On Wednesday, November 1st, a Special Town Meeting was held to address four controversial petition articles dealing with issues of national and international concern. One was to urge the U.S. government to apply pressure to the government in Sudan to end the genocide in Darfur; another was to oppose the war in Iraq and urge the withdrawal of troops; another was to urge the U.S. government to negotiate directly with Iran on nuclear issues and to refrain from any military action against that country; the fourth was to urge our Senators and Congressional representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President and the Vice President. Town Meeting voted to approve all four articles.
For the warrant articles from that Special Town Meeting, click here.
For this reporter’s Town Meeting blog about that evening, click here.
For a summary of all the actions taken during the Fall Town Meeting sessions, click here.
As of December 29th, three response letters have been received by the Town Clerk’s office regarding the copies of the Town Meeting resolutions sent to the entities specified in each article. The text of each letter follows.
One Dag Hammarskjold Plaza
(885 Second Avenue)
New York, NY 10017
Mailing Address:
PO Box 5238
New York, NY 10150-5238
Tel: 00 1 212 745 9334
Fx: 001 212 745 9316
www.ukun.org
FROM THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE
From Sir Emyr Jones Parry KCMG
24 November 2006
Ms. Sandra J. Burgess,
Amherst Town Clerk,
Town Hall,
4 Boltwood Avenue,
Amherst, MA 01002-2301
Dear Ms Burgess,
Thank you for your letter of 15 November, enclosing the Amherst Representative Town Meeting’s Resolution of 1 November, on Iran.
While it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the United States Government’s policy towards Iran, I wanted to share with you our latest assessment of the Iran nuclear situation and the Security Council’s response to that.
My Government remains concerned about the threat posed by Iran’s development of sensitive nuclear technologies. In particular, Iran has not complied with the Security Council’s demand, in its resolution 1696, that Iran suspend nuclear enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. Nor has it taken other steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors.
In response to Iran’s ongoing actions, the ‘European 3’ (the United Kingdom, France and Germany) have drafted a successor Security Council resolution to 1696, which would introduce measures against Iran under Article 41 of the UN Charter.
The draft is currently being negotiated by the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and the United States. These States in June took a collective decision to offer a package of proposals to Iran. That package in our view offers a long-term comprehensive arrangement that would allow for the development of relations and cooperation with Iran, based on mutual respect and the establishment of international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. The offer remains on the table.
I assure you that the United Kingdom will continue to do all it can to work constructively in the Security Council for a negotiated solution that meets the objectives set out above.
Yours sincerely
Emyr Jones Parry
House of Representatives
Washington, DC
BARNEY FRANK
4th District, Massachusetts
2252 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2104
(202) 225-5931
29 Crafts Street
Suite 375
Newton, MA 02458
(617) 332-3920
558 Pleasant Street
Room 309
New Bedford, MA 02740
(508) 999-6462
The Jones Building
29 Broadway
Suite 310
Taunton, MA 02780
(508) 822-4796
December 4, 2006
Ms. Sandra Burgess
4 Boltwood Avenue
Amherst, Massachusetts 01002
Dear Ms. Burgess:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the ongoing situation in Iraq. As you may know, I was one of those who voted against the war in Iraq – and spoke against it – from the very outset. I did not buy into any of the Administration’s arguments about weapons of mass destruction being on the verge of being used, nor of an involvement with Osama bin Laden on the part of Saddam Hussein, and I said so frequently at the time. I continued to be critical of the war effort, even when it appeared to be going very well because of the collapse of the Iraqi army. In fact, that very collapse was an argument against the war because it gave the lie to the assertion that Saddam Hussein was this powerful figure capable of threatening others. Throughout the conduct of the war I have been a critic and an advocate of withdrawal, and several months ago, I signed on to my colleague Jim McGovern’s bill, H.R. 4232, calling for a withdrawal. I am enclosing a copy. I am also a cosponsor of H.J.Res. 55, introduced by Representative Neil Abercrombie and Representative Walter Jones, calling on the Bush Administration to set a timetable for withdrawal. And I have cosponsored H.Con.Res. 197, which declares that the U.S. will not have any permanent military bases in Iraq.
I am very pleased that Representative Jack Murtha recently introduced his own resolution calling for a quick withdrawal of our troops. I agreed with the strategy for making sure that it became a prominent position because thanks to Murtha’s personal record, his advocacy of withdrawal requires the Administration to debate the merit without impugning the motives of those making the argument.
Unfortunately, the House Republican Leadership responded to Representative Murtha’s announcement by introducing and bringing to the House floor a badly bowdlerized version of his resolution, which I voted against. In the version that Representative Murtha introduced himself, he was careful to include a provision that said that the withdrawal had to be orderly so that American troops were not put further at risk by the method of retreat. When the Republicans offer a resolution that deliberately omits that paragraph, they are clearly trying to set us up for an argument that we would be supporting a withdrawal in a precipitous way that would add to danger. Had they put the original resolution up, I would have voted for it, as would many others. I will continue to push for withdrawal in an orderly fashion. This means staging it so that there is the least possible danger to the troops as they leave. It does not mean making it contingent on any other developments, including political developments within Iraq.
Additionally, I believe that the ongoing war in Iraq has lead the Administration to ignore Afghanistan, and it isn’t missing because it’s no longer of consequence – in fact, conditions there appear to be deteriorating – but because of a conscious, unfortunately successful effort by the Bush administration and its conservative allies to disregard it. That’s because acknowledging the war there would invalidate their charge that their political opponents are unwilling to take a forceful stand against terrorism. I am enclosing for your review an op-ed article I wrote about Afghanistan, which was recently printed in the Boston Globe.
Also, now that Congress has switched to Democratic control, I will work closely with the Democratic leadership to pressure the Administration to withdraw our troops from Iraq. The election shows that people understand that the war in Iraq is doing more harm than good. I will do everything I can to discuss the Iraqi situation in various forums, and to press not simply for a discussion, but for the ultimate goal of an American troop withdrawal from this costly, destructive and, in my judgment, counterproductive venture.
Barney Frank
BF/in
ENCLOSURES
[Reporter's note: The enclosures are an op-ed piece by Frank from the 8/30/06 Boston Globe; the text of HR 4232; an undated Boston Globe column by Thomas Oliphant titled “Conservative spin befuddles the media;” a 12/2/05 article from the New Bedford Standard-Times titled “Frank calls out Bush on Iraq;” and an 11/14/06 article written by Gerry Tuoti, from an unnamed newspaper, titled “Afghanistan calls: Frank seeks to shift emphasis from Iraq.”]
INTERESTS SECTION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
2209 Wisconsin Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007
Tel: (202) 965-4990 Fax (202) 965-1073 www.daftar.org
In the Name of the Almighty
December 7, 2006
Ms. Sandra J. Burgess
Amherst Town Clerk
4 Boltwood Ave.
Amherst, MA 01002
Dear Ms. Burgess:
We would like to express our appreciation for the courageous stance of the participants of the Amherst Town Meeting in urging diplomacy with Iran and expressing opposition to any U.S. military action against our country. Your letter along with the attachments was submitted to the office of the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Upon receipt of any response, this office will notify you accordingly. The staff of this office would be more than happy to respond to any questions you might have.
Sincerely,
A. Mohzabadi
for Mostafa Rahmani
Director
MR/MZ/SDM
Copies of these letters and other public documents are available at the Town Clerk’s office for a fee of 20 cents per page.
UPDATE 1/3/07, 5:50 p.m.: CBS 4 out of Boston ran a story about the Iranian response letter on January 2nd. Click here for the story and click the "play" button to watch the video.
-- Stephanie O’Keeffe
Comments
Isn’t it comforting to know that our little bucolic town of Amherst is now on the radar screen of the People’s Republic of Iran.
Yeah, sure NOW they are our buddy; but remember that fable about the frog and the scorpion crossing the river?
Hey, maybe we should invite President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hampshire College, Umass or Amherst College to hold a symposium about how the Holocaust is "a myth."
Posted by: Larry Kelley | December 30, 2006 08:53 AM
Thanks for sharing these responses with the public.
With respect to the Iran resolution, about which I spoke at Town Meeting, I urge your readers to carefully read (or perhaps re-read*) the measured comments of the UK representative, Mr Parry, whose views largely reflect those which I hold, and which I related to Town Meeting members November 1
in support of the article we passed
at Town Meeting**.
----------
*During the vote counting on that article, I spoke privately (and at length) with one Town Meeting member, a frequent commentator here and elsewhere, informing him that UNSC Resolution 1696 was the basis for a thoughtful approach to negotiating with Iran, and that this resolution was sponsored and supported by the United States (yes, even by our very own John Bolton)!
**Please allow me also to share with your readers the text of the remarks
I made that evening:
"[1] The Select Board unanimously recommends this [negotations with Iran] article. I am not an expert on
foreign policy, and - as I am afraid
was betrayed earlier this evening -
occasionally lapse as a diplomat.
But I would like to briefly quote from
two others who arguably have both
skills.
"[2] Joschka Fischer was Germany's foreign minister and vice chancellor
from 1998 to last year. In a commentary published in the 27 May 2006 Taipei Times, he summarized the situation in Iran and the need for
leadership from the United States:
'Knowledge of the potentially horrible consequences of a military
confrontation and of the equally horrific consequences of an Iran in
possession of the atomic bomb must force the US to abandon its policy
of no direct negotiations and its hope for regime change. It is not
enough for the Europeans to act while the US continues to look on as
the diplomatic initiatives unfold, partaking in discussion only behind
the scenes and ultimately letting the Europeans do what they will.
"'The Bush administration must lead the Western initiative in harmonized, direct negotiations with Iran, and, if these negotiations succeed, the US must also be willing to agree to appropriate guarantees. In this confrontation, international credibility and legitimacy will be the deciding factors, and ensuring them will require far-sighted and cool, calculated US leadership.'
"[3] And [quoting in part from the New Yorker, 10 July 2006] Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the I.A.E.A., said in a speech this spring that his agency believed there was still time for diplomacy to achieve that goal. 'We should have learned some lessons
from Iraq,' ElBaradei who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, said.
'We have learned that we should be very careful about assessing our
intelligence. . . . We should have learned that we should try to
exhaust every possible diplomatic means to solve the problem before
thinking of any other enforcement measures.'
"ElBaradei went on, 'When you push a country into a corner, you are always
giving the driver s seat to the hard-liners. . . . If Iran were to
move out of the nonproliferation regime altogether, if Iran were to
develop a nuclear weapon program, we clearly will have a much, much
more serious problem.'
"[4] We have recently witnessed the results of failing to engage North Korea
in direct diplomatic negotiations. Even
the US ambassador to the UN has supported such negotiations with Iran
in Security Council resolutions [1696...]
earlier this year.
"Supporting this article will remind our representatives in Congress that their constituents would like to see NEGOTIATIONS - and NOT war -
with Iran."
- Rob Kusner
Posted by: robert Kusner | December 30, 2006 10:54 AM
I think that it's important to remember that, in our lifetimes, we've experienced extraordinary transformations in what previously appeared to be entrenched regimes, often with very little bloodshed and without US military intervention. Exhibit A is the end of apartheid in South Africa.
This administration has so thoroughly rejected diplomacy as an instrument of foreign policy over the past 8 years, that many of us may have forgotten that it actually works.
A careful examination of the political and cultural forces at work in Iran suggests that a similar overthrow of the status quo there is inevitable,IF we don't screw it up with unnecessary saber-rattling. We have more to engage the world with than just the threat of military action. I would hope that we haven't forgotten that one of the biggest public outpourings of sympathy for American lives lost after 9/11 occurred spontaneously in street vigils in Tehran.
I am not one who believes that the United States can do nothing right, nor do I think that military action is never the right course. But we desperately need some leaders with self-confidence about diplomacy. In that regard, right now what we currently have in the Bush administration are a bunch of nervous, unsophisticated wimps, who, in the imagery of cowboy movies of the past, go to their guns all too quickly.
Posted by: Richard Morse | December 30, 2006 05:28 PM