Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Peace And Sustainable Development Will Rise or Fall Together

    Peace And Sustainable Development Will Rise or Fall Together

    It is not likely that peace can be maintained in the longer term without sustainable development. Similarly, it is unlikely that sustainable development can take place in a climate dominated by war and the preparations for war.

    In order to assess the prospects for both peace and sustainable development, we must take into account the broad global trends of our time: political, economic, military and cultural. I will attempt to provide some perspective on these trends.

    Political

    In the aftermath of the Cold War, there was a breakdown of the post World War II bipolar balance of power. The United States emerged as the dominant global power, while the Russians have struggled to maintain their economy and their influence. Instead of extending a gracious hand of support to the Russians, as the United States did for Western Europe, including the vanquished nations, and Japan after WWII, the US has sought to extend its global reach and, in general, forced the Russians to accept compromising positions, such as the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe.

    At the same time, the United States has generally opposed the expansion of international law, including human rights law, and has withdrawn its support from many key treaty commitments, including the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Accords on Climate Change, and the Protocol to verify the Biological Weapons Convention. Almost daily there are reports of new US assaults on international law.

    As the United States has sought to extend its power unilaterally, it has undermined the international political process established after World War II that operates through the United Nations. The US has withheld economic support from the United Nations and only sought to use it when the US perceived that its own interests could be directly advanced, as in the cases of the Persian Gulf War and the more recent US-led war on terrorism.

    In the past, new coalitions have formed to provide a check on one country asserting global dominance. It is perhaps too early to see clearly the shape of a new coalition that might arise in response to US dominance, but if history is a guide there will be one. Even without any major coalition of forces arising, however, the US will remain challenged by terrorists seeking to avenge themselves against the US for policies that have adversely affected their lives, cultures and countries.

    Economic

    The US has promoted the forces of globalization that have opened the doors for capital to move freely to countries where the costs of labor are cheapest and the environmental regulations are most lax. Despite claims by Western leaders that benefits would accrue to the neediest, this “globalization from above” has continued to shift economic benefit from the poor to the wealthy, and has not provided substantial increased benefit to the poor of the world. Nearly half the world’s population continues to live in conditions of poverty, characterized by inadequate food, water, shelter and health care. These conditions create a fertile breeding ground for terrorists committed to the destruction of US dominance and its imperial outreach.

    Further, global military expenditures are approximately $800 billion per year. These funds are largely used to repress and control the poor, when in actuality, for a small fraction of these global expenditures, the conditions of poverty could be largely eliminated. Of the $800 billion spent worldwide on military forces, the US spends approximately one-half of the total. This trend has been on a steady rise since the Bush administration came into power.

    The rich countries of the world have done little to alleviate the crushing burdens of poverty or to aid in redressing the indignities and inequities still existing after long periods of colonial rule. There is much cause for unease throughout the developing world, which is giving rise to continued low intensity warfare as exemplified by the Palestinian struggle against the Israelis and events such as the September 11th attacks against the United States.

    Military

    In the post-Cold War period, the US has pulled far ahead of the other nations of the world in terms of military dominance. The US is able to control NATO policy and has used NATO as a vehicle for its pursuit of military domination. In addition to dramatically increasing its military budget in recent years, the US has announced plans for high-tech developments that include missile defense systems, more usable nuclear weapons and the weaponization of space.

    Despite its push for global military dominance, however, the nature of today’s weapons limit the possibility of any country having unilateral dominance. Nuclear weapons, for example, are capable of destroying cities, and there is an increased likelihood in the aftermath of the Cold War that these weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists capable of attacking largely, if not completely, with impunity. Thus, the most powerful weapons that have been created have greater utility for the weak (if they can get their hands on them) than they do for the strong (who may be reluctant to exercise such power and also unable to if they cannot identify and locate the source of the attack).

    Cultural

    The world is definitely experiencing a clash of cultures, but not along the fault lines of civilizations as Samuel Huntington has suggested. The opposing cultural trends that are most dominant are between those who define the world in terms of the value of massive accumulation and immediate use of resources (powerful individuals, corporations and the national governments that provide a haven for them) and those who define the world in terms of shared rights and responsibilities for life and future generations (most of the world’s people). The former values, reflected predominantly by the economic elites in the United States and many other countries and constantly on display through various forms of media, do not promote sustainable development, wreak havoc on the poor of the world and invite retaliation. The latter values are reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the growing body of international human rights law that has developed since World War II.

    Dominant Trends

    The dominant world trends today are:

    • Unilateralism by the United States and a downplaying of collective political responsibility;
    • Growing and increasingly desperate economic disparity between the world’s rich and poor;
    • A push for military dominance by the United States in particular and the Western states through NATO more generally, offset by the flexibility of terrorists who may obtain nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction; and
    • The cultural dominance of greed and selfishness portrayed by global media on a broad screen for all, including the poor, to see from throughout the world.

    These trends are destabilizing and unsustainable. They can change by democratic means from within democratic states or they can continue until the world is embroiled in conflagration. That is a choice that is available to us for a relatively short period of time as the trends are already quite advanced. The changes needed are:

    • A shift to multilateralism, involving all states, through a reformed and strengthened United Nations;
    • Implementation of a plan to alleviate poverty and economic injustice throughout the world;
    • A shift from US and NATO military dominance to the implementation of the post World War II vision of collective security; and
    • A shift toward implementation of international law in which all states and their leaders are held to high standards of protecting human rights and the dignity of the individual.

    The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development, set to take place in Johannesburg, South Africa in August 2002, will fail dramatically unless it takes into account these dominant trends and the need to shift them in more sustainable and peaceful directions.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and the Deputy Chair of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility.

  • Don’t Attack Saddam

    Originally Published in the Wall Street Journal

    Our nation is presently engaged in a debate about whether to launch a war against Iraq. Leaks of various strategies for an attack on Iraq appear with regularity. The Bush administration vows regime change, but states that no decision has been made whether, much less when, to launch an invasion.

    It is beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace. He terrorizes and brutalizes his own people. He has launched war on two of his neighbors. He devotes enormous effort to rebuilding his military forces and equipping them with weapons of mass destruction. We will all be better off when he is gone.

    That said, we need to think through this issue very carefully. We need to analyze the relationship between Iraq and our other pressing priorities — notably the war on terrorism — as well as the best strategy and tactics available were we to move to change the regime in Baghdad.

    Saddam’s strategic objective appears to be to dominate the Persian Gulf, to control oil from the region, or both.

    That clearly poses a real threat to key U.S. interests. But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam’s goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them.

    He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address. Threatening to use these weapons for blackmail — much less their actual use — would open him and his entire regime to a devastating response by the U.S. While Saddam is thoroughly evil, he is above all a power-hungry survivor.

    Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals for his aggression. There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression. Rather, Saddam’s problem with the U.S. appears to be that we stand in the way of his ambitions. He seeks weapons of mass destruction not to arm terrorists, but to deter us from intervening to block his aggressive designs.

    Given Saddam’s aggressive regional ambitions, as well as his ruthlessness and unpredictability, it may at some point be wise to remove him from power. Whether and when that point should come ought to depend on overall U.S. national security priorities. Our pre-eminent security priority — underscored repeatedly by the president — is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken.

    The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy Saddam’s regime. But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive — with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy — and could as well be bloody. In fact, Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.

    Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East. Finally, if we are to achieve our strategic objectives in Iraq, a military campaign very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation.

    But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.

    Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict — which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve — in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest.

    Even without Israeli involvement, the results could well destabilize Arab regimes in the region, ironically facilitating one of Saddam’s strategic objectives. At a minimum, it would stifle any cooperation on terrorism, and could even swell the ranks of the terrorists. Conversely, the more progress we make in the war on terrorism, and the more we are seen to be committed to resolving the Israel-Palestinian issue, the greater will be the international support for going after Saddam.

    If we are truly serious about the war on terrorism, it must remain our top priority. However, should Saddam Hussein be found to be clearly implicated in the events of Sept. 11, that could make him a key counter-terrorist target, rather than a competing priority, and significantly shift world opinion toward support for regime change.

    In any event, we should be pressing the United Nations Security Council to insist on an effective no-notice inspection regime for Iraq — any time, anywhere, no permission required. On this point, senior administration officials have opined that Saddam Hussein would never agree to such an inspection regime. But if he did, inspections would serve to keep him off balance and under close observation, even if all his weapons of mass destruction capabilities were not uncovered. And if he refused, his rejection could provide the persuasive casus belli which many claim we do not now have. Compelling evidence that Saddam had acquired nuclear-weapons capability could have a similar effect.

    In sum, if we will act in full awareness of the intimate interrelationship of the key issues in the region, keeping counter-terrorism as our foremost priority, there is much potential for success across the entire range of our security interests — including Iraq. If we reject a comprehensive perspective, however, we put at risk our campaign against terrorism as well as stability and security in a vital region of the world.
    *Mr. Scowcroft, national security adviser under Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, is founder and president of the Forum for International Policy.

    Dated: Wall Street Journal 15 Aug 2002 p.A12

  • Summer in Iraq Yields Lessons About War

    Published in the Ventura County Star

    Before we talk about a new war with Iraq, we must recognize that the “old war” never ended. Last month, an airstrike by the United States killed one Iraqi and injured 17 others — and we should not miss the significance of this fact. More than a thousand Iraqis have been killed and many more wounded since the illegal no-fly zones were imposed in 1991 — areas that we purportedly patrol to keep Iraqis safe.

    In spite of the slanted testimony of the recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on the potential for a renewed war with Iraq, where no dissenters were allowed to speak, the entire world seems to be sending a message to the United States that invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein is an unequivocally bad idea.

    Nations such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Germany have demonstrated outright disapproval and nonsupport for a U.S.-led war against Iraq.

    Not invited to testify were Scott Ritter, the ex-U.S. Marine who led the UNSCOM weapons inspection team until December 1998 when the United Nations withdrew the group prior to a heavy bombing raid on Baghdad, and Dennis Halliday and Hans Graf von Sponeck, two career United Nations officials who resigned their posts as chief humanitarian coordinators in Iraq in protest of the devastating effects of the sanctions. These three would have provided vital information regarding the status of the Iraqi population, the deaths of more than half a million children due to preventable illnesses and malnutrition, and more than a million total people in Iraq since the Gulf War of 1991.

    “I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the U.N. weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them. While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq’s proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90 to 95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq,” wrote Ritter July 20 for the Boston Globe.

    Noticeably absent from the dialogue about Iraq is the impact a “new” war would have on the civilian population. A Los Angeles Times report states that much of the fighting this time around would be centered in cities and urban areas, increasing the likelihood of high numbers of civilian casualties.

    Also unmentioned is the impact the war preparation is having on the children of Iraq whose lives are suspended in wait of more bombings. In a letter to American students in reference to the December 1998 bombing, “Please send us gifts and not bombs from Father Christmas.” We must consider the psychological toll that even the preparation for war takes on the children.

    The following stories attempt to humanize the lives of average Iraqis as I encountered them last summer. Not much has changed since then.

    Scenes of war

    Iraq is the cradle of civilization, home to the famed Garden of Eden, to Babylon, to the Tigris and Euphrates, to the Fertile Crescent. It houses the birthplace of Abraham, the mosque of Imam Ali and the most widely accepted evidence of the Great Flood — seashells atop a 4,000-year-old ziggurat in the middle of the desert. Yet, since the Gulf War, the sanctity of this historically significant land has been desecrated and its people demoralized, as I learned while visiting Iraq July and August 2001.

    Daily calls to prayer broadcast throughout the city awakened me to the impact of the sanctions and the residual effects of the Gulf War. The call begins with “God is greater than all.” I quickly learned that since Aug. 6, 1990, the effects of war are even more far-reaching than God.

    Omran

    Omran was a 12-year-old shepherd boy walking through his family’s field in May 2000 when a stray bomb fell from a U.S. plane patrolling the illegal no-fly zones over the southern portion of Iraq. This bomb instantly killed him — and ripped apart the social fabric of his tiny village near Najaf.

    I visited Omran’s family last summer. I tried my best to explain to Omran’s mother, father, brothers and entire village that the memory of their son is not forgotten. Omran’s story has been told hundreds of times to high school students, to colleges, to peace and justice and religious groups across the United States as part of a nationwide project to remember Omran.

    I listened as Omran’s father told of his inexplicable loss, of the pain of losing a child, of no apology from anyone, save the five American pacifists sitting before him hot and dusty in the dry Iraq desert. Omran’s mother, who has scarcely spoken since he was killed and who is suffering from a serious heart condition, embraced me and we shed tears together over the helplessness of the situation.

    Cancer ward

    It is 140 degrees inside the hospital at Amara. The air conditioning does not work because the electrical facilities were bombed during the Gulf War and spare parts are routinely denied as dual-use items by the Sanctions Committee at the United Nations.

    A mother sits cross-legged on her son’s bare hospital bed, a piece of torn cardboard in one hand, fanning her child. She is sobbing uncontrollably, rocking back and forth. Her son is unconscious, dying of cancer; he has no IV bag, no medicine, no painkillers. She has no tissue, so I ask for a handful and give them to her; she glances at me with tired appreciation.

    She places the cardboard fan on the bed and begins to knead at her son’s body — his torso, his legs — in a desperate attempt to rouse him. He does not move. I sit helpless on the sheetless bed next to her, watching, invading this private moment, glued to this scene, futile tears rolling down my cheeks. I think, “This is my fault.” The guilt endures.

    Across the room, the doctor escorting our group through the hospital pokes and prods at sleeping, sick babies causing them to wake up screaming in pain to demonstrate the malignancies, tumors and gross deformities that have mysteriously appeared since the Gulf War. All the children are crying now; all their mothers try to comfort them and not look annoyed that the gawking Americans have disturbed their lives.

    The car accident

    We fasted for a day across from the United Nations on Aug. 6, 2001, in the oppressive heat. At the end of the day, a blowout on the road a few feet from us caused a car to spin out of control and crash into our Iraqi friend’s car — our 70-year-old friend who is a taxi driver and who relies on his car for income. Both cars are totally wrecked, blood everywhere. Spare car parts and new tires are expensive. The transfer rate for the Iraqi dinar to U.S. dollars has been devalued from 3:1 to 2000:1, meaning average Iraqis have virtually no purchasing power.

    I call out for our friend who miraculously emerges from the back seat of his smashed vehicle, banged, bruised and filled with glass in his eyes. He is dazed, then suddenly realizes that his livelihood has been instantaneously taken from him. He starts to cry. I try to negotiate with Kalashnikov-toting soldiers to let our friend get examined by a United Nations doctor for internal injuries before they take him to the police station. We ask another Iraqi how much to junk the car and buy a new one. He looks surprised. “Junk the car? In Iraq, we fix everything.”

    While we in the United States live out foreign wars vicariously through our movies, through the news and through the threats of nuclear force made by those in power, I recall the people I met in Iraq whose lives are considerably less glamorous than the remote Hollywood versions we see and hear about. I often wonder if the case of Iraq is an example of the best our foreign policy can be.

    Iraq is more than its one leader. It is a country of 23 million people who all have stories, hopes and fears.

    Basketball and books

    When 58-year-old Zuhair Matti moved to Los Angeles from Baghdad, Iraq, in March 1977, he hardly figured that returning to his homeland would be an intangible goal.

    A member of the 1973 Iraqi Olympic basketball team, Matti played against athletes from all over the world in the games that symbolize internationalism, peace and sportsmanship. Held in Tehran, Iran, just a few years prior to the Iran-Iraq war, the 1973 Olympics were a chance for Matti to shine as a national celebrity for Iraq. His athletic ability and love of his country and people made him a national superhero with fame and status.

    In 1977, Matti moved to Los Angeles at the behest of his wife, whose family lived here. Now an American citizen with two American-born sons, ages 23 and 14, Matti makes ends meet by working at Home Depot, still pining for a family half a globe away whom he has not seen for 24 years.

    When Matti fled Iraq, he was an officer in the army; he took a vacation and never returned. That, compiled with travel made more difficult by the U.N.-imposed and U.S./U.K.-upheld economic sanctions, which disallow travel to and from Iraq, dims hopes that Zuhair will return to his native country soon. He explains: “Travel is so expensive and I don’t want to return with only a few dollars in my pocket. I want to be able to treat everyone very well when I go back. Iraqis are the most generous people on Earth. They are magnanimous people.”

    Al-Mutannabi Street in Baghdad is a well-known book market there, which offers evidence to the academic and intellectual impact of embargo. Half a mile long, lined on both sides of the street with books ranging from 1980s computer manuals to linguistics textbooks to copies of the Qu’ran, the book market demonstrates the impact on the educated class through a persistent starvation of minds and deprivation of information.

    The street is lined with children peddling comic books and middle-aged men selling novels, manuals and movie posters. The children ought to be in school and the men ought to be working in their professional capacities. Fifty-year-old shoe shiners were at one time physics professors. Taxi drivers were electrical engineers.

    Since it is illegal to send anything weighing more than 12 ounces to Iraq through the U.S. Postal Service, medical textbooks and other professional journals cannot be sent. None of the books I saw was published later than 1989.

    That hot day on Aug. 3, 2001, I met Matti’s brother Gassan selling books on Al-Mutannabi Street. Through a translator, he asked where I live. When I replied that I live near Los Angeles, his face lit up. “Please call my brother when you get back home,” he implored. “Tell him I am well! Tell him our mother is well! Tell him how I look; you see I look well, right? I have not seen him in more than 20 years!”

    One of the few promises I can make to the Iraqis I met last summer is that upon my return, I will tell their stories to as many people as will listen. Upon returning to the United States, I called and subsequently met Zuhair Matti, fulfilling Gassan’s wish.

    “You are a nice young woman, Leah,” Matti tells me. “Thank you for what you are doing for my people.” His gratitude surprises me, yet marks a quintessentially Arab sentiment that for however good you are to someone, the goodness will be returned tenfold to you.

    Perhaps Zuhair Matti will be able to travel to Iraq, whether or not he violates the inhumane sanctions that divide families and isolate the Fertile Crescent from the rest of civilization. Perhaps he will see his aging mother before she passes away. He says that the most important thing is “to judge a person based on how nice he is,” and how important it is to have diverse friends. He believes that people are good, regardless of race and ethnicity.

    Perhaps if more Americans knew Iraqis like Zuhair Matti, we would not be so quick to condemn all Iraqis to a slow death via sanctions or an even more expedient death in a new war.

    Precarious situation

    Prior to 1990, Iraq was deemed an emerging first-world country by the United Nations. The oil empire had brought Iraqi citizens great wealth and a prosperous society that boasted free medical care for every citizen as well as free education up through university. In many ways, the standard of living in Iraq once was comparable to middle-class American life.

    Because of the sanctions, no currency flows in or out of Iraq. Any financial transactions must be approved by the Sanctions Committee 661 at the United Nations in New York. It is illegal to wire money from the United States — or anywhere else — to family inside Iraq’s borders. All goods and funds entering or leaving Iraq must have the approval of the five permanent members of the Security Council whose representatives sit on the 661 Committee. The economy has been at a standstill for 11 years, targeting the civilian population while a powerful few score illegal contracts to smuggle oil out of the country.

    Yet for most Iraqis in 2002, many of the basic health and household amenities are far out of reach. Prior to the Gulf War in 1991, the transfer rate of dinar:dollars was 3:1. Now the transfer rate soars at nearly 2,000 dinar to $1, effectively stripping the average, middle-class Iraqis of any meaningful purchasing power.

    During a visit to a pharmacy in Baghdad, I learned that only the wealthiest private sector can afford higher-quality toothpaste, costing 1,250 dinar (71 cents). The rest of the population buys lower-quality toothpaste at 250 dinar (14 cents). Prior to 1990, diapers cost 18 dinar and were widely used throughout Iraq. A box of 10 diapers in August 2001 cost between 2,000 to 4,000 dinar ($1.14 to $2.29). One bottle of shampoo costs 1,500 dinar, or $1.86.

    An average salary in Iraq is roughly 5,000 dinar per month. The Iraqi government, dominated by the Ba’ath party, employs many people — doctors, teachers, engineers and other civil servants. Prior to the Gulf War, teachers in Iraq earned the equivalent of $300 to $400 per month. They now earn the equivalent of $3 to $4 per month.

    Health care has gained a price tag as well in Iraq. Once-affordable medicines like aspirin are too expensive for people to buy now. Ibuprofen and vitamins cost 200 dinar each (11 cents) for 10 tablets. Twelve capsules of Erythromyacin, an antibiotic, cost 500 dinar (29 cents). Some health-care and household items are available in Iraq and to a certain extent are available to the general public. But, families must spend their money only on necessities such as rent and food rather than on aspirin and cough syrup or trips to the hospital.

    Iraqi families finding themselves in financially precarious situations often take their children out of school and send them to beg, steal, peddle candy or cigarettes or shine shoes. I spent a great deal of time with Achmed and Saif, 13 and 12, respectively, who shined our shoes every day for 750 dinar, less than 50 cents. They arrived at our hotel long before we awoke and stayed until late at night.

    Because of the devaluation of the dinar, often only one child per family will be able to attend school due to the cost of supplies such as books, shoes and clothes. A remarkable increase in both depression and juvenile delinquency has occurred in Iraq in the past 11 years. One 10-year-old boy had been sent by his father to sell cigarettes on the street to increase the family’s income rather than attend school. Many customers took advantage of his naivete, taking cigarettes and promising to return with payment later. At the end of the day, when the boy had no cigarettes and no money to show, his father scolded him and sent him to bed with no dinner. This young boy went to his room, wrapped himself in towels and set himself on fire.

    Once-rare crimes like theft and vandalism are now more commonplace among the young, and because the onset of social problems only began within the last 11 years, state-supported social services have only a feeble infrastructure to deal with the ever-expanding magnitude of these issues.

    Desperation and poverty have contributed to a breakdown in family structure and support. The hopelessness for a better future pervades the culture of Iraq, especially among the youth. Their scholastic apathy shows a scary trend signifying their awareness of their dim future. Regardless of how hard they study in school, they know they do not have promising prospects.

    We must not allow Iraqis to take steps backward toward enforced child labor, divestment from quality education and further poverty. Justice and peace for Iraqis mean that they must have a sense of economic mobility and stability in their society.
    *Leah C. Wells of Santa Paula serves as peace education coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. She also teaches at local high schools.

  • Sadako Peace Day 2002

    Sadako Peace Day 2002

    We are gathered in community at this beautiful garden, as others are gathered in Hiroshima and throughout the world, to remember the horror and consequences of the use of nuclear weapons so that we may help assure that there are not future Hiroshimas and Nagasakis.

    Sadako Peace Garden, named for Sadako Sasaki, a young victim of the Hiroshima bombing, is dedicated to all who work for peace and a nuclear weapons free world.

    On this occasion, I would like to offer three suggestions.

    First, believe in your dreams. No dream is impossible, even a world at peace, even a world free of nuclear weapons. Eleanor Roosevelt once said, “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” The world and future generations badly need for us to believe in these dreams and to keep hope alive.

    Second, dedicate yourself to making your dreams become reality. Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” I urge you to act upon your dreams, act for a better, more peaceful world, free of the threat of nuclear holocaust.

    Third, never give up. Here is what the Dalai Lama says about never giving up.

    NEVER GIVE UP

    No matter what is going on
    Never give up
    Develop the heart
    Too much energy in your country
    Is spent developing the mind
    Instead of the heart
    Be compassionate
    Not just to your friends
    But to everyone
    Be compassionate
    Work for peace
    In your heart and in the world
    Work for peace
    And I say again
    Never give up
    No matter what is going on around you
    Never give up

    In concluding, I’d like to share a recent poem about Einstein, one of my heroes, a great scientist and even greater humanitarian, a man who never gave up.
    EINSTEIN’S REGRET

    Einstein’s regret ran deep
    Like the deep pools of sorrow
    That were his eyes.

    His mind could see things
    That others could not,
    The bending of light,

    The slowing of time,
    Relationships of trains passing
    In the night, and power,

    Dormant and asleep,
    That could be awakened,
    But who would dare?

    He saw patterns
    In snowflakes and stars,
    Unimaginable simplicity

    To make one weep with joy.

    When the shadow of Hitler
    Spread across Europe.
    What was Einstein to do

    But what he did?
    His regret ran deep, deeper
    Than the deep pools of sorrow

    That were his eyes.
    Thank you for remembering, for being part of a community of hope, and for dreaming and working for a more peaceful and decent world without giving up — ever.

    David Krieger
    August 6, 2002

  • Secretary of State Powell’s Visit to Indonesia Can Help

    Published in the Ventura County Star

    I participated in facilitating student workshops sponsored by Nonviolence International on peace education in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, last month.

    In discussing the chapter entitled “We Love Peace,” the students made important distinctions between active and passive peace. They said, “It’s easy to stand outside the conflict and claim that you’re being nonviolent — that’s passive peace. What we want is active peace. Standing up for ourselves and our communities. But in Aceh,” they warned, “that’s dangerous.”

    Aceh, a lush jungle and mountainous region on the northernmost tip of Sumatra, is home to a vicious civil conflict between armed Indonesian forces and guerrillas seeking Acehnese independence. A team of peace activists looking for a proactive lasting solution to the violence that has plagued their province for the last three decades developed a peace curriculum for high schools — the Program Pendidikan Damai — a peace education curriculum rooted in Qu’ranic peace teachings and Acehnese culture.

    The students are right — it is dangerous for civilians in Aceh, much less a tenacious peace team trying to promote active peacemaking and nonviolence in high schools.

    Case in point: One day leaving the peace education training, I saw firsthand a 23-year-old student, Muhammad Iqbal, shot in the head by a police officer at lunchtime in broad daylight on one of the busiest thoroughfares. His crime? He’d accidentally bumped the officer’s vehicle as he was riding by on a motor scooter.

    The Indonesian military issued a flaccid apology the next day.

    This year alone, more than 600 civilians have been killed in Aceh. Everyone has a story and no one is untouched by the violence. My friend and guide in Aceh reported that Muhammad Iqbal was once his student and frequented the coffee shop next to the school where he teaches.

    One woman activist pleaded: “You must tell the United States that the Indonesian military must be stopped. You must help us.” Acehnese and Indonesian human rights groups both claim that the Indonesian military (TNI) acts with impunity.

    Many people in the community expressed doubt that the officer allegedly responsible for the slain student’s death would be brought to justice.

    Unfortunately, her plea may fall on deaf ears. Aug. 5 looms, the date set for deciding whether to impose martial law or a state of civil emergency in Aceh. The Indonesian military leader in Aceh says that he needs 3,000 additional troops to control the violence in this province.

    This would mean disaster for the traumatized Acehnese population who are already living in constant fear, even to go out after dark.

    Another friend I met at Syiah Kuala University in Banda Aceh told me of his brush with death walking home from making a phone call just after dusk a few months ago. He saw a shadowy figure slink behind a building, so quick he thought he had seen a ghost. Moments later, an explosion nearly knocked him down as gunfire began to pepper the air. Dodging a falling power line, he barely escaped unharmed.

    With the possibility of increased support from the United States, the Indonesian government is becoming more resolute in seeking a military solution to the ongoing conflict. The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee voted to lift a decade-old ban on military training initially imposed based on human rights abuses that occurred there in the early 1990s and appropriated $400,000 in funding.

    As U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell visits Indonesia, he should not presage U.S. support for the Indonesian military, nor Indonesia’s participation in a proposed “School of the Americas-style” Southeast Asian military training institution to open in Hawaii. Powell should strongly encourage the Indonesians to demilitarize the conflict, withdraw its troops and support humanitarian aid, education and development assistance.

    Further militarizing Aceh would make the existing peace initiatives almost impossible to continue. The Acehnese have resourceful, good ideas, differing from the rebels’, about ameliorating their situation, but they need support. One group is currently traveling to neighborhoods and villages at great personal risk to capture cultural stories and local lore about conflict resolution and peacemaking to incorporate into a curriculum for grade-school students. Their ability to travel would be further circumscribed and thus their peace work thwarted if the area came under more stringent military control.

    U.S. agencies and citizens should increase support for forces of peace in Aceh, through groups like the Human Rights Coalition of Aceh and Women Volunteers for Humanity, and through international groups like the Henri Dunant Center, which has been brokering peace talks between the Indonesian military and GAM rebels in Geneva, such as Peace Brigades International, which does vital third-party accompaniment for human rights workers whose safety is threatened, and agencies like UNICEF and Oxfam whose humanitarian contributions attempt to stabilize the weakening educational and health conditions in Aceh.
    *Leah C. Wells of Santa Barbara serves as Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • From Hiroshima to Hope

    From Hiroshima to Hope

    “I will write peace on your wings, and you will fly all over the world.”
    — Sadako Sasaki

    August 6th. Hiroshima Day. A time for reflection, for listening to the sounds of birds and water, the rustling leaves, for remembering who we are.

    We remember Hiroshima not for the past, but for the future. We remember Hiroshima so that its past will not become our future. Hiroshima is best remembered with the plaintive sounds of the bamboo flute, the Shakuhachi. It conjures up the devastation, the destruction, the encompassing emptiness of that day. The Shakuhachi reveals the tear in the fabric of humanity that was ripped opened by the bomb. Through that tear we could all be sucked as into a black hole in the universe of decency.

    Nuclear weapons are not weapons at all. They are a symbol of an imploding human spirit. They are a fire that consumes the crisp air of decency. They are a crossroads where science joined hands with evil and apathy. They are a triumph of academic certainty wrapped in the arrogance and convoluted lies of deterrence. They are Einstein’s regret. They are many things, but not weapons — not instruments of war, but of genocide and perhaps of omnicide.

    Those who gather to retell and listen to the story of Hiroshima and of Sadako are a community, a community committed to a human future. We may not know one another, but we are a community. And we are part of a greater community gathered throughout the world to commemorate this day, seeking to turn Hiroshima to Hope.

    If we succeed, the child Sadako of a thousand cranes, who would have been an older woman now, will be remembered by new generations. She will be remembered long after the names and spirits of those who made and used and celebrated the bomb will have faded into the haunting sounds of the Shakuhachi.
    *David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Justice for the Pictsweet Mushroom Workers

    This article is available in the magazine Hope Dance, online athttp://www.hopedance.org

    While many people experience co-worker squabbles and subtle inter-office politicking at their jobs, every day the pro-UFW workers at Pictsweet confront open hostilities across clearly delineated battle lines where those in red ‘La Union Hace La Fuerza’ shirts stand side by side in stark juxtaposition to workers in white ‘NO UFW’ t-shirts worn by the contras, as they pick and pack mushrooms together in suspended tension.

    Being a union supporter at the Ventura, CA Pictsweet plant takes courage, commitment and character. The environment is structured to discourage the determination of the union supporters unwilling to cower under management pressure. Two workers in particular, Lilia Orozco and Fidel Andrade, exemplify the spirit and mission of Cesar Chavez and of nonviolent resistance. These two know the power of truth and continue to speak out and organize despite tremendous personal costs, physical injuries and sustained opposition to their organizing efforts.

    Lilia fell and hit her head at work, sustaining a serious bruise and impaired vision. The management sent her to a company-approved physician who said on several occasions that she was healthy, and once that she was “crazy” for making claims that of vision problems. Lilia finally threatened to visit her own doctor, Dr. Manuel Lopez, Mayor of Oxnard. The company doctor re-examined her and found that her optic nerve was nearly severed and required immediate surgery lest she loose complete sight. An expensive operation ensued, and Lilia still battles Pictsweet for repayment of hospital bills.

    In June 2001, Fidel Andrade, husband and father of six, was fired after a supervisor accused him of physical assault. After a verbal confrontation, Augustine Villanueva threw mushrooms at Fidel’s basket and brandished his finger in Fidel’s face as a form of intimidation. Because Fidel moved Villanueva’s hand aside, Human Resources Manager Olmos decided to terminate Fidel’s employment based on the company rule of “no fighting in the workplace.”

    On January 10, 2002, Agricultural Labor Board Judge Douglas Gallop officially ruled in Fidel’s favor stating that he suffered discrimination on the basis of being an outspoken proponent of UFW representation and that Pictsweet must repay Fidel all back wages and benefits. Days later, lawyers from Bryan Cave LLP, the law firm retained by Pictsweet, filed a 31-point exception to the ruling. On June 4, 2002, a subsequent ruling by the ALRB upheld the January decision, reiterating that Fidel was a model worker, and only after becoming prominent in the unionization of Pictsweet employees was he singled out and fired, in violation of section 1153 (a) and (c) of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act.

    In a major legal victory for those working for a union contract at Pictsweet, the company has been censured for firing and retaliating against union supporters. In a major moral victory for the workers, this decision upholds Fidel’s truthful testimony about discrimination at Pictsweet and gives credence to the concerns which are at the heart of why the workers are struggling, namely a means of arbitration for workplace disputes and less potential for capricious firings! Yet despite these two ALRB rulings in January and June, Fidel has not received the mandatory remuneration of back wages and benefits from Pictsweet.

    The company maintains that the workers want to break Pictsweet, and that their intent is to harm the company. The workers disagree. “We are proud of our jobs,” reports Fidel Andrade. “We love our wok and take pride in it. We want a good working relationship with the management and we want to see the company prosper.” But not at the expense of human dignity.

    The workers want a raise. In the past fourteen years, the mushroom pickers have received penny-by-penny wage increases – but also increase in workload to compensate for the raises.

    The workers want safer working conditions. The metal air conditioning piping leaks and drips on workers. When the winter rains flood the buildings with knee-high water, the workers report that some choose to remove their shoes and wade barefoot, enduring splinters and risking their lives as electrical outlets are exposed at ground level. In the two-story building where the mushroom beds are located, there is only one fire escape at ground level, and there is no over-head lighting. Workers must wear helmets with insufficient bulbs to pick mushrooms in the pitch darkness, causing severe eyestrain.

    In March 2001, a large compost fire burned out of control at the Pictsweet site for days as hesitating management declined to report the environmentally devastating blaze for fear of the repercussions and community backlash. While Ventura County Public Health Department issued warnings foe several cities- and for the very young, the elderly, those with heart conditions and asthma- the management at Pictsweet neglected health considerations for its workers. Mushroom pickers worked indoors with only flimsy masks to protect their lungs as giant fans sucked the thick toxic smoke into the rooms, nearly suffocating them. The workers were told that if they left work that they might not get paid. Fidel Andrade was among the workers suffering from asthma who was forced financially to continue working despite the risk of physical harm. He was only thinking of his family, his commitment to caring for them and being able to make ends meet.

    The workers want a decent medical plan. They currently pay exorbitant deductibles- $150 per family member, per year- plus monthly deductibles, and they have no vision or dental.

    Finally, the workers want respect at their job. They want a means of addressing conflicts through arbitration. They want to be heard and understood. They want to be treated as more than beasts of burden by the management that sees them as expendable. They also want justice for the environment. As a result of the nuisance of contaminating the air during the compost fire, Pictsweet was fined $70,0000.00 by the Ventura Air Pollution Control District. Pursuant to the fire, they also were mandated water pollution monitoring systems and submit reports to the Water Quality Control Board, beginning July 2001. As of mid-January 2001, Pictsweet stood in violation for incompliance with that order.

    Since September 2000, the UFW has endorsed a boycott of Pictsweet products, gaining support from businesses like Vons, Ralph’s, Olive Garden and Red Lobster. However Pizza Hut (owned by mega-corporation Tricon) refuses to join the boycott.

    Pictsweet is a company which believes that its workers, its community and the surrounding water, air and land are its disposal for egregious abuse and misuse. As consumers, we have the power to exercise tremendous influence through our purchasing power and demand corporate accountability. Because the workers’ struggle is nonviolent, anyone- students, family, young people, business owners- can contribute to a more just work environment.

    Many communities already support the workers by donating money, by investing time in speaking with businesses who purchase Pictsweet products, and by organizing canned food drives for families hard-hit by the financial impact of their struggle with Pictsweet.

    Cesar Chavez, quoting one of his mother’s dichos, said that “He who holds the cow sons sins as much as he who kills her.” While we may not directly approve of worker maltreatment, we must not happily benefit from their oppression by continuing to purchase Pictsweet products, including mushrooms from Pizza Hut.
    *Leah C. Wells is a peace educator and freelance journalist. The United Farm Workers office may be contacted at (805) 486-9674.

  • What Does the US Department of Energy Have In Store For the Yucca Mountain National Nuclear Waste Repository?

    2002: The Department of Energy continues work on unresolved scientific issues as it prepares an application for a construction permit that will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

    2003: The Department of Energy completes a detailed transportation plan, working with 45 states on routing and security, and with the NRC on waste canister designs and safeguards.

    2003: Courts expected to rule on the first of five lawsuits already filed by the state of Nevada challenging the Yucca Mountain project.

    2004: The Department of Energy plans to apply for a construction permit. The NRC licensing process is expected to take three to four years.

    2007: Construction of the Yucca Mountain National Nuclear Waste Repository expected to begin.

    2010-2034: 3,200 tons of highly radioactive waste per year will be shipped by rail, truck and barge to the Yucca Mountain site. The site’s initial capacity is 77,000 tons of waste. However, with congressional approval the site could be expanded to hold up to 120,000 tons, to be filled by 2048.

    2035 and beyond: The Yucca Mountain site is expected to remain open for 100 to 300 years, after which it would be shut in.

    source: US Department of Energy

     

  • Islamic Peace Education in Aceh

    In response to more than 25 years of violence and armed struggle in the province of Aceh, Indonesia, a group of academics and activists have undertaken the task of creating a peace education curriculum grounded in the core Islamic peace beliefs and rooted in the Acehnese social and cultural values.

    Islam, derived from the word salam, peace, is at the core of its very name, a religion of peace.

    Many times miscalculated as a religion of vengeance and retribution, Islam on a global scale has received defamatory attention in recent times. Yet its truest practitioners continue to quote the Qu’ran as a book of peacemaking directives.

    Inequity, violence and a highly traumatized population serve as the backdrop for this curriculum and the accompanying teacher and student trainings. Many rural Acehnese are under-educated, while the city of Banda Aceh is experiencing a rapid rate of urbanization. These factors contribute to a level of dissatisfaction with the centralized Indonesian government, and cause the Acehnese to become further entrenched in the separatist movement.

    In the past year alone more than 600 people have been killed in Aceh. Nearly every Acehnese has a story of witness to violence. Few are untouched by the bloody struggle.

    For the past three decades, violence has been the modus operandi for resolving conflicts in Aceh. The GAM (Free Aceh Movement) and Indonesian military routinely and aggressively perpetrate acts of violence which often catch civilians in the crossfire. Like many international conflicts, the blame and frustration is so deep and the feelings so hot that this power struggle has assumed a life of its own.

    Young people angry at the disparity of wealth and inaccess to better education and thus a better life have taken up arms to ameliorate their situation. Admittedly they recognize that weapons are a quick fix and permit no long-term solution, but are good tools for getting revenge and perpetuating the conflict.

    Recognizing that violence only perpetuates more violence, the curriculum team began developing a peace education program for high school-aged students as well as teachers, and over the past year has conducted trainings and workshops which have reached both private and public schools throughout Aceh.

    Thus far, the Acehnese academic community, including students, teachers, administrators and government officials, have embraced this peace initiative with open arms. Led by Director, Dr. Asna Husin, supported by UNICEF, AusAID, and the Washington, DC-based non-profit Nonviolence International, this curriculum seeks to bring an active, dynamic peace perspective to Aceh so that future generations of Acehnese need not live under the same threatening conditions that currently exist.

    Six basic principles form the foundation for the curriculum: Introspection and Sincerity, Rights and Responsibilities, Conflict and Violence, Democracy and Justice, Plurality of Creation, and Paths to Peace. Embedded in the lessons in these chapters are crucial Acehnese proverbs that have superficial as well as deeper meanings for bringing about peace and justice.

    Central to the curriculum is the teaching that Allah desires peace. It is not enough to have peace just between the individual and Allah, however. If there is injustice or inequality among humans, then Allah is not satisfied. Moreover, Islam teaches that peace is not a receptive, passive condition where only self-interests are served. Rather peace is a dynamic which must be continually refined, redefined and struggled to achieve.

    In achieving peace, humans must examine our wants and needs. We all experience social, spiritual, physical and psychological needs, all of which must be kept in a rough balance to maintain peace. Our excessive wants, however, are often the cause of conflict and violence because this means that others needs are not being met.

    The peace paradigm this curriculum espouses is one where Allah encompasses the realms of peace within, peace in the community, and peace with nature. The Aceh peace education curriculum teaches that in Islam, nature is meant to serve our needs  not our wants.

    Therefore, to have peace with Allah and peace between human beings, we must also respect the peace that exists in nature and not take advantage of natural resources which bring great wealth to a few and great poverty to many. It is the economic injustices that are perpetrated at a structural level which cause tremendous personal violence on an individual level.

    In Aceh, peacemaking is not a theory or hypothetical question to be answered with leisure. It is an inventive means for proactively addressing the systemic, militaristic and interpersonal violence which disrupt every corner of society.
    *Leah C. Wells serves as Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. She is currently in Aceh contributing to the student nonviolence trainings.

  • Stop the US Foul Play

    Perverse as it may seem, we should be grateful to the Bush administration for its recent clumsy efforts to undermine the International Criminal Court just as it came into existence on July 1. The administration’s maladroit use of the United Nations Security Council to alter the terms of the Treaty of Rome, the founding document of the Court, should be a wake-up call for all those committed to building an international system based on a rule of law and all who care about maintaining the United Nations as a credible organization.

    First, any illusion that the present U.S. administration might have a smidgeon of respect for international treaties or multilateral co-operation should be finally dispelled. The disdain of the Americans is palpable; they’ll resort to crude means to wreck any form of international architecture with which they disagree.

    The argument they made in demanding immunity from the ICC — that this was simply a way of protecting their peacekeepers — was a false one, and they know it. As Paul Heinbecker, Canada’s permanent representative to the UN, pointed out, the United States has all the safeguards it needs — particularly the fact that the ICC is a jurisdiction of last resort.

    This means that if any crime were committed by an American, be it by a soldier stationed in Bosnia or by the Secretary of Defence in Washington, then the U.S. justice system — civilian courts or military tribunals — would be entitled to prosecute the case. The ICC only comes into play when a nation state is unwilling or incapable of exercising legal action against an act of genocide or a crime against humanity, as defined in the treaty.

    Unfortunately, this refutation of the Americans’ oft-stated objection never got the attention it deserved; too often, the media bought the false notion that this was a jurisdictional dispute. The antagonism of Washington’s current rulers toward the ICC, and their reason for disavowing the Clinton administration’s signature on the Rome Treaty, is that they do not want to be restrained by any limitation on their actions, including compliance with international criminal law.

    What’s particularly shocking about this attitude is that it flies in the face of all President George W. Bush’s aims as set out in his campaign against terrorism. We hear constantly that this is a great battle between forces of good and evil, of justice versus injustice. Yet rather than embrace a genuine, broadly supported effort to construct a global system of legal co-operation in investigating, capturing, prosecuting and incarcerating international criminals including terrorists, the Bush administration set out to emasculate such an institution.

    That was bad enough. But the Americans compounded the damage inflicted on the international multilateral system by their tactic of holding hostage the renewal of a peacekeeping mission in the Balkans and subverting the role of the Security Council. The so-called compromise arrived at by backroom deals among the permanent five members of the council is frankly a cave-in to U.S. demands.

    And it sets two very dangerous precedents. First is the use of blackmail on peacekeeping to achieve the purely self-interested objective of one of the council’s permanent members. Second, the compromise acquiesces to the Security Council’s questionable right to amend by interpretation a treaty arrived at in open discussion by representatives of more than 100 nation states in a founding convention. The compromise, giving a 12-month hoist to any application of treaty provisions, abrogates the original intent of the drafters. It does not protect the integrity of the Rome Statute, as claimed.

    Fortunately, that position is not going unchallenged. Our ambassador at the UN, supported by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister, has led the fight to preserve the validity of the court. Mr. Heinbecker was able to obtain an open debate at the council and used that to expose U.S. myths and mobilize opposition to the original and more blatant initiative to achieve blanket immunity. It was Canadian diplomacy at its best.

    And it must be continued by our seeking to invoke the engagement of the UN General Assembly on this vital matter. The permanent five members have sought by a sneaky procedural device in the wording of the compromise resolution to keep the assembly out of the picture. But this position is not impregnable; it’s imperative that the assembly be seized of both the inherent threat to future peacekeeping missions and the erosion of the ICC that the council decision entails.

    In fact, there’s now an opportunity to institute even further reform. The time has come to begin working toward the democratization of the Security Council by insisting that all members be elected. The UN cannot be credible when its decisions are so dominated by a small, unaccountable elite of states that do not represent the full interests of the world — especially when the Security Council’s permanent members use their privileged position to eviscerate the Charter of the United Nations.

    While that monumental task is under way the role of the General Assembly needs to be asserted and enhanced.

    A good place to start is by building a capacity for peacekeeping that doesn’t rely on the Americans. One irony of their indignant stand against the ICC having jurisdiction over peacekeepers is that, of the 45,000 peacekeepers serving in UN missions, only 745 are supplied by the United States. Where the Americans do have an edge is in transport, logistics and intelligence-gathering. Canada should co-operate with the Europeans to develop those capacities, so that the next time the Americans want to play hardball, the rest of the world can tell them to take their ball and go home.

    The International Criminal Court needs careful stewardship, attention, resources and support during this critical start-up period. We know it faces an implacable foe in the present U.S. administration. This is all the more reason to redouble efforts to assure its effective launch and to continue campaigning to bring more members on board.

    Establishing the first new international institution of this new century dedicated to protecting people against violation of their basic rights is a remarkable achievement in the progress of humankind. Canada has played an important role from the time of the ICC’s inception. We were there last week to defend it against unwarranted attack. We now have the continuing task of helping to give it a firm foundation. Thank goodness for the wake-up call.
    *Lloyd Axworthy, Canada’s foreign affairs minister from 1996 to 2000, is director and CEO of the Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues at the University of British Columbia.

    THE GLOBE AND MAIL
    Wednesday, July 17, 2002 – Print Edition, Page A13