Arnold: Losing Our Religion

December 31, 2003

Johann Christoph Arnold has an inter­est­ing piece on the inter­sec­tion of peace activism and reli­gion [orig­i­nal­ly pub­lished on Non​vi​o​lence​.org]. Here’s a taste:

The day before Mar­tin Luther King was mur­dered he said, “Like any­body, I would like to live a long life…But I’m not con­cerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will.” We must have this same desire if we are going to sur­vive the fear and vio­lence and mass con­fu­sion of our time. And we should be as unabashed about let­ting peo­ple know that it is our reli­gious faith that moti­vates us, regard­less of the set­ting or the consequences.

Many peace activists are dri­ven by reli­gious moti­va­tions, which is often all that keeps them going through all the hard times and non-appreciation. Yet we often present our­selves to the world in a sec­u­lar way using ratio­nal arguments.

It took me a few years to real­ly admit to myself that Non​vi​o​lence​.org is a min­istry inti­mate­ly con­nect­ed with my Quak­er faith. In the eight years it’s been going, thou­sands of web­sites have sprung up with good inten­tions and hype only to dis­ap­pear into obliv­ion (or the inter­net equiv­a­lent, the line read­ing “Last updat­ed July 7, 1997”). I have a sep­a­rate forum for “Quak­er reli­gious and peace issues” [which lat­er became the gen­er­al Quak­er­Ran­ter blog] In my essay on the Quak­er peace tes­ti­mo­ny, I wor­ry that mod­ern reli­gious paci­fists have spent so much effort con­vinc­ing the world that paci­fism makes sense from a strict­ly ratio­nal­ist view­point that we’ve large­ly for­got­ten our own moti­va­tions. Don’t get me wrong: I think paci­fism also makes sense as a prag­mat­ic pol­i­cy; while mil­i­tary solu­tions might be quick­er, paci­fism can bring about the long-term changes that break the cycle of mil­i­tarism. But how can we learn to bal­ance the shar­ing of both our prag­mat­ic and reli­gious motivations?

 

Zunes on the Geneva Initiative

December 8, 2003

Stephen Zunes is a care­ful and bal­anced com­men­ta­tor on Mid east issues, some­one I turn to help sort out con­flict­ing claims. No where is this need­ed more than in the ever-changing rela­tion­ship between Israel and Pales­tine, with its con­stant suces­sion of hopes born and shattered.
The “every Church a Peace Church” site has a good arti­cle from Zunes on the lat­est hope, the so-called “Gene­va Ini­tia­tive for peace between Israel and Palestine”:www.ecapc.org/newspage_detail.asp?control=849. Zunes gives the con­text of the pro­posed accord and then explains its major points. For example:
bq. In con­trast to Washington’s insis­tence on focus­ing upon the thus far unsuc­cess­ful confidence-building mea­sures described in the Roadmap, the archi­tects of the Gene­va Ini­tia­tive went direct­ly to the issues at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian con­flict and devel­oped a detailed out­line for a permanent-status agreement.

Horses on a Trot?

December 8, 2003

Almost a month ago I ques­tion a “newly-launched cam­paign of phone tax resistance”:http://www.hanguponwar.org in a post called “Beat­ing Dead Horses”:www.nonviolence.org/articles/000194.php.
Robert Ran­dall, a dear friend who I haven’t seen in far too long, wrote in last night explain­ing how the new cam­paign came about and some of its goals.
bq. Hi, Martin.
   I’m all for com­ing up with new tac­tics, and I think a lot of peo­ple have
been doing just that. This does­n’t mean, though, that we have to leave old
tac­tics behind if they can serve us. Nor should we assume that old tactics
are not new tac­tics for some.
   Inter­est­ing­ly, at its Nov. 2002 meet­ing, the Nation­al War Tax Resistance
Coor­di­nat­ing Com­mit­tee did in fact decide to shelve a “Hang Up On the SOA”
fly­er because the ease of tele­phone tax resis­tance was no longer there: with
the pletho­ra of new phone com­pa­nies and the unwill­ing­ness of the FCC to
apply its old rul­ings on the AT&T tar­iff to oth­er com­pa­nies, we felt that it
would be inac­cu­rate to pro­mote phone tax refusal as an easy, low-risk form
of remov­ing sup­port for war.
   Now, though, we have the pos­si­bil­i­ty, through a large phone tax
redi­rec­tion cam­paign and the Inter­net, to learn and gath­er togeth­er the
how-to-do-it infor­ma­tion on all these dif­fer­ent phone ser­vices. It may take
time, but it is far from impos­si­ble. In the process, a lot of edu­cat­ing can
be done, both of the pub­lic and of phone com­pa­ny employ­ees. ease of doing
it can rise and risk can be lowered.
   What I like about the Hang Up On War cam­paign (www​.hangupon​war​.org) is
that it did not orig­i­nate with a war tax orga­ni­za­tion. It comes from the
iraq peace Pledge, made up of a num­ber of peace groups, old and new. NWTRCC is avail­able to ser­vice the cam­paign, but the fact that “main­line” peace
groups are pro­mot­ing wtr is some­thing which, as you are aware, those of us
who are long-time war tax con­vert­ers have long desired. While sup­port for
this cam­paign was not unan­i­mous at our recent NWTRCC meet­ing in Chica­go, I,
for one, felt it a great oppor­tu­ni­ty to get peo­ple start­ed toward less
sym­bol­ic, real war tax redirection.
   True, the fed­er­al excise tax on phone ser­vice is no more directly
linked to war than the fed­er­al income tax, but it is also no less. One
strat­e­gy which I favor is to pro­vide as many avenues of ingress to resisting
war as pos­si­ble. This is one. We can cer­tain­ly come up with oth­ers, and
with bet­ter ones, but I see no ben­e­fit in dis­parag­ing what some are doing
for peace. For many peo­ple, phone tax resis­tance is a new tac­tic and a big
step. Let’s applaud what I see as a step for­ward, into any kind of
resis­tance, for groups which have often stopped short of such things, and
work with them to keep mov­ing ever for­ward. I trust you will be suggesting
to where that might be.
 peace and hope,
 Robert Randall

Thirty years later: Kissinger’s war crimes

December 7, 2003

Newly-declassified doc­u­ments from the U.S. State Depart­ment show that for­mer U.S. Sec­re­tary of State “Hen­ry Kissinger sanc­tioned the dirty war in Argentina”:www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1101121,00.html in the 1970s in which up to 30,000 peo­ple were killed.
bq. “Look, our basic atti­tude is that we would like you to suc­ceed,” Mr Kissinger is report­ed as say­ing. “I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be sup­port­ed. What is not under­stood in the Unit­ed States is that you have a civ­il war. We read about human rights prob­lems, but not the con­text. The quick­er you suc­ceed the bet­ter … The human rights prob­lem is a grow­ing one … We want a sta­ble sit­u­a­tion. We won’t cause you unnec­es­sary dif­fi­cul­ties. If you can fin­ish before Con­gress gets back, the bet­ter. What­ev­er free­doms you could restore would help.”
For­giv­ing away human rights abus­es in Latin Amer­i­ca was stan­dard U.S. pol­i­cy in the 1970s. Wash­ing­ton favored strong mil­i­tary pow­er and con­trol over messy unpre­dictable democ­ra­cy (a for­mu­la­tion which could be a short­hand def­i­n­i­tion for post-Nazi _fascism_). After read­ing this week that the U.S. is wrap­ping entire iraqi vil­lages in barbed wire, it’s hard not to see us return­ing to this era. What will declas­si­fied doc­u­ments reveal about today’s White House occu­pants thir­ty years from now?

Google can’t be wrong

December 7, 2003

I usu­al­ly think cyber-pranks are just sil­ly. But I have to laugh at this one: Enough blog­gers have linked to Pres­i­dent Bush’s offi­cial bio with the words “mis­er­able fail­ure” that if you now type that phrase into Google our Pres­i­dent comes up as the very first return. More on this “Google­bomb” from this News­day arti­cle. And just to help the results along, I’ll con­cur that I think he’s a mis­er­able fail­ure.

WRL Current Commentary

November 21, 2003

I’m intrigued by a new page on the War Resister League’s site named “Cur­rent Commentary”:www.warresisters.org/commentary.htm. The cur­rent con­tent isn’t ter­ri­bly excit­ing — a col­lec­tion of presumably-unpublished let­ters to the _New York Times_ — but it would be excit­ing to see WRL’s take on cur­rent events. I’ve missed David McReynold’s once ubiq­ui­tous emails and sus­pect peo­ple would be will­ing to look to WRL again for com­men­tary on cur­rent events,

Shouting for Attention

October 29, 2003

Burn­ing up the blo­gos­phere is a post and dis­cus­sion on Michael J Tot­ten’s site about the “Work­ers World Par­ty and Inter­na­tion­al ANSWeR”:http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000131.html.
He calls them “the new skin­heads” (huh?), but his cri­tique of these orga­ni­za­tions and the “uncon­di­tion­al sup­port” they give to anti‑U.S. fas­cists the world over is valid.
As a paci­fist it’s often a tough bal­anc­ing act to try to remain a steady voice for peace: this spring we were try­ing to simul­ta­ne­ous­ly cri­tiquing both Sad­dam Hus­sein and U.S. war plans against iraq. Both left and right denounce paci­fists for this insis­tence on con­sis­ten­cy, but that’s okay: it is these times when non­vi­o­lent activists have the most to con­tribute to the larg­er soci­etal debate. But hard-left groups like Inter­na­tion­al ANSWeR refuse to draw the line and refuse to con­demn the very real evil that exists in the world.
Inter­na­tion­al ANSWeR has spon­sored big anti-war ral­lies over the last year, but anti-war is not nec­es­sar­i­ly pro-nonviolence. Many of the par­tic­i­pants at the ral­lies would nev­er sup­port Inter­na­tion­al ANSWeR’s larg­er agen­da, but go because it’s a peace ral­ly, shrug­ging off the pol­i­tics of the spon­sor­ing group. I sus­pect that Inter­na­tion­al ANSWeR’s sup­port base would dis­ap­pear pret­ty quick­ly if they start­ed ral­ly­ing on oth­er issues.
Inter­na­tion­al ANSWeR just had anoth­er ral­ly last week­end but you did­n’t see it list­ed here on Non​vi​o​lence​.org. Oth­er peace groups co-sponsored it, echo­ing the All-caps/exclamation style of orga­niz­ing. It’s very strange to go the site of “Unit­ed for peace,” a coali­tion of peace groups, and look down the list of its next three events: “Stop the Wall!,” “Stop the FTAA!, “Shut Down the School of the Amer­i­c­as” When did paci­fism become shout­ing for atten­tion along­side the Work­ers World Par­ty? Why are we all about stop­ping this and shut­ting down that?

North by Northwest

October 27, 2003

One of the joys of the web is that you can think you’ve seen every­thing and then sud­den­ly stum­ble across some­thing new. This hap­pened to me this morn­ing with “West by Northwest”:westbynorthwest.org, a great web-only pub­li­ca­tion focused on pro­gres­sive issues in the Pacif­ic North­west. Orga­nized as a ecu­meni­cal project by area Quak­ers, it’s a jour­nal of “arts & let­ters, ecol­o­gy, and peace & social jus­tice.” I espe­cial­ly rec­om­mend their “Voic­es of Peace”:http://westbynorthwest.org/artman/publish/peace.shtml selection.