Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: International Issues

  • Reflections on the Connections between the War in Iraq and Hawaii: the Stryker Brigade and the Watada Case

    Two great volcanoes comprise most of the Big Island of Hawai’i. Mauna Loa, measured by volume, is the largest mountain in the world, and Mauna Kea, if measured from the sea floor, would rank as the tallest. Both peaks are considered sacred, the realm of the gods (wao akua), not just for Hawai’ians, but throughout all of Polynesia.

    In October of 2002, the first of a series of protests against the imminent U.S. attack against Iraq took place at the Mo‘oheau Bandstand on the Hilo Bayfront. As I drove down to Hilo, I was struck by the majestic and stunning presence of Mauna Kea rising 13,792 ft. above Hilo—so unusually clear on a rare cloudless morning. It was a day that was startling in its beauty even for Hawai‘i, and as I listened to the various speakers call our attention to the horrors of what seemed about to take place in Iraq, my gaze often drifted to the tranquil bay and the waves softly rolling down on the sands below. The contrast couldn’t have been sharper between the peaceful setting of Hilo Bay and the looming war in Iraq. If it weren’t for the voices of the Hawai’ian rights activists—reminding us of the illegal overthrow of the Hawai’ian nation—I might have thought only of the profound difference between these beautiful islands and the war-torn country of Iraq. In fact, what was taking place a world away in Iraq was really not that far away at all and is, indeed, deeply connected to what happened and was still taking place in Hawai‘i. I was reminded of the “infinite extent of our relations” as Thoreau once put it, and from this perspective, the connections between the war in Iraq, the overthrow of the Hawai’ian nation, and the continuing controversy surrounding the military’s presence in Hawai‘i become more and more clear.

    The Stryker in Hawai’i Hawai’i senior Senator Daniel Inouye apparently doesn’t see these connections as is evident in a recent editorial in the Honolulu Advertiser in support of the Army’s plan to transform the 2nd Brigade in Hawai’i into a Stryker Combat Brigade.[1] The Army’s plan would involve basing about 300 Stryker vehicles at Schofield Barracks on Oahu and also expanding the Army’s Pohakuloa Training Area on the Big Island which the brigade will use for training. The Army’s project to bring a Stryker brigade to Hawai’i has met strong resistance for the last several years from native Hawai’ian groups as well as environmental and peace activists. In October of 2006 a federal appellate court, in response to a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit environmental group Earthjustice acting on behalf of three native Hawai’ian groups, found that the Army had violated environmental laws in not adequately considering alternatives to locating the brigade in Hawai’i.[2] The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed an April 2005 decision by U.S. District Judge David Ezra allowing the Army to proceed with its plans to bring the Stryker brigade to Hawai’i. The Army must now complete a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement assessing the feasability of alternative locations for the brigade. The appellate court decision ultimately sent the case back to Honolulu and U.S. District Judge Ezra in order to determine what an injunction must cover. On the eve of Judge Ezra’s decision Senator Inouye’s editorial appeared in which he argued that for the safety of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan “we must allow the training to resume while the Army completes the supplemental environmental study.” Not surprisingly, Judge Ezra’s decision allows for the Army’s plans to go forward while the SEIS is conducted.[3] Live fire training of the Stryker brigade is expected to commence at Pohakuloa on the Big Island in February.

    The Pohakuloa Training Area is already the largest live-fire military training area in the Pacific. It consists of approximately 109,000 acres of land that have been used for the last 60 years as a live-fire area and bombing range for an assortment of military weapons. The Strykers will come to the Big Island on the new Hawai’ian Superferry, offloading at Kawaiihae Harbor and then traveling up to Pohakuloa via a newly constructed military road. It is partly for the construction of this access road, and also to increase the training area for the Strykers, that the military’s plans include the expansion of the Pohakuloa Training Area by approximately 23,000 acres of land recently purchased from the Parker Ranch.

    Pohakuloa sits between Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. Even the Army acknowledges, in its Environmental Impact Statement, that “the entirety of Mauna Kea, whose southwestern slopes form part of PTA’s base, is considered holy.” Mauna Kea (The White Mountain) is associated with Poli‘ahu, the snow goddess of the summit, while Mauna Loa (The Long Mountain), last erupting as recently as 1984, is associated with Pele, the goddess of volcanic fires. The area between the two sacred mountains, considered to be a site of conflict between Poli‘ahu and Pele, is called “Pohakuloa” (The Veil that Covers the Spiritual Realm). Within the Pohakuloa Training Area there are seven stone shrines and a reported 291 archeological sites.

    By the Army’s own admission in the EIS, Pohakuloa is “spiritually and historically one of the most important places in Hawai’ian tradition and history…It is difficult to describe the emotional and spiritual link that exists between Native Hawai’ians and the natural setting. Hawai’ians generally believe that all things in nature have mana, or a certain spiritual power and life force. A custodial responsibility to preserve the natural setting is passed from generation to generation, and personal strength and spiritual well being are derived from this relationship. Because of this belief, Mauna Kea may be the most powerful and sacred natural formation in all Hawai‘i.” [4] The EIS acknowledges that there will be “significant unavoidable adverse biological impacts” upon the environment at Pohakuloa. The PTA is said, by former area commander Lt. Col. Dennis Owen, to have “the highest concentration of endangered species of any Army installation in the world.” The negative impacts will come from fires that result from live-fire training, as well as from off-road maneuvers by the Stryker vehicles that will adversely affect sensitive species and habitat. The Army also acknowledges significant negative impacts on air quality (caused by wind erosion by the off-road maneuvers of the Strykers), soil loss and soil contamination from training activities, lead and asbestos contamination caused by the construction and demolition of buildings, and destructive impacts on such cultural, historic, and archeological resources such as the Ke‘amuku Village and sacred sites such as the Pu‘ukohola Heiau.

    The Army also proposes an increase in live-fire training. This poses a significant risk, according to the EIS, to workers and army personnel from unexploded ordnance. Environmentalists have drawn attention to the danger from unexploded ordnance that litters many former military sites in Hawai‘i, as well as the military’s poor record of cleaning up these sites. The EIS states that “only simulated biological agents” will be used and that hazardous materials do not pose a significant impact. There is also some concern about the potential toxic contamination from depleted uranium since the primary armament on Stryker vehicles is the Stryker Mobile Gun System which uses ammunition made from depleted uranium. The Army has claimed that depleted uranium weapons will not be used in training at Pohakuloa, but this has hardly eased the concerns of local residents.

    While the military promises to do what it can to limit the adverse impacts from the training at Pohakuloa, it states that there is a practical limit to mitigation measures. The bottom line is that these adverse impacts and potential dangers are considered acceptable by the military.

    The issue that always looms large in the background of this controversy is the very presence of the U.S. military in Hawai‘i. For Hawai’ian sovereignty activists, the proposed expansion of the Pohakuloa Training Area is only the latest issue in a long history of U.S. military acquisitions of Hawai’ian lands—going back most notably to the 1875 “Treaty of Reciprocity” that ceded control of Pearl Harbor to the U.S. Navy. The military now controls 5 percent of land in Hawai‘i, 22 percent of O‘ahu (85,000 acres), and 4 percent of the Big Island (110,000 acres). Moreover, the proposed 23,000 acre expansion of the Pohakuloa Training Area is only about a quarter of the projected acquisition for the further development of the PTA.[5]

    It’s a sad irony that this latest land acquisition is almost the size of Kaho‘olawe (28,766 acres), the “Target Isle” used for bombing practice for nearly 50 years after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The Navy finally officially ceded control of Kaho‘olawe on November 11, 2003, after over two decades of protests by peace and Hawai’ian sovereignty activists. That campaign cost the lives of two Hawai’ian leaders, George Helm and Kimo Mitchell, who were lost at sea in 1977 in an effort to reach the island to protest the Navy’s occupation and bombing of the island. Their deaths became an emotional turning point in the struggle for Hawai’ian rights. Now, just as the Navy finally cedes control of Kaho‘olawe, the Army takes control of a similar-sized piece of land on the sacred slopes of Mauna Kea. It would be the largest military acquisition in Hawai‘i since WWII.

    For Hawai’ian sovereignty activists, Hawai‘i is an occupied country, and the lands in question are “stolen lands.” Though most Americans are either blissfully unaware or couldn’t care less, the sovereignty activists appear to have international law on their side. For its part, the United States government has already admitted to the illegal overthrow of the Hawai’ian nation, by issuing a formal apology by joint resolution of Congress in November of 1993 in acknowledgment of the 100th anniversary of the coup that dethroned Queen Lili’uokalani. Although the United States was the first nation to formally recognize the sovereignty of the Hawai’ian nation in 1842, it was the U.S. Navy that provided the force that enabled American business interests to dethrone the Queen in January of 1893. In recent years, experts in international law have called into question the legitimacy of “statehood” and American military occupation of Hawai’ian lands by pointing out that there is no known record of the Hawai’ian Kingdom ever relinquishing its sovereignty.

    Lessons from the war in Iraq Since that cloudless Hilo day in October of 2002, the war in Iraq has unfolded in its all-too-easily predictable catastrophe. As the violence spirals out of control and any remaining vestige of a fraudulent justification of the invasion evaporate—that Iraq is better off from having been ‘liberated’ from a despotic dictator or that the world is safer from the threat of global terrorism—the American people have slowly come to the realization that it was all a terrible mistake. It reminds me of a story I read in the paper a number of years ago when I was living in San Francisco about a jumper who had somehow managed to survive his plunge from the Golden Gate. As I remember it the hapless one said his first thought after his ill-conceived leap was “Oops, that was a mistake.” That’s about where we are today as a nation after failing to heed the warnings of so many experts and hundreds of thousands of protestors around the world and instead following the Fox News and New York Times propaganda that cheered on the Bush Administration’s leap into the abyss that is now the war in Iraq. All the head-scratching about what to do now, including the proposals of the Iraq Study Group, are nothing but the desparate flailings of one grasping at thin air after the ground has fallen away. The Bush Administration, of course, can only ‘stay the course’ and thus, with their sights now firmly set on ‘surging’ in Iraq and even more insanely on expanding the war into Iran, seems hell-bent on plunging the nation only further into the abyss.We’ve come to our “Oops” moment as a nation but we are still far from realizing just how devastating a mistake it was to launch this war.

    Senator Inouye’s editorial in support of the Stryker brigade in Hawai’i illustrates this point. The Senator writes: “Our country is at war. With the pace of operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our Army is stretched thin. We simply cannot afford to stand down any of our forces right now.” After reminding us that he voted against the Iraq war, the Senator concludes that the “issue on the Stryker brigade should not be a referendum on the Iraq war.” Perhaps it’s the other way around, however, and that the Iraq war should be a referendum on the Stryker brigade.

    Our country is at war—but it is a war that was completely unnecessary. The United States has the most powerful military force in the world, spending more on the military than all the other nations of the world combined; and yet the United States has demonstrated a propensity to use that great military force irresponsibly and that is one of the underlying causes and certainly not the solution to the problem of terrorism. We cannot defeat the problem of terrorism by participating in terrorism and that is certainly what we are doing when we engage in unnecessary wars of aggression. Perhaps the lesson that should be drawn from the war in Iraq is that it is time to stand down all of our forces right now. The best hope for a peaceful world is for the United States to pull out of Iraq, stand down its military force, and recommit itself to the rule of law among nations.

    The United States needs to overcome its addiction to war and a good place to start would be to pull out of Iraq and to shut down the Army’s plan to base a Stryker brigade in Hawai’i. As Kyle Kajihiro, program director of the American Friends Service Committee, puts it: “The Stryker Brigade in Hawai‘i is an illegal and catastrophic project meant for use in an illegal and catastrophic war. The bitter history of the U.S. military in Hawai‘i has demonstrated that if the military gets an inch, it will take a mile, or in this case, 25,000 acres of land. We refuse to allow our sacred ‘aina to be used to perpetuate wars of aggression against other countries and peoples, or to let politicians send our loved ones to kill or be killed in such immoral and illegal wars.”[6]

    Perhaps a concern for the safety of our troops is not the primary reason behind Inouye’s support for the Stryker brigade. Obviously any training that needs to be done before the troops are withdrawn can be done at existing facilities elsewhere. Kajihiro continues: “The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Army failed to answer the question ‘Why Hawai‘i?’ and ordered the Army to complete a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) that considered alternatives. But it is unlikely that another EIS will be able to honestly answer such a question that is essentially political. Stryker Brigades are in Hawai‘i and Alaska because of the power of Hawai‘i’s and Alaska’s Senators to secure ‘military pork’. Politicians cannot claim to be against the war while promoting the military expansion that drives wars.”[7]

    Perhaps the war in Iraq should be a referendum on the Stryker brigade in Hawai’i for there is a deep connection after all between the war in Iraq and the U.S. military’s presence in Hawai’i—the war in Iraq is really only the latest symptom of the same problem that led to the overthrow of the Nation of Hawai’i in 1893. Time and again U.S. military power has been used not really for the defense of ‘freedom’ but for the expansion of corporate global interests.

    War, if ever justified, should be an absolutely last resort. All peaceful means of resolving a conflict should be exhausted before resorting to war. There is every indication that the Bush Administration, acting to extend those corporate global interests, did everything they could to avoid any peaceful solution and manufacture a reason for war.

    Perhaps the problem is that it is far too easy for the United States with its overpowering military force to go to war. There obviously needs to be some greater force of restraint that would make it much harder for the nation to engage in war. Part of the problem is that too few Americans really feel the cost of war. I imagine that if professional sports were banned while the nation was at war, our leaders would make every effort to find a peaceful solution. It might seem a ridiculous suggestion to make, but obviously if it is important enough to go to war then sacrificing professional sports should be no big deal. Conversely, if it is not worth sacrificing professional sports, then it is obviously not worth going to war. Can one imagine just how long the Vietnam War would have lasted if there could be no World Series while the nation is at war? Would the nation so easily have accepted the fraudulant arguments for war and leapt off the cliff into the hell that is Iraq if there could be no Super Bowls while the nation is at war?

    The Watada Case Unfortunately, as Americans love their bread and circuses so much, the only hope for any restraint on the reckless militarism of the United States might be in the example set by the rare courage of the soldier from Hawai’i, Lt. Ehren Watada, who faces court martial for refusing deployment to Iraq. The military judge presiding over the court martial has, however, denied the attempt by Lt. Watada’s defense to ‘put the war on trial.’ The ruling by military circuit judge Lt. Col. John M. Head on January 16 denied the defense motion for a hearing on the “Nuremburg defense” thus preventing Watada’s defense from presenting evidence on the legality of the war. The highest ranking soldier to refuse deployment to Iraq, Lt. Watada has argued in his defense that according to the Nuremberg Principles and U.S. military regulations he was under oath to follow only “lawful orders” and that the war on Iraq is illegal under international treaties and under Article Six of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Watada’s trial at Fort Lewis, Washington is set to begin on February 5. [8]

    The ruling by Judge Head conflicts with the statement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, that the United States must be bound by the same rule of law used to prosecute the Germans: “If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.”[9] The Nuremberg trials established that soldiers are not immune from prosecution for war crimes just because they were following orders. The judgement at Nuremberg means that the common view held by Judge Head and apparently many Americans that “soldiers like Lt. Watada can’t pick and choose when to fight” is just flat out wrong. In denying the “Nuremberg defense” the military is simply setting aside the judgement at Nuremberg and ignoring Justice Jackson’s explicit statement.

    Lt. Watada’s refusal to deploy to Iraq should call to mind Thoreau’s startling words about the three ways one can serve one’s country:

    “The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, &c. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw of a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, —as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and officer-holders; —serve the state chiefly with their heads; and as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the Devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.” (Henry David Thoreau, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”, 1848.)

    Thoreau is clearly right that it is plainly wrong to think that the highest service one can give to one’s country is to serve blindly with one’s body, even if it means giving one’s life. To serve without conscience, as a mere weapon of war, is really to forsake what is highest and most human within us. To force our soldiers to surrender their conscience is not only to ignore the judgement at Nuremberg, it is also treating our soldiers like horses and dogs. Sending our troops into an unnecessary and immoral war is in fact treating them far worse than horses and dogs.

    The nation would be stronger not weaker if it recognized Lt. Watada’s right to refuse deployment to an illegal war. If Lt. Watada’s action is recognized as right, the nation would be far less prone to engage in unnecessary and immoral wars. In refusing deployment to Iraq Lt. Watada is serving the country with his conscience, and in so doing, is giving the highest service. If Lt. Watada goes to prison, as seems now very likely, he will be a powerful symbol of the injustice of the nation and its shame in ignoring the judgement at Nuremberg and refusing to remember Justice Jackson’s counsel.

    1. U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, “Don’t fence them in,” Commentary, The Honolulu Advertiser, Sunday, December 17, 2006. 2. “Stryker base here is found illegal,” The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Friday, October 6, 2006. 3. “Judge Allows Stryker training to resume,” The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Saturday, December 30, 2006. 4. Army Transformation Environmental Impact Statement, Section 8:11 Cultural Resources, p.4. 5. See Haunani-Kay Trask, “Stealing Hawai‘i: The war machine at work,” The Honolulu Weekly, July 17, 2002. 6. Kyle Kajihiro, “Aloha ‘Aina Statement on Proposed Stryker Training,” DMZ-Hawai‘i, December 18, 2006. 7. See also Jeffrey St. Clair, “The General, GM, and the Stryker,” Counterpunch, April 22/23, 2006. 8. David Krieger, “The Iraq War Goes on Trial,” Peace Journalism, January 17, 2007. 9. Robert Jackson, Minutes of Conference Session of July 23, 1945, International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945.

     

    Timothy J. Freeman teaches philosophy at the University of Hawai’i at Hilo. He can be reached at freeman@hawaii.edu

  • A Very Costly I Told You So

    All was in vain. The rhetoric and deceptions by the officials supporting our self-anointed “War President” prevailed, and America launched an attack on a country that was not an enemy or a real threat to the US.

    I wrote several articles denouncing the tricks and lies supporting the war—from the former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, from the then National Security Council Advisor Condolezza Rice and, of course, from Vice President Dick Cheney—who were all hovering like hawks over the war drums being beaten by President Bush.

    We, who were in opposition, risked our reputation, friends and even our means of living. It was easier to follow the big river of chorus praising the “march for democracy.” We were branded weird, unpatriotic, even traitors.

    In one of my articles titled “Lying to Provoke a War, Not a New Issue in Washington,” published on the NAPF website on June 9, 2003 and reproduced on many other websites, I finished my comments with the following lines:

    “The Iraq war is not over yet. American soldiers continue dying nearly every week in the occupied Arab nation. Thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children have died. So much for the ‘sparing the innocent’ stated by President Bush. The business of oil and the big contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq conceded to the inner club of companies linked to top officials of this administration cover the air with a smell of suspicion.

    The possibility of an investigation by the Senate to determine if the American people and the world were deceived in what George W. Bush pompously called ‘the first war of the 21st century’ could lead to an impeachment and political disgrace.”

    Three years later the situation has changed. The majority of the US public condemns the actions of Mr. Bush and his failed and devious policies. When I wrote that article, two months earlier President Bush had declared “Major combat has ended.” In those days no more than 70 US fatalities were added to the count since the beginning of the war. Now, more than 3,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq and tens of thousands of Iraqis have been seriously injured by bombings, “friendly fire” mistakes, etc.

    Making things worse, George Bush is now ordering more troops to Iraq without a real plan to solve the big mess he has created in that volatile part of the world.

    If this situation were not so tragic and absurd, we could say this is just a chapter of the Human Comedy written by Honore de Balzac in 1842.

    Let’s hope that a better nation, better informed and with true morals demands justice and holds responsible those that have been lying and deceiving not just the US but the whole world.

     

    Ruben Arvizu is Director for Latin America of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and International President of Freedom From War.

  • A New Chance for Peace?

    I am concerned that public discussion of my book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” has been diverted from the book’s basic proposals: that peace talks be resumed after six years of delay and that the tragic persecution of Palestinians be ended. Although most critics have not seriously disputed or even mentioned the facts and suggestions about these two issues, an apparently concerted campaign has been focused on the book’s title, combined with allegations that I am anti-Israel. This is not good for any of us who are committed to Israel’s status as a peaceful nation living in harmony with its neighbors.

    It is encouraging that President Bush has announced that peace in the Holy Land will be a high priority for his administration during the next two years. On her current trip to the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called for an early U.S.-Israeli-Palestinian meeting. She has recommended the 2002 offer of the 23 Arab nations as a foundation for peace: full recognition of Israel based on a return to its internationally recognized borders. This offer is compatible with official U.S. policy, previous agreements approved by Israeli governments in 1978 and 1993, and the “road map” for peace developed by the “quartet” (the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations).

    The clear fact is that Israel will never find peace until it is willing to withdraw from its neighboring occupied territories and permit the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights. With land swaps, this “green line” can be modified through negotiations to let a substantial number of Israeli settlers remain in their subsidized homes east of the internationally recognized border. The premise of exchanging Arab territory for peace has been acceptable for several decades to a majority of Israelis but not to a minority of the more conservative leaders, who are unfortunately supported by most of the vocal American Jewish community.

    These same premises, of course, will have to be accepted by any government that represents the Palestinians. A March 2006 poll by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah found 73 percent approval among citizens in the occupied territories, and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has expressed support for talks between President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and pledged to end Hamas’s rejectionist position if a negotiated agreement is approved by the Palestinian people.

    Abbas is wise in repeating to Secretary Rice that he rejects any “interim” boundaries for the Palestinian state. The step-by-step road-map formula promulgated almost three years ago for reaching a final agreement has proved to be a non-starter — and an excuse for not making any progress. I know from experience that it is often more difficult to negotiate an interim agreement, with all its future uncertainties, than to address the panoply of crucial issues that will have to be resolved to reach the goal of peace.

    Given these recent developments and with the Democratic Party poised to play a more important role in governing, this is a good time to clarify our party’s overall policy in the broader Middle East. Numerous options are available as Congress attempts to correlate its suggestions with White House policy, and there is little doubt that the basic proposals of the Iraq Study Group provide a good foundation on which Democrats might reach something of a consensus (recognizing that individual lawmakers could still make their own proposals on details). This party policy would provide a reasonable answer to the allegation that Democrats have no alternatives of their own to address the Iraq quagmire.

    A key factor in an Iraq policy would be strong demands on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government to cooperate in ending sectarian violence, prodded by a clear notice of plans for troop withdrawals. A commitment to regional cooperation, including opportunities for Iran and Syria to participate, would be beneficial in assuring doubtful Iraqis that America will no longer be the dominant outside power shaping their military, political and economic future.

    Although Israel’s prime minister has criticized these facets of the Iraq Study Group’s report, the most difficult recommendation for many Democrats could be the call for substantive peace talks on the Palestinian issue. The situation in the occupied territories will be a crucial factor, and it would be helpful for both the House and Senate to send a responsible delegation to the West Bank and Gaza to observe the situation personally, to meet with key leaders and to ascertain the prospects if peace talks can be launched.

    I am convinced that, with bipartisan support, this is a good opportunity for progress.

    Published by The Washington Post.

     

    Jimmy Carter was the 39th US President and is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. His most recent book is Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.

  • President Bush’s Iraq Policy Renewed

    The hope that President Bush might move toward an American withdrawal from Iraq was decisively rejected in his important speech of January 10. This was the first response by the American president to the November electoral mandate that was, above all, an unmistakable rejection of the Iraq policy by the voting public. It was also the first formal response to the report of the high-profile Iraq Study Group headed by former Secretary of State, James Baker, and Democratic Congressional leader, Lee Hamilton, that had recommended a gradual American withdrawal, a robust regional diplomatic strategy designed to encourage help in stabilizing Iraq, and a renewed sense of urgency about seeking a solution for the Palestine-Israel conflict.

    In all respects, rather than heeding these demands of his Iraq critics, or at least meeting them halfway, Bush proposed a set of initiatives that moved precisely in the opposite direction. Instead of withdrawal, Bush decreed a clear escalation of the American combat role, deploying an additional 21,500 American troops to be used in Baghdad and Anbar province, the two areas of most intense resistance to the American occupation of the country. Instead of initiating a regional diplomatic effort that invited the participation of Iran and Syria, the president clearly signaled his intention to confront these countries in a more hostile manner that is almost certain to further heighten regional tensions. This unfortunate prospect was given immediate tangible expression the day after the speech by a provocative American military raid on an Iranian diplomatic mission in the northern city of Arbil, situated in the Kurdish region. And to complete the discouraging picture, not a word was uttered about an increased effort to achieve peace between Israel and Palestine.

    How should we interpret this defiant posture? Already this reaffirmation of the old Iraq policy by Bush has antagonized the Democratic opposition now in control of Congress, and has even disappointed and puzzled most Republicans. This Bush ‘stay the course’ stubbornness almost requires Congress to confront the president on Iraq. If Congress acts it would likely be seen as a challenge to Bush’s authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces under wartime conditions, and could produce a paralyzing constitutional crisis, which might damage the political prospects of the Republican Party for years.

    Part of the explanation of the approach adopted Bush involves a recognition of the extent to which the White House continues to be steered by neoconservative hard liners when it comes to foreign policy. Well ahead of the speech it was widely publicized that these new tactics of escalated deployment in Baghdad had been mainly crafted by Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, a hawkish signatory of the pre-9/11 neoconservative blueprint for American foreign policy published under the auspices of the Project for a New American Century. By relying on Kagan and AEI the Bush presidency reaffirmed its ideological identity, while at the same time repudiating the more pragmatic and realistic option offered by the Baker-Hamilton recommendations. If Bush had gone along with Baker-Hamilton, his leadership would almost certainly have received a dramatic spike of popular support from an American public clamoring for relief from a costly and failing war policy. To have so adjusted would have been applauded throughout the world as a brave effort to acknowledge failure and move in a more hopeful direction. But to do so would have meant renouncing the neoconservative agenda of exporting democracy to the Middle East and of refusing to engage diplomatically with ‘the bad guys’ in control of Iran and Syria. At this point, the Bush presidency remains locked in what increasingly appears to be a death embrace with the neoconservative ideologues. It was they who had advocated regime change in Iraq by military intervention ever since Bush was elected in 2000, if not earlier. It probably should come as no surprise that Bush has so clearly cast his lot with this band of neoconservative extremists, but it is still a disappointment that will make Iraq something worse than the tragedy it has already become.

    Most of Bush’s argument on behalf of the approach he adopted was an elaboration of a single thought: “Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.” To avert failure Bush proposed new tactics involving a dramatic upgrading of the American combat presence in Baghdad, including a new willingness to clear and hold neighborhoods presently controlled by both Sunni and Shi’ia militias, including those of Muqtadar al-Sadr. Bush insisted that the success of such tactics depended on the willingness of the Iraqi government of Nuri al-Maliki to be fully committed to achieving such goals of pacification. Such dependence is almost a guaranty of the failure Bush is preoccupied with avoiding!

    The available evidence clearly establishes that the goal of the Maliki leadership is to consolidate Shi’ia dominance, not to share power with its Sunni adversaries as is implicit in the Bush political strategy. Actually, Maliki had been actively pushing for an adjustment of the American role in Iraq that is diametrically opposed to both the Bush decisions and the Baker-Hamilton recommendations. Maliki was seeking the removal of the American military presence from Baghdad, with its combat mission being redefined as exclusively devoted to engaging and defeating the Sunni elements of the overall insurgency, which would leave the Shi’ia in uncontested control of Iraq. Of course, this makes political sense. Maliki owes his position of leadership to the support of the thirty members of the Iraqi parliament that belong to Muqtador al-Sadr’s political party. For Maliki to act against his own strongest constituency, except verbally to appease the American occupiers, would almost certainly lead to the immediate collapse of his government. In effect, then, Bush’s announced plan of stepped up joint pacification efforts in the Iraqi capital seems doomed before being attempted. More than this, to override Baghdad’s policy on internal security in this way is to make a mockery of the purported transfer of sovereignty to an elected Iraqi government, and to add credibility to the opponents of the Maliki regime who regard it as a puppet government.

    The incoherence of what Bush proposes for a revised Iraq policy is pervasive. On the one side, as mentioned, Bush indicates that failure in Iraq spells disaster for the United States, but arguably in most respects ‘failure’ already exists. On the other side, Bush pins his vain hopes for success on cooperation with the Iraqi government on an approach that contradicts its own power base, and is almost certainly a non-starter. How can a radical Shi’ite leadership suddenly turn around and cooperate in the violent destruction of the most militant Shi’ia political formation with which it has been so closely allied. Think back only a few weeks to the execution of Saddam Hussein, whose hanging was presided over by Shi’ia extremists who were shrieking ‘Muqtador! Muqtador!’ even while the noose was tightened around the deposed dicatator’s neck. This grisley microcosm of the political realities in Iraq should by itself have shown how futile it is to enlist the Maliki government in an effort to crush the Shi’ia militia presence in Baghdad. Maliki is himself a Shi’ia militant, not a captive to forces that he wishes, but is presently unable, to control.

    In the end, what may be most scary, is the double likelihood of continued frustration of the American effort in Iraq combined with growing tensions in the region. In such a setting one cannot ignore the Israeli resolve to confront Iran by military means, possibly on its own, but preferably, more indirectly, by exerting pressure on the United States to do so. There have even been several media reports that Israel has prepared an attack scenario that features the use of bunker buster nuclear bombs against Iranian targets associated with their nuclear program. Such war plans, even if only hypothetical, involve the first time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki that a government seems to be seriously contemplating the use of nuclear weapons as an instrument of its foreign policy. If anything is likely to hasten the collapse of the nonproliferation regime, already tottering, it is such a reckless wielding of nuclear weapons for purposes other than self-defense and deterrence.

    Although American military resources are spread thin, such an expansion of the war zone has some attractive features from the perspective of the neoconservative planners who continue to hold sway in Washington. In one respect, Rumsfeld’s ghost may be a player in this new phase of Middle Eastern diplomacy. The most notorious of the so-called ‘Rumsfeld rules’ fits the present situation—‘if a problem seems insoluble, make it bigger.’ Extending the war zone to Iran and Syria would make the challenge bigger, and divert attention from a deteriorating situation in Iraq. What is more, with Israel strongly behind such an expansion, the Democrats in America might find themselves badly divided and politically confused. And from the perspective of neoconservative priorities, Iraq was always regarded as a prelude to the main goal, which was to achieve regime change in Tehran and Damascus. This kind of objective seems less outlandish as a result of the apocalyptic language used by Mahmoud Ahmedinejad with respect to Israel. As new setbacks in Iraq capture media headlines, the Bush leadership would have to choose between a final admission of humiliating defeat, which it has repeatedly defined as an unacceptable American disaster, or embarking on a regional war, which will end up being a much worse American disaster, but probably not immediately. It may gain the Bush time he desperately needs to end his term in office, and manage to slink back to civilian life on his Crawford ranch before the sky falls.

    We can only hope that prudence intrudes to stop this gathering momentum that is propelling the region toward a calamitous culmination of the neoconservative crusade. It is not a time for American friends in the region and Europe to be silent. It is a great opportunity for Ankara to show that it is an independent actor in the Middle East that has a strategic stake in the conflict, but that also has a constructive view of peace and security for the region.

     

     

    Richard Falk is professor emeritus of international law and practice at Princeton University, and visiting distinguished professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

  • India’s Nuclear Disarmament Gets Critical

    In October 2006, eight years after India and Pakistan crossed the nuclear threshold, the world witnessed yet another breakout, when North Korea exploded an atomic bomb and demanded that it be recognised as a nuclear weapons-state. Talks aimed at persuading Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons, in return for security guarantees and economic assistance, collapsed last week.

    In 2006, the ongoing confrontation between the Western powers and the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear programme got dangerously aggravated. The United Nations Security Council imposed harsh sanctions on Iran but these may prove counterproductive.

    Tehran dismissed the sanctions as illegal and vowed to step up its “peaceful” uranium enrichment programme. It added one more cascade of 164 uranium enrichment centrifuges during the year and is preparing to install as many as 3,000 of these machines within the next four months. (Several thousands of centrifuges are needed to build a small nuclear arsenal.)

    Developments in South Asia added to this negative momentum as India and the United States took further steps in negotiating and legislating the controversial nuclear cooperation deal that they inked one-and-a-half years ago. The deal will bring India into the ambit of normal civilian nuclear commerce although it is a nuclear weapons-state and has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

    Meanwhile, India and Pakistan continued to test nuclear-capable missiles and sustained their long-standing mutual rivalry despite their continuing peace dialogue. Looming large over these developments in different parts of Asia are the Great Powers, led by the U.S., whose geopolitical role as well as refusal to undertake disarmament has contributed to enhancing the global nuclear danger in 2006.

    According to a just-released preliminary count by the Federation of American Scientists, eight countries launched more than 26 ballistic missiles of 23 types in 24 different events in 2006. They include the U.S., Russia, France and China, besides India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran.

    “One can list other negative contributing factors too,” says Sukla Sen, a Mumbai-based activist of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, an umbrella of more than 250 Indian organisations. “These include U.S. plans to find new uses for nuclear armaments and develop ballistic missile defence (“Star Wars”) weapons, Britain’s announcement that it will modernise its “Trident” nuclear force, Japan’s moves towards militarisation, and a revival of interest in nuclear technology in many countries.”

    “Clearly,” adds Sen, “61 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world has learnt little and achieved even less so far as abolishing the nucleus scourge goes. The nuclear sword still hangs over the globe. 2006 has made the world an even more dangerous place. The time has come to advance the hands of the Doomsday Clock.” The Doomsday Clock, created by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, published from Chicago in the U.S., currently stands at seven minutes to midnight, the Final Hour. Since 1947, its minute hand has been repeatedly moved “forward and back to reflect the global level of nuclear danger and the state of international security”.

    The Clock was last reset in 2002, after the U.S. announced it would reject several arms control agreements, and withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which prohibits the development of “Star Wars”-style weapons.

    Before that, the Doomsday Clock was advanced in 1998, from 14 minutes to midnight, to just nine minutes before the hour. This was primarily in response to the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in May that year.

    The closest the Clock moved to midnight was in 1953, when the U.S. and the USSR both tested thermonuclear weapons. The Clock’s minute hand was set just two minutes short of 12.

    The lowest level of danger it ever showed was in 1991, following the end of the Cold War and the signature of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The Clock then stood at 17 minutes to midnight.

    “The strongest reason to move the minute hand forward today is the inflamed situation in the Middle East,” argues M.V. Ramana, an independent nuclear affairs analyst currently with the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, Bangalore.

    “Iran isn’t the real or sole cause of worry. It’s probably still some years away from enriching enough uranium to make a nuclear bomb. But there is this grave crisis in Iraq, which has spun out of Washington’s control. And then there is Israel, which is a de facto nuclear weapons-state and is seen as a belligerent power by its neighbours in the light of the grim crisis in Palestine. All the crises in the Middle East feed into one another and aggravate matters,” adds Ramana.

    At the other extreme of Asia, new security equations are emerging, partly driven by the North Korean nuclear programme.

    “Today, this is a key factor not only in shaping relations between the two Koreas, but the more complex and important relationship between North Korea, China, Japan and the U.S.”, holds Alka Acharya, of the Centre of East Asian Studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University here. Adds Acharya: “The U.S. has failed to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis diplomatically. North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme will spur Japan and South Korea to add to their military capacities. There is a strong lobby in Japan which wants to rewrite the country’s constitution and even develop a nuclear weapons capability. Recently, Japan commissioned a study to determine how long it would take to develop a nuclear deterrent.”

    Japan has stockpiled hundreds of tonnes of plutonium, ostensibly for use in fast-breeder reactors. But with the fast reactor programme faltering, the possibility of diversion of the plutonium to military uses cannot be ruled out. Similarly, South Korea is likely to come under pressure to develop its own deterrent capability. “Driving these pursuits are not just nuclear calculations, but also geopolitical factors,” says Prof. Achin Vanaik who teaches international relations and global politics at Delhi University. “The U.S. plays a critical role here because of its aggressive stance and its double standards. It cannot convincingly demand that other states practise nuclear abstinence or restraint while it will keep it own nuclear weapons for ‘security’. Eventually, Washington’s nuclear double standards will encourage other countries to pursue nuclear weapons capabilities too.”

    In particular, the joint planned development of ballistic missile defence weapons by the U.S. and Japan is likely to be seen by China as a threat to its security and impel Beijing to add to its nuclear arsenal. Adds Vanaik: “The real danger is not confined to East Asia or West Asia alone. The overall worldwide impact of the double standards practised by the nuclear weapons-states, and especially offensive moves like the Proliferation Security Initiative proposed by the U.S. to intercept ‘suspect’ nuclear shipments on the high seas, will be to weaken the existing global nuclear order and encourage proliferation. The U.S.-India nuclear deal sets a horribly negative example of legitimising proliferation.” “A time could soon come when a weak state or non-state actor might consider attacking the U.S. mainland with mass-destruction weapons. The kind of hatreds that the U.S. is sowing in volatile parts of the world, including the Middle East, could well result in such a catastrophe,” Vanaik said.

    The year 2006 witnessed a considerable weakening of the norms of nuclear non-proliferation. Until 1974, the world had five declared nuclear weapon-states and one covert nuclear power (Israel). At the end of this year, it has nine nuclear weapons-states — nine too many.

    No less significant in the long run is the growing temptation among many states to develop civilian nuclear power. Earlier this month, a number of Arab leaders met in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia and decided to start a joint nuclear energy development programme.

    “Although this doesn’t spell an immediate crisis, nuclear power development can in the long run provide the technological infrastructure for building nuclear weapons too,” says Ramana. “The way out of the present nuclear predicament does not lie in non- or counter-proliferation through ever-stricter technology controls. The only solution is nuclear disarmament. The nuclear weapons-states must lead by example, by reducing and eventually dismantling these weapons of terror.”

     

    The writer is a Delhi-based researcher, peace and human rights activist, and former newspaper editor.

  • Apartheid in the Holy Land

    In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders.

    What is not so understandable, not justified, is what it did to another people to guarantee its existence. I’ve been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.

    On one of my visits to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?

    I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said:”Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews.”

    My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?

    Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won’t let ambulances reach the injured.

    The military action of recent days, I predict with certainty, will not provide the security and peace Israelis want; it will only intensify the hatred.

    Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or — I hope — to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders.

    We in South Africa had a relatively peaceful transition. If our madness could end as it did, it must be possible to do the same everywhere else in the world. If peace could come to South Africa, surely it can come to the Holy Land?

    My brother Naim Ateek has said what we used to say: “I am not pro- this people or that. I am pro-justice, pro- freedom. I am anti-injustice, anti-oppression.”

    But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticise it is to be immediately dubbed anti-semitic, as if the Palestinians were not semitic. I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group. And how did it come about that Israel was collaborating with the apartheid government on security measures?

    People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful — very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God’s world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.

    Injustice and oppression will never prevail. Those who are powerful have to remember the litmus test that God gives to the powerful: what is your treatment of the poor, the hungry, the voiceless? And on the basis of that, God passes judgment.

    We should put out a clarion call to the government of the people of Israel, to the Palestinian people and say: peace is possible, peace based on justice is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God’s dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers.

     

    Desmond Tutu is the former Archbishop of Cape Town and chairman of South Africa’s truth and reconciliation commission. This address was given at a conference on Ending the Occupation held in Boston, Massachusetts, earlier this month. A longer version appears in the current edition of Church Times.

  • A Nonkilling, Nonviolent World for the 21st Century

    Dear Friends,

    I am delighted to be attending this Summit, and I would like to thank President Gorbachev, Mayor Veltroni, and the City of Rome for hosting this event. Thank you for inviting me to make this contribution towards the Nobel Peace Laureates Charter for a Nonviolent World.

    I believe that, one of our greatest challenges as the human family, is to transform our violent cultures into a nonkilling, nonviolent culture for the World. This journey from violence to nonviolence will be long and difficult, but human beings mimic each other, and as increasingly more people reject violence, and use the alternatives available, others will follow their example, and change will happen. Already many people are asking, ‘Is it possible to move beyond violence? To build Nonkilling, Nonviolent societies, and World?’ I believe, the answer is YES! However, where violence is endemic, it is easy to be apathetic. Also, particularly in our current world political situation, faced as we are, with an ethical and moral crisis, brought about by many Governments’ abuse of their power, especially those Governments’ who have the most temporal power, often civil society feel disempowered and hopeless.

    But we should never give up hope. If we continue in a negative frame of mind, to accept violence, it will seriously threaten our quality of life, and our security. The bad news is that all violence, be it bullying, torture, homicide, violent crime, terrorism, violent revolution, armed struggles, suicide bombings, hunger strikes to the death, nuclear weapons, militarism, and war, tragically often take human life, and add to the culture of violence. And all violence, State and Non-state, is a form of injustice, which demeans us all.

    Killings by Governments, and nongovernmental armed groups, and threats to kill, underlie all other threats to the survival of humanity, damaging peoples’ physical, psychological, economic, social, cultural, and environmental, well-being. If we are to reverse this downward spiral of violence, we need to uphold the Principal that, everyone has a right not to be tortured, or killed, and a responsibility not to torture, kill, or support the killing of others. These are basic human rights enshrined in national and international laws and we all must stand firm on the upholding of these Rights by our Governments and by ‘armed revolutionaries’ or ‘armed insurgency groups’.

    The good news is that we are not born violent, most humans never kill, and the World Health Organization says Human Violence is a ‘preventable disease’. So happily we can be cured! Prevention starts in our own minds, with us choosing to reject negativity, changing to a positive, disarmed mindset, cultivating love of ourselves and others, and choosing not to kill. Prevention, also starts in our own conscience where we know what is right and refuse to be morally blinded in our mind and heart by nationalism and militarism, a moral disease which continues to destroy many people. For example, in Iraq, where the USA Government has carried out war crimes, in Chechnya where the Russian Government continues to commit war crimes, the Israel Government’s massacre in the occupied Palestinian terroritories, and State and non-state killings in many other places around our world.

    Nowadays we hear a lot of talk about security, The greatest power on earth, the United States, decided that the way to achieve security was through shock and awe, destruction of countries, and the multiple deaths of people including her own young men and women transformed into soldiers. Over 654,000 Iraqi civilians and over 2,800 USA soldiers have needlessly died. Such violent reactions endorse a culture of violence, rather than a culture of dialogue with its citizens and perceived enemies. In Northern Ireland, we have been through all of that. And we know that it doesn’t work. Violence does not prevent violence. The failure of militarism, paramilitarism, in Northern Ireland is mirrored in Iraq. Should it not be obvious that we are now at a point of human history where we must abolish the culture of violence and embrace a culture of nonviolence for the sake of our children and the children of the world? But is such a quantum leap of thinking possible? Nothing is possible unless we can imagine it. So what is meant by such a society?

    Prof. Paige in his book ‘Nonkilling Global Political Science’ (l) says: “A nonkilling society can be defined as a human community from the smallest to the largest in which (l) there is no killing of humans and no threats to kill, (2) there are no weapons for killing humans and no ideological justifications for killing – in computer terms no ‘hardware’ and no ‘software’ for killing and (3) there are no social conditions that depend, for maintenance or change, upon the threat or use of killing force”. I would add that it is not enough to decide not to kill but we need to learn to live nonviolently in our lives and families. Nonviolence is a decision to protect and celebrate life, to love oneself, others, and ones enemies, and to bring wisdom, compassion, forgiveness, and reconciliation into our relationships. Nonviolence recognizes principled dissent against injustice and the misuse of power and upholds the right to civil disobedience as an integral part of a democratic society. Nonviolence is based on unconditional love, truth, equality, justice, and respect for life, and all of creation.

    To build such a nonviolent culture we need first to move away from dependence upon threat and use of killing force for security, and by that I mean armies and all imitations of armies. Second we must stop using our economic resources for the unholy alliance of arms dealers and warmongers. Currently there are over 20 million people under arms, and an annual military budget of one trillion dollars a year. According to one United Nations report, an investment of less than a fourth of the world’s collective annual expenditure on arms, would be enough to solve the major economic and environmental problems facing humanity. If this is true, and I believe that it is, isn’t it a crime against humanity that those who exercise power in our world continue to pour billions of dollars into so-called security enriching the arms dealers in the process, while neglecting the children who are dying every day of poverty and disease. Ending the military/industrial corporations stranglehold on many Governments’ policies, and introducing policies which meet the basic needs of the people would help remove many of the root causes of violence. We know what to do, but what is lacking is the will of economic and political leaders, who continue their policies to feed the death culture of war, nuclear weapons and arms. This then is just not a political, economic, and socio-cultural crisis but a deeply spiritual and moral one.

    The Human family is moving away from the violent mindset, and increasingly violence, war, armed struggles, violent revolutions, are no longer romanticed, glorified, or culturally accepted as ways of solving our problems. As a pacifist I believe that violence is never justified, and there are always alternatives to force and threat of force. We should challenge the society that tells us there is no alternative to violence. In all areas of our life we can adopt nonviolence, in our lifestyles, our education, our commence, our defense, our governance. Also the Political scientists and academics could help this cultural change by teaching nonviolence as a serious political science, and help too in the further development of effective nonviolence to bring about social and political change. Also by implementing the UN Decade for a Culture of Peace and nonviolence for the Children of the World, (2001-2010) and teaching it in educational establishments, can help evolve this new culture.

    Nonviolence is an ideal that has seldom been explored. But it is not an impossible ideal. History is littered with examples of nonviolent resistance, many of them successful. Gandhi and King successfully used nonviolence for human rights issues; Italy’s own St. Francis, a Mystic/Ecologist/Environmentalist, is a model to us of how to apply a holistic approach to living nonviolently, especially in a world where climate change is one of the greatest challenges to humanity’s future. Abdul Khaffer Khan, a great Muslim leader, demonstrated the power of courageous Islamic nonviolence through the unarmed Servants of God army and parallel government to liberate the Pathan people from British colonial rule in India’s North-West Frontier Province (now in Pakistan). Their example deserves to be known widely throughout the world (2).

    All Faith traditions can play a role in building this new culture, as each have their own prophets of nonviolence. They can teach the Golden Rule of ‘Do unto others as you would have them do to you’ and also to ‘love your enemies’, which, I believe, is necessary for humanity’s survival in this age of military madness. I speak from my own faith tradition which is Christian. I myself came into pacifism and nonviolence in the early l97O’s. Facing State Violence I asked myself ‘As a Christian can I ever use violence”? I studied and rejected the ‘Just War’ theory and went to the cross where Jesus’ message of love your enemies, do not kill, is most clearly shown. I also agree with the American theologian, the late Fr McKenzie, who said ‘You cannot read the gospels and not know Jesus was totally nonviolent.’ He also described the Just War theory as a phony piece of morality. How tragic, in light of Jesus’ example, to know that the American Catholic Hierarchy, with a couple of honorable exceptions, have blessed yet again Catholics going to participate in an unjust, immoral and illegal war, in Iraq, thus ignoring their own Pope’s guidance on this matter. But, I believe, until the Christian Churches resurrect from their longstanding moral malaise of blessing, ambiguity, or consent-bestowing silence, on violence, militarism, and war, and gives Spiritual guidance by abolishing the Just War theory, and developing a theology more in keeping with the nonviolence of Jesus, it behooves those of us who are Christian, and those who follow other spiritual paths, or none, to follow our own conscience in such matters.

    As world citizens working together in solidarity we can abolish nuclear weapons and war, demilitarize the World, build neutral and nonaligned countries, develop unarmed policing and nonmilitary forms of self-defense. We can establish or strengthen nonviolent institutions, such as: Global Nonkilling Spiritual Council: Global Nonkilling Security Council: Global Nonkilling Nonmilitary self-defense Security, such as the Nonviolent Peaceforce: Global Nonkilling Leadership Academies: Global Nonkilling Trusteeship Fund: Ministries of Peace by National Governments: (2) (All of these proposed nonviolent institutions are described at as addendum to this paper).

    To build a nonviolent culture will also mean changing Patriarchal and Hierarchical systems which are unjust and under which women, suffer from oppressive structures and institutions. It will mean in particular challenging violence and injustice in our own societies and extending our support to all humans who suffer injustice everywhere. To people who are suffering torture, the imates in Guantanamo and other such Guantanamos in whatever country, and supporting whistleblowers like Mordechai Vanunu who continues to suffer for telling the truth. It will not be easy but it is necessary, and it is possible together, in our interconnected, interdependent human family, to build a new world civilization with a nonviolent heart.

    Peace and happiness to you all,

    Mairead Corrigan Maguire (www.peacepeople.com)

    Note l: “Nonkilling Global Political Science” (Xlibris 2002) by Prof. Glenn D. Paige (Freely posted on web at www.globalnonviolence.org). It is being translated into 24 languages. Former Indian Prime Minister I.K. Gujral has advised, “This book should be read in every political science department and by the public”. In his introduction to the Russian edition, Prof. William Smirnov, Vice-President of the Russian Political Science Association and the International Political Science Association has written: “The basic idea in this unique book can and should become the basis of common values for humanity in the 2lst century as well as a programme for their realization”.

    Note 2. The Pathan Unarmed (Oxford University Press 2000) by Dr. Mukulika, Banerjee.

    Details of nonviolent institutions:

    Global Nonkilling Spiritual Council: Composed of men and women elected to represent faiths and philosophies committed to principled nonkilling. Serves as a continuing body to counsel the United Nations, governments, other institutions, and world citizens.

    Global Nonkilling Security Council. Composed of persons elected among distinguished contributors to the theory, strategy, tactics, and practice of nonkilling domestic and transnational defense. Serves as a continuing source of nonviolent security alternatives for consideration by all parties in potential or actual deadly conflicts that threaten physical, economic and ecological well-being.

    Global Nonkilling Service: Composed of locally rooted professional and volunteer workers in every country, trained in nonmilitary skills of security, conflict transformation, constructive service, and humanitarian and disaster relief. Builds upon nonviolent military and nongovernmental experience such as the Gandhi and Shanti Sena and the Nonviolent Peaceforce.

    Global Nonkilling Leadership Academies: Prepares local and transnational leaders, partly by biographical studies, to take nonkilling initiatives in response to the interdependent human needs for security, economic well-being, dignity, ecological sustainability and problem solving co-operation. Seeks to build mutually strengthening relationships based upon the nonkilling principles in co operation with the United Nations University Japan, the UNU International Leadership Academy in Jordan, the University of Peace in Costa Rica, and other peace-seeking educational and training institutions.

    Global Nonkilling Trusteeship Fund: Established in the Gandhian tradition of mutual trusteeship for the well-being of all, honors pioneers of nonkilling service to humanity, throughout the world. Collects voluntary and service contributions to support implementing institutions. Management board to be composed equally between representatives of the most and least wealthy global citizens.

     

    Mairead Corrigan Maguire received the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize and the 1991 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Distinguished Peace Leadership Award. She recently participated in the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2006 International Law Symposium, “At the Nuclear Precipice: Nuclear Weapons and the Abandonment of International Law.”

  • War is a Racket

    War is a racket. It always has been.

    It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

    A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

    In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

    How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

    Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

    And what is this bill?

    This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

    For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

    Full text available at http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm.

    Smedley Butler was a Major General in the US Marine Corps. At the time of his death, he was the most decorated Marine in US history.

  • Preventable Genocide: Who Speaks for Humanity

    It’s wonderful to be in Santa Barbara and to see such a good crowd – especially given the fact that it is beautiful Saturday morning in sunny California and genocide is the subject of our discussion. It is clear that I have strayed from my California roots and been on the East Coast too long, as I am reminded of a cartoon that appeared in the New Yorker magazine, with the text, “Would you like to grab a drink after the Genocide panel?” How indeed, do we incorporate something like genocide into our “normal” lives?

    In the aftermath of the Second World War, Raphael Lemkin coined the word ‘genocide’. Lemkin, a lawyer and Holocaust survivor wanted to find a way to describe the policies that were intended to exterminate Jews throughout Europe in order to prevent such a thing from happening again. Based on his efforts, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and went into force three years later. The Convention defined genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,” and it made genocide a punishable crime under international law.

    Institutionalization of Hope

    The United Nations was itself created from the ashes of World War II and the atrocities of the Holocaust in order to prevent the extraordinary human suffering witnessed at that time. From the beginning, the United Nations has spoken to the ideals of people around the world for a better and more secure future – it was what former President Clinton recently called the “institutionalization of hope,” based on three ideals: the maintenance of international peace and security, the promotion of economic development, and the protection of human rights. As envisioned from the beginning of the Organization, governments could take action under the United Nations Charter to prevent genocide. The United Nations second Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold said the United Nations’spare job was not to take us to Heaven but to keep us from Hell. Genocide is the ultimate Hell.

    But we have not always lived up to the promise, sometimes succumbing to divisive international politics; the lack of collective political will to confront evil; and a callous tendency to preference sovereign rights of nations over the rights of vulnerable individuals in those nations. While the United Nations helped ultimately bring peace to Cambodia in the 1990s, it did so only after more than a million people died at the hands of the pathological Khmer Rouge regime. Alongside all countries of the world and all other international institutions, the United Nations failed to stop the mass murder of 800,000 in Rwanda in 1994. And again it failed, we all failed, to protect civilians from ethnic cleansing in Bosnia in the mid-90s.

    In short, history demonstrates that the United Nations faces a fundamental dilemma: on the one hand it represents both the highest ideals of humanity and the “institutionalization of hope,” but at the same time, its high ambitions have often contrasted sharply with the realities of what national governments have been able to agree on and deliver.

    While the United Nations may be imperfect, it is also indispensable. As the only universal body representing and bringing together every country and region of the world, the United Nations enjoys a unique legitimacy.

    So the United Nations is being asked to do more and more things: a quadrupling of United Nations peacekeeping forces in the last decade, so that at this moment, with over 93,000 sets of “boots on the ground” in 18 hot-spots in every corner of the globe, the United Nations is second only to the US in terms of the number of troops deployed around the world. The United Nations has also been relied on for providing humanitarian assistance in complex emergencies, such as in Southeast Asia after the tsunami and in Darfur, so that now there are more humanitarian missions run by the United Nations than ever before, serving the needs of over 40 million people around the world each year in almost 40 countries. The United Nations has also become the pre-eminent provider of organizing and monitoring national elections. The United Nations Millennium Development Goals are a blueprint that have been agreed to by all the world’s countries to meet the needs of the poor, including halving extreme poverty and curbing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

    Responsibility to Protect

    But what about preventing genocide?

    Is the United Nations’role limited to providing the normative and legal framework for combating genocide embodied in the Convention? Or can the United Nations become the pre-eminent service provider in this area, as it has in peackekeeping, humanitarian, elections, and providing a framework for development? The United Nations is not a world government, and it does not have its own military to send in to prevent or stop genocide. Ultimately, the decision to intervene and deliver troops and equipment is up to the governments of the countries that make up the United Nations, and more specifically, the Security Council.
    But the United Nations’s role is extremely important in getting governments to make that calculation. The Secretary-General has a moral voice to draw attention to humanitarian crises and he has done that tirelessly on Darfur.

    And in September 2005 at the United Nations, the largest gathering of heads of state ever assembled took another huge step. They approved, by consensus, the principle of the “Responsibility to Protect” – the idea that every government has a responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, but when they are unable or unwilling to do so, the community of nations is be prepared to take collective action. In terms of international norms and law, this was a fundamental shift. Governments have always been able to hide behind sovereignty, by saying that they have a right to determine what goes on behind their own borders. Now, governments as large as China and as small as Burundi have acknowledged that they have a responsibility to their civilians and that failure to do so means that the international community has the responsibility and can take action, either through diplomatic, humanitarian, or other means, including military means (under Chapter VII) of the United Nations Charter.

    Such a historic agreement is possible only through the United Nations. Those who criticize the United Nations, arguing instead for coalitions of the willing or alliances of democracies to replace it, have failed to realize that an agreement on how to address genocide by angels alone, leaves most of humanity at the mercy of those less angelically inclined. But through the United Nations we now have an agreed principle for protecting all of the world’s people.

    However, despite its adoption last year, the Responsibility to Protect has not yet been operationalized. Turning it from a principle into an actionable norm is essential. Civil society and NGOs can help by influencing policy makers in governments and insisting that they put into action the Responsibility to Protect.
    Three different types of United Nations institutions can play on enhanced role in the fight against genocide:

    First, the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide

    In 2004, the Secretary-General appointed Mr. Juan Méndez, Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide based on the lessons learned from past instances of collective failure to address gross human rights violations. The Special Advisor acts as an early warning mechanism to bring attention to situations that could result in genocide and advises the Secretary-General and the Security Council. This is the first time the United Nations has had a position that is devoted exclusively to preventing genocide and mass abuses of human rights, and he has been active on Darfur, traveling to the region and reporting back on how to prevent the situation from deteriorating further.

    Second, the new Human Rights Council

    Another recent development that can significantly bolster human rights at the United Nations is the establishment of the Human Rights Council to replace the Commission on Human Rights. The world needs an intergovernmental body which effectively deals with human rights. The Human Rights Council is a crucial opportunity and holds great promise despite some early stumbles that make it appear to be replicating some of the failures of the Commission. It meets year around and has a new feature – the universal peer review that ensures that all members, including the most powerful countries, who sit in judgment of human rights situations around the world, have their own human rights records scrutinized. The Council is an important development but it has to be supported and made to work.
    Third, the International Criminal Court , war crimes tribunals, and “hybrid” courts

    Within the last 10 years, we have seen ICC investigations on Sudan and Uganda have dramatically changed the political equation there. remarkable progress in international justice – the establishment of the International Criminal Court, the tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia, which have tried the first genocide cases against top officials, and the hybrid national/international courts in Sierra Leone and Cambodia. But questions have been raised about whether pursuing justice may undermine peace. In cases like Uganda, where the suffering has gone on for two decades, some say that we should not disrupt such hard won peace talks by trying the perpetrators. But peace without justice for the victims is not sustainable or wise.

    Darfur as a test case

    So we have witnessed progress in key areas. But can we prevent genocide?

    The singular biggest test we face is that in Darfur, Sudan.

    The situation on the ground is stark. Since the conflict began in 2003, more than 200,000 people have been killed from fighting, famine, or disease, and over 2.5 million people have been displaced from their homes. As a reminder, just 6 days ago large scale militia attacks in West Darfur on 8 settlements caused scores of civilian deaths, including 27 children under the age of 12.

    With the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement in May we had a framework for ending the violence and a road map for moving to stability, but not all parties have accepted the Agreement. The Security Council adopted a resolution to send in United Nations peacekeeping troops. This has been rejected by the Sudanese government. We therefore need smart pressure and a global diplomatic campaign. In the meantime, the African Union has done a tremendous job, but it needs to be strengthened. The UN has committed to providing support for the AU mission in Sudan, and we are looking at bolstering that support, but again, contributions depend on Member States.

    Now we have to alter the calculation of potential perpetrators of abuses, and equally importantly, make it much more difficult for governments which decide not to act to prevent genocide.

    The Responsibility to Protect must be put into practice. The role of the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide could be strengthened. The Human Rights Council, should adopt a country-specific resolution on Darfur as recommended by the Secretary-General that urges the government of Sudan to allow United Nations peacekeepers into Darfur.

    Achieving a lasting peace in Darfur also means bringing those responsible to justice. The Security Council has referred Darfur to the International Criminal Court. The case against the perpetrators is being built as we speak. Action by the International Criminal Court must be supported and seen through.

    Conclusion

    In order to prevent genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, we still face tremendous challenges. But nothing is inevitable. Genocide is indeed preventable. 60 years ago, we didn’t even have a name for this evil. Now, we not only can name it, we have legal mechanisms obligating all to act to stop it, and increasing experience at trying to stop it. We now have the knowledge, we have the United Nations institution to help organize our response, and the political, economic, and military tools to prevent it. The question is, “Will we use them?”

    Let us work together to do so. Santa Barbara may feel as far from Darfur as a place can be – indeed it is. And yet, you all turned up today to engage on this most difficult of subjects. A crucial first step. Now organize, let your representatives know how you feel. The United States as a country must show leadership. Support United Nations efforts. Place pressure on all national governments to fulfill their obligations. Support the NGOs whose dedicated staff are risking their lives on the front lines.

    Today’s topic was “Who speaks for humanity?” One of my favorite saying is by Pastor Martin Niemöller, a German citizen of conscience who reflected on his experience with genocide in his own country 60 years ago:

    First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

    So to the question posed today, “Who speaks for Humanity?”, the answer is clear – we do. We must.

    Robert Orr is Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Planning in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The speech was given at a United Nations Day event held in Santa Barbara, California on November 4, 2006.

  • Is There A Reason To Be Concerned About War With Iran?

    The short answer is YES! A more complete answer becomes visible when we look at recent war signals. For insights on how war can be prevented, it is helpful to go back in history to when the governments of the US and Iran were the best of friends.

    As the US war propaganda intensifies, I sometimes wonder what Iran and the Middle East would look like today if the CIA did not overthrow Iran’s democratic government in 1953?

    A Timeline Worth Remembering

    — 1950s & 1960s — In 1951, US and Iranian relations were so good that Mohammad Mossadeq was named Time magazine’s Man of the Year. To show his admiration of America’s democracy, Mossadeq made a high-profile trip to the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. In 1953, the US and Britain illegally overthrew Iran’s democratically elected government because Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq interfered with US and British oil interests. In 1967, Mossadeq died after many years of living under house arrest. Mossadeq’s comment on his arrest was “My only crime is that I nationalized the oil industry and removed from this land the network of colonialism and the political and economic influence of the greatest empire on Earth.”

    — 1970s — In 1973, the US offered Israel a defense treaty after the Yom Kippur war. Israel rejected this offer because Israel would have to define its boundaries. Contrary to incorrect statements by President Bush, there is no defense treaty between the US and Israel. Why does President Bush now continue to say that the US has a defense alliance with Israel? In 1976 Chief of Staff Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld persuaded President Gerald Ford to approve offering Iran nuclear reprocessing facilities. Cheney and Rumsfeld stated that Iran needed a nuclear program to meet future energy requirements which is what Iranian officials are saying today. In 1979 US embassy personnel in Iran were held captive for 444 days and the Islamic revolution changed the balance of power in the Middle East. Iran’s current President Ahmadinejad was a leader of the student group that stormed the embassy.

    — 1980s — In 1980, Iraq attacked Iran. The US initially provided weapons to Iraq but eventually sold weapons to both sides. Iraq ended up spending more on weapons than it earned from oil sales. The war ended in 1988. In 1980, President Reagan’s campaign manager and future CIA Director, William Casey, made a deal with Iran’s leadership to delay the release of the US embassy personnel until a few hours after President Jimmy Carter leaves office. For compensation, President Reagan arranged for Iran to receive $4 billion dollars and a letter stating the US would never attack Iran. Since the 1980s Iran has had anthrax and other weapons of mass destruction. In 1981, Israel destroyed the Iraqi Osirak nuclear facility. Israel’s attack, against international law, motivated Iran to disperse, bury and harden its nuclear facilities. Between 1984 and 1988, Iraqi air attacks damaged Iran’s Bushehr nuclear facility. In 1986, Pakistan began helping Iran develop nuclear weapons. Abdul Qadeer Khan transfers over 2000 components and by 1995, P-2 centrifuge components are transferred to Iran. In 1987 and 1988 US forces secretly attacked Iranian forces, including strikes on Gulf oil platforms. In 1988 the US cruiser Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iranian commercial plane and 290 people are killed.

    — 1990s – In 1995, Russia resumed work on the Bushehr nuclear facility. In 1996, China sold Iran a conversion plant and provided the gas needed to test the uranium enrichment process. In 1997, the Project For A New American Century, authored by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other neo-cons now in power, calls for preemptive attacks so that the US will remain the dominant power in the new century. A cornerstone of the strategy is to keep a rising China subordinate by denying access to resources in Central Asia and the Middle East.

    — 2000 to 2002 — Sep 2001: Pakistan’s Khan network and assistance to Iran is shut down after the US threatens to nuke Pakistan and bring it back to the stone age. Jan 2002: President Bush, in his State of the Union address, described Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of evil”. Aug 2002: Iranian dissident, Alireza Jafarzadeh, revealed two previously undeclared nuclear sites: a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and a heavy water facility in Arak.

    — 2003 — Mar: The US illegally invaded Iraq. Aug: A confidential UN report revealed that Iran has developed two kinds of enriched uranium that are not needed for peaceful energy production. Dec: US sent humanitarian aid to Iran after earthquake kills up to 50,000 people in city of Bam. Dec or earlier: President Bush had the 1980 document stating the US will not attack Iran nullified because it was signed under duress.

    — 2004 — Jun: The International Atomic Energy Agency claims to have found new traces of enriched uranium that exceeded the levels necessary for civilian energy production. Jul: Iran admited to having resumed production of parts for centrifuges that are used for enriching uranium, but insists that it has not resumed its enrichment activities. Sep: Iran refused to accept an unlimited suspension of uranium enrichment and says it will not stop manufacturing centrifuges. Sep: To facilitate military operations in Iran, the U.S. sent 4,500 smart bombs to Israel and built a staging base in Afghanistan near its border with Iran. Oct: The Iranian parliament passed a bill approving resumption of enrichment activities. Dec or earlier: Israel built a model of Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility to practice attacks on the facility.

    — 2005 — Jan: Iran’s Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani indicated that Iran has a nuclear bomb. Shamkhani said, “we have rapidly produced equipment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent.” Feb: The book American Hiroshima is published and warns the US will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and this will lead to Iran’s Qods Force attacking US nuclear facilities. Feb: The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, at his private ranch in the Negev desert, gave “initial authorization” to attack Iran. They agreed to coordinate the attack with the most supportive US administration since Israel was created in 1948. Feb: Iranian Information Minister Ali Yunessi confirmed that US spy planes have been spotted in Iran. The objective of these spy missions is to identify approximately 36 nuclear weapons-related targets that can be destroyed by an Israeli or US surprise attack. Feb: North Korea, secretly collaborated with Iran. North Korea declared it has nuclear weapons. Aug: President Bush made the first of several statements in which he refused to rule out using force against Iran.

    — 2006 — Feb to present: The war propaganda, direct from the playbook of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, is repeated daily. The “battlefield of public perception” is prepared for war with statements from Donald Rumsfeld that Iran is the “world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist repeated the mantra “we cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear nation.” Richard Perle said “If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war … our children will sing great songs about us years from now.” We also see Iran’s President repeatedly misquoted (e.g., he is quoted as saying military force should be used to wipe Israel off the map when President Ahmadinejad’s actual statement never used the words “wipe” or “off the map”). Feb: President Bush was asked if the United States would rise to Israel’s defense militarily, he said: “You bet, we’ll defend Israel.” Mar: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the US faces “no greater challenge” than Iran’s nuclear program. Apr: A report by Seymour M. Hersh in the New Yorker warns the US is planning a tactical nuclear strike against Iran. Apr: The Washington Post reports the US is studying military strike options on Iran. Apr: The Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported Iran’s military response to an attack is called Operation Judgment Day. May: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sends a letter to President Bush proposing new and peaceful solutions to their differences. This is the first communication between Iranian and US leaders in 27 years. May: The Physicians for Social Responsibility publish a report titled “Medical Consequences of a Nuclear Attack on Iran.” The report illuminates that millions of lives will be lost if the US attacks Iran. Jul & Aug: Israel responds to the kidnapping of soldiers with war. This is seen by many as an attempt to draw Iran into a direct conflict with Israel. As a result of Israel’s attack, Hamas and Hezbollah “near” enemies are subsequently less able to inflict harm on Israel when the “far” enemy of Iran is attacked. Aug: Former Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Chief, Maj. Gen (R) Hameed Gul “predicted” that America will attack Iran and Syria simultaneously in October. Aug: War propaganda continues to ramp up with Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, and other prominent proponents for attacking Iran, stating Iran is 5 to 10 years away from having a bomb. The public is “sold” this ridiculous piece of information, especially given Pakistan’s previous direct assistance, to minimize concerns about what Iran can do to retaliate. In addition, as media commentators increasingly demand America attack Iran, there is no mention of Iran’s existing chemical and biological weapons. Aug: Iran started the “Blow of Zolfaqar” military exercise in the Persian Gulf. Aug: Iran rejected the US led UN Security Council offer to stop uranium enrichment. Aug: Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is interviewed by Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes and calls for peaceful dialogue. He subsequently offers to debate with President Bush. The White House rejects the offer. Sep: Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), “asked for fresh eyes” to review the existing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. Sep: The Pentagon announced the extension of overseas assignments for US soldiers. Oct: A major naval strike force carrying nuclear weapons received surprise “prepare to deploy” orders to depart for the Persian Gulf. Oct: North Korea sees the US as preoccupied with attacking Iran and conducted a nuclear test. The US media ignores North Korea’s 2005 public announcement that it had nuclear weapons to reinforce the fiction that a new rogue state has become a nuclear power stressing the message “this is what happens if we don’t strike Iran.” Oct: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei held an AK 47 on October 13 to symbolized Iran’s readiness to repel an Israeli and US attack. Oct: The Defense Department started mandatory anthrax immunizations. Oct: Iran’s military forces are deployed to battle positions as the Eisenhower naval strike force entered the Persian Gulf. Oct: Respected US whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg warns the US is planning to attack Iran with H-bombs. An H-bomb, also known as thermonuclear bomb, can be over one thousand times more powerful than an atomic bomb. Oct: According to Muslim tradition, the “Night of Determination” (10/26-10/27) is when Allah determines the fate of the world for the coming year. An Operations Northwoods (i.e., a self-inflicted attack so that Americans will support attacking Iran) event increasingly appears likely, especially with US elections taking place in November.

    If The US Attacks Iran, What Happens? On April 27, 2006 the Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported Iran’s military response to a US and Israeli attack is a plan called Operation Judgment Day.

    The attack has several components. The final component is the American Hiroshima attack.

    1. A missile strike directly targeting the US military bases in the Persian Gulf and Iraq, as soon as Iranian nuclear installations are hit.
    2. Suicide operations in a number of Arab and Muslim countries against the US and US allies.
    3. Stepped up attacks by the Basij, the Revolutionary Guards and Iraqi fighters loyal to Iran against US and British forces in Iraq.
    4. Hezbollah launches hundreds of rockets against military and economic targets in Israel.

    The final Judgment Day component is for Iran to give the al Qods Brigades the go-ahead for more than 50 terrorists cells in Canada, the US, and Europe to attack civil and industrial targets in these countries. This could lead to an American/global Hiroshima attack to maximize civilian casualties by attacking nuclear and chemical facilities.

    Is component 1 why the anthrax vaccinations of US military personnel started in October? Components 2 and 3 are already happening. Israel attempted to minimize component 4 with the July and August war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

    A detailed explanation of why this is happening and how it can be prevented is the subject of the American Hiroshima book.

    While War With Iran Is On The Horizon – Choose Hope! Iran may or may not have developed the “greatest deterrent.” In the 1960s, it was unknown to US intelligence that the Soviet Union had almost 100 nuclear weapons in Cuba at the time of the 1962 missile crisis. Regardless of Iran’s status as a nuclear weapons power, Iran’s Qods Force has been capable of attacking US nuclear power facilities for over a decade. Therefore, the issue is really not Iran’s nuclear program but how can we return to the friendship that existed in 1951?

    A first step would be for President Bush to acknowledge that the US was wrong to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953. Regardless of what President Bush elects to do, we must choose hope and work to prevent war. History has shown us that a peaceful future is possible. In 1962 the US and the Soviet Union were on the brink of nuclear war and yet the Cuban Missile Crisis was solved without war.

    As Martin Luther King, Jr. said “We still have a choice today: nonviolent co-existence or violent co-annihilation. History will record the choice we made. It is still not too late to make the proper choice. If we decide to become a moral power we will be able to transform the jangling discords of this world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we make the wise decision we will be able to transform our pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. This will be a glorious day. In reaching it, we can fulfill the noblest of American dreams.”

    Americans bear a special responsibility for preventing war with Iran. I challenge my fellow citizens and people around the world to work to save lives in the Middle East and around the world. When we accept our share of the responsibility for a better world, everyone will be more secure. Please share this information with your political leaders. Please take action now so that we can create a groundswell for peace that is too powerful to be set aside.

     

    David Dionisi is the author of American Hiroshima, the Northern California Representative for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and the National Awareness Officer for Freedom From War.