Public Affairs Committee Research Articles

Intra-state conflict and indigenous-based conflict resolution mechanisms in Malawi: the role of the Public Affairs Committee

Malawi's political transition from single-party rule to multiparty democracy in June 1994 raised expectations for sustainable peace in the country by, among others, passing a new legal framework that provided for conflict resolution mechanisms and good governance. However, political conflicts that have posed challenges to the foundations of peace and political stability have been a characteristic of the multiparty dispensation, leading to interventions by indigenous institutions whose aim is to build peace. This paper, which is based on field research, analyses the major political conflicts that have occurred on Malawi's political scene since the 1990s. Using the Public Affairs Committee as a case study, the paper illustrates the challenges facing the indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms. It also shows that despite the political transition, the socio-political environment still exhibits political behaviour and norms formed during the 30 years of single-party rule. There is a need for capacity-building and deliberate policy to enhance the indigenous-based mechanisms in order to promote sustainable peace in the country.

Richard (Dick) Gregory Lynch, M.D., 1934–2009

Richard (Dick) Gregory Lynch, M.D., 1934–2009

C1. Pm Benjamin Netanyahu, Address at the Annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) Policy Conference, Washington, 22 March 2010 (Excerpts)

C1. Pm Benjamin Netanyahu, Address at the Annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) Policy Conference, Washington, 22 March 2010 (Excerpts)

Introduction

Pro-Israel advocacy in the United States has come under a great deal of critical scrutiny in recent years. Denunciations of the excessive influence of the “Israel Lobby” on US foreign policymaking toward the Middle East, allegations of espionage leveled against high-ranking employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and arguments over whether pro-Israel organizations adequately represent American Jewish opinion have all served to put the pro-Israel lobby in the public spotlight.

Annual Reports To Council Ecological Society of America August 2009

<i>Annual Reports To Council</i> Ecological Society of America August 2009

18–19 November 2008 Washington, D.C

18–19 November 2008 Washington, D.C

The 2009 Israeli Election: A Bump in the Road to Peace?

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Gilead Sher, interview with author, December 8, 2008 (lawyer, chief of staff and policy coordinator for former prime minister Ehud Barak, and key figure Meretz). 2. It was not just a question of the number of rockets fired but also of their increasing range. For an authoritative analysis of the war see Anthony H. Cordesman, “The ‘Gaza War’: A Strategic Analysis” (Washington, D.C.: CSIS, February 2, 2009), http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,5250/. 3. Yossi Alpher, “Too Early For Despair,” Bitterlemons.org, edition 7, February 16, 2009, http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl160211ed7.html#isr1. 4. Natasha Mozgovaya, “Obama: We Will Aggressively Seek Lasting Middle East Peace,” Haaretz, January 23, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057919.html. 5. Yuval Karni and Itamar Eichner, “Livni: Electing Netanyahu Will lead to a Rift with U.S.,” Yedioth Ahronoth, January 25, 2009, 2. 6. For a discussion of the renewed calls for electoral reform, see Amnon Rubinstein, “Plenty of Brakes But No Engines,” Jerusalem Post, February 17, 2009, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304810588&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull; Moshe Arens, “The Electoral System and the Voter,” Haaretz, February 10, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1062722.html; Shlomo Avineri, “The Good and the Bad of the System,” Haaretz, February 19, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1065365.html. 7. Alpher, “Too Early For Despair.” 8. The results were: Kadima 28; Likud 27; Yisrael Beitenu 15; Labour 13; Shas 11; United Torah Judaism 5; UAL Ta'al 4; National Union 4; Hadash 4; Meretz 3; Balad 3; Jewish Home 3. See Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, February 10, 2009, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern+History/Historic+Events/Elections_in_Israel_February_2009. 9. The 32nd government of Israel was sworn in by a majority of 69 to 45 votes. Five of the Labour members of the Knesset abstained. Initial posts were distributed in the government as follows: Likud 15; Labour 5; Yisrael Beitenu 5; Shas 5. See “Netanyahu Government/Who's Who in the New Cabinet,” Haaretz, April 1, 2009, http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1075505.html. 10. Dana Weiler-Polak, “Record 20,072 Israelis Filed for Unemployment in March,” Haaretz, April 6, 2009, http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076532.html. 11. “Israel's Netanyahu Government, the Annapolis Process and a ‘Two-State Solution,’” Beyond Images Web site, Briefing 238, April 5, 2009, http://www.beyondimages.info/docs/B238.doc. 12. Avigdor Lieberman, speech, Jerusalem, Israel, April 1, 2009, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Foreign_Minister/Speeches/Statement_by_incoming_FM_Avigdor_Liberman_1-Apr-2009.htm. 13. “Obama's Remarks to Turkish Parliament,” Washington Wire: Wall Street Journal Blogs, April 6, 2009, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/04/06/obamas-remarks-to-turkish-parliament/. 14. See “Abbas Lays Down Terms for Renewing Peace Talks,” Haaretz, April 5, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076521.html. Even the relatively mild statement by Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller that “Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea … remains a fundamental objective of the United States,” provoked a frisson of alarm in Jerusalem. See Barak Ravid, “‘Making Israel Sign Nuclear Treaty Won't be Miracle Cure for World Ills,’” Haaretz, May 7, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1083236.html. 15. The response amongst some sections of the Jewish community within the United States to the arrival of Lieberman in power was extremely negative. See Eric Yoffe, “Confronting Our Demagogue,” Forward, February 17, 2009, http://www.forward.com/articles/103108/. For a broader discussion of changes in Jewish attitudes within the United States, see Hilary Leila Krieger, “U.S. Jews Back Obama's Mid-East Path,” Jerusalem Post, March 23, 2009, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237727519689&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull; Nathan Guttman, “The Pro-Israel Lobby – ‘Alive, Well, and Bipartisan?’” Haaretz, March 25, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073714.html. For a more recent discussion of how the new mood revealed itself during the recent American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC] conference, see Nathan Guttman, “AIPAC Confronts a New Reality as Obama's Agenda Becomes Clear,” Forward, May 15, 2009, http://www.forward.com/articles/105680/. Additional informationNotes on contributorsJonathan MarcusJonathan Marcus is diplomatic correspondent for the BBC World Service. He travels to Israel often and broadcasts frequently on Israeli politics and diplomatic developments in the Middle East

Rejoinder to Mearsheimer and Walt

In their reply, Professors Mearsheimer and Walt focus quite reasonably on my two main claims: that their research methods are flawed and that their evidence is weak. But they begin, tellingly, by citing a range of indirect evidence that appears to depict a powerful “Israel lobby.” Lots of knowledgeable Washington insiders, they say—policymakers, journalists, candidates for office, and the like—say and do things that seem to acknowledge the “lobby's” power. I draw attention to this opening for several reasons. First, it is not clear how much weight some of this evidence will bear. Take, for example, theNational Journalsurvey of members of Congress that Mearsheimer and Walt cite twice in their reply (and once in their book). In this survey, conducted once, in 2005, seventy-three members of Congress (out of 535—less than 15 percent) responded to the question, “Which two interest groups do you believe are most effective on Capitol Hill?” Of these respondents, thirteen (less than 20 percent of the sample) mentioned American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as one of their two choices. It seems something of a leap from the observation that a dozen or so members of Congress said once that AIPAC is “effective” (which might mean any number of things) to the inference that AIPAC—or the lobby more generally—is powerful. Or take the observation that important politicians regularly address AIPAC's annual conference and make friendly speeches when they do. Surely these same politicians visit other such organizations regularly. And when they appear before, say, the AFL-CIO or the NAACP, surely they say nice things about the issues that these organizations and their conference attendees care about. Successful politicians rarely voice open disagreement with the people they are talking to. But are we to conclude from this behavior that the AFL-CIO and the NAACP, or any other groups that regularly receive such visits, are powerful? Again, this inference requires something of a logical leap.

National Security and the Press: The Government's Ability to Prosecute Journalists for the Possession or Publication of National Security Information

In 2006, then Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales raised the possibility that journalists could be prosecuted for publishing national security information. In addition, the federal government's prosecution of two former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for possessing and disseminating national security information has been called an attempt by the government to prosecute individuals who behave like journalists. This article identifies existing laws under which the press could be criminally prosecuted for the possession and/or publication of national security information and describes how the courts have addressed those laws. The article concludes that while there is support for Constitutional protection for journalists in these cases, the Supreme Court of the United States is unlikely to interpret the First Amendment as protecting journalists from prosecution for possessing and/or publishing national security information. Therefore, the article contends that Congress should amend the statutes outlined herein to limit prosecution to instances when there is evidence of intent to harm the United States.

Public Affairs Committee

Public Affairs Committee

Issues in Ecology

<i>Issues in Ecology</i>

Minutes of the ESA Council 5 August 2007 San Jose, California

Minutes of the ESA Council 5 August 2007 San Jose, California

Review: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt Toronto: Viking Canada 2007. 484pp, $34.00 cloth (ISBN 0-670-06725-3)When you check in at the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem, the favourite watering hole of foreign correspondents in the Levant, you are offered a choice of Israeli newspapers to be folded into your morning International Herald Tribune: the right-wing nationalist Jerusalem Post (previously owned by Conrad Black) or the English-language edition of Ha'aretz, with its distinguished reporting and editorial openness to the full spectrum of Israeli opinion. Mearsheimer and Walt, ail-American nationalists and prominent political scientists of the realist school, are decidedly more comfortable with Ha'aretz, which they cite repeatedly in this hugely controversial work.While there is nothing in this book that would scandalize Israeli scholars and intellectuals of the centre-left or cosmopolitan opinion overseas, Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy has created a furore among the Israeli-American right in the United States, including of course leading neoconservative spokespersons. As with any succes de scandale, a reviewer is tempted to focus on the public controversy-with its charges of disloyalty to American interests in the Middle East and high-profile imputations of anti-Semitism-rather than on the intrinsic merits and demerits of the work under review. That said, it is instructive to note the work's unusual publication history, beginning with an article commissioned by Atlantic that was later killed in mysterious circumstances by that magazine's editors, the authors' subsequent conclusion that their thesis and viewpoint was simply too iconoclastic to see publication in book form in the US, and eventual vindication when the original Atlantic article was published to considerable fanfare across the pond in the London Review of Books.Yet it would be wrong to view Mearsheimer and Walt-thoroughly conventional pillars of the IR community at Chicago and Harvard-as prophets without honour in their own country. Their book has acquired stature and a measure of fame not because of any original research or analytical rigour but because of the calumny heaped upon it and its authors by their uncritically pro-Israel enemies. This tells us something interesting about American intellectual culture. While there is much that is useful in this book, there is more that is unsurprising, prosaic, and predictable. And the authors' own prescriptions for American policy in the greater Middle East are largely unworkable in today's environment.The book is divided into two parts. In part one, The United States, Israel, and the lobby, Mearsheimer and Walt recapitulate, largely from newspapers and other secondary sources, the financial assistance lavished by the United on Israel, the dwindling moral for American indulgence of Israeli territorial expansion and occupation of Palestinian land, the structure and functioning of the famously effective Israel (notably the American Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC) on Capitol Hill, and the direct effect on policy toward Palestine and the Middle East, generally by pro-Israel think tanks and networks of neoconservative policymakers in George Bush's Washington. authors detail the influence of pro-Israel writers and intellectuals in the media and on university campuses. While there is little new here, it is useful to have this material on the Bush years pulled together in one place. What is new in part one-and legitimately debatable-is the authors' conclusion that [n]ow that the Cold War is over, has become a strategic liability for the United States (5). issue is analyzed at length in chapter two.In part two, Mearsheimer and Walt discuss The lobby in action. What follows are essentially case studies of the lobby's influence on the Bush administration's longstanding do-nothing policy toward the question of Palestinian statehood, the American tilt against Syria, rising tensions with Iran, and the nonchalant stance of the United toward Israel's disproportionate attack on Lebanon in the summer of 2006. …

1970-79: Change and Challenge

During the 1970s, SPE evolved from a technical organization into a technical-professional society, established firm groundwork for international expansion, and began to map its future course through its first Long-Range Plan. It was a momentous decade for both the oil and gas industry and for SPE. Energy was front and center in international political debate. Oil came under heavy scrutiny from politicians and the public as air and water pollution, company profits, oil embargoes, OPEC's ascendancy, gasoline shortages, and government regulation dominated the news. The decade began with the first politically charged "Earth Day" and ended with the Iranian revolution and the second "oil shock." For SPE, it was a decade of soul-searching. Just what was the society and in what direction should it go? Should it join—or avoid—the contentious political debate of the times? Was it an organization just for disseminating technical information, or should it be concerned with the larger issues of professionalism and the public standing of petroleum engineering? Was it an adjunct of an American organization, AIME, or should it embrace the internalization of the oil industry, which was rapidly tearing down artificial borders? Air and water pollution emerged as a leading subject of debate, and government regulation began to affect members' jobs. Pollution control was the main topic of the 1970 Fall Meeting in Houston. Representatives of government, the industry, and academia were featured in two 5-paper technical sessions covering petroleum technology and its impact on pollution and oil-spill control. Technical papers at other meetings and in the pages of JPT also addressed these topics. Beginning with the passage of the US National Environmental Protection Act in 1970, the oil and gas industry faced a flood of new regulations. The US Congress passed 14 major federal statutes between 1970 and 1980, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, designed to protect the health and safety of people and the environment. These statutes generated thousands of pages of regulations at both the federal and state levels, and most of them affected E&amp;P operations. The media were rife with stories about pollution and the oil industry's role in it, articles that often were plagued with inaccuracies. Several SPE local section officers, particularly those from the Gulf Coast Section, began to lobby the SPE Board of Directors for permission to establish a public affairs committee that would work to correct technical inaccuracies being presented to the public. The SPE Board concluded that the best way that the society could contribute to the public debate regarding environmental matters was to provide a forum for the dissemination of knowledge on the technology for improving environmental quality, and to establish a literature base on environmental quality as it applied to the industry. The Board also approved a plan permitting members to participate in public affairs by contributing interpretations of technical issues. The plan allowed local sections to establish Technical Information Committees (TICs) to offer assistance to local civic and government groups and to the news media on matters involving E&amp;P. By the end of 1971, seven TICs had been formed throughout the US.

Teratology public affairs committee position paper: Pregnancy labeling for prescription drugs: Ten years later

Teratology public affairs committee position paper: Pregnancy labeling for prescription drugs: Ten years later

Washington State Lawmakers Expand Parity Mandate

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Government NewsFull AccessWashington State Lawmakers Expand Parity MandateRich DalyRich DalySearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:4 May 2007https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.42.9.0010aPsychiatrists are celebrating a new Washington state law that expands mental health parity legislation first enacted two years ago.Last month Gov. Chris Gregoire (D) signed legislation (HB 1460) that extended existing mental health parity requirements to individual and small-group insurance plans. It built on legislation passed two years ago that required all private health insurance policies to provide equal coverage for medical and mental health treatment for large companies—more than 51 employees—by adding companies with fewer than 50 employees. The measure will become effective on January 1, 2008.“This was one of our leading priorities,” said Sharon Farmer, M.D., chair of the Government Relations Committee of the Washington State Psychiatric Association (WSPA), about the law.Farmer told Psychiatric News that psychiatrists worked closely with the Washington State Medical Association and the 142-member Washington Coalition for Insurance Parity, which pushed for the bill's passage. The WSPA dropped a push for legislation that would overhaul insurance and Medicaid coding for psychiatrists to focus on the parity push in this session of the state legislature.The parity law will require health plans to apply the same copayments and out-of-pocket spending caps to all mental, surgical, and other medical procedures. After July 2010, all deductibles must be uniform, and the number of psychotherapy sessions and other mental health treatments may not be capped unless the caps are applied to all medical conditions.The mental health parity requirement enacted in 2005 became effective January 1, 2006, with requirements that maximum out-of-pocket limits and a single deductible be phased in by 2008 and 2010, respectively.Gregoire described the measure as helping to create one of the strongest mental health parity requirements in the nation. Although 41 states have some type of parity law, according to APA, 20 states—including Washington—provide exemptions for some small groups from their law's requirements.“Mental illness, like any illness, must be treated seriously, with timely attention and care,” Gregoire said in a written statement.“ Requiring coverage for mental health care is common sense and means that Washingtonians will get better and more comprehensive care, which is less expensive.”Supporters est imated that about 540,000 more Washington residents would have mental health coverage through the law. The 2005 law covered about 1.5 million people, including state employees and beneficiaries in Washington's Basic Health Plan, a subsidized health insurance program for the working poor.Supporters said the biggest beneficiaries of the new law will be individual insurance buyers, because no individual health plans in the state have mental health benefits. Patients with severe mental disorders that require prolonged treatment also would gain, because the law will lift some limits that insurance plans are now allowed to impose on the coverage of psychiatric treatment.Critics of the law described it as a new mandate on businesses that have smaller profit margins and less flexibility in the insurance they offer employees than companies with hundreds of employees.Parity proponents countered that an actuarial analysis conducted for the coalition in December 2006 found that the legislation would increase costs for small business and individual plans by only about .05 percent to 1.5 percent. The analysis did not include the expected benefits of mental health parity, which research has shown can result in increased worker productivity, a decrease in absenteeism, and fewer disability claims. Supporters said the law would save society money in the long run through reduced homelessness, emergency-room use, and jail time, which are exacerbated by mental illness.Parity studies have shown that it has minimal cost impact, “and anyway it's likely to be offset by the benefits,” said Christos Dagadakis, M.D., chair of the WSPA's Public Affairs Committee, in an interview with Psychiatric News.The coalition pushed for many years to have legislators approve the state's first parity law, but the recent measure worked its way through the legislature with very little opposition. The bill's quick passage has encouraged the psychiatrists to consider further parity changes in coming years. About two-thirds of Washington residents, or about 4 million people, remain uncovered by the new rules, because they receive their health insurance through federal public health programs or employers who self-insure.“Our plan is to build on parity in small steps,” Farmer said.Mental health parity supporters said they hoped the law would not be overridden by a weaker federal measure under consideration in Congress (see Original article: "DBs Voice Caution About Some Parity Bill Provisions").The Washington parity legislation is posted at<http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1460&year=2007>.▪ ISSUES NewArchived

Minutes of the ESA Governing Board

Minutes of the ESA Governing Board

Teratology public affairs committee position paper: Maternal obesity and pregnancy

Compared to normal-weight women, obese women have an increased risk of infertility and pregnancy complications. The most consistently described pregnancy complications are hypertensive disorders, gestational diabetes mellitus, thromboembolic events, and cesarean section. Fetal and neonatal complications may include congenital malformations, macrosomia, and shoulder dystocia. The literature suggests that women with a body mass index (BMI) >or=30 have approximately double the risk of having a child with a neural tube defect (NTD) compared to normal-weight women, and the increased risk associated with higher maternal body weight does not appear to be modified by folic acid supplementation. The Public Affairs Committee of the Teratology Society supports the public health initiatives identified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2004 and the research initiatives identified by the National Institutes of Health in 2004. The Public Affairs Committee recommends that clinicians counsel women about appropriate caloric intake and exercise and that health-care providers educate parents about appropriate childhood nutrition. Breast-feeding should be encouraged based on evidence of a protective effect against childhood obesity, as well as other health advantages.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE (see Report of the Vice President for Public Affairs)

PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE (see Report of the Vice President for Public Affairs)

Govt. Decision Threatens Key CMHC Funding Source

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Government NewsFull AccessGovt. Decision Threatens Key CMHC Funding SourceKate MulliganKate MulliganSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:1 Apr 2005https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.40.7.00400012Advocates charge that the federal government is reneging on a deal to allow the use of savings captured through managed care to be applied to mental health services for people who are not eligible for Medicaid.The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) notified Washington state officials that beginning January 1, 2005, the state's Regional Support Networks (RSNs) could no longer use unspent funds for individuals who are not eligible for Medicaid. Counties and their nongovernmental providers are organized into 14 RSNs that provide community-based treatment.Implementation of the ruling would mean a reduction of $82 million, or approximately 20 percent, in the state's community mental health care budget. About 43,000 people who use community mental health center services in the state are not eligible for Medicaid.Washington state officials and U.S. Rep. Brian Baird (D) were able to negotiate an extension until June 30, but the Washington state legislature must fill the funding gap; otherwise, people will lose services at that time.Members of the Washington State Psychiatric Society (WSPS) are concerned about the precedent the action could set for other states and the difficulty of finding new funds in a time of severe budget constraints.The chair of the WSPS Public Affairs Committee, Christos Dagadakis, M.D., said, “This action removes incentive for innovation. A private managed care company able to save money and still provide mandated services can spend the savings any way it chooses, but a public provider of services cannot.”Charles Huffine, M.D., chair of WSPS's Government Relations Committee, said the state's budgetary situation is difficult.Advocates, however, are cautiously optimistic about their prospects for supplementing the lost revenue with state funds and even implementing reforms in the mental health system.The Joint Legislative and Executive Task Force on Mental Health Services and Funding recommended in 2004 that “funds lost due to the changes in interpretation of the Medicaid law be replaced by state funds, to the maximum extent possible....”A recount gave Democrat Christine Gregoire a very slim victory in the 2004 gubernatorial race, and Democrats control both chambers of the state legislature.Last month, after seven years of failed efforts, the legislature passed a mental health parity bill, which the governor signed.An influential Democrat, Sen. Jim Hargrove, supports legislative action to avoid the threatened cuts. He introduced an ambitious bill (S 5763) that would help integrate treatment for mental illness and substance abuse and improve the screening process to identify people with those disorders.The bill would allow counties to levy a local-option sales tax to pay for expanding treatment. Washington state has no income tax, so that option is particularly important.Hargrove described himself to an Associated Press reporter as “not a trigger-happy, tax-and-spend kind of person,” and added that his experience reforming the juvenile justice system shows that prevention pays off.He argued that the current mental health system wastes “piles of money, and I mean piles,” because mental health and substance abuse treatment are uncoordinated.Another influential Democrat, Rep. Eileen Cody, has introduced community mental health legislation (H 1290) that emphasizes implementation of recovery-based programs involving families and the use of outcome measures and improved data collection.The bill also could have the effect of reducing the number of RSNs and thus changing local administrative structures and service areas.Huffine is worried, however, that even if Washington state is able to compensate for the lost Medicaid revenue, other states soon will be faced with similar cuts.He has reason for alarm. President George W. Bush projected federal Medicaid savings of $3.3 billion for Fiscal 2005-15 and an equivalent reduction in funding to states by instituting “cost-based reimbursement for government providers.”Psychiatric Newswants to learn about the specific impact on mental health services of Medicaid cuts, exclusive of cuts to pharmaceutical benefits. Please send information to [email protected].▪ ISSUES NewArchived