Category: Peace

  • Condition Black: End the War in Afghanistan

    On any given day NATO hospitals in southern Afghanistan enter “CONDITION BLACK” – a status that alerts military tactical commanders that hospital beds are full and patients should be diverted elsewhere. Commanders’ options are limited however – in the south NATO has only two Role-3 hospitals – those that are capable of dealing with complex polytrauma that is a common result of IED blasts.

    It’s typical for a soldier to arrive from the battlefield with injuries requiring vascular, orthopedic, burn, and general surgery. The most seriously wounded will stop at the British hospital in Helmand province or the US hospital in Kandahar province for stabilization surgery prior to the long flight to Europe for further care. These hospitals are modern-day “trauma factories” dealing with scores of brutally battered patients daily, not all of whom are soldiers.

    Many of the wounded are innocent Afghan civilians whose neighborhoods have become battlefields. In fact, Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM) (an independent and impartial Afghan rights group) reports that 1,074 civilians were killed and over 1,500 were injured in the first six months of 2010. And that’s where this gets complicated.

    Even though the NATO hospitals will report CONDITION BLACK, they will always make room for NATO troops requiring care; there just is not another option. Not so for the civilian casualties; in CONDITION BLACK NATO will either refuse to collect them from the battlefield, or deliver them to the poorly-staffed Afghan Army hospital near Kandahar – the only Afghan Army hospital in the entire southern region – and not capable of complex polytrauma surgery. The result is that NATO is triaging patients based on nationality vice on medical need.

    Although the Geneva Conventions require the warring parties to protect civilians and provide medical care to the wounded, the US chose to escalate the war knowing that civilians would increasingly be killed and wounded – without a proper level of trauma care in place. While ARM attributes 60 percent of civilian casualties to the Taliban, they are not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and have no medical facilities. Such is the condition of conducting a counterinsurgency – the burden lies with the nation states – US/UK.

    The General: In July 2009 General McChrystal issued a directive that required commanders to more carefully consider civilian casualties while engaging the enemy. A 29 June 2010 article by Amnesty International credits this policy with a 28 percent reduction in civilian deaths in the second half of 2009 from the same period in 2008. Ironically, also on 29 June, The New York Times quoted General Petraeus as having a “moral imperative” to protect his troops. General Petraeus has since directed a review of the rules of engagement that will likely result in lessening restraint and increasing civilian deaths. As the principle author of the US counterinsurgency doctrine, General Petraeus must realize what this failure to protect the population will cost in terms of civilian support of foreign troops.

    The Senator: A small group of veterans – part of Veterans For Peace – in Traverse City Michigan – appealed to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee to investigate the lack of medical care to civilians. Senator Levin has yet to respond. Meanwhile, in this poor isolated nation with few true allies, it continues that the most innocent bear the brunt of the suffering; six civilians are killed and eight wounded daily. It’s time to end the war. Short of that the Commander-In-Chief must do the morally right thing – provide medical care to civilians at the same level offered to NATO forces.

  • Frank Kelly: An Advocate of Joy

    These remarks were delivered at Frank Kelly’s memorial service in Santa Barbara, California on July 16, 2010.

    We are here today to remember a good and decent man, who lived a long life with many notable achievements.  It is not so much what he accomplished, though, as how he lived that makes his life a powerful lesson and one worth celebrating.

    Frank was a very dear friend, the kind of friend that one is graced to have.  I first met Frank when Carolee and I came to Santa Barbara and I worked at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions.  We shared the experience of being a part of that remarkable organization headed by Robert Hutchins.  That was 38 years ago.  

    Ten years later, in 1982, Frank and I would work together to found the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.  Over the 28 years that the Foundation has existed, we were very close, conferring on our work on nearly a daily basis.  For many years before Barbara’s death, Frank and Barbara and Carolee and I shared our birthdays together.

    Frank was a unique individual who lived a unique life.  Here are some of the characteristics that impressed me about Frank:

    He was always generous with his smiles and his praise.

    He always managed to find and encourage the best in each person he knew.

    He believed that all of us are, in his special language, “glorious beings.”

    He recognized that each of us is a miracle and should be celebrated as such.

    He was optimistic that a better world was possible and could be achieved.  

    He believed that each of us deserves a seat at humanity’s table.

    He felt the world needed far more women as leaders at all levels of society, and he was as insistent as he was persistent in urging leadership roles for women.

    He was a loyal and devoted husband, father, father-in-law, grandfather and friend.  He was proud of his children and grandchildren and delighted by his new great-grandson.

    He was a sparkling storyteller and had a rich storehouse of memories to draw upon, ranging from his childhood memories of his father coming home from World War I, to his days at the Kansas City Star, to speechwriting for President Truman, to his work as the assistant to the Senate Majority Leader, and his close relationship to Robert Hutchins and many other luminaries of the 20th century.

    He loved music of all sorts, and had a special fondness for Louis Armstrong’s rendition of “It’s a Wonderful World.”  He also loved the special concerts that his son Stephen performed for him and was Stephen’s greatest fan.

    Frank had a deep spirituality – a spirituality rooted in our connections with each other, with the Earth, and with the infinite.  

    Most of all, Frank was an advocate of joy, and he loved these lines by William Blake, “He who kisses joy as it flies lives in eternity’s sunrise.”  William Blake might well have envisioned Frank as he wrote those lines.

    Frank will live on in the hearts of those who admired and loved him and in the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s annual Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future.

    I hesitate to say farewell to Frank, as I believe his spirit will remain with us in our efforts to create a more peaceful and decent future for humanity.  If we can build some joy into our efforts, I think we can be assured that Frank will be smiling down on us.

  • Choose Peace – End the Siege of Gaza

    Choose Peace – End the Siege of Gaza and the
    Occupation of Palestine

    On Saturday June 5, 2010, thirty-five heavily armed Israeli Navy Seals
    commandeered our boat, the MV Rachel Corrie, one of the Freedom Flotilla, in international
    waters (30 miles off the coast of Gaza). 
    As they did so, we eighteen humanitarian activists and crew, sat on the
    deck.  We were quietly anxious, aware of the solitary figure in the
    wheelhouse with his hands held high against the window. He was in full view of
    the three Israeli warships, four approaching zodiacs and two commando carriers,
    whose guns were pointing in his direction.  I personally wondered if the
    courageous Derek Graham would live to tell the tale, conscious of what happened
    on the Turkish ship, Mavi Marmara, earlier in the week.

    On Monday May 31, 2010, we heard via satellite phone that the Israeli
    Commandoes had boarded the Turkish Ship, MV Mavi Marmara, in international
    waters from a helicopter and Zodiacs killing and injuring many people.  It
    was later confirmed that eight unarmed Turkish civilians and one Turkish-American
    civilian were shot (two were shot in the head and several were shot in the back).
    During Israel’s attack, which
    injured over forty people, all six boats on the Freedom Flotilla were commandeered
    by the Israeli Navy and were taken to back Israel.  

    The killing of unarmed civilians was unexpected and devastating news to us all. Everyone
    participating in the Freedom Flotilla was there because they were moved by the people
    of Gaza
    suffering.  The people aboard the Freedom Flotilla were not terrorists;
    they were human beings who cared for others who were suffering.  Gaza is land locked and
    sea locked as its port has been closed since the Israeli occupation. If the
    Free Gaza Rachel Corrie cargo boat had been able to enter Gaza, it would have been the first cargo boat
    ever to do so. Gaza has rightly been described
    as the largest open air prison in the world, with Israel holding all the keys for its
    one and a half million people living under a policy of collective
    punishment.  Under siege for over three years now with a shortage of
    medicine and basic building materials, the twenty-two day bombardment by Israel in December 2009 and January 2010 left Gaza and its people in a
    place of suffering and isolation. The Flotilla’s purpose was to not only to
    bring humanitarian aid, books for children, toys, and writing materials, but also
    to help break the siege of Gaza
    which is slowly strangling its people.

    Israel
    violated international law and the incident is well documented by the UN and
    many independent human rights bodies. These violations of international
    law were committed under the guise of ‘national security’ and a policy of isolating
    Gaza to weaken
    Hamas.  It is a policy that is clearly not working.  As we have
    learned in Northern Ireland,
    violence never works. So why not try talking to Hamas just as the British
    Government had to talk to representatives of IRA and Loyalist paramilitaries in
    order to move toward peace.  

    The brutal and illegal attack of aid ships in international waters on May
    3lst and the subsequent boarding of the MV Rachel Corrie, also in international
    waters, is a symptom of the culture of impunity under which Israel
    operates. The Israeli government was quick to blame the activists on board the
    MV Mavi Marmara, claiming they attacked the Israeli Navy first and that they
    were members of terrorist groups. They also claimed that the HLL, the Turkish humanitarian
    group who organized the Mavi Marmara, had terrorist links.  The HLL is not
    a banned organization in Turkey
    and has no links to terrorist organizations.  It was disappointing to see
    how many international governments and media outlets immediately accepted Israel’s
    version of the story without further investigation.  While there have been
    calls for a ‘prompt, impartial, credible and transparent’ investigation into
    the events of May 3lst by the United Nations Security Council, the United
    States and others still seem to think that Israel can conduct such an investigation
    on its own.  In the words of my colleague, Nobel Laureate Jody Williams,
    this is like “the fox accounting for the number of chickens left in the
    henhouse”.  Such a response cannot stand, and nothing less than an independent
    investigation will be acceptable to the international community.

    The attack on the Freedom Flotilla is a tipping point.  It is time for
    the international community to finally stop allowing Israel to act with blatant
    disregard for human life, human rights, and international law.  The
    partial lifting of the siege shows what international pressure can achieve, but
    it is not enough. Only a full lifting of the siege can bring real freedom to
    the people of Gaza.
    It is time for Israel
    to choose peace.  It is time for world leaders and the international community
    to join together and call on Israel
    to lift the siege of Gaza completely, end the
    occupation of Palestine,
    and allow the Palestinian people their right to self-determination. We can all
    do something to help bring the day of reconciliation closer to reality. Supporting
    the BDS campaign, calling for an end to EU special trading status with Israel, and insisting that the USA end its economic and military assistance to Israel
    until it upholds its international commitments, are important initiatives in
    the steps toward peace. Palestine is a key to
    peace in the Middle East. If everyone refuses
    to be ‘silent’ in the face of Israel’s
    continued apartheid policies, we can move closer to ending all violence in the Middle East.

    Mairead Maguire (Nobel Peace Laureate)

    www.peacepeople.com

    19th June, 2010  

     

  • Why We Wage Peace

    Some things are worth Waging Peace for: our planet and its diverse life forms, including humankind; our children and their dreams; our common future.  All of these are threatened by the possibility of nuclear catastrophe.

    We live on an amazing planet, the only one we know of in the universe that supports life, and does so in abundance and diversity.  Our planet is worth Waging Peace for – against those who are despoiling and ruining its delicate and beautiful environment.  

    On our unique planet are creatures of all shapes and sizes: Birds that fly, fish that swim, animals that inhabit jungles and deserts, mountains and plains, rivers and oceans.  Life is worth Waging Peace for – against those who are disrespecting and destroying the habitats of creatures great and small.

    Among the diverse creatures on our planet are human beings.  We are homo sapiens, the knowing ones, and are relative newcomers to the planet.  Yet, our impact has been profound.  We are creatures capable of learning and loving, of being imaginative and inventive, of being compassionate and kind.  We are worth Waging Peace for – against those who would diminish us by undermining our dignity and human rights.

    Human beings, like other forms of life, produce offspring who are innocent and helpless at birth.  These human children, all children, require care and nurturing as they grow to maturity.  The world’s children are worth Waging Peace for – against those who would threaten their future with war and other forms of overt and structural violence.

    Children as they grow have dreams of living happy and decent lives, dreams of building a better future in peaceful and just societies.  These dreams are worth Waging Peace for – against those whose myopia and greed rob children anywhere of a better future.

    Each generation shares a responsibility to pass the planet and civilization on intact to the next generation.  Accepting this responsibility is an important part of Waging Peace.  It is a way of paying a debt of gratitude to all who have preceded us on the planet by assuring that there is a better future.

    In the Nuclear Age, we humans, by our cleverness, have invented tools capable of our own demise.  Nuclear weapons are not really weapons; they are instruments of annihilation and perhaps of omnicide, the death of all.  Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age requires that we awaken to the dangers that these weapons pose to humankind and all life, and work to rid the world of these insane tools of global devastation.

    For too long humanity has lived with nuclear policies of Mutually Assured Destruction, with the appropriate acronym of MAD.  We need a new and distinctly different formulation: Planetary Assured Security and Survival, with the acronym PASS for passing the world on intact to the next generation.

    Among the greatest obstacles to assuring survival in the Nuclear Age are ignorance, apathy, complacency and despair.  These can only be overcome by education and advocacy; education to raise awareness of what needs to change and advocacy to increase engagement in bringing about the needed change.   

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has three major goals: the abolition of nuclear weapons, the strengthening of international law, and the empowerment of new peace leaders.   The Foundation was created in 1982 in the belief that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age and that the people must lead their leaders if we are to assure a safe and secure human future.  We need your generous support to continue to educate and advocate for a brighter future for humanity.

  • My Once-in-a-Generation Cut? The Armed Forces. All of them.

    This article was originally published by The Guardian.

    I say cut defence. I don’t mean nibble at it or slice it. I mean cut it, all £45bn of it. George Osborne yesterday asked the nation “for once in a generation” to think the unthinkable, to offer not just percentage cuts but “whether government needs to provide certain public services at all”.

    What do we really get from the army, the navy and the air force beyond soldiers dying in distant wars and a tingle when the band marches by? Is the tingle worth £45bn, more than the total spent on schools? Why does Osborne “ringfence” defence when everyone knows its budget is a bankruptcy waiting to happen, when Labour ministers bought the wrong kit for wars that they insisted it fight?

    Osborne cannot believe the armed forces are so vital or so efficient as to be excused the star chamber’s “fundamental re-evaluation of their role”. He knows their management and procurement have long been an insult to the taxpayer. The reason for his timidity must be that, like David Cameron, he is a young man scared of old generals.

    I was content to be expensively defended against the threat of global communism. With the end of the cold war in the 1990s that threat vanished. In its place was a fantasy proposition, that some unspecified but potent “enemy” lurked in the seas and skies around Britain. Where is it?

    Each incoming government since 1990 has held so-called defence reviews “to match capabilities to policy objectives”. I helped with one in 1997, and it was rubbish from start to finish, a cosmetic attempt to justify the colossal procurements then in train, and in such a way that any cut would present Labour as “soft” on defence.

    Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and George Robertson, the then defence secretary were terrified into submission. They agreed to a parody of generals fighting the last war but one. They bought new destroyers to defeat the U-boat menace. They bought new carriers to save the British empire. They bought Eurofighters to duel with Russian air aces. Trident submarines with nuclear warheads went on cruising the deep, deterring no one, just so Blair could walk tall at conferences.

    Each weekend, the tranquillity of the Welsh countryside is shattered by inane jets screaming through the mountain valleys playing at Lord of the Rings. With modern bombs, no plane need fly that low, and the jets are said to burn more fuel in half an hour than a school in a year. Any other service wasting so much money would be laughed out of court. Yet the Treasury grovels before the exotic virility of it all.

    Labour lacked the guts to admit that it was crazy to plan for another Falklands war. It dared not admit that the procurement executive was fit for nothing but appeasing weapons manufacturers. No armies were massing on the continent poised to attack. No navies were plotting to throttle our islands and starve us into submission. No missiles were fizzing in bunkers across Asia with Birmingham or Leeds in their sights. As for the colonies, if it costs £45bn to protect the Falklands, Gibraltar and the Caymans, it must be the most ridiculous empire in history. It would be cheaper to give each colony independence and a billion a year.

    Lobbyists reply that all defence expenditure is precautionary. You cannot predict every threat and it takes time to rearm should one emerge. That argument might have held during the cold war and, strictly up to a point, today. But at the present scale it is wholly implausible.

    All spending on insurance – be it on health or the police or environmental protection – requires some assessment of risk. Otherwise spending is open-ended. After the cold war there was much talk of a peace dividend and the defence industry went into intellectual overdrive. It conjured up a new “war” jargon, as in the war on drugs, on terror, on piracy, on genocide. The navy was needed to fight drug gangs in the Caribbean, pirates off Somalia and gun-runners in the Persian Gulf. In all such “wars” performance has been dire, because each threat was defined to justify service expenditure rather than the other way round.

    Whenever I ask a defence pundit against whom he is defending me, the answer is a wink and a smile: “You never know.” The world is a messy place. Better safe than sorry. It is like demanding crash barriers along every pavement in case cars go out of control, or examining school children for diseases every day. You never know. The truth is, we are now spending £45bn on heebie-jeebies.

    For the past 20 years, Britain’s armed forces have encouraged foreign policy into one war after another, none of them remotely to do with the nation’s security. Asked why he was standing in an Afghan desert earlier this year, Brown had to claim absurdly that he was “making London’s streets safer”. Some wars, as in Iraq, have been a sickening waste of money and young lives. Others in Kosovo and Afghanistan honour a Nato commitment that had nothing to do with collective security. Like many armies in history, Nato has become an alliance in search of a purpose. Coalition ministers are citing Canada as a shining example of how to cut. Canada is wasting no more money in Afghanistan.

    Despite Blair’s politics of fear, Britain entered the 21st century safer than at any time since the Norman conquest. I am defended already, by the police, the security services and a myriad regulators and inspectors. Defence spending does not add to this. It is like winning the Olympics – a magnificent, extravagant national boast, so embedded in the British psyche that politicians (and newspapers) dare not question it. Yet Osborne asked that every public service should “once in a generation” go back to basics and ask what it really delivers for its money. Why not defence?

    There are many evils that threaten the British people at present, but I cannot think of one that absolutely demands £45bn to deter it. Soldiers, sailors and air crews are no protection against terrorists, who anyway are not that much of a threat. No country is an aggressor against the British state. No country would attack us were the government to put its troops into reserve and mothball its ships, tanks and planes. Let us get real.

    I am all for being defended, but at the present price I am entitled to ask against whom and how. Of all the public services that should justify themselves from ground zero, defence is the first.

  • Glorious Beings: Creating a New World Culture

    I came into the world in a thunderstorm in June 1914, when great changes were beginning to happen. It was in a year when the First World War engulfed Europe and Africa and Asia, when the powers of science and technology brought down the barriers between nations – and great scientists gave us glimpses of our place in the throbbing universe.

    Dr. Brian Swime, a noted physicist, said “The vastness of this universe couldn’t have been otherwise…This universe, which is 30 billion light years across, the smallest universe we could fit into…The universe had to expand at this rate to enable our existence.  We belong here.  This is home.  This has been our home for 15 billion years…If you altered the origin of the universe even just slightly, none of us would even be here.  That means then, that our existence is implicit.  We don’t only stand on our feet, we stand on the original fireball; we stand on the expansion of the universe as a whole.”

    When I gaze at your luminous faces, I am convinced that Dr. Swime is right.  I am also sure that Albert Einstein was right when he said that if we could understand what we really are we would know that we are glowing fields of electromagnetic energy.  We are also collections of dancing atoms filled with negative and positive charges.

    There are auras of light around your amazing bodies and your immortal souls are shining through your eyes.

    Look at one another.  Listen to one another.  Touch one another.  Become aware of what glorious beings you are.  You are far more involved in shaping the future than you have begun to realize.

    Humanity is in a tragic situation.  You are surrounded by more dangers than any generation before you.  And yet you have more strength, more technological knowledge, more allies to help you than any previous people who came into existence in the years past.

    How do I dare to make such statements to you?  I dare because I have lived in this body for more than 90 years – and I have experienced many miracles.

    In my youth, I poured out stories of man’s incredible achievements.  I became known as a pioneer of wonder. I brought the book to show you what came forth from me when I was writing science fiction.

    One world was not enough for me.  I leaped from planet to planet.  I was drawn to the stars, as many young people in my time were.  When I walked at night in my father’s backyard and gazed at the blazing lights in the sky, I didn’t feel dwarfed by them or overcome by their intensity.  I saw them as playgrounds for my mind and spirit – and I still do.

    I believe that we human beings will triumph over all the horrible problems we may face, and over the bloody history of our failures.  We pray and we play.  We have divine sparks in us.  We discover what Einstein and other great ones among us discovered.  Einstein wrote: “Everyone who is involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a Spirit is manifested in the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and we must be humble in our awareness of that Spirit moving among us, shaping the future with us.”

    Through play we discover our kinship with the Almighty Being who brought us into life.  God laughs and dances.  God gave us the power to find endless joy in celebrating the mysteries and wonders of this life. Some of our scientists brought us into the Nuclear Age and made us realize that we must find ways of living in peace or confront unparalleled catastrophes.

    I grew up in a praying and playing family and the Glorious Beings I have encountered seem related to me.  I went to Catholic schools where the nuns taught me that I shared in the creative mightiness that had shaped the stars.  I felt that I was made to speak freely in all circumstances.

    As a young reporter on The Kansas City Star I was sent to a press conference sponsored by Franklin D. Roosevelt, just after he had won re-election by millions of votes.  I was given a chance to speak directly with him.  He said in a soft voice: “As a journalist you have much power, Mr. Kelly.”  “Not the powers you have,” I said.  He tilted his head and said, “But I think I missed my calling.”  “You did?” I said.  “Yes,” he answered: “I wanted to be a journalist,” he muttered.  “You can ask anybody anything – and people have to respond.  And nobody tells you what you have to say.”

    “That’s not the kind of power you have,” I replied then.  He shook his head.  “Everybody tries to tell me what to do,” the President responded.

    I left his presence with amazement.  He was famous and beloved by millions of his fellow citizens.  But he didn’t have the kind of power he wanted!

    I realized that some of the Glorious Beings who seem to tower above us do not realize how much strength they have.  I had already experienced many frustrations as a journalist, but I didn’t feel defeated or crushed by the limitations on me.

    In my many years of pursuing “truth” and “solid answers” in my contacts with leaders in many fields, I became aware that it was a special gift to feel “glorious.”

    In my program here tonight I want you to realize that many “creative beings” serve humanity with a demonstrated dedication to public service but feel in their hearts that they can never attain the fulfillment they are encouraged to seek.

    Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King met violent deaths although they were dedicated to non-violence.  Albert Einstein and other great scientists knew that they had helped to build devastating weapons that endangered life on earth.  Eleanor Roosevelt never succeeded in putting an end to the arms race.  She travelled over many parts of the world, demonstrating her willingness to exhaust herself in the noble efforts of the peacemakers.  Harry Truman tried to rebuild areas of the earth, which had been savagely scourged by his use of military power.

    When I entered journalism in 1935, I spent my first 10 months on The Star’s staff primarily on death notices.  In those months, I gained a deep appreciation of the significance of each human life and its impact on all those in the same stages around them.  I realized that Kansas City was a segregated place in those years.  Blacks and other minorities were in the background, living in their own atmosphere.  They had their own churches, their own emergency services, their own hospitals, their own cemeteries.

    I became disturbed by the fact that I knew little by the black people and the many poor families existing in my city.  After I became an expert in briefly describing many lives, I was suddenly hurled into the hectic atmosphere of the General Hospital.  I rode in ambulances with drivers and doctors to the scenes of accidents, explosions, fires, murders, and domestic violence.  I saw people lying in the streets or bleeding in back rooms of apartments and boarding houses.  I discovered that many men were brutal.  They pounded their wives and children with their fists and straps, they crashed into one another with their autos and motorcycles, ran over pedestrians, and exploded with rage when they were frustrated.  They had to be shackled or thrown into jails by tough policemen.  I became gradually convinced of the superiority of women and began to believe that women should rule the world.

    My estimates of women were affected by the fact that women rarely engaged in violent acts themselves. I was always grateful for the kindness of women, for their tenderness and nurturing affections for their parents, their sisters and brothers, their lovers and husbands, their children and their friends.  I knew they had human faults and failings; I knew they could be angry and speak harshly about other people; they could be dominating and vindictive; and occasionally inflict blows on other women and men; but they were rarely killers.  I became convinced that the flourishing of humanity depended partly upon the civilizing influences of women.

    My father demonstrated the aggressive qualities of men.  When he got drunk, he was ready to use his fists and any weapons he carried.  When I was 3 years old, in 1917, he responded aggressively to President Woodrow Wilson’s call for a declaration of war against Germany after the Germans sank some American ships.  He rushed off to enlist in the army.  He was eager to execute the German Kaiser, to make the world safe for democracy.  He put me into a little soldier’s suit that made me look like a young soldier.  He taught me to salute him and all other officers.  He was eager to get into combat in France.  He killed Germans in face-to-face struggles in the trenches.

    He was severely wounded by a piece of shrapnel that lodged in his neck and his face was twisted by a scar on a deep wound.  When he came home, he suffered from nightmares of face-to-face attacks.  I had to wake him up from those screaming moments, and his yelling haunted me for the rest of my life.

    In war, men sought glory by wounding one another or killing their opponents.  The young Germans he encountered in the bloody trenches were often as brave as he was, as sure as he was that the murders they committed were justified.  Millions died, striving to validate their manhood.

    I remember the Armistice Day – November 11 – in 1918 – when church bells rang and victory sirens sounded.  I also remember the weeping and wailing of a woman in the boarding house where my mother and I stayed while we waited for my father to return from France.  That woman had received a telegram telling her that her husband had been killed in one of the last battles.  For her, as for many others who received similar telegrams, the victory was bitter.

    Why did glorious beings kill one another?  Why did young men, charged with the energy of youth, use heavy weapons to tear off the heads and arms and eyes of their labeled “enemies?”  Nobody could answer those questions for me.

    I had taken part in World War II, after the United States was directly attacked.  I was assured that there would be peace and lasting joy after Hitler and the Japanese militarists had been eliminated.  They were smashed in 1945 and those who had fought against them celebrated wildly.

    But then we learned that Russia was dominated by a communist dictatorship and Stalin and his minions had to be eliminated, too.  I was asked to write speeches for a president, Harry Truman, who had been compelled to make a horrendous decision – to use atom bombs against Japan to end the Second World War.  I discovered that he had given much thought to the creation of a global organization to save humanity from the scourge of war.

    Truman carried in his wallet a poem by a Glorious Being – Alfred Tennyson – written in 1842, predicting a final war involving aerial navies, which led to the formation of a Federation for the World, a Parliament for Humanity.

    A humble man who never exalted himself, Truman had a glorious agenda.  He had helped to launch and uphold the United Nations, and he was determined to make it effective in helping all countries to enter an unprecedented era of lasting peace and prosperity.  He strove to get the rich nations to devote some of their tremendous resources to aid the poor nations to reduce or eliminate poverty all over the planet.  He proclaimed that “a decent, satisfying life” was “the right of all people.”  He shared General Eisenhower’s view that war was a theft from the resources of people.

    In the 1948 campaign I helped Truman make the people aware that “the destiny of the United States is to provide leadership in the world toward a realization of the Four Freedoms.”  Those Freedoms were articulated in an address to the Congress in 1941 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  F.D.R. asserted that the American heritage had developed a full understanding of the basic freedoms vital for human progress: Freedom of speech and expression; freedom of worship; freedom from want by assuring a healthy peaceful life – and freedom from fear, by reducing military arms everywhere.

    The U.S. had emerged from the horrifying struggle of World War II with a booming economy – and a future with unlimited possibilities.  They felt that the future of humanity depended on the ethical behavior of a giant nation.

    I shared the hopes of those leaders.  I had lived through the transformation of the U.S. from the Depression years, with millions of unemployed and desperate citizens, into a place with dazzling opportunities in every field.

    When Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas became chairman of the Center’s board, I worked closely with him. He was a “glorious being,” full of courage and willing to take the initiative in many ways.  He advocated Centers in all the major cities of the world.

    The Center gave much attention to all the major problems facing humanity, especially the arms race and the Cold War.  Two Center pamphlets written by the noted analyst Walter Millis – one on Individual Freedom and the Common Defense and one on The Constitution and the Common Defense – were widely circulated.  Millis described what he called “the war system,” and he declared that would have to be dismantled if humanity really wanted to survive.  He predicted that the devastating power of nuclear weapons would force the great nations (those with thousands of those weapons) to agree on a nonproliferating treaty to avoid a nuclear holocaust.  Albert Einstein, the scientist recognized by all countries, said that the maintenance of such weapons might lead humanity to “drift into an unparalleled catastrophe.”  The dire commentaries of many brilliant scientists enabled humanity to avoid that catastrophe during the years of the “cold war” between the U.S. and the Soviets, but the dangers had to be seen for decades.

    Nuclear war was avoided but the U.S. plunged into an extensive disaster in Vietnam under several presidents.  The Vietnam War brought poverty and slaughter to millions for many years.  President Nixon took four years to sanction an American withdrawal.

    The “glorious beings” at the Center sponsored a trip to Vietnam by two directors – Harry Ashmore and William Baggs, who went to Vietnam and returned with proposals that could have ended the war in the 1960s.  But the leaders on both sides were not ready to settle their differences.

    The Center tried in many ways to build foundations for peace through exchanges of ideas and proposals by leaders from many countries who participated in an intervention convocation at the UN based on Pope John’s encyclical Pacem in Terris.

    Scholars at the Center were active in many ways.  It issued warnings on the decay and disarray of democratic institutions long before the Watergate scandal appeared in the headlines.  Other Center publications warned of the creeping pollution of the planet, long before millions of people realized that the web of life might be destroyed by such pollution.

    In advance of actual developments, people at the Center revealed the thinking of radical students, the changing attitudes of the young toward the whole society, the implications of the changes in race relations, and the demands of ethnic minorities.  The Center showed the defects of the mass media at a time when people were not aware of the corruption of the media and the pervasive impact of the press and broadcasting industries on every facet of modern life.

    Six years of discussions, involving dozens of meetings and thoughts of 200 consultants (including historians, judges, political scientists, economists, and others) went into the Center’s drafts for a new American Constitution.  A model for the 20th century was finally published in 1970.  The principal drafter was Rexford G. Tugwell, a former member of President Roosevelt’s “brains trust.”  But the man who pushed it into publication was Robert Hutchins, former president of the University of Chicago, the elected head of the Center in Santa Barbara.

    The model Constitution was not designed for ratification and implementation but as an instrument for thinking about the issues of the 1970s.  At a time when American institutions did not seem to be functioning effectively, the Center scholars hoped that the model might awaken hope in millions of apathetic citizens and bring new vitality to a sagging democracy.

    But the development of that model document turned out to be one of most controversial projects in which the Center had ever engaged.  It was regarded as foolish, futile, and possibly dangerous to the American system.  It stirred hot arguments for years, but it did not produce the long-range effects Hutchins had tried to evoke.

    When internal strife occurred at the Center in 1967 and 1975, it became evident to people outside the Center that the scholars on Eucalyptus Hill were not able to solve their own constitutional problems.

    In spite of its own internal failures, in spite of all the defects and limitations of its own projects, the Center had an impact on scholars, editors, broadcasters, political leaders, lawyers, economists and others in many fields in many countries.

    Admiral Hyman Rickover, commander of the American nuclear submarines, took part in several Center conferences and once donated $1,000 to help keep the Center going, said he thought the Center’s budget was relatively small.  He referred to the billions he could get from Congress for nuclear ships ad said he thought the Center was more vital for the future of humanity than submarines or other weapons.

    Paul Dickson, in his book on American research organizations entitled Think Tanks, said its dedication to future problems gave it a unique role.

    Many “glorious beings” were connected with the Center.  The threat of annihilation still hangs over humanity’s future.  The best thinking of the bravest people will always be needed.

  • William Stafford: A Voice for Peace

    Poet William Stafford was a conscientious objector
    during World War II.  A wonderful 32
    minute documentary video, “Every War Has Two Losers,” has been done of his life
    as a writer and man of peace.  The video,
    directed by Haydn Reiss, includes commentary by Robert Bly, W.S. Merwin and Alice Walker,
    among others. 

    Stafford, who lived from 1914 to 1993, is revealed as a
    down to earth man and artist, who was a voice for peace and simple decency.  The video is available online from Amazon, as
    are many of Stafford’s poetry
    books.

    The flavor of Stafford’s poetic voice for peace can be found in his
    poem:

    At the
    Un-National Monument Along the Canadian
    Border

    This is the field where the battle did
    not happen,
    where the unknown soldier did not
    die.
    This is the field where grass joined hands,
    where no monument stands,
    and the only heroic thing is
    the sky.

    Birds fly here without any sound,
    unfolding their wings across the open.
    No people killed –
    or were killed – on this ground
    hollowed by the
    neglect of an air so tame
    that people celebrate it by forgetting its
    name.

  • 2010: A Peace Odyssey?

    This article was originally published on Truthout.

    Another year brings another war, so it would seem. Already in the works beforehand, but now hastened by the Christmas “underwear bomber,” we are swiftly moving down a road that could lead straight to another front in the generational war without end. The al-Qaeda bogeyman rears its head, and we respond like clockwork. All aboard folks – next stop, Yemen.

    Is this really the most effective way to make national policy and decide the fates of others around the world? When a suggestible and misguided youth attempts an asinine act, does that mean we automatically must respond in kind with foolhardy actions of our own? This has led to disastrous effects already in the Global War on Terror, and equally troubling alterations in the fabric of society here at home. Simply put, if we let the terrorists dictate our course of action, then we have already lost the moral high ground and the upper hand in the larger conflict as well, as Patrick Cockburn suggests in a cogent essay on the situation in Yemen:

    “In Yemen the US is walking into the al-Qa’ida trap. Once there it will face the same dilemma it faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It became impossible to exit these conflicts because the loss of face would be too great. Just as Washington saved banks and insurance giants from bankruptcy in 2008 because they were ‘too big to fail,’ so these wars become too important to lose because to do so would damage the US claim to be the sole super power…. But the danger of claiming spurious victories is that such distortions of history make it impossible for the US to learn from past mistakes and instead to repeat them by intervening in other countries such as Yemen.”

    Consider that we are still embroiled in an escalating war in Afghanistan as a direct response to the events of 9/11. Iraq, of course, was folded into this “terror-response” logic by the Bush administration despite clear evidence to the contrary. Pakistan has now become the new Cambodia to Afghanistan’s Vietnam in the current war that echoes actions of the past. And, now, we have our sights set on Yemen as the next front, which Marwan Bishara contends will almost inevitably lead to disastrous effects that serve to exacerbate the conditions that yield terrorism:

    “[O]ver the last several months, Yemen has emerged as the latest front. Reportedly, the US air force has participated in the bombardment of several locations in Yemen and spent tens of millions of dollars. But since the Nigerian man was apparently trained in Yemeni camps that are less threatened than Afghanistan, one can expect this war front to be expanded sooner rather than later. Waging another war in or through Yemen could prove, as in Afghanistan, untenable as the country could descend into chaos. With war against the Houthis in the north, tensions with the secessionists in the south, and the regime’s tenuous hold on power, Yemen could implode.”

    If the United States is truly to be a global leader, we are setting a poor example through our war-making policies. We are essentially mere followers in this dynamic, letting the terrorists set the agenda and walking right into the response they expect and desire from us. Recall that up front it was al-Qaeda’s stated intention to bleed America’s moral and economic resources dry by provoking us into direct military interventions in Muslim nations. By choosing the retaliatory option, we are playing precisely into their hands, and thus relinquishing the mantle of leadership.

    Similar patterns have taken hold at home. On the heels of 9/11, a fundamental reorientation of the delicate balance between liberty and security ensued. Rights of privacy, due process, habeas corpus and presumed innocence have been lost, perhaps permanently, as the constitutional architecture of two centuries eroded under our feet. Now, following the botched Christmas attack, we are likely to see a ramping up of the security apparatus, including privacy-impinging actions such as pat-downs and full-body scans. Not to mention, of course, the commitment of more resources to continue fighting the war that the terrorists wanted to goad us into all along.

    It is a grim picture coming out of 2009, but the symbolic relief of calendar change can be a powerful curative. I would like to suggest that 2010 can become a critical turning point year toward peace and prosperity if we focus our energies positively and proactively. Here are just a few suggestions for moving in that direction and making the new year one that history will recall as the beginning of the end of a mindset that has plunged the world into perpetual warfare.

    The Peace Dividend: Whatever your views on war, one thing most people can agree on is the desire to live peaceful and productive lives. This includes the existence of an economy in which ordinary people can prosper and be assured of fairness in their wages, investments and expected contributions. The war ethos has shifted trillions of dollars from public to private coffers, and it has stimulated not economic growth, but a global recession. Ending war means more resources for education, health care, community development and environmental protection – all of which promise better prospects for a peaceful world than does the path we have been on until now.

    Cultural Exchange: The high-speed potential of both the Internet and international travel has opened up – perhaps for the first time in human history – the possibility of realizing a truly global society. This does not entail giving up autonomy or sovereignty, but asks only that we remain open to and appreciate the remarkable cultural diversity of our world. The more we become educated in this regard, learning about the myriad ways in which people everywhere share similar hopes and desires despite their unique cultures, the more we will opt for peace.

    Politics Is People: For too long we have abdicated control over our lives and fortunes to remote representatives who have failed to adequately protect and promote our interests. Party politics is passé at this point, with the clarity of insight that lobbyists and corporate concerns have essentially purchased a controlling interest in politicians of all stripes. The saving grace in our system is that “the people” retain the ultimate political power, despite repeated attempts to undermine this constitutional gift from our forebears. This power is electoral, but perhaps even more importantly, it is personal, with each of us asked to make numerous daily choices regarding how we will exercise it. Simply put, we can watch peace, purchase peace, eat peace, drive peace and learn peace if we have the will to do so. And, then, politics will have no choice but to follow.

    There are many more notions along these lines, which I will leave to your imaginations to develop and implement. The basic point is that we stand today at a critical juncture, and can ill afford to slide blithely back into apathy and torpor if we are to avert that proverbial iceberg sitting just ahead on our present heading. Let history record that 2010 was the year we steered clear and instead charted a new course for ourselves and the world toward peace in our time.

  • Opportunity Lost: Obama in Oslo

    This article was originally published by Consortium News

    Whether
    Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize is not the point. He didn’t. The
    fact is he got it, and was gifted with the chance of a lifetime to make
    a classic speech on the politics of peace-making, a speech that in the
    glare of Nobel could have attained instant biblical standing.

    He failed miserably, producing a hodge-podge that resembled the work of a bright but undisciplined sophomore.

    He hoisted his petard on the classical
    “just war theory,” a theory that, properly understood, condemns his
    decision to send yet more kill-power into Afghanistan.

    This theory which is much misused and
    little understood is designed to build a wall of assumptions against
    state-sponsored violence, i.e. war. It puts the burden of proof on the
    warrior where it belongs.

    It gives six conditions necessary to justify a war. Fail one, and the war is immoral. The six are:

    (1) A just cause.
    The only just cause is defense against an attack, not a preemptive
    attack on those who might someday attack us. Obama flunked this one,
    saying our current military actions are “to defend ourselves and all
    nations from further [i.e. future] attacks.” President Bush speaks here
    through the mouth of President Obama.

    (2) Declaration by competent authority:
    Article one Section 8 of the Constitution which gives this power to the
    Congress has not been used since 1941. Congressional resolutions
    instead yield the power to the President.

    Obama: “I am
    responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to
    battle in a distant land.” Sorry. Not according to the Constitution.

    On top of that we are bound by treaty to
    the United Nations Charter. Article 2, Section 4 prohibits recourse to
    military force except in circumstances of self-defense which was
    restricted to responses to a prior “armed attack” (Article 51), and
    only then until the Security Council had the chance to review the
    claim.

    Obama fails twice on proper declaration
    of war. He violates the UN Charter by claiming the right to act
    “unilaterally” and “individually.” Again, faithful echoes of President
    Bush.

    (3) Right intention: This means that there is reasonable surety that the war will succeed in serving justice and making a way to real peace.

    Right intention is befouled by excessive
    secrecy, by putting the burdens of the war on the poor or future
    generations, by denying the right to conscientious object to soldiers
    who happen to know most of what is going on, and by a failure to
    understand the enemy’s grievances.

    Obama declares gratuitously:
    “Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their
    arms.” So all we can do is send soldiers to kill them? Really? What
    negotiations have been tried to find out why they hate us and not
    Sweden, or Argentina, or China?

    A pause for reflection might show that
    those and other countries are not bombing and killing civilians in
    three Muslim countries simultaneously. That could generate a little
    resentment. None of those countries not targeted by al Qaeda are
    financing Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands in violation
    of UN resolutions.

    The processes of negotiation allow light to shine in dark corners. Realpolitik eschews the light.

    (4) The principle of discrimination, or non-combatant immunity.
    The science of war has made this condition so unachievable that only
    the policing paradigm envisioned by the UN Charter could ever justify
    state-sponsored violence.

    Police operate within the constraints of
    law, as a communitarian effort, with oversight and follow-up review to
    prevent undue violence. Obama’s allusion to “42 other countries”
    joining in our violent work in Afghanistan and Iraq mocks the true
    intent of the collective action envisioned by the UN under supervision
    of the Security Council.

    It is a mere disguise for our vigilante adventurism.

    (5) Last resort.
    If state-sponsored violence is not the last resort we stand morally
    with hoodlums who would solve problems by murder. Obama fails to see
    that modern warfare, including counterinsurgency, is not the last or
    best resort against an enemy that has four unmatchable advantages:
    invisibility, versatility, patience, and the ability to find safe haven
    anywhere.

    The idea of a single geographic safe haven
    is a myth and an anachronism reflecting the age of whole armies
    mobilizing in a definable locus.

    Obama’s speech showed no appreciation of
    the alternative of peace-making. A Department of Peace (which would be
    a better name for a revitalized and better-funded State Department)
    would have as its goal to address in concert with other nations
    tensions as they begin to build.

    Neglected crises can explode eventually
    into violence. This is used to assert the inevitability of war when it
    is only an indictment of improvident statecraft.

    (6) The principle of proportionality: Put
    simply, the violence of war must do more good than harm. In judging war
    the impact on other nations and the environment must also be assessed
    in the balance sheet of good and bad results.

    This is a hard test for modern warriors to
    pass. Victory in war is an oxymoron. No one wins a war: one side may
    lose less and may spin that as victory. Obama’s faith in the benefits
    of warring in three Muslim countries is delusional.

    President Obama in Oslo was more a
    theologian than a statesman. He gave a condescending nod to nonviolent
    power but his theology of original sin tilted him toward violence as
    the surest and final arbiter for a fallen humanity.

    It is “a pity beyond all telling” that the
    “just war theory” he invoked condemns the warring policies he
    anomalously defended as he accepted the Nobel Prize for Peace.