Powell can answer why the Muslim/Arab countries which hold incredible wealth have done nothing to help the impoverished. It's so clear to me that the Muslim world will fund terrorism against us but do little to help the starving Muslims around them.

[MsLady]

Living in poverty has nothing to do with evil acts. Evil acts have to do with an evil human heart. Money won't cure that. When will these people (Colin Powell and others like him) ever figure that out.

[EVO X]

OUR MONEY at the ills of the world and keep expecting a different results than they have recieved in the past?

Insanity - doing the samething over and over again expecting different results.

[MsLady]

All that money spent, and the poverty level in this country hasn't improved by 1%.

[Geezerette]

You said it all!!! I remember those years, but wasn't aware of all the things that we now know!!!

... And I've been a Republican all my life.

g

[bimbo]

"We have to go after poverty," Powell said. "We have to go after despair. We have to go after hopelessness."

Let me help your Socialist speechwriter out a little, General:

"We must capture the hearts and minds of the people, for only then will they choose to embrace America and its ideals. Give them food and give them hope; give them the means to sustain their families far, far from the despair and terror that devours the spirit of these brave people! Only then will they turn their backs on the desolation and despair of terrorism, and toward that bright, shining, hope that is America!"

P.S. No charge - this Leftist crap is easy to write.

[Crustacean]

All he's really asking is that Corporate America rapes the rest of the planet slightly less than usual.

[gaspar]

Powell is the perfect foil for the Bush Administration. They trot him out at international fora and he mixes his usual cocktail of platitudes and bromides and everyone feels good and the UN types can say "how nasty is that man Bush and how wonderful is our man Powell", and in the larger scheme of things it doesn't mean a tinker's dam. In vaudville terms Powell is the second banana sent out to warm up the crowd.

[willyone]

Maybe Powell can help get this started by parting with some of his quite considerable wealth. He could perhaps fund some scholarships for deserving students. Or like most liberals is he content to let the middle class do it through forced taxes.

[willyone]

He had eight years to do it and did'nt do shit. too busy getting sex from subordinates. Why are the biggest jerks and offenders always the biggest preachers about what should be done.

[Irene Adler]

"We have to fire Colin Powell."

"He is starting to sound like Bill Clinton more and more."

Maybe Powell is SUPPOSED to say those words for the administration. Maybe he is the one who is supposed to smooth the ruffled feathers of the Euro chattering classes and the third-world dictators who want their perennial cut. That may be his assigned function within the admin.

I would almost say that Colin Powell is the perfect diplomat. From what I have seen, he is highly intelligent and EXTREMELY smooth and charming. I think he's doing a great job, and I suspect he's not really off the reservation. I think he's doing just what Bush wants. After all, we DO help out poor nations every day, anyway, and if we can just make sure that more of the help actually gets to the people rather than line the pockets of third-world elites, then maybe we can make what we already give actually do some good.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Are you saying this is a "good cop/bad cop" set up?

I just don't think this is Bush's style---especially when he's preparing us and the world for a wider, even more dangerous escalation in the war.

I'd think it would be especially important now for the administration to speak with one voice. And, Powell does not sound like the president.

[Twodees]

Does anybody still think that Powell is a great choice for SecState? Fire him, W.

[Irene Adler]

"Are you saying this is a "good cop/bad cop" set up?"

Yes, although I don't suggest Bush is being cynical. Bush does know the value of saying certain words and phrases over and over to send certain messages. Example: "We are a patient people." Actually, Americans are known the world over as impatient as hell; it's what makes us the "doers" of the world. What Bush is really saying when he says the U.S. is "patient" is really a message to the terrorists that we won't quit on this one (the way Clinton did), plus Bush is telling Americans that we are going to have to be patient in the war against terror. He is trying to instill patience in the American people for this effort (and perhaps even for some other long-term plans he has for improving education standards and overhauling Social Security).

Clearly, Bush is very well aware that certain things just have to be said to send certain messages both domestically and globally, and those things have to be said over and over. There are some other things Bush says over and over, too, such as the thing about Islam being "a religion of peace" which is not exactly true, either historically or currently. He is saying that to INFLUENCE Islamic governments to be peaceful, I think. Also, he doesn't want to have to deal with a lot of social backlash against Arabs in the U.S. so he says certain things to dampen the potential for such a problem.

Bush understands that a politician on the big stage MUST SAY CERTAIN THINGS to send certain messages, and also MUST DO CERTAIN THINGS to accomplish his goals.

The things that Bush SAYS and the things that Bush DOES may not, in fact, be LITERALLY consistent at all times, but they ARE planned to coordinate to LEAD to the SAME RESULTS. Some of what he says is deception, of a sort, but if you understand diplomatic language and the language of domestic politics, it's really NOT deceptive.

I suspect Powell is being part of this effort.

[Snow Bunny]

Powell is an idiot ! I have very little respect for him. He has the heart of a LIBERAL and it keeps showing its ulgy agenda!

I would NEVER have chosen Powell for that job. .....

NEVER !!!!!!

[mikeIII]

Not only was Rumsfeld not mentioned and praise was heaped on Powell, it is Rumsfeld who is cleaning up after Powell. Powell's statement on POW status for the GTMO inmates was an embarrassment for Rumsfeld. Now he claims Islamic extermism is due to poverty in those countries, the implication being the US policy on International economic aid could somehow have averted or influenced terrorism. It comes too close to a similar comment by a certain visitor to ground zero!

[He Rides A White Horse]

Maybe Powell is SUPPOSED to say those words for the administration. Maybe he is the one who is supposed to smooth the ruffled feathers of the Euro chattering classes and the third-world dictators who want their perennial cut. That may be his assigned function within the admin.

I support the President, but I have my doubts.

After all, we DO help out poor nations every day, anyway, and if we can just make sure that more of the help actually gets to the people rather than line the pockets of third-world elites, then maybe we can make what we already give actually do some good.

I think some of the others have already shown the faultiness of this policy.

Look at many Arab countries, run by some of the most richest people on the planet; yet they do virtually nothing to ease the plight of their subjects.

I think the reasoning of "eliminating poverty will eliminate ill will" is dubious at best.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Powell's statement on POW status for the GTMO inmates was an embarrassment for Rumsfeld. Now he claims Islamic extermism is due to poverty in those countries, the implication being the US policy on International economic aid could somehow have averted or influenced terrorism. It comes too close to a similar comment by a certain visitor to ground zero!

Right. It is things like this that suggest to me that Powell is running a little fast and loose out there.........

[sneakypete]

He is starting to sound like Bill Clinton more and more.

LOL! Careful,or you are likely to start agreeing with me.(G)