Grief at the Asian Tragedies

December 30, 2004

Our grief goes out to the ever-higher num­ber of known vic­tims of the earth­quake and tsuamis in south­ern Asia. Non­vi­o­lence isn’t just protest­ing politi­cians, it’s also about sup­port­ing our broth­ers and sis­ters in time of need. As of this writ­ing, the death tool from the earth­quake and tsua­mi has climbed over 140,000. That’s many times the “3000 who died in the 9/11 ter­ror­ist attacks”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attacks. That’s more than the “esti­mate of 100,000 iraq civilians”:http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/ that have died in the two years since the U.S. led inva­sion. We humans seem to do a good job of cre­at­ing mass mis­ery for our­selves but nature can strike hard­er, faster. Who can tru­ly imag­ine such instant, unex­pect­ed mass death?
Please con­sid­er a gen­er­ous dona­tion to a relief orga­ni­za­tion like the “Amer­i­can Red Cross”:http://www.redcross.org/donate/donate.html or “Amer­i­can Friends Ser­vice Committee”:http://www.afsc.org/give/asia-relief.htm. Please also write let­ters to your respec­tive gov­ern­ments: “more can be done”:http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/30/opinion/30thu2.html.
Update: read­er Ric Moore says “Help­ing in Tsuna­mi is good, but donors should be aware that dona­tions to the Amer­i­can Red Cross go to a gen­er­al response fund, where­as the “Inter­na­tion­al Red Cross has Tsuna­mi relief separated”:http://donate.ifrc.org/ (Thanks for the tip Ric!)
http://​donate​.ifrc​.org/

Seattle Five Years Later

December 6, 2004

It’s been five years since the instantly-famous world trade protests in Seat­tle invent­ed a new sort of activism. Angry con­fronta­tions with police dom­i­nat­ed the pic­tures com­ing from the protests. The protest marked the coming-out par­ty of the Inde­pen­dent Media move­ment, both both brought togeth­er and report­ed on the protests.
In the _Seattle Weekly_, Geov Par­rish asks “Is This What Fail­ure Looks Like?”:http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0447/041124_news_wtogeov.php:
bq. But it’s one thing to shut down a high-level meet­ing for a day; it’s quite anoth­er to get your pri­or­i­ties enact­ed as pub­lic pol­i­cy. And so, in the half-decade since Seat­tle’s ground­break­ing protests, anti-globalization and fair-trade orga­niz­ers in the Unit­ed States have strug­gled to find ways to not sim­ply cre­ate debate but win.
I’ve always respect Geov, who’s been one of the rare paci­fist orga­niz­ers who’s act­ed as a bridge between the gray-haired old­line peace groups and the younger Seattle-style activists. So it’s kind of fun­ny to see his thought­ful arti­cle described by Coun­ter­punch this way. Read Charles Mun­son’s cri­tique, “Seat­tle Week­ly Trash­es Anti-Globalization Movement”:http://www.counterpunch.org/munson11302004.html.
The WTO protests were a land­mark and rad­i­cal­ized a lot of new activists. But despite being 99% peace­ful, they nev­er shook the image of the black-clad anar­chist spoiled brats throw­ing bricks through win­dows. Although I had friends who donned the black han­ker­chiefs, the black bloc always remind­ed me of the los­er high school kids who turn over dump­sters behind the 7 – 11; the high polit­i­cal rhetoric seemed sec­ondary to the joy of being “bad.” It was look-at-me! activism, which is fun and occas­sion­al­ly use­ful, but not the stuff to cre­ate fun­da­men­tal social change.
I par­tic­i­pat­ed in a few post-Seattle events: the anti World Bank protests in Wash­ing­ton DC and the Repub­li­can Nation­al Con­ven­tion protests in my home­town of Philadel­phia, serv­ing as an Indy­media work­er for both. I wit­nessed won­der­ful cre­ativ­i­ty, I mar­veled at the instant com­mu­ni­ty of the Indy­media Cen­ters, I was fas­in­cat­ed by the cell-phone/internet organizing.
But there was also this kind of nag­ging sense that we were try­ing to recre­ate the myth­i­cal “Seat­tle.” It was as if we were all deriv­a­tive rock bands try­ing to jump on the band­wag­on of a break­through suc­cess: the Nivana clones hop­ing to recatch the mag­ic. It was hard to shake the feel­ing we were play act­ing our­selves sometimes.
It’s good to hon­est­ly reflect on the protests now. We need to see what worked and what did­n’t. The fer­vor and orga­niz­ing strate­gies changed activism and will con­tin­ue to shape how we see social-change orga­niz­ing. The world is bet­ter for what went down in Seat­tle five years ago, and so is North Amer­i­can polti­cial orga­niz­ing. But let’s stop idol­iz­ing what hap­pened there and let’s see what we can learn. For we’ve bare­ly begun the work.

New Pacifist Introductions

November 22, 2004

Clark Han­jian has recent­ly writ­ten “A Paci­fist Primer”:/issues/pacifist_primer.php, a great intro­duc­tion to clas­sic pacifism.
bq. For all of my adult life, I have been a paci­fist and asso­ci­at­ed with paci­fists. We are a minor­i­ty, large­ly mis­un­der­stood, and often dis­par­aged. In light of our pre­car­i­ous stand­ing, I would like to clar­i­fy what many of us mean when we say “I am a pacifist.”
New­ly dis­cov­ered: the “Bruder­hof Peace­mak­ers Guide”:http://www.peacemakersguide.org/. From their description:
bq. Any­one can be a peace­mak­er. The Bruder­hof Peace­mak­ers Guide was cre­at­ed to inspire and empow­er you to work for peace, and to arm you with liv­ing proof of the pow­er of non­vi­o­lence to effect change and resolve con­flicts. Some of the peace­mak­ers fea­tured on this web­site are famous, oth­ers obscure, but all have ded­i­cat­ed their lives to build­ing a more peace­ful and just world through non­vi­o­lent means. For each you will find a short biog­ra­phy, an orig­i­nal por­trait, and links to fur­ther reading.

Yasser Arafat Death: Yes, It is That Important

November 12, 2004

The Pales­tin­ian pres­i­dent “Yass­er Arafat”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arafat died a few days ago, after weeks of dete­ri­o­rat­ing health. As the most rec­og­niz­able face of the Pales­tin­ian strug­gle for the last fifty years, Yas­sir Arafat was undoubt­ed­ly one of the most impor­tant world lead­ers of the Twen­ti­eth Cen­tu­ry. While he did­n’t deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, he was far from the first archi­tect of mur­der to walk off with it (our own Hen­ry Kissinger comes to mind), and he is one of a few men who could legit­i­mate­ly claim to have defined war and peace in our age.
There’s a say­ing in my reli­gious tra­di­tion that some prob­lems can only be resolved after a cer­tain amount of funer­als have passed. It’s been hard to imag­ine how a last­ing peace could be built in the Mid­dle East while he and his coun­ter­parts in the Israeli geron­toc­ra­cy remained in pow­er. The twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry saw plen­ty of auto­crat­ic lead­ers who came to per­son­i­fy their nation and whose decades-long tenure came to rep­re­sent the stale­mate to real change or last­ing peace. When the death of Zaire’s icon­ic strong­man “Mobu­tu Sese Seko”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobuto_Sese_Seko in 1997 opened up pos­si­bil­i­ties for peace­ful realign­ments in the region, even though war was the first result. For the death of strong-willed lead­ers does­n’t always bring about peace. When Yugoslavi­a’s “Josip Broz Tito”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito died, the pow­er vac­u­um implod­ed the coun­try and set the stage for decades of civ­il wars. The atroc­i­ties and chaos brought the word “eth­nic cleans­ing” into our vocabulary.
Per­haps the sad­dest com­men­tary on all this was one I heard on the street. Two men were talk­ing loud­ly about hav­ing a TV show inter­rupt­ed the day before, only five min­utes before a sched­uled pro­gram break. “It’s not like it’s that impor­tant that you can’t wait five min­utes” repeat­ed the one, over and over. Yes, my friend, Arafat’s death is that important.

Torture Apologist Nominated as Attorney General?

November 10, 2004

Pres­i­dent Four More Years, George W. him­self, thinks the best pick for the nation’s top law-enforcement offi­cial should be a lawyer who advo­cat­ed throw­ing away the Gene­va Con­ven­tion. The U.S. Attor­ney Gen­er­al nom­i­nee, Alber­to Gon­za­les, work­ing as a senior White House lawyer said in Jan­u­ary of 2002 that the war against terrorism:
bq. “in my judg­ment ren­ders obso­lete Geneva’s strict lim­i­ta­tions on ques­tion­ing of ene­my prisoners.”:http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/politics/10cnd-ashc.html
The man who would enforce U.S. laws thinks that the most impor­tant inter­na­tion­al law in human his­to­ry should be chucked. In argu­ing that the law against tor­ture of ene­my sol­diers was now irrel­e­vant, Gon­za­les helped set the stage for the “Abu Ghraib prison atrocities”:http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact. Instead of being tried in inter­na­tion­al crim­i­nal courts as a war crim­i­nal, Gon­za­les is being pro­mot­ed to a senior Unit­ed States cab­i­net posi­tion. When lib­er­ty for all fails, destroy their cities: watch Fal­lu­ja burn. When jus­tice for all fails, tor­ture the bas­tards: away with the Gene­va Convention.
What? For­got­ten what tor­ture looks like? The folks at anti​war​.com have a “col­lec­tion of Abu Ghraib images”:http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

All of Our Hands

November 3, 2004

I don’t often link to anti­war songs, but Joseph Arthur’s song “All of Our Hands”:www.allofourhands.com deserves watch­ing as we remem­ber why we need to con­tin­ue preach­ing and orga­niz­ing against war.

Four More Years (Let’s Roll Up Our Sleeves)

November 3, 2004

Pres­i­dent George W. Bush has been re-elected for four more years. The man who led the Unit­ed States to “two wars in four years”:http://www.nonviolence.org/articles/cat_iraq_antiwar.php and whose poli­cies in Afghanistan and iraq con­tin­ue to cre­ate chaos in both coun­tries will get four more years to pur­sue his war of ter­ror­ism against the world. Amer­i­cans will not sleep any safer but will dream ever more of con­quer­ing and killing ene­mies. We’ll con­tin­ue to sow the seeds of wars for gen­er­a­tions to come.
I was wor­ried when Sen­a­tor John Ker­ry unex­pect­ed­ly picked up in the pri­maries to become the Demo­c­ra­t­ic pres­i­den­tial can­di­date. In his patri­cian upbring­ing he was very much like Pres­i­dent Bush, and they actu­al­ly agreed on many of the big issues — war, gay mar­riage, stem cell research. But in his per­son­al­i­ty, style and tem­pera­ment Ker­ry was too much like for­mer Vice Pres­i­dent Al Gore.
Yes, I know Gore won the pop­u­lar vote in the 2000 elec­tion and that his loss was declared by mys­te­ri­ous chads and a hand­ful of senior cit­i­zen judges in Wash­ing­ton, D.C. But an elec­tion as close as that one should have been seen as a resound­ing loss, no mat­ter what the Supreme Court ver­dict. As Vice Pres­i­dent, Gore had helped lead the nation to one of its great­est eco­nom­ic recov­ers in our life­times. He was also clear­ly smarter in the Pres­i­dent, more knowl­edge­able and far­sight­ed, with more care­ful­ly artic­u­lat­ed visions of the future. But he bare­ly won the pop­u­lar vote, mak­ing the elec­toral col­lege vote close enough to be debated.
Ker­ry is intel­lec­tu­al and aloof in the same way that Gore was. And clear­ly there are a num­ber of Amer­i­can vot­ers who don’t want that. They want a can­di­date who can speak from the heart, who isn’t afraid to talk about faith. They also want a can­di­date who can talk in sim­ple, moral­ly unam­bigu­ous ways about war.
And what about war? Would a Pres­i­dent Ker­ry have real­ly pulled out troops soon­er than Pres­i­dent Bush will? Who knows: Demo­c­ra­t­ic Pres­i­dents have pur­sued plen­ty of wars over the last cen­tu­ry and when Ker­ry pro­claimed he would hunt down and kill the ene­my, he spoke as the only one of the four men on the major tick­ets who actu­al­ly has hunt­ed down and killed fel­low humans in wartime.
We can make an edu­cat­ed guess that a Kerry-led Amer­i­ca would leave iraq in bet­ter shape than a Bush-led Amer­i­ca will. Ker­ry has the patience and the plan­ning fore­sight to do the hard coalition-building work in iraq and in the world that is nec­es­sary if U.S. mil­i­tary pow­er will trans­late to a real peace. But a Ker­ry plan for paci­fi­ca­tion and rebuild­ing of iraq could eas­i­ly have fol­lowed the path that Demo­c­ra­t­ic Pres­i­dent Lyn­don B. John­son’s did in Viet­nam: an unend­ing, constantly-escalating war.
Did Amer­i­cans offi­cial­ly approve the coun­try’s past two wars yes­ter­day? It’s hard to con­clude oth­er­wise. Despite the lies of mass destruc­tion and despite the “will­ful mis­lead­ing of the Amer­i­can people”:http://www.nonviolence.org/articles/000194.php that Sad­dam Hus­sein was some­how involved in the 9/11 attacks and “pos­sessed weapons of mass destruction”:http://www.nonviolence.org/articles/cat_iraq_weapons_of_mass_destruction_scandal.php, some­thing over 50% of Amer­i­cans thought the Bush/Cheney Pres­i­den­cy was worth keep­ing for anoth­er four years.
But there’s noth­ing to say a pop­u­lar vote grants wis­dom. In the next four years, those of us want­i­ng an alter­na­tive will prob­a­bly have many “teach­able moments” to talk with our neigh­bors and friends about the dete­ri­o­rat­ing sit­u­a­tion in iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe those of us whose “paci­fism is informed by reli­gious understandings”:www.nonviolence.org/martink/archives/000462.php can cross the intel­lec­tu­al divide some more and talk about how our faith gives us a sim­ple, moral­ly unam­bigu­ous way to argue against war. The coun­try needs “strong paci­fist voices”:http://www.nonviolence.org/issues/philosophy-nonviolence.php now more than ever. Let’s get talking.
ps: …and donat­ing. Non​vi​o​lence​.org is a nine years old peace resource guide and blog. It’s time it gets reg­u­lar fund­ing from its mil­lion annu­al read­ers. “Please give gen­er­ous­ly and help us expand this work”:http://www.nonviolence.org/support/. We have a lot to do in the next four years!

Refusing to Get Political

September 11, 2004

A blog­ger I like who goes under the name Punkmon­key, had a great post yes­ter­day, “Refus­ing to Get Political”:http://ginkworld.blogspot.com/2004/09/refusing-to-get-political.html about the dif­fer­ences between being anti-war and pro-peace:
bq. i will stand on my faith and i will be will­ing to die for it, i am just very unwill­ing to kill for it. as we approach the 3rd anniver­sary of 9/11 i see more and more peo­ple claim­ing to be for peace, but in real­i­ty they sim­ply are doing it for pol­i­tics, and that is a place i can not go. liv­ing very close to the capi­tol of cal­i­for­nia i was asked if i want­ed to par­take in the ral­ly on the capi­tol steps in sup­port of peace. when i start­ed to ask deep­er ques­tions i got answers i was not hap­py with — it seems that the “ral­ly for peace” was more “anti-war” then “pro-peace”…
With the third anniver­sary of the 9/11 attacks maybe it’s also a good time to link to our own post “The Roots of Nonviolence”:http://www.nonviolence.org/articles/000332.php from this spring:
bq. We also need to broad­en our def­i­n­i­tion of “non­vi­o­lence.” While we work with “anti-war” coali­tions, we are not the same as them. We are not just against par­tic­u­lar wars, but all wars and not just the ones fought with bul­lets between nation states. We are against the every­day wars of peo­ple oppress­ing oth­er peo­ple through eco­nom­ics, sex­ism, racism, ageism and a thou­sand oth­er mechanisms.
As we enter the last stages of the U.S. Pres­i­den­tial race we’ll be con­front­ed ever more with a politi­cized notion of anti-war activism, even though both can­di­dates have active­ly sup­port­ed the war against iraq. As believ­ers in deep non­vi­o­lence we will have to remem­ber that our paci­fist work will need to encom­pass much more than elec­toral politics.