Blog

  • Nuclear Weapons: What Is Our Responsibility?

    Nuclear Weapons: What Is Our Responsibility?

    1. Responsibility to recognize we have a responsibility. (Why is it that US citizens are for the most part so indifferent to this responsibility?)

    2. Responsibility to understand the moral implications of complacency and silence. (Perhaps it would be easier to understand this responsibility if the question was: Gas Chambers: What is Our Responsibility? Mob Lynchings: What is Our Responsibility? Slavery: What is Our Responsibility? Global Hiroshima: What is Our Responsibility?) Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” We are past that time.

    3. Responsibility to imagine the results of inaction. If terrorists destroyed just one city with one nuclear weapon, it would change our country and our world, perhaps irreparably. Current US policies make it likely that this will happen.

    4. Responsibility to care enough to act to preserve and protect humanity, future generations and life itself.

    5. Responsibility to take risks on behalf of humanity.

    6. Responsibility to learn and to educate. (A good starting point for this is the Foundation’s www.wagingpeace.org web site.)

    7. Responsibility to say No, to protest and to demand an end to the nuclear threat.

    8. Responsibility to organize and lead.

    9. Responsibility to persevere.

    10. Responsibility to succeed.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Shaping the Future

    Shaping the Future

    What kind of future do you want? The vision of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a world at peace, free of the threat of war and free of weapons of mass destruction. It is worth contemplating this vision. Is it a vision worth striving for? Is it an impossible dream or is it something that can be achieved?

    Since no one can predict the future with certainty, those who say this vision is an impossible dream are helping to determine our reality and the future of our children and grandchildren. None of the pundits or intelligence agencies could foresee the fall of the Berlin Wall, the break-up of the Soviet Union, or the end of apartheid in South Africa. It was people who believed the future could be something more and better than the present that brought about these remarkable changes.

    One thing is certain. The future will be shaped by what we do today. If we do nothing, we leave it to others to shape the future. If we continue to do what we have done in the past, the future is likely to resemble the past. When Nelson Mandela became president of South Africa, which itself was something impossible to predict, he had to make a decision on how the crimes of the apartheid period would be handled. Rather than harsh retribution, he chose amnesty for all who came before a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and admitted to their crimes. This choice helped shaped a new future for South Africa and perhaps for the world.

    If we are to shape a new future for a safer and saner world we need to have bold visions of what that world could be. We need to dream great dreams, but we need to do more than this. We need to act to make our dreams a reality, even if those acts appear to be facing enormous obstacles.

    It is hard to imagine an abuse of power that has ended of its own accord. Abuses end because people stand up to them and say No. The world changes because people can imagine a better way to treat the earth and each other and say YES to change.

    If we want a world without war, we need to be serious about finding alternative means to resolve disputes non-violently and to provide justice and uphold dignity for all people. This requires an institutional framework at the global level: a stronger United Nations, an effective International Court of Justice, and a new International Criminal Court to hold all leaders accountable for crimes under international law.

    If we do not begin to redistribute resources so that everyone’s basic needs can be met, the richer parts of the world will face a future of hostility and terrorism. The only way to prevent such a future is by turning tomorrow’s enemies into today’s friends. Creating a better future requires acting now for a more equitable present.

    The future of life on the planet is endangered by weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. We are committed to eliminating these weapons, but we won’t succeed unless we are joined in this effort by far more people. That’s where you come in. Be a force for a future free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction by being a force for change.

    One of our supporters, Tony Ke, a high-powered Canadian web designer, recently created a new web site called End of Existence (www.endofexistence.org). I encourage you to visit it for an exciting new look at why we must abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us. I also encourage you to join some of the world’s great leaders in signing our Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity athttps://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/secure/signtheappeal.asp

    Let’s not let the future be shaped by our complacency and inaction. We have the power, the privilege and the responsibility to shape a better world, a world free of war and free of weapons of mass destruction. The Foundation works each day to achieve this vision. You can find out more about what we are doing and how you can play a part by exploring our web site:https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com. We invite you to be part of the solution.

  • Why Fight for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons?

    Why Fight for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons?

    There are many reasons to fight for a world free of nuclear weapons. Here are some of the most important.

    Nuclear weapons are not really weapons at all, but instruments of mass annihilation, of genocide, and possibly even of omnicide, the destruction of all.

    They are city destroying weapons that target the innocent, killing and maiming indiscriminately. Their threat and use is immoral by any moral standard, and illegal under any reasonable interpretation of international law.

    These weapons place the human future and most of life in jeopardy.

    Nuclear weapons are inhumane and undermine our humanity by their very existence.

    To threaten or use these weapons is a cowardly act, unbefitting of a brave and decent people.

    Nuclear weapons are profoundly undemocratic, concentrating the power to destroy in the hands of the few.

    These weapons divide the world into nuclear haves and have-nots, creating a world of nuclear apartheid.

    The current policies of the nuclear weapons states will result in nuclear weapons or weapons-grade materials falling into the hands of terrorists and criminals, and the countries likely to suffer the greatest damage as a result are the nuclear weapons states themselves.

    The possession of nuclear weapons by any nation is an impetus to other nations to develop their own nuclear arsenals and thus multiplies the danger.

    If we do not succeed we may not be able to pass the world on intact to the next generation.

    Ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and other forms of life is the greatest challenge of our time. It wouldn’t be so difficult if the governments of the nuclear weapons states accepted their share of responsibility and took leadership of the effort. Since these governments have failed to do so, it is left to the people of the world to take responsibility and fight for a world free of nuclear weapons. It is a fight for a human and humane future.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • How Can We Justify This?

    by Representative Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), February 2002

    Let us pray that our nation will remember that the unfolding of the promise of democracy in our nation paralleled the striving for civil rights. That is why we must challenge the rationale of the Patriot Act. We must ask why should America put aside guarantees of constitutional justice?

    How can we justify in effect canceling the First Amendment and the right of free speech, the right to peaceably assemble?

    How can we justify in effect canceling the Fourth Amendment, probable cause, the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure?

    How can we justify in effect canceling the Fifth Amendment, nullifying due process, and allowing for indefinite incarceration without a trial?

    How can we justify in effect canceling the Sixth Amendment, the right to prompt and public trial?

    How can we justify in effect canceling the Eighth Amendment which protects against cruel and unusual punishment?

    We cannot justify widespread wiretaps and internet surveillance without judicial supervision, let alone with it. We cannot justify secret searches without a warrant. We cannot justify giving the Attorney General the ability to designate domestic terror groups. We cannot justify giving the FBI total access to any type of data which may exist in any system anywhere such as medical records and financial records.

    We cannot justify giving the CIA the ability to target people in this country for intelligence surveillance. We cannot justify a government which takes from the people our right to privacy and then assumes for its own operations a right to total secrecy. The Attorney General recently covered up a statue of Lady Justice showing her bosom as if to underscore there is no danger of justice exposing herself at this time, before this administration.

    Let us pray that our nation’s leaders will not be overcome with fear. Because today there is great fear in our great Capitol. And this must be understood before we can ask about the shortcomings of Congress in the current environment. The great fear began when we had to evacuate the Capitol on September 11. It continued when we had to leave the Capitol again when a bomb scare occurred as members were pressing the CIA during a secret briefing. It continued when we abandoned Washington when anthrax, possibly from a government lab, arrived in the mail. It continued when the Attorney General declared a nationwide terror alert and then the Administration brought the destructive Patriot Bill to the floor of the House. It continued in the release of the Bin Laden tapes at the same time the President was announcing the withdrawal from the ABM treaty. It remains present in the cordoning off of the Capitol. It is present in the camouflaged armed national guardsmen who greet members of Congress each day we enter the Capitol campus. It is present in the labyrinth of concrete barriers through which we must pass each time we go to vote. The trappings of a state of siege trap us in a state of fear, ill equipped to deal with the Patriot Games, the Mind Games, the War Games of an unelected President and his unelected Vice President.

    Let us pray that our country will stop this war. “To promote the common defense” is one of the formational principles of America. Our Congress gave the President the ability to respond to the tragedy of September the Eleventh. We licensed a response to those who helped bring the terror of September the Eleventh. But we the people and our elected representatives must reserve the right to measure the response, to proportion the response, to challenge the response, and to correct the response.

    Because we did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.

    We did not authorize the invasion of Iran.

    We did not authorize the invasion of North Korea.

    We did not authorize the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan.

    We did not authorize permanent detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

    We did not authorize the withdrawal from the Geneva Convention.

    We did not authorize military tribunals suspending due process and habeas corpus.

    We did not authorize assassination squads.

    We did not authorize the resurrection of COINTELPRO.

    We did not authorize the repeal of the Bill of Rights.

    We did not authorize the revocation of the Constitution.

    We did not authorize national identity cards.

    We did not authorize the eye of Big Brother to peer from cameras throughout our cities.

    We did not authorize an eye for an eye.

    Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan.

    We did not authorize the administration to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyhow it pleases.

    We did not authorize war without end.

    We did not authorize a permanent war economy.

    Yet we are upon the threshold of a permanent war economy. The President has requested a $45.6 billion increase in military spending. All defense-related programs will cost close to $400 billion. Consider that the Department of Defense has never passed an independent audit. Consider that the Inspector General has notified Congress that the Pentagon cannot properly account for $1.2 trillion in transactions. Consider that in recent years the Dept. of Defense could not match $22 billion worth of expenditures to the itemsit purchased, wrote off, as lost, billions of dollars worth of in-transit inventory and stored nearly $30 billion worth of spare parts it did not need.

    Yet the defense budget grows with more money for weapons systems to fight a cold war which ended, weapon systems in search of new enemies to create new wars. This has nothing to do with fighting terror. This has everything to do with fueling a military industrial machine with the treasure of our nation, risking the future of our nation, risking democracy itself with the militarization of thought which follows the militarization of the budget.

    United States Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio)
    Email responses to Dkucinich@aol.com

  • Advice for the soon-to-be or newly graduated student on choosing a career with a conscience

    Dear Friend,

    So you are graduating soon and are starting to think about your role in the world, about survival, about independence and about what you were put here on this planet to accomplish…a hefty task to undertake with all that must be going through your mind at this time. Take it or leave it, I have some unsolicited advice for you on how to choose a career that satisfies what you are most yearning for and what will best serve humanity.

    I’ll start with myself.

    I have never been certain what exactly I wanted to be “when I grow up.” I used to listen to my friends and classmates who were so certain about their future careers, about people who went to college and graduated with a degree in something important that they could use in whatever career path they chose. After high school, I was not sure what I wanted to study, but I knew I was a good writer, a good thinker and a person with a good conscience. This pointed me in the direction of Linguistics. Today I do not formally use my degree; I am a teacher, a writer, an organizer and an activist for issues of peace and justice. My job has diffuse boundaries and unlimited resources for lesson plans, for articles, for nonviolence campaigns and for op-ed pieces.

    When I was three I was asked to leave the Montessori pre-school I was attending in Des Moines, IA (their loss). I couldn’t follow their rules. This is a fairly good starting point for investigating how I have arrived at my present job status. At three, I was an articulate child, an avid reader with a wide vocabulary and an astute observer of human behavior. I liked being around people and I liked new experiences and challenges. I became bored easily and sought adventures at every turn. Indiana Jones was my hero – a respectable professor by day, a swashbuckling treasure hunter by night.

    The work I am doing now is extraordinarily fulfilling and still is grounded in the fundamentals of what I knew to be true about myself as a child. I serve as the Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation where I write articles and a curriculum on teaching peace, I teach high school classes on nonviolence, I organize marches and events for national nonviolence groups, I travel to distant lands like Iraq with Voices in the Wilderness and I have the ability to garden, run, cook and travel to visit friends all over the country as well. Every day brings a new idea, a new predicament, a new perspective. For me, this is the perfect job at this point in my life, and I believe that there is a “recipe” for finding jobs with a conscience that those nearing graduation can draw from. Here are my ideas:

    • You must find out where you want to be physically on the planet. If you love a warm climate, don’t choose your “perfect” job in Alaska. Don’t underestimate the effect the weather, temperature and surrounding geography will have on your personal and professional life.
    • Find out what you like to do. Some jobs for people do not exist in the “help wanted” ads in the newspaper (try to find my job description in your local paper!) Do not be discouraged if you cannot find the perfect job for you just by searching the Sunday Employment section of your newspaper. Jobs with a conscience are hidden jewels, like pearls, that you must tease out of hiding. While daunting at times, the reward for finding a job you love and that meets your needs is greater than you can imagine.
    • Learn from your s/heroes. My first shero was Elizabeth Blackwell, the first woman doctor. She did what people thought could not be done. I felt a deep connection to that ideology and constantly pursued goals in my life that defied expectations. Make a list of the people you admire and list the reasons why. This investigation can be tremendously enlightening and may help articulate qualities of yourself which define your passions. Never assume that you can’t make a career out of doing what you love.
    • Watch the signs in your life. The world sends us signals, hints, and messages in funny forms that unless we are observant, we tend to miss. Do not dismiss the coincidences and the happenstances that bend your thinking in a new direction, that wake you up to a new idea.
    • No law says that you must stick with your first job for a certain amount of time. You can change your mind, move on, move out, move up and move forward when you feel the need to grow or feel the pangs of conscience creeping up! My first job out of college was working for the World Bank, which is interesting because now many of my friends in activism are working against this gigantic institution. I feel quite privileged to have an intimate understanding of the inner-workings of the “WB” as I fondly used to call it, and learning about the people on the inside, hearing their stories and realizing that for a seemingly untouchable powerhouse, the World Bank actually has some significant Achilles’ Heels. Hindsight is 20/20.
    • Brainstorming is an important creative endeavor when determining your future and vocation. Here is a brainstorm of mine: op-ed writer, volunteer, science teacher, math teacher, history teacher, french teacher, food drive organizer, talent show coordinator, jail filler, puppetista, hall director, resident advisor, office grunt, grantwriter, nonprofit founder, affinity group member, social worker, GED teacher, campaign organizer, fundraiser, graffiti artist, musician, vagabond, documentary filmmaker, VORP mediator…the list goes on and on…
    • The following list of people are some of my heroes and hold jobs that one day I might like to try on for size:

    Brendan Greene, union organizer for Pictsweet mushroom workers, United Farm Workers, www.ufw.org

    Margaret Oberon, Ventura County Catholic Chaplain, Detention Ministry

    Katya Komisaruk, lawyer for activists, http://www.lawcollective.org

    Michael Beer, Peace Brigades International and Nonviolence International

    Daniel Hunter, nonviolence trainer, Training for Change, www.trainingforchange.org

    Propagandhi, musical group

    Jeff Guntzel, Iraq delegation leader with Voices in the Wilderness, www.vitw.org
    *Leah C. Wells teaches high school classes on nonviolence and serves as Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. She traveled last July and August with Voices in the Wilderness to Iraq and condemns the economic sanctions as genocidal.

  • Farm workers struggle with Pictsweet

    A simple issue of justice

    The workers at the Pictsweet mushroom farm want justice in their workplace. They want decent wages and health benefits, retirement plans, and, most of all, respect. And through the tireless efforts of individual workers, through their personal sacrifice and through the unobtrusive facilitation by the skilled UFW organizers, the mushroom workers and surrounding community are using their collective strength to win a contract.

    The concept of a union for farm workers centers on grassroots organizing and the power of communities to create positive social change. Thanks to the tireless work of the nonviolent leader Cesar Chavez, California farm workers’ rights to organize are legally protected through the Agriculture Labor Relations Act. The traditional hierarchical system of the “powerful few” over the “powerless many” relies on the assumption that the many workers will not organize, link arms and work together to exercise their rights. However, the workers have continued to speak truthfully about their hardships at the hands of Pictsweet management. Nonviolence requires that its practitioners understand the transformative power of human suffering. In this respect, the workers are well versed.

    In a presentation to a high school in Ventura County, Jose Patiña outlined the wishes of the workers and the tactics they are using to persuade the management at Pictsweet to negotiate with them. Delegations of workers routinely visit the offices of supermarkets and restaurants that still purchase Pictsweet mushrooms. Their main purposes are to personalize the issue – showing the management of those establishments the mistreatment of the workers and of the unjust practices – and to convince them to boycott the Pictsweet mushrooms until the company agrees to negotiate for a fair contract and fair working conditions. The organizers have enlisted the help of college MEChA groups statewide in their latest lobbying efforts as well, encouraging them to distribute flyers at restaurants in California still buying Pictsweet mushrooms.

    The workers not only attempt to educate the buyers, but to raise the consciousness of the public as well. Labor Day weekend saw community-wide support for the mushroom workers in a three-mile march through downtown Ventura to the Pictsweet plant. A few months prior, workers stood in front of the government center with signs and puppets at rush hour to publicize the fact that Pizza Hut still purchases Pictsweet mushrooms. And even progressives in Hollywood have taken up their cause as activists Martin Sheen and Mike Farrell have endorsed the workers’ struggle.

    ¿Que queremos?

    The workers want a contract and a raise. All of the nearly 250 workers at the Ventura mushroom farm have been working without a contract for nearly fourteen years. This means that they cannot leverage collective bargaining power to gain the desired improvements in wages and working conditions. While the struggle for a contract has financially impacted the workers and their families, the workers realize that the long-term goal is a raise – more than the last 3-cent raise they received from Pictsweet after an increase of workload. Jose Luis Luna says, “We have not had a significant wage increase in years. The cost of living has gone up several times and we are still making the same money. I support two minor children and myself on my salary.”

    The workers want a pension plan. There are no 401K plans for Pictsweet workers. There are no retirement benefits for dedicated employees who have spent more than twenty years working for this company and, regrettably, the workers have nothing to show for their labor when they retire. The director of human resources reports that he encourages workers to invest a portion of their money in savings accounts for their own retirement, but there is no guarantee that any or all of the workers in fact do this. Moreover, because of increased economic hardships as a result of inflation and no adjusted salary increases, the workers often find themselves in already financially precarious situations before having to set aside some money for retirement.

    The workers want a decent medical plan. The working conditions at Pictsweet are often precarious: working in pitch black darkness; climbing slippery fifteen-foot tall mushroom beds; and, during the rainy season in California, sometimes working barefoot in water up to their knees in a room with exposed electrical outlets. In violation of fire codes, the buildings where the mushrooms grow have only one fire exit from the second floor. The hats that the workers wear in the dark sheds where the mushrooms grow have inadequate light bulbs, causing severe eyestrain, yet there is no vision plan in their medical benefits.

    Workers’ complaints about on-the-job injuries often fall on deaf ears at Pictsweet, where the management challenges their claims, asserting that their injuries happened elsewhere and thus are not covered by workers’ compensation. In addition, the existing medical plan is outrageously expensive for the farm workers’ families. Workers pay on average $13 per week for medical coverage for themselves, their spouses and their children – and yet the individual annual deductible for office visits, not including prescriptions, is a staggering $150 for each member of the family!

    In March of this year, a compost fire began as a result of the buildup of discarded compost and hay. The fire’s origins? Rather than reduce productivity to accommodate the decline in business as a result of the boycott, Pictsweet maintained the same level of production and opted to throw out their packaged, unused mushrooms. When the fire started and thick pungent smoke contaminated the air, the community throughout Ventura County was immediately informed of the health risks posed by the toxins released in the air. However, the local Pictsweet management did not address the health risks with their employees until nearly a week later after UFW organizer Jessica Arciniega met with plant manager Ruben Franco. Only then did Pictsweet hand out facemasks for their workers.

    The press release by the Ventura County Public Health Department on March 15, 2001 read as follows: “County health officials recommend that healthy adults and children in areas affected by smoke avoid strenuous outdoor activity and remain indoors as much as possible…levels of the particulates in the smoke may be high enough that the potential exists for even healthy people to be affected. [Smoke] may pose a special risk to adults and children with asthma, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or other respiratory diseases and heart disease.”

    Yet the workers were forced to continue working in enclosed buildings where huge fans pumped in thick smoke – unaware of the health risks posed. They were not told by management until the sixth day that their health was jeopardized by working as the fire continued to burn. Moreover, they were not allowed medical leave with pay for illness sustained during this time! Because the Pictsweet workers have no contract, they are at the mercy of their supervisors. Any complaint could be construed as insubordination.

    Finally, the workers want respect and a voice at work. There is no partnership at Pictsweet between management and labor. Supervisors routinely condescend to the pro-UFW workers. The supervisors give preferential treatment to the anti-union workers who have family members in management and encourage the contras, those workers who oppose UFW representation, by offering promotions and financial rewards for their complicity in maintaining the status quo at the farm. The pro-UFW workers want a system of arbitration so that they have a safe and reasonable forum to address their grievances with the company.

    “It has been hard working for this company, but what can we do, we need to work. It hurts to know that we don’t matter. We give our lives to the company only to learn that they don’t think very much of us. We’re people who feel and think and have families who need us and love us,” explains Baudelio Aguayo. “We’re not animals that nobody wants. All we ask for is a little human compassion and respect.”

    These disciplined workers are not only working for their benefit, but for the good of all the workers there. Both pro- and anti-UFW workers alike work in the same conditions. The pro-union faction, a decisive majority of the workers, struggle to create a sustainably just environment for the entire laboring workforce.

    Firsthand visit

    The management at Pictsweet in Ventura is not wholly to blame – they are merely mid-level executors of policies set by those in the corporate office who value profits over people. When I toured the Pictsweet farm at the behest of management there, I had the opportunity to talk with grower Greg Tuttle, intimately inspect working conditions at the farm, and inquire about the status of negotiations with the workers.

    During my visit I saw the close proximity of the fire to the buildings where the workers were forced to endure stifling poor air quality while the fire burned. I saw how the boycott has impacted the productivity: what used to be a room filled floor-to-ceiling with packages of mushrooms had been reduced to one stack of mushrooms less than four feet tall. And I saw no more than ten anti-union workers in white “No UFW” t-shirts at the farm, corroborating the fact that two-thirds of the workers support UFW representation.

    In a meeting with Mr. Olmos, head of human resources at the Ventura Pictsweet plant, I learned that the company feels it has been involved in negotiations with the workers for nearly two years, in spite of claims by the workers and UFW organizers that the company has maintained stoic unresponsiveness to workers’ pleas for mediated talks. However, these alleged “negotiations” have not produced better working conditions for any of the workers, and have not provided for a significant wage increase nor recognition of Union representation – charges which the company cannot deny.

    In fact, the office atmosphere where I spoke with Mr. Olmos was palpably uncomfortable, him shifting in his chair and clearing his throat as if to indicate the legitimacy of the questions I was raising about resolving the discrepancies between the workers and management. Those in power at the Ventura Pictsweet branch, and those in located at the parent company United Foods, Inc. headquarters in Bells, TN, seem undaunted by the unmistakably devastating economic impact the consumer boycott is having on their business, already having closed one plant in Oregon and drastically scaled back production at the Ventura plant. They seem unmoved by the stamina and vigor exhibited by the workers who, in the words of Gandhi, are seeking through their nonviolent campaign not “to bring their opponents to their knees, but to their senses.”

    In a recent major legal victory in mid-January, an administrative judge with the Agricultural Labor Relations Board found Pictsweet guilty of illegally firing mushroom worker Fidel Andrade. Judge Douglas Gallop outlined Pictsweet’s continued mistreatment of its workers who support UFW representation in a 31-page decision, highlighting the animosity shown toward pro-union workers and demanding that Mr. Andrade be given back his job with seniority and pay all lost wages and other benefits. Additionally, Pictsweet must post notices about workers’ rights and allow the workers access to ALRB representatives who can answer the workers’ questions without Pictsweet officials present.

    UFW organizer Jessica Arciniega believes that “the judge’s ruling has benefited the workers more than anything in once again validating and reaffirming what workers have known and been experiencing throughout this campaign – that Pictsweet is very anti-union and has been violating workers’ rights. This translates into everyday by workers knowing that if they stand up for their rights, and provide the evidence that is necessary, the law can work in their favor.” One legal victory does not win the battle, however, as Ms. Arciniega points out: “The success of this campaign is dependent on so much more – boycott and solidarity within our communities.” To those who impede the negotiations process, these words, written in 1969 by Cesar Chavez to the President of California Grape and Tree Fruit League, Mr. E.L. Barr, provide a compelling admonition:

    “You must understand – I must make you understand – that our membership and the hopes and aspirations of the hundreds of thousands of the poor and dispossessed that have been raised on our account are, above all, human beings, no better and no worse than any other cross-section of human society; we are not saints because we are poor, but by the same measure neither are we immoral. We are men and women who have suffered and endured much, and not only because of our abject poverty but because we have been kept poor. The colors of our skins, the languages of our cultural and native origins, the lack of formal education, the exclusion from the democratic process, the numbers of our men slain in recent wars – all these burdens generation after generation have sought to demoralize us, to break our human spirit. But God knows that we are not beasts of burden, agricultural implements or rented slaves; we are men.”
    *Leah C. Wells serves as the Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and teaches nonviolence in two high schools.

  • Letter to the Governor of California about UC Nuclear Free

    The Honorable Gray Davis
    Governor of California
    State Capitol Building
    Sacramento, CA 95814

    Dear Governor Davis,

    We are initiating a campaign to educate students on the University of California campuses about the UC’s management of the nuclear weapons laboratories. Our basic position is that it is unworthy of a great university to be involved in the creation of weapons of mass destruction, and therefore the Regents of the University of California should terminate their contracts with the Department of Energy (DoE) related to oversight and management of these laboratories.

    By continuing to manage the nuclear weapons laboratories, the University of California is compromising its integrity as a responsible institution of higher learning and setting a poor example for the students it educates.

    While money should certainly not be the critical issue in this matter, we understand that the DoE contract provides UC with little more than enough resources to manage the labs. Given this, ending the contractual relationship will have very little financial impact on UC, and will only serve to promote the best interests of the students and the University.

    I would encourage you, as Chairman of the UC Board of Regents, to take a leadership role in ending the University of California’s relationship with the nuclear weapons laboratories. I would appreciate your response to this request.

    Sincerely,
    David Krieger
    President

  • Tattletales for an Open Society

    [This appeared as an advertisement in the January 21, 2002 issue of The Nation]

    Dear Dr. Cheney and Senator Lieberman:

    On November 11, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), an organization you co-founded in 1995, issued a report that listed the names of academics along with 117 statements they made, in public forums or in classes, that questioned aspects of the Administration’s war on terrorism. Concluding that “College and university faculty have been the weak link in America’s response to the attack,” the report asked alumni to bring their (presumed) displeasure about these views to the attention of university administrations. While ACTA’s report does not have the cachet of President Nixon’s “Enemies List,” nor the intimidating force (yet?) of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s too-numerous- to-list lists, as an American historian I am naturally interested in this project, and I have decided to offer your organization my full cooperation.

    Therefore, as an example to my colleagues, I am stepping forward to name a name, my own–Martin J. Sherwin, the Walter S. Dickson Professor of English and American History at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts–and to tattle on myself. On December 3, 2001, I remarked to a class at Tufts University studying World War II that there was an ominous resemblance between the sense of panic in 1942 that produced Executive Order 9066, permitting the internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry, and the post-9/11 atmosphere that supported the Justice Department’s arrest of hundreds of Muslims.

    Later, on December 6, after hearing Attorney General John Ashcroft assert before the Senate Judiciary Committee that civil-liberties critics “aid terrorists…erode our national unity and diminish our resolve,” I told my class that Mr. Ashcroft had bolstered my resolve to diminish his effort to remake our public discourse in the image of Pinochet’s Chile–even if senators who were equally shocked, were too cowed at that moment to challenge such an un-American attitude. Surrendering the liberties that define the unique character of our nation will not help us to win the war on terrorism, I noted; on the contrary, it will only erode the constitutional foundation upon which the political strength of our nation rests. The AG’s defense of military commissions (secret trials) in the United States in 2002– even to try suspected terrorists–is an affront to those who fought and died to protect our freedoms in World War II. I recommended that students read Robert Sherrill’s book, Military Justice Is to Justice As Military Music Is to Music.

    Finally, Dr. Cheney and Senator Lieberman, I implore you as the Founding Mother and Father of ACTA to exert your influence to assure that in the next report Martin J. Sherwin is correctly spelled. Having been too young to be of interest to Senator Joseph McCarthy, and having been embarrassed by my absence from President Nixon’s “Enemies List,” ACTA’s list may be my last opportunity to publicly document my deep love for my country. When my grandchild asks, “What did you do during the ‘War on Terrorism,’ grandpa?” I will say, “Harry, I spoke out in order to preserve for you and your friends the best things about America. You can read what I said in the ACTA report of…” (date as yet unspecified).

    In closing, I call on my colleagues to put political bias aside and assist the organization that Dr. Cheney and Senator Lieberman created; after all, they are one of us: She is a PhD and he claims to be a liberal. You can now tattle on yourself in great company. The Nation will post appropriate critical remarks on a new section of its website: “Tattletales for an Open Society” (TAOS). If you are genuinely uncertain whether a specific remark actually crossed the threshold of acceptable criticism, err on the side of caution: Submit the remark to The Nation’s tattletale page and give ACTA a chance to determine whether you should be published. Send your submissions to tattletales@thenation.com.

    MARTIN J. SHERWIN

    P.S. Kai Bird and I are writing a biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer, whose secret security hearing in 1954 is instructive in these matters.

  • Bush Can’t Operate as a One-Man Band

    Within one short month, President Bush has launched two major assaults on our system of checks and balances. Without gaining statutory approval from Congress, he announced his plan to punish terrorists with military commissions. And now he claims the right to act unilaterally once again terminating the Antiballistic Missile Treaty without gaining legislative approval.

    In both cases, Bush is on weak constitutional ground. Basic principles require the president to gain the consent of Congress on matters of high importance.

    When President Roosevelt created military tribunals during World War II, he did so under express statutory authorization and after an express declaration of war. But Bush proposes to proceed solely in his capacity as commander in chief and without a formal declaration of war. While the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Roosevelt’s action, its decision cannot be readily stretched to support the constitutionality of Bush’s bare assertion of power.

    The same is true with the ABM treaty. The leading case involves President Carter’s unilateral termination of a defense treaty with Taiwan. In response, Sen. Barry Goldwater (RAriz.) convinced many of his colleagues to join him in a lawsuit before the Supreme Court.

    Senior Republicans such as Sens. Orrin Hatch, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond signed Goldwater’s brief protesting “a dangerous precedent for executive usurpation of Congress’ historically and constitutionally based powers.”

    But in his plurality opinion, Justice William Rehnquist called the case a “political question” and left the matter for resolution “by the Executive and Legislative branches.” This is hardly an endorsement of presidential unilateralism.

    Seven new justices have joined the high court since Goldwater’s challenge, and there is no predicting the outcome of a new case. Even more has happened since the dark days of World War II when the court upheld FDR’s military commissions. As a new round of judicial challenges come to court, the justices will begin to see a troubling pattern, and perhaps they will have the courage to call a halt.

    This happened once before, when President Truman asserted a unilateral power, as commander in chief, to seize private steel mills during the Korean War. The court declared this unilateral action unconstitutional. Perhaps it may find the courage to do so again.

    But rather than waiting for the court to save us by a vote of 5 to 4, we should be asking fundamental questions now.

    The Bush administration would like to treat each new unilateral adventure as an isolated problem; defending its military commissions by invoking the president’s power as commander in chief; treaty termination by expanding his power “to conduct foreign affairs” (despite the fact that no such power is explicitly delegated to him by the Constitution).

    But there is a larger question involved: Why is Bush persistently pushing the constitutional envelope? We are only in the first year of his presidency. If this tendency is allowed to go unchecked, many more constitutional surprises may be in store for us.

    There is nothing inevitable about the administration’s present course. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft has begun to retreat after Senate hearings. He has chosen to prosecute the suspected “20th terrorist” before an ordinary federal court.

    Similarly, the Senate should call the secretary of State for hearings on the ABM treaty. The issue is not merely the future of a missile system. If Bush can terminate our treaty with the Russians, we may wake up one morning to hear some future president canceling our treaty commitments to North Atlantic Treaty Organization or Israel or the United Nations.

    Senate hearings will not only serve to emphasize these broader questions. They will help create a climate of public opinion uncongenial to more presidential unilateralism.

    The only effective cure is to enlarge the debate and convince the administration that the public does indeed take the Constitution seriously.
    *Bruce Ackerman is a professor of constitutional law at Yale.

  • Response to “The President’s Other Two Wars”

    Dear Mr. Krieger:

    Thanks for the ‘report card’ on President Bush’s first year in office. From the perspective of peace activists, the report exposes America’s apparent failure to advance the cause of peace. It is a report worthy of careful review.

    My concern is to seek out the underlying forces/politicians/money that ‘push Bush’ into such an aggressive and warlike posture. It seems that the President is the willing ‘captive’ of tremendously strong and wealthy factions in America, mainly the military-industrial-complex, combined with the oil and energy industries. Those forces have powerful lobbyists working for them full time in Washington.

    In the short term, America will appear to be saving the world from terrorism and all kinds of evil. Longer term, America is likely to find itself the international pariah, increasingly isolated, paranoid and financially crippled by its hubris. I’m predicting that America will fall into ruin like the former Soviet Union.

    By coincidence, Afghanistan may well prove, again, to be one enormous failure, leading to the downfall of the former Superpowers. Count on it, ‘Evil Empires’ will continue to rise and fall like recurring nightmares. We have a long, long way to go before we can claim to be ‘civilized’.

    Fred Brailey. RR4, Orangeville, Ontario, Canada.