Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Vietnam and Iraq Have More Similarities Than Differences

    CHICAGO — To my immense surprise, I recently ran into the American scholar who, for many correspondents in Vietnam, offered the most fair-minded analysis of the war.

    Suddenly, there was Gerald “Gerry” Hickey at the Chicago Public Library, a little grayer after 35 years, but still much the same, with a big smile on his face and a welcome “Hello!”

    I remembered well how Gerry, then the Rand Corp.’s top man in Vietnam, had meticulously explained for us the cultures and behavior of highland tribes such as the Montagnards, but also the Viet Cong and the “pro-American” Saigon government.

    “And now we’re doing the same thing all over again,” he said as we talked about Iraq. “First, we suffer from the same invincible ignorance about Iraq that we suffered over Vietnamese culture. Second, in Vietnam we set the military impact with no concern about our effect on South Vietnamese culture. By the time we left in 1975, they were just exhausted. They were just tired out — and so was I.

    “It is so sad now that I can see the same mistakes being made in Iraq. The GIs busting down the doors, breaking into homes, doing everything wrong. But, you know something,” he went on, sadness outlining his voice, “I’m shocked at much of what we are seeing in Iraq: The Americans are much crueler than they were in Vietnam. Remember, when American correspondents found American troops burning down houses — that was remarkable then; today it’s the norm.”

    Gerry and I talked a long time that day, mulling over our common experiences, wondering primarily why the United States can’t ever pause to analyze a country correctly, and above all comparing the two conflicts.

    Despite the myriad voices in the press insisting, “Iraq is not a Vietnam!” the indisputable fact is that, if you consider the passions and principles applied there, it really IS another Vietnam. Among the causes for the war are obscurantist theories about foreign threats that have little basis in reality; civilians at the top who play with the soldiers they have never been; and the underlying lies that give credence to special interests (the Bay of Tonkin pretense in Vietnam, the supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq).
    In Vietnam, we were following the bizarre notion of the “domino theory,” the idea that a communist Vietnam would mean that all of Southeast Asia would fall to communism. The Johnson administration refused to realize that it was a colonial war, and that in colonial wars, people fight forever.

    With Iraq, the second Bush administration accepted the idea, perfervidly pushed by civilian neoconservatives, that Iraq was the center of terrorism, the cause of 9/11 and an immediate threat, ignoring the Greek chorus of voices warning against such intellectual, military and moral folly.

    Curiosly, in both cases it was civilian ideological fanatics in the Pentagon, enamored of American technology and with no knowledge of history or culture, and not the U.S. military, who pressed for the wars. (It was Robert McNamara and his “whiz kids” then; now it’s Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and others.)

    Perhaps the old American maxim of civilian control of the military might be changed, with what we are seeing, to military control of the civilians.

    Other comparisons of the two wars:

    Today, one hears a doublespeak that almost echoes the communists of the old days. In Vietnam, it was, “We had to destroy the village to save it.” With Iraq, it is President Bush’s statement of last week that “the more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react!”

    Today, it’s called “Iraqization.” In Vietnam, it was called “Vietnamization” — late-hour attempts to make everything look as though it’s working. As military historian William Lind wryly remarked to me of Iraqization, “It presumes that because you pay someone, he’s yours.”

    In 1967 in Vietnam, I spent a lot of time interviewing officers and troops all over the country, and I wrote a series of articles that my paper, the Chicago Daily News, headlined with: “The GI Who Asks ‘Why?’” Today’s GIs are beginning to ask that same question.

    America needs to look seriously at these two wars and analyze why it repeatedly gets involved in painful and costly faraway conflicts. Why, when we could with little effort be a great example for mankind, do we allow the driven and arrogant technocrats of the Vietnam era and the cynical and extremist Jacobins today to carry us to war after useless war?

  • Results of the UN First Committee Votes on the New Agenda Coalition Resolutions

    In an attempt to address the increasing threat of nuclear proliferation, existing nuclear weapons and emerging nuclear doctrines, the New Agenda Coalition (NAC) sponsored two resolutions at the First Committee on Disarmament and International Security at the United Nations on 15 October 2003. The New Agenda Coalition member countries are Brazil, Sweden, Mexico, Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand and Egypt.

    The first resolution, A/C.1/58/L.40/Rev.1, “Towards a Nuclear Weapon Free World: a New Agenda” is based on the Final Document of the 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, where all parties to the NPT unanimously agreed to advance the nuclear disarmament agenda by means of 13 practical steps. The resolution expresses “deep concern at the limited progress to date” on implementing the 13 steps and calls for all nations to abstain from actions that could initiate a global arms race.

    The resolution raises concerns about the possible effects of development of missile defenses in sparking an arms race around the world and in outer space. It is deeply apprehensive “about emerging approaches to the broader role of nuclear weapons as part of security strategies, including rationalizations for the use of, and the possible development of new types of, nuclear weapons.” These comments were made primarily in reference to the US.

    Voting took place on 4 November 2003. The resolution received 121 votes in favor, 6 in opposition and 38 abstentions. US, UK and France voted against the resolution. Whilst maintaining their commitment to the NPT, the three Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and Permanent Security Council members claimed that the NAC resolution went beyond the agreements of 1995 and 2000 and did not take into account progress made since 2000, including the Moscow Treaty. In the text, the NAC resolution urged the US and Russia to make the Moscow Treaty “a disarmament measure” by making it verifiable and irreversible, and by addressing non-operational warheads.

    Pakistan and India also voted against the resolution. They opposed the resolution’s language expressing the “regional tensions and deteriorating security situation” in South Asia and its further calls on India and Pakistan to join the NPT. Pakistan claimed that the resolution did not take into account Pakistan’s “reasons for acquiring nuclear weapons,” which were “for self defense and strategic balance,” whilst India said the resolution was “very prescriptive” and failed to reflect “ground realities.”

    Israel was the sixth country to vote against the resolution, Iran voted in favor of it.Germany, Japan and Australia all abstained on the resolution. North Koreaalso abstained from the resolution, stating that it “did not fairly reflect the nuclear issues between DPRK and the US.” The North Korean representative added, “The draft resolution also does not speak a single word about US nuclear threats against DPRK. And instead highlights unilateral and one-sided demand calling for the DPRK to give up its own self-defensive rights, which is subjected to constant nuclear threats from the US.”

    China and most members of the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) voted in favor of the resolution. China, however, expressed that they “are of the view that all Nuclear Weapon States should undertake not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, which is essential to the realization of total nuclear disarmament.” Canada was the only NATO member to vote in favor of the resolution.

    Canada requested a vote on preambular paragraph 20 (PP20), which expressed concern that missile defenses “could impact negatively on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and lead to a new arms race on earth and in outer space….” The PP20 received 117 votes in favor, 6 in opposition and 39 abstentions. Canadaabstained from the vote, saying that if carried out cooperatively, missile defense “could complement non-proliferation efforts.” The US, UK, Israel and Micronesia voted against the PP20. Japan also voted against the PP20’s statement on missile defense, arguing that the steps needed to be “realistic and practical and take into account different circumstances”. Australia shared the same views.

    The full text of the first resolution, “Towards a Nuclear Weapon Free World: a New Agenda” can be found at http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com03/res/L40rev1.htm

    The second resolution, A/C.1/58/L.39/Rev.1, “Reductions of Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons,” specifically addresses the issue of tactical (sub-strategic or short range) nuclear weapons. It raises concerns about the threats posed by Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons (NSNW) “due to their portability, proximity to areas of conflict and probability of pre-delegation in case of military conflict.” It also addresses “the risk of proliferation and of early, preemptive, unauthorized or accidental use,” as well as shifting security doctrines and the “possible development of new types of low yield” NSNW. The resolution highlights the need for transparent and verifiable measures to ensure the elimination of NSNW in the context of commitments made in the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

    In addition, the resolution warns against Nuclear Weapon States in expanding or developing their NSNW arsenal as well as rationalizing their use. It also calls for the need to further reduce the status of NSNW in order to enhance global security, reducing the risk of the use of nuclear weapons. The resolution also called on the US and Russia to formalize their 1991-92 Presidential Initiatives on eliminating tactical nuclear weapons.

    Voting took place on 4 November 2003 and the resolution received 118 votes in favor, 4 in opposition and 41 abstentions.

    The US, UK, France and Russia voted against the resolution, while China did not vote at all, claiming that “both the concept and definition of ‘non-strategic nuclear weapons’ as mentioned in the resolution are unclear.” Speaking on behalf of the UK and France, the US said the “three countries could not support the resolution because it fails to take into account efforts already under-way to address the concerns underlying the resolution.” The US said it completed its pledges under the 1991-2 Presidential Initiatives without a formal treaty and that a multilateral approach to the issue would only complicate matters.

    Russia said it was compliant with commitments it made in reducing NSNW. It claimed the resolution was insufficiently precise and proposed “new and specific” commitments that went beyond agreements taken in 1991-2 and 2000.

    The full text of the second resolution, “Reductions of Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons” can be found athttp://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com03/res/L39Rev1.htm

    *Justine Wang is the Research and Advocacy Coordinator at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • IAEA Head Proposes New Limits on Nuclear Materials

    Originally Published in U.N. Wire

    UNITED NATIONS — Saying “recent events have made it clear that the nonproliferation regime is under growing stress,” Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, yesterday suggested limiting the processing and production of nuclear materials that can be used for bombs and placing facilities under international control.

    In presenting his annual report to the General Assembly, El Baradei said, “In light of the increasing threat of proliferation, both by states and terrorists, one idea that may now be worth serious consideration is the advisability of limiting the processing of weapon-usable material in civilian nuclear programs, as well as the production of new material through reprocessing and enrichment, by agreeing to restrict these operations exclusively to facilities under multilateral control.”

    “Weapon-usable material” is plutonium and highly enriched uranium.

    Countries seeking nuclear weapons, most famously Iraq, have historically called their nuclear programs peaceful while developing a weapons capacity. ElBaradei’s proposal would build on recent initiatives to make it harder to disguise a weapons program as a source of energy for a country. One of those initiatives is the Additional Protocol to the IAEA safeguards agreements nations sign as part of their Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty commitment. The protocol allows the agency to conduct inspections of undeclared as well as declared nuclear sites.

    After it became clear in the early 1990s that Iraq had pursued a secret nuclear weapon development program while deceiving the IAEA inspectors working in the country under the NPT, “the international community committed itself to provide the agency the authority to strengthen its verification capability” by expanding inspections to include undeclared facilities, ElBaradei said. The authority is contained in a protocol which, he said, more than 150 countries have not yet signed. “The broader authority,” he said, “is still far from universal.”

    This drive for more intrusive inspections has played a part in the current debate over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran, which has announced its intention to sign the Additional Protocol, has received “considerable attention” this year, said ElBaradei. “Recently we have received what the Iranian authorities have said is a full and accurate declaration of its past and current nuclear activities and are in the process of verifying this declaration, which is key to our ability to provide comprehensive assurances,” he said.

    The United States says Iran is working on nuclear weapons and the IAEA hopes the data will lead to some conclusions. It is scheduled to address the assembly today. ElBaradei will report to his agency’s Board of Governors later this month on his findings. Ambassador Javad Zarif of Iran told the assembly the documents will show “that all Iranian nuclear activities are in the peaceful domain.”

    “Arbitrary and often politically motivated limitations and restrictions will only impede the ability of the IAEA to conduct its verification responsibilities,” Zarif added. Such restrictions will not lead a country to renounce nuclear power, he said, but rather, “In all likelihood, it will lead, as it has, to acquisition of the same peaceful technology from unofficial channels in a less than transparent fashion, thus exacerbating mutual suspicions.”

    Zarif said NPT membership should not be an impediment to peaceful uses of nuclear technology “while non-membership is rewarded by acquiescence, as is the case in the development of one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the Middle East” — a reference to Israel.

    ElBaradei said he is continuing to consult with Middle East governments “on the application of full-scope safeguards to all nuclear activities in the Middle East, and on the development of model agreements.” However, he regretted that “the prevailing situation” has prevented progress. He said any comprehensive settlement in the region “includes the establishment of the Middle East as a zone free from weapons of mass destruction.”

    ElBaradei also said it would be “prudent” for the United Nations and the IAEA to return to Iraq to “bring the weapons file to a closure.” He repeated the agency’s conclusion from earlier this year that “we found no evidence of the revival of nuclear activities prohibited” by the Security Council.

    The IAEA has two mandates concerning Iraq — the inspections imposed by the council and those mandated by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The agency has not been in Iraq under either mandate since the U.S. invasion in March. The council mandate “still stands,” ElBaradei said.

    The assembly is debating a draft resolution accepting the IAEA’s report. The draft acknowledges the agency’s annual report and “takes note” of various resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors, including on the application of safeguards, progress on the Additional Protocol and of the dealings with North Korea. No date has been set for voting on the draft. In previous years, North Korea has introduced amendments altering the references to its nuclear programs. Such proposals have been defeated.

    ElBaradei said that since the agency has not been in North Korea since December 2002 it “cannot provide any level of assurance about the non-diversion of nuclear material” since Pyongyang demanded IAEA inspectors leave the country last year. He also called for “comprehensive settlement of the Korean crisis through dialogue.” The Board of Governors referred the issue to the Security Council in February, but the council has not yet taken any action.

    Ambassador Kim Sam-hoon of South Korea said the North’s program “cannot be tolerated under any circumstance and … there is no substitute for North Korea’s complete, irreversible and verifiable dismantlement of its nuclear weapons program.” Seoul “is committed to a diplomatic and peaceful resolution,” he added. North Korea is scheduled to speak today.

    Despite increased attention to the threat of nuclear material being diverted to terrorists, “deficiencies remain” in the security of nuclear and radiological materials, said ElBaradei. “Information in the agency database of illicit trafficking, combined with reports of discoveries of plans for radiological dispersal devices [the so-called ‘dirty bombs’], make it clear that a market continues to exist for obtaining and using radioactive sources for malevolent purposes.”

    Another sign of increased awareness of the potential diversion of nuclear material is the fact that the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material has gained 20 new parties in two years, he said. “States are now working on a much-needed amendment to broaden the scope of the convention, that I hope will be adopted soon,” ElBaradei said.

    Full Speech:
    http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n023.shtml 

  • Annan Names High-Level Panel to Study Global Security Threats

    In a letter sent this morning to Assembly President Julian R. Hunte of St. Lucia, Mr. Annan says former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun of Thailand will chair the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.

    The Secretary-General says the Panel is “tasked with examining the major threats and challenges the world faces in the broad field of peace and security, including economic and social issues insofar as they relate to peace and security, and making recommendations for the elements of a collective response.”

    The other 15 members of the Panel include Robert Badinter of France, Member of the French Senate and former Minister of Justice; João Clemente Baena Soares of Brazil, former Secretary-General of the Organization of American States (OAS); former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway and former Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO); and Mary Chinery-Hesse of Ghana, Vice-Chairman of the National Development Planning Commission and former Deputy Director-General of the International Labour Organization (ILO).

    Gareth Evans of Australia, President of the International Crisis Group and former Minister of Foreign Affairs; David Hannay of the United Kingdom, former UK Permanent Representative to the United Nations and UK Special Envoy to Cyprus; Enrique Iglesias of Uruguay, President of the Inter-American Development Bank; Amre Moussa of Egypt, Secretary-General of the League of Arab States; and Satish Nambiar of India, former Lt. General in the Indian Army and Force Commander of the UN Protection Force in the former Yugoslavia (UNPROFOR); are also on the panel.

    The remaining members are Sadako Ogata of Japan, former UN High Commissioner for Refugees; former Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov of the Russian Federation; former Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Qian Qichen of China; Nafis Sadik of Pakistan, former Executive Director of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA); Salim Ahmed Salim of Tanzania, former Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity (OAU); and Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft (ret.) of the United States, former US National Security Adviser.

    In his letter to Mr. Hunte, the Secretary-General notes, “The past year has shaken the foundations of collective security and undermined confidence in the possibility of collective responses to our common problems and challenges. It has also brought to the fore deep divergences of opinion on the range and nature of the challenges we face, and are likely to face in the future.

    “The aim of the High-Level Panel is to recommend clear and practical measures for ensuring effective collective action, based upon a rigorous analysis of future threats to peace and security, an appraisal of the contribution collection action can make, and a thorough assessment of existing approaches, instruments and mechanisms, including the principal organs of the United Nations.”

    The Secretary-General stresses that the Panel is not being asked to formulate policies on specific issues, nor on the UN’s role in specific places. “Rather, it is being asked to provide a new assessment of the challenges ahead, and to recommend the changes which will be required if these challenges are to be met effectively through collective action,” he says.

    Specifically, the Panel is charged with examining today’s global threats and providing an analysis of future challenges to international peace and security, the Secretary-General adds. “Whilst there may continue to exist a diversity of perception on the relative importance of the various threats facing particular Member States on an individual basis, it is important to find an appropriate balance at a global level. It is also important to understand the connections between different threats,” he says.

    The Panel will also identify clearly the contribution that collective action can make in addressing these challenges and recommend the changes necessary to ensure effective collective action, including but not limited to a review of the principal organs of the United Nations, the letter says.”The Panel’s work is confined to the field of peace and security, broadly interpreted,” Mr. Annan concludes. “That is, it should extend its analysis and recommendations to other issues and institutions, including economic and social, to the extent that they have a direct bearing on future threats to peace and security.”

    For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

  • Edward W. Said: In Memoriam

    When Words Fail

    In memory of Edward Said

     

    The eye sees but cannot tell

    The heart knows but cannot say

    The mind weeps but cannot cry

    Such feelings do no more

    than announce such a death

     

    To feel this loss

    alone in moments of shared silence
    comes closer to words than words

    as even apt and precious words

    die of grief on our tongue

    never to be born

    or possibly, stillborn

    escaping as if exhaled smoke

    escaping as birds streaking south

    as autumn vanishes

     

    And yet this loss is far from forgetfulness

    the heartbeat of memory lives as before

    his words, his passion, his grace
    remind us daily of anguished absence

    yet equally of haunting presence

    as vital as the lives we lead.

     

    When Edward Said died on September 25th I lost a close and beloved friend, and the world lost a powerful and distinctive presence, one of a handful of public intellectuals whose words literally resonated throughout the entire planet. Edward was an eloquent and distinctive voice on behalf of the Palestinian people, but he was also a most gifted interpreter of the interface between culture and politics, especially in the context of the imperial relationship between the West and the world. His book Orientalism is as widely read and discussed as any single book written in the past several decades, brilliantly accounting for the distorted renderings of the Arab world by Western colonial and post-colonial scholars, and indeed, depicting a whole way of mis-representing that has lethal consequences when enacted in political action. Said’s illuminating critique of how to not see “the other” remains of acute relevance, especially during these days of American military preeminence and expansionist ambitions. Never has our citizenry and leadership been more in need of “self-scrutiny,” beginning with the challenge of listening closely to those others whom we seek to subjugate by force of arms.

    The originality of Edward Said cannot be separated from his life and work. Perhaps, alone among world class scholars and intellectual figures, Edward as a Palestinian living in the United States, was able to express both the reality of Palestinian victimization and the dangerous reality of the United States with its self-anointed mandate to rule the world. His experience and insight were deeply affected by this interplay between a dual identity as a Palestinian “out of place” (as suggested by the title of his autobiography) and as a widely admired American professor of comparative literature at a leading university, but in fundamental respects, also out of place.

    Those of us who had known Edward for a long time were deeply moved by his brave struggle against leukemia for an anguishing period of twelve years. During these years, despite many torments, Edward sustained his struggle and continued to write at a furious pace, and to travel around the world giving lectures to overflowing lecture halls. Periods of exertion alternated with periods of relapse, the disease retreating and advancing in sinister fashion. Toward the end of his life, when asked how he was doing, he would often respond, “It is my anger that keeps me going.”

    It would be a mistake to think of Edward only as an exceptional literary scholar or eloquent advocate of Palestinian rights and critic of Israeli and American wrongs. He was, above all, a complete human being, with a range of talents and appetites, and frailties. I heard him perform as a classical pianist at a wonderful concert given at Columbia University. Edward served for many years as the music critic of The Nation, and was especially appreciated for published commentaries on opera. He was a talented squash and tennis player as I discovered to my despair. Edward cared about all facets of life, valuing friendship, collecting fancy pens, delighting in gourmet food, and indulging in playful banter. It was always hard for me to comprehend how one person could be so accomplished in so many different domains of life. Edward’s son, Wadie, delivering the eulogy at his father’s funeral noted that he never understood how his father managed to write so much because he always seemed to be talking on the phone. And it was astonishing and humbling how he managed to keep in close contact with friends and colleagues, as well as a wide array of journalists from around the world, and yet be so productive even during this last period of illness.

    Edward’s life, scholarship, and personality are inseparable from his engagement with the struggle of the Palestinian people. Ever since the Oslo years, beginning in 1993, Edward stood outside the Palestinian mainstream by his refusal to see any hope for a just peace emerging from such a one-sided process. I recall trying to persuade him to stand within the debate, but he stubbornly refused, and has been vindicated by subsequent developments. Edward resigned from the Palestinian National Council and rejected the leadership of Yasir Arafat, yet remained steadfast in his commitment to Palestinian self-determination. When all realist voices on both sides were trying to craft the contours of a two-state solution, Edward insisted that only a state that brought the two peoples together in a unified political community could bring enduring peace and justice. Again, his prophetic voice is only recently gaining adherents, as more and more observers on both sides, come to realize that the Israelis have created so many “facts on the ground” as to make it impossible at this point to imagine a workable two-state outcome. What is most impressive to me, however, is not this gift of political insight and individuality exhibited by Edward, but rather his strength of will and character, ignoring on principled grounds the pressures of “responsible” and “reasonable” people. I found this capacity and willingness to stand by unpopular beliefs part of what made Edward such an inspirational figure for me and for so many others.

    If we ask about Edward’s legacy, I think it safe to conclude that his such main works as Orientalism and Culture and Imperialism will be read within academic circles for as long as serious cultural and literary reflection persists. As well, Edward is likely to be singled out as an, and possibly as the, exemplary public intellectual of this era, combining first-class scholarship with lucid media commentary on the great events of the day. And finally, Edward’s role in articulating the Palestinian struggle, while appreciating the need to safeguard the future of the Jews in Israel, was a characteristic of his approach that was not appreciated by extremists in either camp. I was struck at the funeral that the great Israeli pianist, David Barenboim, was the only person listed on the formal program who was not a member of the Said family, contributing three beautifully rendered musical works. It was a final expression of Edward’s extraordinary combination of passionate engagement with his even more extraordinary insistence on reconciliation and empathy with the supposed enemy. Edward is gone, but he and his work will not be forgotten.

    A line from the great Palestinian poet, Mahmoud Darwish, perhaps best summarizes both Edward’s life and his legacy: “What use is our thought if not for humanity.” [from “The Hoopoe,” Unfortunately, It Was Paradise] And in a more personal final note, I would endorse the spirit of another line of poetry, this from May Swenson: “Don’t mourn the beloved. Try to be like him.” Edward’s last words to his children was to carry on with the struggle, and in some attenuated sense, I would like to think that we are all Edward’s children!

    *Richard Falk is chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. 

  • 100 Letters, 100 Days: Suggested Talking Points, Requests, and Logistics

    Campaign Overview

    Initiated in the spring of 2001, the UC Nuclear Free Campaign stands on the shoulders of a long history of community mobilization toward the abolition of nuclear weapons. The campaign honors this legacy and provides opportunities for a younger generation to contemplate critical issues related to nuclear weapons, claim a voice, and create positive change. Specifically, the campaign highlights the University of California’s management of the nation’s primary nuclear weapons labs: Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore.

    To date, the campaign is driven by student groups on 5 key UC campuses (Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, Berkeley, Santa Cruz, and Davis) and community groups with an expertise in nuclear issues: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara, Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment (CAREs) in Livermore, California; Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland, California; Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety in Santa Fe, New Mexico; and the Los Alamos Study Group in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Toward advancing the UC Nuclear Free Campaign, these groups have formed the Coalition to Demilitarize the University of California.
    A Warm Welcome

    On October 2nd, 2003, UC President Designate Robert Dynesl began his term overseeing one of the largest public university systems in the world: $1 billion in annual donations, 1.2 million alumni, 190,000 students, and 2 nuclear weapons laboratories. During his term, the Regents will decide whether or not to bid to continue managing Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of the primary US nuclear weapons laboratories. We ask that members of the UC community, specifically students, faculty, staff, and alumni, seize each of the first 100 days of Dynes’ presidency as opportunities to voice our varied opposition to UC’s role in the development of nuclear weapons. We ask that these voices are joined by diverse stakeholders in the future of humanity, such as high school seniors applying to a UC school, former and current lab employees, parents of UC students, community residents, hibakusha (survivors of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), elected officials, religious leaders, and entertainers. Our aim is for Dynes to receive at least 1 letter per day for 100 days beginning with his first day in office and lasting through January 9th, 2004.
    Getting Started

    A series of talking points and questions are listed herein to help individuals craft their letters. We ask that each letter end by making the following requests: (1) sponsor a series of public forums and (2) hold a televised debate on the UC management of nuclear weapons. Advice from Congressional staff suggests that handwritten, personalized letters are highly effective. Similarly, crayon drawings may be a way to involve young children in discussions about peace, nonviolence, and the power of one person. Editorial assistance is available through contacting either Tara Dorabji (925) 443-7148 or Michael Coffey (805) 965-3443.
    Talking Points

    1. Every nuclear weapon in the US arsenal was created in part by a UC employee.
    2. The UC Regents have managed the nation’s primary nuclear weapons labs under a contract that has never been put up for competitive bid in over 50 years. Earlier this year, the Department of Energy announced that the Los Alamos contract will be put up for bid. UC has not decided whether or not to bid.
    3. The current administration is pushing for a possible return to full scale underground nuclear testing and develop new, “more usable” and “bunker busting” nuclear weapons.
    4. The development and production of new nuclear weapons are illegal under Article VI of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which became law in 1970 and requires that: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
    5. UC scientists conduct subcritical nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site on Shoshone land that was seized by the U.S. government. The battle for land rights continues in courts to this day.
    6. Both the Livermore and Los Alamos sites are contaminated by large amounts of radioactive waste that has seeped off-site.
    7. US nuclear weapons policy is explicitly offensive and several documents name countries that the US has contingency plans for preemptive strikes. Some of these nations do not possess nuclear weapons.
    8. The US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in war.
    9. As institutions within the University of California system, Los Alamos and
      Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories gain access to some of the “best and brightest” minds to recruit into nuclear weapons design.
    10. There are numerous historical examples of young people and students fighting on the frontlines of the movement for social justice. Continuing this legacy, many student groups were active during the 2002-2003 school year, speaking out and organizing around militarism, environmental, and racism issues.
    11. For decades, UC faculty members have been active, vocal opponents of UC’s continued and expanded role in nuclear weapons development. While this activism has taken the form of letters to newspaper editors, testimony at Regents meetings, and referendums, a series of reports serves as the greatest resource for gauging faculty sentiment on this issue: Academic Senate Report (November 1989), Galvin Report (February 1995), and University Committee on Research Policy Report (January 1996
      UC President Designate Robert Dynes has been a consultant with the Los Alamos National Laboratory for over 20 years.
    12. Nuclear weapons constitute one category of weapons of mass destruction. The other categories are chemical and biological weapons. UC Davis is being considered as a site for a Biosafety Level 4 Laboratory for biological weapons. Researchers at level 4 laboratories study the most dangerous germs known to humans, such as SARS, anthrax, and Ebola.

    Requests

    Sponsor a series of objective and inclusive forums on the issue, at least one on every campus. Such forums need to reach various constituencies, specifically students, faculty, and staff.

    Hold a televised debate on the UC management of the nuclear weapons labs.Stop the University of California from all collaborations that develop or enable the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    Logistics

    Please pre-date your letter between October 2nd, 2003 and January 9, 2004. Contact Michael to find out which date we need you to cover. Address your letter to Robert Dynes and copy each UC Regent. It would help this effort a great deal if you would send us your letter as soon as possible. We will continue to accept letters throughout the duration of the campaign. This will enable us to maintain a persistent stream of letters. If you’re interested in a particular day, such as Dia de la Raza, Veterans’ Day, or Christmas, please contact Michael Coffey as soon as possible at (805) 965-3443 or youth@napf.org.
    Please address the letters as follows:

    Robert Dynes, President

    The Regents of the University of California

    Office of the Secretary

    1111Franklin Street, 12th Floor

    Oakland, CA 94607-5200
    Please “CC” each Regent:

    Richard Blum, Ward Connerly, John Davies, Judith Hopkinson, Odessa Johnson, Joanne Kozberg, Sherry Lansing, David Lee, Monica Lozano, George Marcus, Velma Montoya, John Moores, Gerald Parsky, Norman Pattiz, Peter Preuss, Haim Saban, Tom Sayles, Cruz Bustamante, Herb Wesson, Gray Davis, Jack O’Connell, Matt Murray, Jodi Anderson
    Please send letters to the following address:

    Michael Coffey, Youth Outreach Coordinator

    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1

    Santa Barbara, CA 93108-2761

    Upon receipt of letters, we will make an electronic copy for documentation purposes, make additional hard copies to send to each Regent, and mail the letters on the appropriate date. In order to confirm that we received your letter, please provide us with your email address and/or phone number.

    During the campaign, select letters will be featured online, while at the end of the campaign a “best of” document will be created that includes selected letters, photographs, an introduction to the issues, and ideas for actions. The document will be a valuable organizing tool for future efforts.

    We would love to hear from if you know others who would be interested in writing a letter and/or contributing toward the success of the campaign in some other way. Thank you for your time and devotion!

    Draft Letter Outline

    Your name

    Full Address

    Your telephone, fax, and email information
    Date the letter
    Robert Dynes, President

    The Regents of the University of California

    Office of the Secretary

    1111Franklin Street, 12th Floor

    Oakland, CA 94607-5200
    Dear President Dynes,
    · Identify yourself (state your UC affiliation or connection to issue).

    · Share your personal thoughts on UC’s role in weapons development.

    · State requests.

    · Thank Dynes for his attention to your concerns.

    · Let Dynes know that you look forward to hearing from him.

     

    Sincerely,

     

    Sign your name

    Type or print your name

     

    CC: Richard Blum, Ward Connerly, John Davies, Judith Hopkinson, Odessa Johnson, Joanne Kozberg, Sherry Lansing, David Lee, Monica Lozano, George Marcus, Velma Montoya, John Moores, Gerald Parsky, Norman Pattiz, Peter Preuss, Haim Saban, Tom Sayles, Cruz Bustamante, Herb Wesson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jack O’Connell, Matt Murray, Jodi Anderson

    Please contact Michael Coffey, Youth Outreach Coordinator, for further information on campaign at 805. 965.3443 or youth@napf.org

  • Retired Adm. Foley will oversee labs for UC

    The University of California Board of Regents on Monday appointed a well-connected retired Navy admiral and former federal weapons director to manage three national laboratories that the university runs on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy.

    Retired Adm. S. Robert Foley, 75, will serve as the UC’s vice president for laboratory management and oversee the operations of the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons labs and the Lawrence Berkeley lab. Foley will report directly to UC
    President Robert Dynes, who recommended his appointment.

    “Admiral Foley brings tremendous history of expertise and knowledge of the nuclear weapons laboratories,” said Bruce Darling, UC’s senior vice president for
    university affairs and interim vice president of the labs for the past 10 months.

    The UC-operated labs, particularly Los Alamos in New Mexico, have been under fire for months from the federal government and nuclear watchdog groups forshoddy business practices and security breaches. Those troubles prompted a congressional investigation last year and caused Energy Department officials to put the lab contract up for competitive bid — the first time in the lab’s 60 years that UC’s management has been
    challenged.

    “In the past 60 years, the university has done great science at the laboratories,” Foley said. “Over the years, some of the business practices have deteriorated. We need a fresh way to do things.”

    With a combined budget of $4 billion, the labs represent roughly a quarter of the UC’s annual budget and are the source not only of research opportunities
    but of national prestige and political clout.

    In recent months, Foley has been an adviser to UC and Los Alamos officials working to improve management and security at the laboratory. UC officials must decide
    in coming months whether to compete for the Los Alamos contract, and Foley could be a shrewd choice for the university.

    He has connections to the Bush administration, serving on the president’s Energy Transition Team and working as a consultant to both the Defense and Energy
    departments. Foley also served as President Reagan’s assistant secretary of energy for defense programs, a job that made him responsible for the nation’s entire
    nuclear weapons complex.

    A graduate of the Naval Academy, Foley rose to commander in chief of the Navy’s Pacific Fleet. One California-based nuclear watchdog group said UC’s hiring of Foley sends the strongest signal yet that the university intends to maintain its management of the weapons labs.”It seems like the UC is doing all it can to position itself to bid for the contract and to
    keep nuclear weapons as a central mission of the labs,” said Tara Dorabji, outreach coordinator for Tri-Valley CAREs in Livermore.

    Foley’s appointment takes effect Nov. 1. His salary
    will be $350,900.


    —————————
    The Bee’s Lesli Maxwell can be reached at
    (916) 321-1048 or lmaxwell@sacbee.com

  • Istanbul Mission Statement for the creation of an International Tribunal of Justice on the War and Occupation on Iraq

    Origins of the project

    The idea that had sprung up in several places upon the planet of having an international tribunal against the war in Iraq, was discussed and in principle supported at the Anti-War Meetings in Berlin, Jakarta and Geneva, Paris and Cancun. The Jakarta Peace Consensus made a declaration committing itself to the realization of an international war crimes tribunal. The Networks Conference (European and Cordoba Networks for Peace and Human Rights) organized by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation in Brussels also devoted time and space for the discussion of the issue and the idea received broad support.

    The working group formed at the Networks conference organized by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation in Brussels on 26/27 June, 2003, discussed the idea and possibilities of convening an international tribunal to investigate and establish the crimes perpetrated against the people of Iraq and humanity. The group in Turkey was entrusted with the task of acting as the secretariat and clearing house, carrying out the coordination in close contact with the groups in Brussels, Hiroshima, New York, London and others.

    The meeting of the Coordination Committee in Istanbul on October 27-29 2003 decided upon the concept, the form and the aims of the project.

    The legitimacy of the project

    A war of aggression was launched despite the opposition of people and governments all over the world, yet there is no court or authority that will judge the acts of the US and its allies. If the official authorities fail, then moral authority can speak for the world.

    Our legitimacy derives from:

    – Taking this initiative owing to the failure of official international institutions to hold accountable those who committed grave international crimes and constitute a menace to world peace.
    – Being part of the worldwide anti-war movement which expressed its opposition to this invasion.
    – The Iraqi people resisting occupation
    – We are convinced of the duty of all people of conscience to take action against wars of aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other breaches of international law.
    – Acting on the basis of the struggles of the past to develop systems of peaceful co-existence and prevent future aggression and breaches of the UN Charter.
    – Giving voice to the voiceless victims of this war we are articulating the concerns of civil society as expressed in the most active parts of the social justice and peace movements.
    – Bringing the principles of international law to the forefront. Our legitimacy is earned through the process of achieving our aims.

    The tasks of the tribunal

    The first task of the tribunal is to investigate the crimes committed by the US government in launching the Iraq war. In spite of the world movement that condemned this war and against all international legislation the US government forced its premeditated war-strategy upon the world. Moreover the US-government requests impunity and puts itself above all international laws and conventions.

    The second task is to investigate allegations of war crimes during the aggression, crimes against occupation law, genocide and crimes against humanity. These may include the sanctions, the use of illegal weapons which kill over generations, such as uranium weapons.
    The third task is the investigate and expose the broader context of the New Imperial World Order. The tribunal would therefore consider the doctrines of “pre-emptive war” and all its entails;benevolent hegemony;full spectrum dominance; and;multiple simultaneous theatre wars; In this process the tribunal will investigate the vast economic interests that are involved in this war-logic.

    The tribunal would, after examining reports and evidence, listening to witnesses (Iraqi and internationals), hearing interventions by victims, would reach a decision.

    The aims

    In organizing this International Tribunal we pursue four fundamental aims. Our first goal is to establish the facts and to inform the public about crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes during the occupation, about the real goals behind this war, about the inspiration of the American politics and the dangers they present for world peace. This is especially important to contribute in breaking the wall of lies diffused by the war-coalition and their imbedded press.

    For the peace movement and the global anti-war protest, the tribunal presents an opportunity to continue mobilization. The tribunal should not remain an academic endeavor but should be backed by a strong international network. Anti-war and peace movements, which carried out the big mass movements against the attack on Iraq have in principle adopted the idea of indicting the aggressors and turning this into a campaign.

    We consider the tribunal as a continuing process. The investigation of what happened in Iraq is of prime importance to restore truth and preserve collective memory against the constant rewriting of history. We have to challenge the silence of the international institutions and impress on them to fulfill their obligations to international law. In judging the recent past our aim is to prevent illegal wars in the future. In this process the tribunal can formulate recommendations on international law and expand notions of justice and ethical political awareness. It can contribute to break the tradition of victors’ tribunals and give a voice to the victims of the war. In doing so we support the demand of large parts of world public opinion and the Iraqi people to end the occupation and restore Iraqi sovereignty.

    The International Tribunal initiative wants to inscribe itself in a broader movement to stop the establishment of the new imperial world order as a permanent state of exception with constant wars as one of its main tools. The Tribunal can bring a moral, political and partly juridical judgment that contributes to build a world of peace and justice.

    Form of the tribunal

    The general plan is to hold an independent world tribunal with : associated events, associated commissions of inquiry, commissions of investigation, hearings and specific issue tribunal sessions in various countries, culminating in a final tribunal session in Istanbul. So far, there will be hearings in Brussels and Hiroshima. Other proposals at the moment include New York, Copenhagen and Mexico. Associated events will be held in London and Mumbaï.

    Being confronted with the paradox that we want to end impunity but we do not have the enforcement legal power to do so, we have to steer a middle way between mere political protest and academic symposiums without any judicial ambition on the one hand, and impeccable procedural trials of which the outcome is known beforehand. This paradox that we are just citizens and therefore have no right to judge in a strict judicial way and have at the same time have the duty as citizens to oppose criminal and war policies should be our starting point and our strength.

    Although these commissions of inquiry or investigation will be working in conformity with an overall concept that will apply to the whole tribunal (spelled out in the Charter), the hearings will also have some autonomy concerning format. By approaching the Iraq case from as many angles as possible (international law, war crimes, occupational law, political and economical analysis…) we strengthen our common objective to end impunity and resist the imperial wars. In this way the hearings will mutually enforce each other and all the findings will be brought together in the final session in Istanbul.

    In order to be as inclusive as possible, we will support and recognize all endeavors to resist impunity. The project will endorse and support the efforts to bring national authorities and warmongers to national (like the complaint against general Tommy Franks in Belgium) or international courts (ICC).

    Timing

    The series of hearings will start on Wednesday April 14 2004 in Brussels and end in final tribunal session in Istanbul that will start on March 20 2005, second anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq. These will be preceded by intensive inquiries, networking and campaigning.

    Appeal to the national and international movements

    We address an appeal to all organizations and individuals to support this project.
    We invite organizations to endorse and participate at various levels. They could:

    1. Undertake to organize a hearing or an associated event.
    2. Host a hearing.
    3. Contribute by contacts, names of people who would qualify to take part in the various components of the tribunal and establish the initial contacts with those people.
    4. Contribute names & contacts of persons and organizations of expertise who are already researching into the various aspects of the crimes and violations in question.
    5. Undertake to follow up with the preparation of certain reports and make them available for the use of the tribunal.
    6. Build a web page in as many languages as possible and constant flow of information.
    7. Undertake to organize the local campaigns around the tribunal.
    8. Contribute financially towards meeting the expenses involved in realizing this tribunal.

     Click here for PDF Version

  • The Emperor Has No Clothes

    Mr. President, the Emperor has no clothes. This entire adventure in Iraq has been based on propaganda and manipulation. Eighty-seven billion dollars is too much to pay for the continuation of a war based on falsehoods.

    In 1837, Danish author, Hans Christian Andersen, wrote a wonderful fairy tale which he titled The Emperor’s New Clothes. It may be the very first example of the power of political correctness. It is the story of the Ruler of a distant land who was so enamored of his appearance and his clothing that he had a different suit for every hour of the day.
    One day two rogues arrived in town, claiming to be gifted weavers. They convinced the Emperor that they could weave the most wonderful cloth, which had a magical property. The clothes were only visible to those who were completely pure in heart and spirit.

    The Emperor was impressed and ordered the weavers to begin work immediately. The rogues, who had a deep understanding of human nature, began to feign work on empty looms.

    Minister after minister went to view the new clothes and all came back exhorting the beauty of the cloth on the looms even though none of them could see a thing.

    Finally a grand procession was planned for the Emperor to display his new finery. The Emperor went to view his clothes and was shocked to see absolutely nothing, but he pretended to admire the fabulous cloth, inspect the clothes with awe, and, after disrobing, go through the motions of carefully putting on a suit of the new garments.

    Under a royal canopy the Emperor appeared to the admiring throng of his people – – all of whom cheered and clapped because they all knew the rogue weavers’ tale and did not want to be seen as less than pure of heart.

    But, the bubble burst when an innocent child loudly exclaimed, for the whole kingdom to hear, that the Emperor had nothing on at all. He had no clothes. That tale seems to me very like the way this nation was led to war.

    We were told that we were threatened by weapons of massestruction in Iraq, but they have not been seen.

    We were told that the throngs of Iraqi’s would welcome our troops with flowers, but no throngs or flowers appeared.

    We were led to believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, but no evidence has ever been produced.

    We were told in 16 words that Saddam Hussein tried to buy “yellow cake” from Africa for production of nuclear weapons, but the story has turned into empty air.

    We were frightened with visions of mushroom clouds, but they turned out to be only vapors of the mind.

    We were told that major combat was over but 101 [as of October 17] Americans have died in combat since that proclamation from the deck of an aircraft carrier by our very own Emperor in his new clothes.

    Our emperor says that we are not occupiers, yet we show no inclination to relinquish the country of Iraq to its people.

    Those who have dared to expose the nakedness of the Administration’s policies in Iraq have been subjected to scorn. Those who have noticed the elephant in the room — that is, the fact that this war was based on falsehoods – have had our patriotism questioned. Those who have spoken aloud the thought shared by hundreds of thousands of military families across this country, that our troops should return quickly and safely from the dangers half a world away, have been accused of cowardice. We have then seen the untruths, the dissembling, the fabrication, the misleading inferences surrounding this rush to war in Iraq wrapped quickly in the flag.

    The right to ask questions, debate, and dissent is under attack. The drums of war are beaten ever louder in an attempt to drown out those who speak of our predicament in stark terms.

    Even in the Senate, our history and tradition of being the world’s greatest deliberative body is being snubbed. This huge spending bill has been rushed through this chamber in just one month. There were just three open hearings by the Senate Appropriations Committee on $87 billion, without a single outside witness called to challenge the Administration’s line.

    Ambassador Bremer went so far as to refuse to return to the appropriations Committee to answer additional questions because, and I quote: “I don’t have time. I’m completely booked, and I have to get back to Baghdad to my duties.”

    Despite this callous stiff-arm of the Senate and its duties to ask questions in order to represent the American people, few dared to voice their opposition to rushing this bill through these halls of Congress. Perhaps they were intimidated by the false claims that our troops are in immediate need of more funds.

    But the time has come for the sheep-like political correctness which has cowed members of this Senate to come to an end.

    Mr. President, the Emperor has no clothes. This entire adventure in Iraq has been based on propaganda and manipulation. Eighty-seven billion dollars is too much to pay for the continuation of a war based on falsehoods.

    Mr. President, taking the nation to war based on misleading rhetoric and hyped intelligence is a travesty and a tragedy. It is the most cynical of all cynical acts. It is dangerous to manipulate the truth. It is dangerous because once having lied, it is difficult to ever be believed again. Having misled the American people and stampeded them to war, this Administration must now attempt to sustain a policy predicated on falsehoods. The President asks for billions from those same citizens
    who know that they were misled about the need to go to war. We misinformed and insulted our friends and allies and now this Administration is having more than a little trouble getting help from the international community. It is perilous to mislead.

    The single-minded obsession of this Administration to now make sense of the chaos in Iraq, and the continuing propaganda which emanates from the White House painting Iraq as the geographical center of terrorism is distracting our attention from Afghanistan and the 60 other countries in the world where terrorists hide. It is sapping resources which could be used to make us safer from terrorists on our own
    shores. The body armor for our own citizens still has many, many chinks. Have we forgotten that the most horrific terror attacks in history occurred right here at home!! Yet, this Administration turns back money for homeland security, while the President pours billions into security for Iraq. I am powerless to understand or explain such a policy.

    I have tried mightily to improve this bill. I twice tried to separate the reconstruction money in this bill, so that those dollars could be considered separately from the military spending. I offered an amendment to force the Administration to craft a plan to get other nations to assist the troops and formulate a plan to get the U.N. in, and the U.S. out, of Iraq. Twice I tried to rid the bill of expansive, flexible authorities that turn this $87 billion into a blank check. The American people should understand that we provide more foreign aid
    for Iraq in this bill, $20.3 billion, than we provide for the rest of the entire world! I attempted to remove from this bill billions in wasteful programs and divert those funds to better use. But, at every turn, my efforts were thwarted by the vapid argument that we must all support the requests of the Commander in Chief.

    I cannot stand by and continue to watch our grandchildren become increasingly burdened by the billions that fly out of the Treasury for a war and a policy based largely on propaganda and prevarication. We are borrowing $87 billion to finance this adventure in Iraq. The President is asking this Senate to pay for this war with increased debt, a debt that will have to be paid by our children and by those same troops that are currently fighting this war. I cannot support outlandish tax cuts that plunge our country into potentially disastrous debt while our troops are fighting and dying in a war that the White House chose to begin.

    I cannot support the continuation of a policy that unwisely ties down 150,000 American troops for the foreseeable future, with no end in sight.

    I cannot support a President who refuses to authorize the reasonable change in course that would bring traditional allies to our side in Iraq.

    I cannot support the politics of zeal and “might makes right” that created the new American arrogance and unilateralism which passes for foreign policy in this Administration.

    I cannot support this foolish manifestation of the dangerous and destabilizing doctrine of preemption that changes the image of America into that of a reckless bully.

    Mr. President, the emperor has no clothes. And our former allies around the world were the first to loudly observe it.

    I shall vote against this bill because I cannot support a policy based on prevarication. I cannot support doling out 87 billion of our hard-earned tax dollars when I have so many doubts about the wisdom of its use.

    Mr. President, I began my remarks with a fairy tale. I shall close my remarks with a horror story, in the form of a quote from the book Nuremberg Diaries, written by G.M. Gilbert, in which the author interviews Hermann Goering.

    Mr. President, I began my remarks with a fairy tale. I shall close my remarks with a horror story, in the form of a quote from the book Nuremberg Diaries, written by G.M. Gilbert, in which the author interviews Hermann Goering.

    “We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

    “. . . But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

    “There is one difference,” I pointed out. “In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.”

    “Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

  • Whose Side Are You On?

    Abraham was born in the town of Ur, in what is present-day Iraq. His spiritual lineage includes the triad of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

    This may not be common knowledge, however, among people who have become fearful of Muslims in the past few decades. They have been used as scapegoats and bad guys in movies, and more recently since the war on terror brought Muslim countries in the fix of its scope. We are led to believe that Muslims are all jihadists running around with bombs in their backpacks, hating the West for its democratic institutions.

    The covert message is that Muslims, with widely stereotyped accents further delineating their difference, are suspect; they are not like us. The deft linguistic move of identifying with a “Judeo-Christian” background alienates what is the third of the Abrahamic traditions, Islam.

    Yet it’s not as simple as saying that if only those identified as “Judeo-Christian” recognized their shared past with Muslims, there would be a magic resolution to the deeply entrenched problems in the Middle East and the United States would not have to fear being attacked again. Language is not the whole problem, but it is evidence for how we posture the problem, and how we define who the enemy is.

    While there are clear cultural, linguistic and religious differences between the Abrahamic faiths, they all have a common history. A verse in the Quran quotes that Muslims believe in the same God as Jews and Christians. How we use language to make distinctions, like identifying a “Judeo-Christian” background, satisfies the objective of making us separate in thought and practice even when we share the same history.

    But objectives don’t define themselves. When an indisputable historical link exists between these three religions, why is all-inclusive terminology not used?

    Early in the war on terror post-September 11th, President Bush made an important retraction after calling his plan a “crusade.” He made belated, yet important, outreach to religious leaders in the Muslim community, visiting mosques, shaking hands and proclaiming solidarity. He condemned the hate crimes visited upon non-whites in the United States in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks.

    Clearly, the way we talk about who we identify with distinguished us from others. Primed with national rhetoric of “us versus them”, the subtle transition to “Judeo-Christians” versus Muslims is nearly invisible. Many people make that presumptuous leap without even knowing it. Others are not so inhibited in shifting their perception.

    Lt. Gen. William Boykin has recently come under scrutiny for making what many consider to be inflammatory remarks against Islam. “I knew my God was bigger than his,” said Lt. Gen. William Boykin in reference to a Muslim in Somalia, proclaiming that they hate us because we are a Christian nation.

    However problematic, offensive or inaccurate these comments may be, the deeper problem is that people who control the language of war and politics have the capacity to wield exclusivist terminology, creating artificial boundaries between groups of people, between Jews and Christians, and Muslims.

    So is the idea that there are two groups to be divided, an “us” and a “them,” legitimate?

    Thought comes before form; we use language to think about what we will do. We troubleshoot. We brainstorm. We categorize and sort. Politics may very well be the art of convincing others to look at the world through our categories. Creating predominant thought is a powerful job.

    Having an “us” and “them” ensures that there will be a “winner” and a “loser”. The way we talk about the problem of fighting them, our enemies, not only influences our decisions, it legitimizes and reinforces the notion that we have enemies in the first place. Indisputably, there were people selfish and hateful enough to orchestrate and carry out a morning of terror two years ago on September 11th. But can the problem be viewed only through the lens of “us” versus “them”? Physicists could argue that at the quantum level, there is no distinction between anyone or anything, but at present this idea does not have much of a foothold in geopolitics.

    Still, to this day we have looked at no other options for how the problem might be defined, or redefined, than in terms of “us” versus “them.” The ability to mobilize a negative mass perception of Islam and continue the path of our war on terror rests on the persuasion that Muslims are disqualified from the “Judeo-Christian” tradition.

    *Leah Wells is a consultant to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. She may be reached at leah@peaceed.org