Apr 14, 2003 5 min read

A federal judge’s decision allowing President Clinton to keep under wraps documents relating to pardons he issued on his final day in office might initially appear to be a victory for the previous administration and its defense of its much-criticized actions on its way out the door to the White House. Such a reading would be a mistake, an oversimplification of the matter at hand. The case for keeping the Clinton secrets was made by the Department of Justice, which, with Attorney General John Ashcroft at the helm, has favored secrecy over openness at every turn.

By nearly any measure, the Bush administration is among the most secretive in this nation’s history. By arguing – and winning – the case for protecting the pardon papers, the current administration can hope to set a precedent that will bolster its own penchant for secrecy. …

The need to have access to the workings of any administration is not simply an exercise for academicians, for those who will be compiling the history of the day. Unless the citizenry understand the doings of those at the helm, the governors become distant from the governed, imperiling our very democracy.

The federal judge’s ruling on the Clinton documents may not be – and should not be – the final word on the matter. Those who care about the functioning of their government, no matter who is in the White House, no matter which party is writing the agenda, should be sorely concerned by this administration’s attempts to suppress the flow of information.

Our government is based on the premise of openness. That assumption cannot be washed away by one administration’s desire for secrecy.

On democracy and post-war Iraq:

The mere thought that democracy will wash over Iraq and carry away other Arab countries in the Middle East like a domino effect is naive and unrealistic. The Arab countries have no democratic tradition. Most Arab countries are based on clan structures and often are split between ethnic and religious population groups. It doesn’t mean that democracy will never grow in the Middle East, but it means that it will take a long time and it cannot be forced by foreign powers like the United States did with Germany and Japan after World War II. The United States can garner much support if it supports the idea of a United Nations role in a future Iraq. It will also help improve the relationship between Europe and the United States, a relationship that both parties need in light of future challenges.

On civilians and cluster bombs:

When cluster bombs fall, we know what happens. Civilians die. They die in the initial attack, if the bombs are used against military personnel who are intermingled with civilians. But worse still is what happens for years afterwards when civilians, often children, stumble upon unexploded “bomblets”. Such remnants from U.S. cluster bombs dropped in the Gulf war in 1991 are still being found – 2,400 of them last year alone. Some 1,600 civilians have been killed and 2,500 injured in the intervening 12 years from unexploded bomblets. They are particularly dangerous in desert landscapes because sand can camouflage their position. But the same story is being repeated in Kosovo and Afghanistan. …

Should cluster bombs be banned? The military establishment says no. It points to the fact that the 1997 Ottawa treaty outlawing the use of anti-personnel mines does not cover unexploded bombs. Landmine Action, the pressure group which campaigned to get mines banned, believes that a ban should apply – and for some good reasons. The military know that between 2-20 percent of the bomblets in current cluster bombs will not explode. After the Gulf war, more people were killed by such bomblets than by mines, even though the land had been very heavily mined. To ban cluster bombs would not necessarily stop their use; neither the U.S. nor Iraq is among the 130 signatories of the Ottawa treaty. But it would make commanders more circumspect in signatory and non-signatory nations alike.

On the payment of reparations:

President Thabo Mbeki plans to speak on the thorny issue of reparations payments by business later this month. The payment of reparations is … not inappropriate. To an extent, the Business Trust, funded to the tune of about $112 million represents a sincere effort by business to pool capital to make good some of the ravages of apartheid. This rather large amount of money has been rudely brushed aside … as paltry. It isn’t. But it also isn’t enough. … Journalist Stephen Mulholland argues that all companies listed on the JSE should raise their issued share capital by just 1 percent and pool these shares into a reparations fund. Measured by today’s JSE capitalisation, that would raise about $1.6 billion.

… The multiplier effect of spreading $1.6 billion around the poorer black population … would be electrifying. Some people would waste it. The vast majority would not.

The point is to make the … guilt go away once and for all.