The Daily Grasshopper

Did I get your attention with that subject line? Good, because today is International Women's Day, and I think it makes sense to hear what some women are saying about the topics about which I've been writing lately. Perhaps others have noticed that the overwhelming majority of people who have been making the case for invading Iraq (Both George Bushes, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Donald Rumsfeld, etc.) are all men. And just about all of them are white.

This disparity - a bunch of white guys deciding what kind of world all the rest of us (mostly females, and people of color) are going to inhabit - is dramatized in a picture of the U.N. Security Council hearing that took place in New York yesterday. It's on page A10. With the exception of the representatives from the African countries, virtually all the other people in the picture are white men. With the exception of Ana Palacio, Spain's foreign minister (who is pro-war), all the people engaged in the debate on "whether to disarm Saddma Hussein peacefully or by force" were men.

So I think we would do well to check in with the women on this topic. For starters, there's a story in today's Boston Globe, "Agent warns FBI it's unprepared for war," that describes Coleen Rowley's efforts to raise awareness about just how woefully prepared this country is to face what she expects will be "an expontential increase in the terrorist threat to the US, both at home and abroad." She's a 22-year veteran of the FBI. You can read the whole article here:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/067/nation/Agent_warns_FBI_it_s_unprepared_for_war+.shtml

Now, it seems to me that George W. Bush is doing just fine by himself in whipping up paranoia about terrorism here in the U.S., the better to get everyone marching behind his war banner. Of course, he's trying to convince us that Saddam Hussein is the biggest threat to world peace, whereas anyone who can read knows that it's actually the Al-Qaeda organization, whose ties to Iraq remain unproven, that poses the real threat. Bush's disingenuous case against Hussein aside, Rowley's concerns echo a claim I've made a few times already: this planned war is not going to make us safer. In fact, it's going to do the opposite. For those who chose not to read the article, here's a quote from Rowley you should consider:

"The bottom line is this: We should be deluding neither ourselves nor the American people that there is any way the FBI, despite the various improvements you are implementing, will be able to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq."

Then there's this op-ed in today's Globe - "Boosting women and the world," written by Noeleen Heyzer, the executive director of the U.N. Development Fund for Women. Heyzer puts into words what the New York Times captured in its photo of yesterday's Security Council debate: "Women do not yet enjoy democratic participation and representation in the world's peace and security institutions. Very few women participate in meetings that determine the conditions of security, and still fewer will be seen around the tables hammering out peace agreements."

You can read the whole op-ed here:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/067/oped/Boosting_women_and_the_world+.shtml

Here's the important question that Heyzer poses (and answers):

"If women allocated the world's resources, would they invest in more weapons, or would they choose to invest in the much broader notion of human security - through development, environmental protection and social services - which could be provided with a sliver of current military spending?

Prioritizing human security would see HIV/AIDS as the real threat faced by millions and would provide money for drugs instead of fighter jets."

Last night, I was with my closest friends and family, celebrating St. Patrick's Day at a party that featured three generations of Irish-Americans. I was struck by two thoughts as I watched the youngest of the group, all girls between the ages of 2 and 6, dance and play. My first thought was: what kind of world are we preparing for them? They have no concept of what the men on the Security Council - our "representatives" - are doing, but the decisions made there are going to dramatically affect the lives each of them will live. There's a very good chance, if Agent Rowley is correct, that their lives will be irrevocably changed by what's going to happen in the next 10 days. Germany's foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, said in his comments yesterday, "The Security Council - in fact, we all - face an important decision, probably a historic turning point." I think he's right.

The second thought that struck me was that similar gatherings were doubtless taking place all over the world last night, including in countries like Iraq. Families were gathering to try and enjoy some final moments of sanity in a world that appears ready to disintegrate. Do Iraqis not get together and sing old songs, and tell jokes and stories, and make toasts and get drunk, and reminisce? Do they not walk out of their houses into the warm sunshine, as I did this morning, and look forward to the new day, with all its possibility, with all its potential? Don't they deserve better than what we've subjected them to with 12 years of sanctions, and a 1991 war that crippled their ability to live normal lives? Are we to try to remedy that by bombing them even further into misery?

I think Noeleen Heyzer is right. I think a Security Council that was dominated by women, as opposed to the one we have, would be weighing these questions more carefully than Mssrs. Bush and Blair, and their colleagues in the pro-war camp, seem to be. We're all the worse off for it, and it's frightening to think that history is about to be made by the same group of people who have been making it for a long time now, at least here in the "civilized" world. With predictable results, too, at least as far as one woman, Agent Rowley, is concerned. I wonder who's listening to her?