Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: International Issues

  • The Rebirth of the Spirit

    It has been only ten days and we; the inhabitants of Madrid, still carry on our shoulders the immeasurable burden of grievance, sadness and recollection, but also the spirit of solidarity and keen understanding.

    Only ten days and we walked the streets and plazas, crossed avenues in silence, drove our cars with glassy eyes, lost in expectancy and in a tremendous shock. Only those of us who were blessed and lucky enough not to lose any of our loved ones in the death trains were more or less unaffected, but always thoughtful about those people near us who found their destiny that morning, perhaps for having arrived too early or too late.

    A name, surnames, voices, gazes. Madrid reminded us of Hiroshima after World War II. All of us could feel in the air the psychological expansiveness of the gunpowder wave caused by the explosion in each of the four trains.

    It wasn’t the time to run madly, shouting widely to all four winds that it was the end of the world, nor to hide in our homes totally scared, under the wings of that Leviathan that Hobbes describes as the mortal god that emerges among men protecting them if at the cost of losing rights, fundamentally theirs, just for being men. However that very same Hobbes, when defining “state”, describes it as “one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defence.” (Hobbes, T. Leviathan, part II chapter 17).

    But as we became more and more aware of the fact that besides two hundred two dead and fifteen hundred wounded, existing victims from the barbarous and senseless act, all of us had left behind something of ourselves in those trains, and that it had been a cruel attack against sheer existence by those who summoning the “true religion” repress the life of those who apparently do not profess such creed, we took rapid action, showing the world our undaunted exercise of reflection, and that our spirit remain more vivid than ever, being fed by these events.

    Madrid went over Madrid. Eye witnesses threw themselves without hesitation to help every possible victim; security and health assistance forces worked ceaselessly through entire shifts, doubling them when necessary: blood donation centres were full to capacity, and instead of calling for more blood, they constantly thanked people with the syringes already in their arms. Blood supply was more than satisfied. Psychological help was already available by citizens, anonymous or not, simply for the urge to attend anyone needing it.

    In spite of such solidarity, a more dangerous ghost hovered the ambient air. It wasn’t even the fear for after-attacks, instead, it was a sole question: “WHO?” Question which was not answered but two days afterwards, at least as to what was of concern within the Spanish boundaries, where news signalled “E.T.A.” the terrorist band that have been killing in Spain for more than thirty years, and that just a week ago tried to kill in this very same city with similar means of terror. However, the world voice declared Al Qaeda as perpetrators of this killing, thus confirming the most dreaded suspicion.

    The Spaniards were not prepared (no one is) to receive this news. Just a year ago, more than ten million people in this country, took to the streets to demand of this Leviathan to refuse any participation in the massacre which took place in Iraq not too long after; to refuse to support the imperial government of the U.S. in perpetrating the atrocious acts happening in the Middle East; and to avoid endangering Spain, that weak link of the chain called “Axis of Good”, to become another target of the Islamic fundamentalism, by adding another terrorist organization, keen to kill, to its already disgraceful list.

    But power enraptures and the zeal for protagonist of Aznar, a false leader disregarded the practical unanimity of the Spaniards who put him in office to watch over the wellbeing of his citizens and not over his own personal interests or those of his party.

    Things didn’t come out well for the “Azores Trio”. The terrorist attack rose at the worst timing. The events happening merely three days prior to the general elections could reinforce or at worst condemn the government role during the last two years.

    The massive call to the booths resulted into an electoral twist against that neo-fascism and favouring moderation in approaching and understanding the talks forfeited since 9/11.

    Spain is the first reflection that the people’s will cannot be contravened showing to the world that ultimately we, the “Civil Society”, in capital letters, are the vox populi. Our flag is, and always will be, the peace flag, and the vote we gave last Sunday was for the peace. Including those who endorsed the role of the government, perhaps, citing Hobbes again, in that zeal for protection.

    No doubt Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair are being forced to refashion a number of unwarranted assertions uttered during the last few days. Now, they manipulate the information assuring that the new President of the Government, legally elected in the Spanish booths Sunday 14, has decided to withdraw his troops from Iraq as an instance following the 3/11 events, in an act of cowardice and retraction. On the contrary, Mr. Rodriguez Zapatero responds only to a cohesion of thinking and to the message issued by the citizens at the macro-concentrations held against war on February 15th, 2003, the macro-concentrations held in support to the 3/11 victims, and the spontaneous macro-concentrations throughout the “Bull’s Skin” that is Spain, held on Saturday 13th, previous to the elections, which ultimately caused the results on Sunday.

    Also, the Socialist Government, social-democratic based and not strictly communist as some American media sources state … (media without professional ethics and without a trifle of education, sour, because Spain is turning from capitalism to socialism, do not have a clue that this country consolidated its democratic culture mainly because of the socialist Government headed by Felipe Gonzalez who led the nation – among other things – to the European Union and the NATO) is absolutely convinced that we cannot leave at its means a country like Iraq permanently shrouded with grievance during the entire last year and with those permanent 9/11’s and 3/11’s suffered by the terrified Iraqis individuals who manage to survive.

    It has been agreed the troops will remain in Iraq only if the United Nations takes command and the executioners relinquish their interests in the zone.

    Still, the challenge is not for those who exhibit the power, but for those of us who walk again the streets and plazas, drive our cars and cross avenues with a vivid latent gaze, convinced that terror, fundamentalist or State terror can only cut lives, but spirits are reborn day after day which help to build better societies here, in the US in Iraq, in Morocco, or Indonesia.

    Today we have seen the eyes of the victims; we have heard their grieving and heart-breaking cries. But today we have grown in numbers, in that rebirth of spirit we are much more sensitive to the atrocities performed in any part of our world, and that’s why we fight, from our little place in the planet, for a more rightful world. For peace, dialogue and understanding and for a real ethnic, religious and political pluralism.

    *Jose Alfredo Vallejo Canale lives in Madrid and is a Political Scientist. He is collaborating with the Director for Latin America of NAPF to establish the NAPF in Spain.

  • Tutu Tells Blair: Apologize for ‘Immoral’ War

    Archbishop Desmond Tutu will challenge Tony Blair and George Bush today to apologize for their pursuit of a counter-productive and “immoral” war in Iraq.
    In a scathing analysis of the background to the invasion, he will ridicule the “dangerously flawed” intelligence that Britain and the US used to justify a military action which has made the world a “great deal less safe”.

    The intervention of the Nobel peace prize winner in the controversy over Iraq follows a series of deadly terrorist attacks in the country over the past week, including an armed raid on a police station on Saturday in which 22 people died.

    Delivering the Longford Lecture, sponsored by The Independent, the emeritus Archbishop of Cape Town will argue that the turmoil after the war proved it is an illusion to believe that “force and brutality” leads to greater security.

    ” How wonderful if politicians could bring themselves to admit they are only fallible human creatures and not God and thus by definition can make mistakes. Unfortunately, they seem to think that such an admission is a sign of weakness. Weak and insecure people hardly ever say ‘sorry’.

    ” It is large-hearted and courageous people who are not diminished by saying: ‘I made a mistake’. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair would recover considerable credibility and respect if they were able to say: ‘Yes, we made a mistake’.”

    The archbishop will link Mr Bush’s support, when he was Governor of Texas, for capital punishment with a new philosophy behind the invasion of Iraq. He will say: “It may not be fanciful to see a connection between this and the belligerent militarist policies that have produced a novel and dangerous principle, that of pre-emption on the basis of intelligence reports that in one particular instance have been shown can be dangerously flawed and yet were the basis for the United States going to war, dragging a Britain that declared that intelligence reports showed Iraq to have the capacity to launch its weapons of mass destruction in a matter of minutes.

    ” An immoral war was thus waged and the world is a great deal less safe place than before. There are many more who resent the powerful who can throw their weight about so callously and with so much impunity.”

    The archbishop, who was awarded the Nobel prize in 1984, will suggest that the two leaders have operated a policy of “might is right – and to hell with the rule of international law”.

    Sir Menzies Campbell, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, said yesterday: “These comments from such a widely respected figure of independent mind emphasizes the extent to which Britain’s reputation and possibly influence have been affected by the military action against Iraq.

    ” I doubt if President Bush or Mr Blair are going to apologize, but they should certainly reflect seriously upon the alienation of figures such as Desmond Tutu.”

    A Downing Street spokeswoman said: “The Government’s position on Iraq has been made clear. We will wait to see what the archbishop says and respond in due course.”
    In his lecture the archbishop will draw on his experience in South Africa after the downfall of apartheid to argue that “retributive justice” ignores victims’ needs and can be “cold and impersonal”.

    He will instead champion the concept of “restorative justice” – in which offenders and victims are brought together – and point to South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which he headed, as an illustration of the idea being put into practice.
    Now 72, the archbishop is spending several weeks in Britain in his role as visiting professor in post-conflict studies at King’s College, London.

    He will also take a swipe in his speech at the steady increase in the British prison population in recent years, arguing that harsher sentencing does not “stem the tide of recidivism”. He will warn that sending first-time offenders to prison increases the prospect of them becoming repeat offenders, making harsh sentences “quite costly”.

    This article was originally published by the lndependent/UK on February 16, 2004.

  • What About the WMDs that Do Exist?

    Now that it’s acknowledged by all but hardcore supporters of the Bush administration that weapons of mass destruction were not present in Iraq at the time of the U.S. invasion, it’s time to take a look at such weapons that do exist.

    According to the authoritative Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, there are more than 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world today. Eight nations are known to possess them (the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel). And a ninth (North Korea) might have some as well.

    The vast majority of these nuclear weapons are in the hands of the United States and Russia. Each of these nations maintains more than 2,000 of them on hair-trigger alert, ready at a moment’s notice to create a global holocaust in which hundreds of millions of people would die horribly. Even the much smaller nuclear arsenals of the other nuclear powers have the potential to cause unimaginable destruction.

    Recognizing the unprecedented dangers posed by nuclear weapons, the nations of the world have signed a number of important nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements over the past four decades. These include the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963, the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 1972 and two Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties, the first in 1972, the second in 1979.

    After a short hiatus occasioned by the revival of the Cold War, they were followed by the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987, two Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START I, in 1991 and START II, in 1993), and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT, in 1996). These agreements limited nuclear proliferation, halted the nuclear arms race and reduced the number of nuclear weapons.

    The lynchpin of these agreements is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, in which the non-nuclear signatories agreed to forgo development of nuclear weapons in return for a pledge by the nuclear powers to move toward nuclear disarmament. A few non-nuclear countries, such as India, kept their options open by refusing to sign the treaty. But the overwhelming majority of nations signed the agreement, because they considered it a useful way to reverse the nuclear arms race.

    As late as the year 2000, the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty promised an “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” This included taking specific steps, such as preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty and ratifying and putting into force the CTBT.

    Although the U.S. government is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty — indeed, initiated it and lobbied hard for its acceptance — the Bush administration has decided that it will not be bound by the treaty’s provisions. It has pulled out of the ABM Treaty, an action that also has the effect of scrapping the START II Treaty. The administration has also rejected the CTBT and this past fall pushed legislation through Congress to begin building new nuclear weapons. A resumption of U.S. nuclear testing, halted in 1992, seems in the offing.

    How long other nations will put up with the flouting by the United States of the world’s arms control agreements before they resume the nuclear arms race themselves is anybody’s guess. But it probably won’t be very long.

    As in its other policy initiatives, the Bush administration has fallen back on the “war on terror” to justify its abandonment of nuclear arms control and disarmament treaties. But, as Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has noted, terrorist groups will not be affected by nuclear weapons. “A nuclear deterrent is clearly ineffective against such groups,” he declared this past October. “They have no cities that can be bombed in reply, nor are they focused on self-preservation.” By building additional nuclear weapons and provoking other nations to do the same thing, the Bush administration has enhanced the prospect of “loose nukes” becoming available to terrorists and other fanatics.

    Wouldn’t the United States be safer if there were fewer nuclear Weapons — or none? That’s what poll after poll has shown that the public thinks. And that’s what both Republican and Democratic presidents have argued since the advent of the nuclear era. Even Ronald Reagan, an early nuclear enthusiast, came around to recognizing the necessity for building a nuclear-free world.

    Evidently the Bush administration thinks otherwise. While talking loosely (and misleadingly) of nuclear dangers from “evil” regimes, it has jettisoned the U.S. government’s long-standing commitment to nuclear arms control and disarmament. Unless this policy is reversed, the world faces disasters of vast proportions.

    *Lawrence S. Wittner is a professor of history at the State University of New York/Albany and author of “Toward Nuclear Abolition” (2003). This article was orginally posted in the History News Service.

  • Leak Against This War US and British officials Must Expose Their Leaders’ Lies About Iraq – As I Did Over Vietnam

    After 17 months observing pacification efforts in Vietnam as a state department official, I laid eyes upon an unmistakable enemy for the first time on New Year’s Day in 1967. I was walking point with three members of a company from the US army’s 25th Division, moving through tall rice, the water over our ankles, when we heard firing close behind us. We spun around, ready to fire. I saw a boy of about 15, wearing nothing but ragged black shorts, crouching and firing an AK-47 at the troops behind us. I could see two others, heads just above the top of the rice, firing as well.

    They had lain there, letting us four pass so as to get a better shot at the main body of troops. We couldn’t fire at them, because we would have been firing into our own platoon. But a lot of its fire came back right at us. Dropping to the ground, I watched this kid firing away for 10 seconds, till he disappeared with his buddies into the rice. After a minute the platoon ceased fire in our direction and we got up and moved on.
    About an hour later, the same thing happened again; this time I only saw a glimpse of a black jersey through the rice. I was very impressed, not only by their tactics but by their performance.

    One thing was clear: these were local boys. They had the advantage of knowing every ditch and dyke, every tree and blade of rice and piece of cover, like it was their own backyard. Because it was their backyard. No doubt (I thought later) that was why they had the nerve to pop up in the midst of a reinforced battalion and fire away with American troops on all sides. They thought they were shooting at trespassers, occupiers, that they had a right to be there and we didn’t. This would have been a good moment to ask myself if they were wrong, and if we had a good enough reason to be in their backyard to be fired at.
    Later that afternoon, I turned to the radio man, a wiry African American kid who looked too thin to be lugging his 75lb radio, and asked: “By any chance, do you ever feel like the redcoats?”

    Without missing a beat he said, in a drawl: “I’ve been thinking that … all … day.” You couldn’t miss the comparison if you’d gone to grade school in America. Foreign troops far from home, wearing helmets and uniforms and carrying heavy equipment, getting shot at every half-hour by non-uniformed irregulars near their own homes, blending into the local population after each attack.

    I can’t help but remember that afternoon as I read about US and British patrols meeting rockets and mines without warning in the cities of Iraq. As we faced ambush after ambush in the countryside, we passed villagers who could have told us we were about to be attacked. Why didn’t they? First, there was a good chance their friends and family members were the ones doing the attacking. Second, we were widely seen by the local population not as allies or protectors – as we preferred to imagine – but as foreign occupiers. Helping us would have been seen as collaboration, unpatriotic. Third, they knew that to collaborate was to be in danger from the resistance, and that the foreigners’ ability to protect them was negligible.

    There could not be a more exact parallel between this situation and Iraq. Our troops in Iraq keep walking into attacks in the course of patrols apparently designed to provide “security” for civilians who, mysteriously, do not appear the slightest bit inclined to warn us of these attacks. This situation – as in Vietnam – is a harbinger of endless bloodletting. I believe American and British soldiers will be dying, and killing, in that country as long as they remain there.

    As more and more US and British families lose loved ones in Iraq – killed while ostensibly protecting a population that does not appear to want them there – they will begin to ask: “How did we get into this mess, and why are we still in it?” And the answers they find will be disturbingly similar to those the American public found for Vietnam.

    I served three US presidents – Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon – who lied repeatedly and blatantly about our reasons for entering Vietnam, and the risks in our staying there. For the past year, I have found myself in the horrifying position of watching history repeat itself. I believe that George Bush and Tony Blair lied – and continue to lie – as blatantly about their reasons for entering Iraq and the prospects for the invasion and occupation as the presidents I served did about Vietnam.

    By the time I released to the press in 1971 what became known as the Pentagon Papers – 7,000 pages of top-secret documents demonstrating that virtually everything four American presidents had told the public about our involvement in Vietnam was false – I had known that pattern as an insider for years, and I knew that a fifth president, Richard Nixon, was following in their footsteps. In the fall of 2002, I hoped that officials in Washington and London who knew that our countries were being lied into an illegal, bloody war and occupation would consider doing what I wish I had done in 1964 or 1965, years before I did, before the bombs started to fall: expose these lies, with documents.

    I can only admire the more timely, courageous action of Katherine Gun, the GCHQ translator who risked her career and freedom to expose an illegal plan to win official and public support for an illegal war, before that war had started. Her revelation of a classified document urging British intelligence to help the US bug the phones of all the members of the UN security council to manipulate their votes on the war may have been critical in denying the invasion a false cloak of legitimacy. That did not prevent the aggression, but it was reasonable for her to hope that her country would not choose to act as an outlaw, thereby saving lives. She did what she could, in time for it to make a difference, as indeed others should have done, and still can.

    I have no doubt that there are thousands of pages of documents in safes in London and Washington right now – the Pentagon Papers of Iraq – whose unauthorised revelation would drastically alter the public discourse on whether we should continue sending our children to die in Iraq. That’s clear from what has already come out through unauthorised disclosures from many anonymous sources and from officials and former officials such as David Kelly and US ambassador Joseph Wilson, who revealed the falsity of reports that Iraq had pursued uranium from Niger, which President Bush none the less cited as endorsed by British intelligence in his state of the union address before the war. Both Downing Street and the White House organised covert pressure to punish these leakers and to deter others, in Dr Kelly’s case with tragic results.

    Those who reveal documents on the scale necessary to return foreign policy to democratic control risk prosecution and prison sentences, as Katherine Gun is now facing. I faced 12 felony counts and a possible sentence of 115 years; the charges were dismissed when it was discovered that White House actions aimed at stopping further revelations of administration lying had included criminal actions against me.

    Exposing governmental lies carries a heavy personal risk, even in our democracies. But that risk can be worthwhile when a war’s-worth of lives is at stake.

    *Daniel Ellsberg is the author of Secrets: a Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers and is a member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Advisory Council. 
    This article was originally published in the The Guardian 

  • Another World is Possible: Report from the 2004 World Social Forum

    Introduction

    The third annual World Social Forum was held in Mumbai, India January 16-21, 2004. Previous Forums were held in Porto Alegre, Brasil. The move to Mumbai acknowledges the significant percentage of the world’s population that lives in Asia, seeking to increase their access to the event. As a gathering to strategize effective means toward transforming global society with an emphasis on human rights, the Forum drew an estimated 75,000 world citizens. A series of over 1,200 workshops explored the numerous perspectives through which to view globalization: war, imperialism, water, labor, discrimination, and many, many more. The larger panels and events with 4,000 people and more were organized by Forum coordinators while the remaining workshops were self-directed and given space by Forum coordinators. English and Hindi were the main languages spoken, while translation was available in French and Spanish. A tremendous energy was palpable from the smallest to the largest Forum event. Beyond the workshops, cultural performances, street theater, and political protests merged into a loud and colorful sea of humanity.

    Nuclear Weapons-Related Workshops

    The disarmament community was well-represented at the Forum. Our input was crucial given the recent developments in nuclear proliferation issues and increased visibility among the general public. Many experts view Asia as a “hot spot” with regard to nuclear weapons, given the number of nuclear powers within close proximity and their historical rivalries. Consequently, India proved an ideal location to strategize steps toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

    There were a series of workshops that explicitly addressed nuclear weapons as well as many others in which speakers linked the abolition of nuclear weapons with other social justice issues. Workshop themes included, but were not limited to, civilian weapons inspections, global hibakusha, uranium mining, US militarism, and campus organizing. For my part, I spoke on two panels, one in the International Youth Camp (IYC), titled “Youth Organizing in the Second Nuclear Age,” and another in the main venue, titled “The Threat of Nuclear Weapons: The Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.” The IYC session was by far my favorite. Approximately, 35-40 young people, mostly from India and the US, joined in the dialogue. Two of my closest colleagues joined me on the facilitation team: Tara Dorabji, Outreach Coordinator with Tri-Valley CARES in Livermore, California, and Dr. Kathleen Sullivan, an independent education consultant specializing in disarmament issues. We divided the 3-hour session into an introduction to nuclear weapons issues, US nuclear weapons policy, small group discussions, and closing thoughts. The exchange was critical of both US foreign policy and the Indian nuclear establishment. Conversational topics ranged from nuclear weapons to racism to poverty. In closing, one participant shared that Kathleen’s encouragement was more of a factor in his participation than the workshop title. He went on to say that he had not thought much about nuclear weapons issues, but now was interested in learning more.

    The structure of the second workshop differed greatly. “The Threat of Nuclear Weapons: The Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons” featured 13 speakers from 7 countries: Belgium, Greece, India, Japan, New Zealand, USA, and Vietnam. The panel, convened by Abolition 2000 and the World Peace Council, drew an even more diverse audience of approximately 200 people. In greeting participants as they arrived, I soon realized that the audience held as much expertise and experience as the panel. Allotted ten minutes each, speakers concentrated on three topics: assessing the nuclear threat, the global campaign, and the local campaign. Time passed quickly as each presenter delivered a passionate and informative talk. As my time approached and being the last speaker, I grew disappointed in realizing that there would be little time for discussion. This sense of disappointment lasted only briefly though, for the World Social Forum is less of a finish line and more of a starting point. The conversations that I had with workshop participants immediately following the workshop confirmed this understanding as will our collaborative efforts in the months to come.

    Coalition-Building*

    The Forum was a tremendous networking opportunity, reconnecting with old friends and making new ones. It was comforting to stay in the same hotel as the Abolition 2000 group (an international network of anti-nuclear organizations), most of whom spent part of the journey to Mumbai aboard the Peace Boat. It was my pleasure to help United for Peace and Justice (a coalition of over 650 US peace groups that oppose the Iraqi war and empire-building) promote March 20th as a day of action by passing out promotional pins, stickers, and t-shirts. As an alum of the New Voices Fellowship Program, I was proud to know that the current fellows participated in the Forum with many leading workshops. As a representative of a new member organization in the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition, I encouraged the many youth group representatives and educators that I met to organize an activity on March 4th as a day of action opposing the militarization of schools. Similarly, I experienced two chance encounters with magazine publishers who are clear allies in the struggle to counter corporate media by providing accurate information to the masses: ColorLines & YES!. Lastly, philanthropists were in attendance at the Forum, particularly the Global Fund for Women and the New World Foundation. Their presence reminded me that successful social justice movements require various stakeholders, who must all challenge ourselves through relentless self-critique and education.

    *This is just a small sampling of the dynamic people and organizations that I came in contact with in Mumbai.

    Mumbai

    Formerly known as Bombay, the bustling Mumbai (population, 13 million) seemed unfazed by the tens of thousands of guests. The contradictions in wealth and poverty were extreme. The buildings expressed India’s rich past. The sights were many, unique, and often shocking. In being somewhat overwhelmed and after having missed many opportune picture-taking moments, I resorted to writing down the most memorable sights in my journal. Here’s a sampling: a cow walking in the middle of the highway, an elephant walking along the side of the road, a truck full of live chickens, the Arabian Sea, a man pulling a cart with a washer and dryer on it up a hill, every third car being a black and gold taxi, an ox drawn cart, the diversity of Indian people, a snake charmer with two cobras, organized groups of children begging, Nike Town, a cricket game, and the many billboards promoting movies (Mumbai has earned the nickname “Bollywood,” being the capital of India’s entertainment industry).

    Brazil vs. India

    As a participant in the 2003 World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, I began comparing the two events almost upon arrival in Mumbai. The difference in global context was significant. Various phases of the US-led aggression against Iraq dominated the news headlines leading into both Forums. In January of 2003, claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction were used as grounds for the attack. By January of 2004, Hussein had been captured and these claims had been replaced by claims of bringing “freedom” to the Iraqi people and thoroughly refuted by high-level experts in the Bush administration. A harsh critique of US foreign policy and a strong anti-imperialist sentiment characterized both Forums.
    The evolution from participant to workshop facilitator was a major factor influencing my experience. Whereas in Brazil, I could pick and choose my daily schedule. In Mumbai, my schedule was set in large part given my responsibilities to prepare for and promote my workshops. Similarly, my network had expanded in the year since Brasil and it was important for me to support my friends’ workshops. In all, my time in India was more focused and productive in terms of representing the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
    Oppressed and marginalized peoples found a voice through both Forums. In Brazil, members of the landless people’s movement had a strong showing, speaking to the need for land reform and identifying allies through workshops, street theatre, and social receptions. In India, the Dalits (more commonly known as “untouchables”) used similar tactics to draw attention to their plight. It is interesting to note that even though the Forum is viewed as an alternative to the World Economic Forum, which is largely a meeting of economic powers and corporate leaders, a group of Indian and Filipino activists organized an alternative to the Forum. These activists claimed that Forum organizers accepted funding from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and in so doing became puppets of imperial powers. Even though I later learned that Forum organizers did not receive such funding, this alternative to the alternative raised interesting questions regarding philanthropy, grassroots organizing, and social change.

    Follow-Up

    There were numerous tactics that groups used to maximize their Forum experience and promote their cause. I will list a few here in the hope that the disarmament community builds on the success of the 2004 Forum by having an even stronger presence in 2005.

    • Unified promotion – Given that groups plan ahead and secure their workshop times and places, it would be an excellent showing of solidarity to have an email, flyer, poster, brochure, and/or booklet that lists all of the workshops with a disarmament theme. If a Forum participant is interested in a big picture “War, Militarism, and Peace” workshop, he or she may also be interested in a local action “How to Conduct a Civilian Weapons Inspection” workshop.
    • Interactive workshops – Disarmament issues are new to many even at a massive gathering of activists such as the World Social Forum. It would be ideal to strike a balance between relaying a lot of information and catering to individuals’ questions and concerns. Developing engaging, dynamic, and colorful presentations and workshops are key to expanding the global movement to abolish nuclear weapons.
    • Shared booth/tabling – The 2004 Forum featured large exhibition halls where organizations could distribute materials, sell goods, and maintain a consistent, accessible presence. The care and attention that went into the planning of these displays varied greatly. The best of these displays had friendly, knowledgeable people fluent in multiple languages; colorful posters and/or projected images; and free informational materials.
    • Coordinated media – Issuing press releases before, during, and after the Forum may peak interest among journalists (local, national, and international) and raise the visibility of disarmament issues as a whole.
    • Host a reception – Social events are great opportunities for Forum participants to engage in conversations initiated in workshops, to network, and to unwind. There is far less competition among social receptions than there is for workshops and, at times, a much better turnout.

    This is a brief summary of my trip to the 2004 World Social Forum in Mumbai, India. I sincerely thank those who made the trip possible and you for your interest in reading my thoughts! I welcome comments, questions, and all feedback with the hope of relaying the spirit of Mumbai through my work with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and beyond.

    Michael Coffey is the Youth Outreach Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Contact him at  youth@napf.org or (805) 965-3443.

  • King’s Message On Vietnam is Relevant to Iraq

    King’s Message On Vietnam is Relevant to Iraq

    In a lecture in late 1967 over the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Martin Luther King, Jr. addressed the subject of “Conscience and the Vietnam War.” His conscience was clearly telling him that this was a war that made no sense and must be stopped.

    “Somehow this madness must cease,” King said. “We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative of this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours.”

    King went on to say in his speech, “The war is Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit.” Within a few months, that malady would result in King’s assassination, and over the years since King’s death that malady would lead America into other wars in other places.

    Today, King’s words could be transposed from Vietnam to Iraq: “I speak as a child of God and a brother to the suffering poor of Iraq….” And it is still the “poor of America” who are paying the greatest price, the ultimate price on the battlefield and the loss of hope at home, while corporations such as Halliburton reap obscene profits.

    Over the decades the “malady within the American spirit” that King named persists. It is a malady of power, arrogance and greed, a malady that takes our high ideals and smashes them in the dust, along with human life, by bombs dropped from 30,000 feet. With the power to wage war, our leaders have again thumbed their noses at the international community and sent our young soldiers to fight and die in an illegal war, authorized neither constitutionally nor under international law.

    King concluded his speech by saying, “We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and for justice throughout the developing world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.”

    The world warned the US against going to war in Iraq. The UN Security Council refused to be forced into war or to authorize it, and the US president called the UN irrelevant. Millions of people throughout the world took to the streets, and the US Administration dismissed them as irrelevant.

    Today, the US Administration has had its way, and the terrible scourge of war has again been unleashed. Thousands have died, including more than 500 American soldiers. Tens of thousands have been injured and maimed, including thousands of American soldiers. Saddam Hussein has been pulled from power and his statues toppled, but Iraq is in chaos as a result of the US invasion and occupation, and experts are predicting that a terrible civil war lies ahead. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, although the US president assured us they were there, and American soldiers are being confronted daily by bullets, bombs and scorn.

    What would King say to us today? Would he be resilient, or would he be broken by the “shameful corridors” through which our leaders have dragged us? Surely, he would be resilient. He knew the pain of struggle and he knew that war and violence only breed more war and violence. But how his heart would ache for the lost promise of those destroyed by this war and for the poor who bear the burden most. How his heart would ache if he could see how little we have progressed in overcoming the maladies of power, arrogance and greed. Surely, King’s message would be constant, and he would be leading a nonviolent struggle today to find the way to peace and respect for human dignity in America, Iraq and throughout the world.

    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He is the co-author of Choose Hope: Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age and Peace: 100 Ideas.

  • Yet Another Farewell

    Yet Another Farewell

    On the death of the 500th American soldier in Iraq

    Let us lay the heavy black bag at your feet
    While the tired buglers sound their dirge.

    Let us lay the heavy black bag at your feet
    Like a terrible wreath.

    If you nudge the sturdy bag with your right foot
    Nothing will happen.

    If you kick the formless bag with your left foot
    Nothing will happen.

    It will not respond, nor speak nor cry.

    Will you circle the black bag cautiously
    Like a coyote?

    Will you howl, break down in tears
    Or simply smirk?

    David Krieger
    January 2004

     

  • A Symposium on Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity: The Challenge of Prevention and Enforcement

    Convened by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Simons Centre
    for Peace and Disarmament Studies, December 5-6, 2003

    On 5-6 December 2003, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and the Simons Centre for Peace and Disarmament Studies convened a symposium entitled “Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity: The Challenge of Prevention and Enforcement,” enabling constructive dialogue among academics and leaders of civil society organizations about the role of the United Nations in enforcing measures to protect civilians from genocide and other gross violations of human rights.

    Keynote speaker Lloyd Axworthy, Director and CEO of the Liu Institute for Global Studies at the University of British Columbia and former Foreign Minister of Canada (1995-2000), was joined by Richard Falk, professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University and Chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and a range of panelists with varying backgrounds in peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. The resulting discussions were constructive and cutting edge as the participants shared their ideas on how to engage the UN in facing the challenges posed by humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect civilians from avoidable catastrophe.

    The Politics of Intervention

    On 5 December, Richard Falk set the tone with his address entitled: “The Politics of Prevention and Enforcement in a Time of Mega-Terrorism” during the public morning session. Professor Falk spoke of the need to learn from past experiences such as Rwanda, East Timor and Kosovo. He then proceeded to describe the present context of intervention as shaped by the selective response of leading states (primarily the US) to humanitarian crises that reflect their political and strategic interests. In order for the international community to effectively and reliably prevent and protect civilians from genocide and crimes against humanity, Falk identified the need for the UN to detach considerations of humanitarian intervention from geo-politics and state interests.

    In highlighting the degree to which state sovereignty can insulate a government from external accountability for human right violations within its national borders, Falk also addressed the need for the UN Security Council to resolve the tension between the protection of human rights and respect for state sovereignty.

    Falk ended his initial remarks by encouraging the resumption of efforts by the global justice movement during the 1990s prior to 9/11. Under the pretext of the “war against terrorism,” the US has imposed its global security interests on the rest of the world, resulting in unilateral action without the consent of the international community. In order to overcome this, Falk called for the establishment of a “necessary and desirable” long-term vision by the global justice community.

    Saul Mendlovitz, co-founder of Global Action to Prevent War, commented on Falk’s remarks by drawing a parallel between the challenges addressed by the symposium and South Africa’s success in abolishing both the apartheid and nuclear weapons, which illustrated the ability of the global social justice movement to influence normative shift in social paradigms. Similarly, the establishment of the Ottawa Landmine Treaty and the International Criminal Court were achieved over time through successful cooperation within the global civil society. Mendlovitz concluded by recognizing the current state of the political climate as timely for mobilizing the global justice movement to develop standing forces to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity.
    Options for a Prevention and Enforcement Force

    Peter Langille, Senior Research Associate and Human Security Fellow at the Center for Global Studies, University of Victoria, discussed “Options for a United Nations Prevention and Enforcement Force.” Langille provided a historical review of lessons learned from previous attempts and diverse proposals to develop a dedicated UN mechanism for diverse peace operations. He supported the need for the UN to develop a suitable mechanism for securing present and future generations from genocide and crimes against humanity. In the event of a crisis, Langille highlighted the need for the immediate deployment of a UN emergency service. This would serve to prevent further atrocities during the four to six months when the UN encounters difficulties deploying multinational contingents.

    Langille shared his thoughts on workable rapid deployment proposals. First, he argued for a multi-dimensional and multi-functional capability, including military, police and civilian services. This sophisticated and comprehensive approach would provide a combination of promising incentives and disincentives to deter violence and promote peace. Langille’s second argument was that any new UN emergency service should not be confined solely to preventing genocide and crimes against humanity, to attract wider support it should also be able to promptly manage diverse assigned tasks in preventing armed conflict, protecting civilians and providing robust peace operations, including those that entail modest enforcement. Third, Langille warned against the failures of overly ambitious proposals in the past, calling instead for a more focused approach.

    Langille also discussed the current efforts of the multinational ‘Stand-by’ Readiness Brigade. (SHIRBRIG), and called for the establishment of a “UN Emergency Service,” consisting of independently recruited volunteers comprised of 13,200 individuals, a static headquarters, and two mobile units.

    Commenting on Langille’s proposal, Professor Robert Johansen, Senior Fellow and Professor of Political Science at the Kroc Center at Notre Dame University, reminded the audience that positive institutional changes occurred slowly throughout history. He cited the normative shift on racial discrimination and equality, which occurred during the period between the drafting of the charters by the League of Nations after World War I and the UN after World War II. Furthermore, Johansen remarked on the reluctance of many governments to embrace past proposals due to issues related to costs, intervention and control over the UN. In order to overcome this reluctance, Johansen proposed an initial capability with limited intervention powers, a narrow political agenda and uncontroversial laws. Johansen stated that Langille’s proposal was the most sophisticated to date. He left the audience with several questions to ponder: Should the proposal address terrorists? What is the potential for the abuse of power of a UN Force?
    The Responsibility to Protect

    In his keynote address, Lloyd Axworthy spoke of his involvement in “The Responsibility to Protect: A Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty.”
    In addressing the challenges of humanitarian intervention, the report wrestled with issues concerning state sovereignty, the duty to protect civilians against human rights violations and the current opposition to providing the UN with the autonomy and resources to act in the interest of preventing genocide and crimes against humanity.

    In its recommendations, the report proposed to establish the principle of humanitarian intervention on the basis of international law and to redefine state sovereignty through its right to national security and defense as well as its responsibility to protect its civilians. The failure of any state in fulfilling its obligations to protect its citizens would trigger international action for intervention. The decision to intervene should not rely on decisions from elite states but should instead be based on established procedures that determine whether the violation of human rights would justify intervention. With the primary objective of preventing and stopping genocide and crimes against humanity, humanitarian intervention should, therefore, not necessarily include regime change and/or winning a war.

    In recognizing the failure of current efforts in protecting civilian security, Axworthy spoke of the need to reestablish the integrity of the international community and to reform the UN and its decision making procedures in the Security Council. This can be achieved by enabling progressive voices to formulate, disseminate and elaborate an effective prescription to generate global public support, as well as by empowering the younger generation with the ability to bring the issue to the fore of the international arena.
    Global or Regional?

    Bill Pace, Executive Director of the World Federalist Movement, discussed the “Next Steps in Creating a UN Prevention and Enforcement Force.” Pace identified governments as the weakest link in the responsibility to protect civilians due to their reluctance to respond to circumstances with potential political and strategic risks. At the regional level, however, alliances such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and SHIRBRIG have proved their ability to move forward by establishing rapid deployment forces, yet lack the ability to adequately train and equip their troops.

    Pace therefore suggested a “three-legged” approach for effective protection action, in which the UN, a regional organization and, more controversially, the US or another leading power are involved in creating a robust force. Furthermore, Pace reiterated the importance of terminology and issue framing in order to minimize opportunities for criticism from opponents of the project. In advocating for the shift of present discussions from “the right to intervene” to the “responsibility to protect,” Pace supported the expansion of constituencies of peace organizations to effectively tackle the issue.

    Don Kraus, Executive Director of the Campaign for UN Reform, commented on Pace’s discussion on political viability by focusing on the need to counteract US resistance to the proposal. He emphasized the need to replace the idea of preemption with that of prevention and protection. Furthermore, Kraus recommended the empowerment of the UN through increasing its role in post-conflict reconstruction and shifting its current zero financial growth to a policy of sound fiscal management. Kraus agreed with Pace on the necessity to reach out to new constituencies, and identified the need to frame the issue as attractive to the media.
    Next Steps

    The participants proceeded to discuss ways forward during the working sessions following the symposium. Throughout the afternoon portion of December 5, the participants discussed preferred models for UN prevention and enforcement. Langille’s second presentation elaborated on the current status of the Brahimi report, the expansion of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and the UN Standby Arrangements System, the SHIRBRIG and the related, recent efforts to enhance rapid deployment. Kraus spoke about HR1414, the International Rule of Law and Anti-Terrorism Act of 2003. This bill calls on the US to support negotiations on creating a UN Civilian Police Corps. Mendlovitz proposed a UN Constabulary Force as part of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Based on the Rome Statute of the ICC, Mendlovitz envisions a standing force to intervene in the event of genocide or crimes against humanity. James Paul, executive director of the Global Policy Forum, provided his perspective on the role of the Security Council in moving forward.

    On December 6, the participants extended their discussion of preferred models for a UN force to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity. The scope and responsibilities of a potential UN force was discussed, and a consensus on a working title, a UN Emergency Peace Service, was reached.

    Following this, the working group deliberated on contents for a draft proposal, agreeing to use and adapt material from “The Responsibility to Protect”; “Building the Commitment-Capacity Gap”; as well as the Brahimi Report. A drafting committee was established to prepare a proposal and participants proceeded to consider logistical measures to enable an effective Emergency Service under UN auspices.

    The working session ended on a high note, as participants collectively brainstormed ways to promote the Emergency Service, making initial arrangements for future steps to be taken. Proposals included the establishment of an international coalition of civil society organizations, encouraging an annual meeting with DPKO, and approaching sympathetic governments to play an active role.
    For further information, contact Justine Wang, Research and Advocacy Coordinator, at advocacy@napf.org.

  • What To Do With Saddam Hussein Now

    The apprehension and arrest of Sadism Hussein, the former President of Iraq, offers new opportunities to advance the rule of law. Vengeance begets vengeance. As was demonstrated at Nuremberg after World war Two, even the vilest criminal deserves a fair trial. The world legal order is gradually moving toward a tribunal competent to try all international criminals but, unfortunately, we are not yet there. What should be done now? Let us consider certain basic principles that should be respected.

    The offenses attributable to ex-President Hussein since he came to power range from the supreme international crime of aggression, to a wide variety of crimes against humanity, and a long list of atrocities condemned by both international and national laws. It may be anticipated that the accused, will maintain his innocence and will try to justify all of his actions as being lawful and necessary in the national interest. He will seek to implicate the United States and its allies. References to the Deity will be asserted to gain support of his follower at home and abroad.

    A fair trial would achieve many goals. The victims would find some satisfaction in knowing that their victimizer was called to account and could no longer be immune from punishment for his evil deeds. Wounds can begin to heal. The historical facts can be confirmed beyond doubt. Similar crimes by other dictators might be discouraged or deterred in future. The process of justice through law, on which the safety of humankind depends, would be reinforced.

    The existing temporary tribunals created by the United Nations Security Council to cope with the genocide and atrocities committed in Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the early 1990s (to the everlasting shame of the world community) have very restricted temporal and territorial jurisdictions. Iraq is beyond their legal reach. A new interim Security Council court is conceivable but unlikely to be able to overcome political obstacles quickly. The new permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, faced with misguided opposition by the United States, lacks jurisdiction over crimes committed before July 2002. It cannot intervene in Iraq.

    Perhaps the most tempting, but probably the worst, alternative would be for the United States to subject its captive to summary judgment and prompt execution by a military court. It would make a martyr of the criminal whose loyal supporters would likely be enraged to increase assaults on Americans wherever possible. The Nuremberg Principles, which honored the US and the rule of law, would be undermined.

    The best hope for a speedy trial seems to lie with the Coalition Provisional Authority which on December 10, 2003, a few days before Saddam Hussein’s capture, issued a “Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal.” Here too, certain cautions are in order. A fundamental principle of the ICC, already set up in the Hague but not yet operational, makes clear that the nation state of the accused shall always be given priority if it is able and willing to provide a fair trial. The wording of the Iraqi statute calls for war crimes trials run completely by Iraqis but also allows the use of non-Iraqi judges if the Governing Council deems it necessary. It should be possible for expert help to be recruited not merely as judges but also to assist the prosecution, defense and administration so that it is obvious to all that trials and judgment will be fair in every way.

    Following the Nuremberg precedent, the first trial should include leading accomplices either in custody or in absentia. Speed is important but the proceedings must be carefully prepared and time limits set on both prosecution and defense to present their case. Not every crime need be included in the indictment. There will be enough evidence readily on hand to justify any sentence. Trials of lesser offenders can follow.

    Whether a remorseless mass killer should be sentenced to death is a difficult question. There can never be a balance between the lives of a few mass murderers and the lives of their countless victims. Humanitarian law has moved away from imposing death as a penalty. It should be left to Iraqi judges to decide what is most appropriate to bring peace and reconciliation to their war-ravaged country.

     *Benjamin B. Ferencz was a U.S. prosecutor at Nuremberg. He is a member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Advisory Council. His web site is www.benferencz.org.

  • We Caught The Wrong Guy

    Saddam Hussein, former employee of the American federal government, was captured near a farmhouse in Tikrit in a raid performed by other employees of the American federal government. That sounds pretty deranged, right? Perhaps, but it is also accurate. The unifying thread binding together everyone assembled at that Tikrit farmhouse is the simple fact that all of them – the soldiers as well as Hussein – have received pay from the United States for services rendered.

    It is no small irony that Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, the monster under your bed for these last twelve years, was paid probably ten thousand times more during his time as an American employee than the soldiers who caught him on Saturday night. The boys in the Reagan White House were generous with your tax dollars, and Hussein was a recipient of their largesse for the better part of a decade.

    If this were a Tom Clancy movie, we would be watching the dramatic capture of Hussein somewhere in the last ten minutes of the tale. The bedraggled dictator would be put on public trial for his crimes, sentenced to several thousand concurrent life sentences, and dragged off to prison in chains. The anti-American insurgents in Iraq, seeing the sudden futility of their fight to place Hussein back into power, would lay down their arms and melt back into the countryside. For dramatic effect, more than a few would be cornered by SEAL teams in black facepaint and discreetly shot in the back of the head. The President would speak with eloquence as the martial score swelled around him. Fade to black, roll credits, get off my plane.

    The real-world version is certainly not lacking in drama. The streets of Baghdad were thronged on Sunday with mobs of Iraqi people celebrating the final removal of a despot who had haunted their lives since 1979. Their joy was utterly unfettered. Images on CNN of Hussein, looking for all the world like a Muslim version of Charles Manson while getting checked for head lice by an American medic, were as surreal as anything one might ever see on a television.

    Unfortunately, the real-world script has a lot of pages left to be turned. Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, reached at his home on Sunday, said, “It’s great that they caught him. The man was a brutal dictator who committed terrible crimes against his people. But now we come to rest of story. We didn’t go to war to capture Saddam Hussein. We went to war to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons have not been found.” Ray McGovern, senior analyst and 27-year veteran of the CIA, echoed Ritter’s perspective on Sunday. “It’s wonderful that he was captured, because now we’ll find out where the weapons of mass destruction are,” said McGovern with tongue firmly planted in cheek. “We killed his sons before they could tell us.”

    Indeed, reality intrudes. The push for war before March was based upon Hussein’s possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 1,000,000 pounds of sarin gas, mustard gas, and VX nerve gas, along with 30,000 munitions to deliver these agents, uranium from Niger to be used in nuclear bombs, and let us not forget the al Qaeda terrorists closely associated with Hussein who would take this stuff and use it against us on the main streets and back roads of the United States.

    When they found Hussein hiding in that dirt hole in the ground, none of this stuff was down there with him. The full force of the American military has been likewise unable to locate it anywhere else. There is no evidence of al al Qaeda agents working with Hussein, and Bush was forced some weeks ago to publicly acknowledge that Hussein had nothing to do with September 11. The Niger uranium story was debunked last summer.

    Conventional wisdom now holds that none of this stuff was there to begin with, and all the clear statements from virtually everyone in the Bush administration squatting on the public record describing the existence of this stuff looks now like what it was then: A lot of overblown rhetoric and outright lies, designed to terrify the American people into supporting an unnecessary go-it-alone war. Said war made a few Bush cronies rich beyond the dreams of avarice while allowing some hawks in the Defense Department to play at empire-building, something they have been craving for more than ten years.

    Of course, the rhetoric mutated as the weapons stubbornly refused to be found. By the time Bush did his little ‘Mission Accomplished’ strut across the aircraft carrier, the occupation was about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the liberation of the Iraqi people. No longer were we informed on a daily basis of the “sinister nexus between Hussein and al Qaeda,” as described by Colin Powell before the United Nations in February. No longer were we fed the insinuations that Hussein was involved in the attacks of September 11. Certainly, any and all mention of weapons of mass destruction ceased completely. We were, instead, embarking on some noble democratic experiment.

    The capture of Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqis dancing in the streets of Baghdad, feeds nicely into these newly-minted explanations. Mr. Bush and his people will use this as the propaganda coup it is, and to great effect. But a poet once said something about tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow.

    “We are not fighting for Saddam,” said an Iraqi named Kashid Ahmad Saleh in a New York Times report from a week ago. “We are fighting for freedom and because the Americans are Jews. The Governing Council is a bunch of looters and criminals and mercenaries. We cannot expect that stability in this country will ever come from them. The principle is based on religion and tribal loyalties,” continued Saleh. “The religious principle is that we cannot accept to live with infidels. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, said, `Hit the infidels wherever you find them.’ We are also a tribal people. We cannot allow strangers to rule over us.”

    Welcome to the new Iraq. The theme that the 455 Americans killed there, and the thousands of others who have been wounded, fell at the hands of pro-Hussein loyalists is now gone. The Bush administration celebrations over this capture will appear quite silly and premature when the dying continues. Whatever Hussein bitter-enders there are will be joined by Iraqi nationalists who will now see no good reason for American forces to remain. After all, the new rhetoric highlighted the removal of Hussein as the reason for this invasion, and that task has been completed. Yet American forces are not leaving, and will not leave. The killing of our troops will continue because of people like Kashid Ahmad Saleh. All Hussein’s capture did for Saleh was remove from the table the idea that he was fighting for the dictator. He is free now, and the war will begin in earnest.

    The dying will continue because America’s presence in Iraq is a wonderful opportunity for a man named Osama bin Laden, who was not captured on Saturday. Bin Laden, it has been reported, is thrilled by what is happening in Iraq, and plans to throw as much violence as he can muster at American forces there. The Bush administration spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this Iraq invasion, not one dime of which went towards the capture or death of the fellow who brought down the Towers a couple of years ago. For bin Laden and his devotees, Iraq is better than Disneyland.

    For all the pomp and circumstance that has surrounded the extraction of the former Iraqi dictator from a hole in the ground, the reality is that the United States is not one bit safer now that the man is in chains.

    There will be no trial for Hussein, at least nothing in public, because he might start shouting about the back pay he is owed from his days as an employee of the American government. Because another former employee of the American government named Osama is still alive and free, our troops are still in mortal danger in Iraq.

    Hussein was never a threat to the United States. His capture means nothing to the safety and security of the American people. The money we spent to put the bag on him might have gone towards capturing bin Laden, who is a threat, but that did not happen. We can be happy for the people of Iraq, because their Hussein problem is over. Here in America, our Hussein problem is just beginning. The other problem, that Osama fellow we should have been trying to capture this whole time, remains perched over our door like the raven.

    *William Rivers Pitt is the Managing Editor of truthout.org.