September 2003

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

Short Takes

Scholarships available
Childcare available--call 617/661-6130 by Sept. 30
Space is limited, registration will be first come, first served Wheelchair accessible

Co-sponsored by:
Simmons Institute for Leadership & Change and Simmons College History Department

For more information:
Contact Joseph Gerson, 617/661-6130;

Lawrence Reichard, Stockton, CA

The Bush administration is in trouble, possibly big trouble. Thanks to the massive pressure exerted by an unprecedented global peace movement, the administration was forced to lie its way into its keenly desired war with Iraq. And now US soldiers are being killed at a rate of one or more a day in a country that is supposed to be pacified and was supposed to welcome us with open arms. Meanwhile unemployment is at 6.4%, the highest rate in nine years; the federal deficit is at record levels; states are hemorrhaging red ink; schools are getting hammered; seniors can't pay for their prescriptions; and the number of Americans without health insurance continues to climb precipitously.

But most importantly, questions are being asked. Real questions. For the first time since Bush took office. What did you know and when did you know it kinds of questions. Serious questions.

Did the Bush administration lie and doctor evidence to make its case for war with Iraq? Those kinds of questions. They are being asked in the halls of Congress and in editorial board rooms.

These are the kinds of questions that can, over time, bring down an administration, and they can wipe out for 20-30 years the ability of the White House to lie its way into another war.

But these questions cannot survive in a vacuum void of vigorous public support. The peace movement and the public in general must continuously, persistently, and energetically demand answers to these questions. Answers must be demanded in letters to members of Congress and to editors, and in meetings with members of Congress and editorial boards. This is how administrations are stopped from lying their way into war. If these questions are not afforded vigorous public support, they will wither and die.

It can be done. The peace movement has power. In 1964 Lyndon Johnson won what was then the biggest landslide in US presidential elections, and little more than three years later Johnson was forced to bow out of his race for re-election because of the war in Vietnam and because of the peace movement. Apply that to a president who lost the popular vote by 500,000. It can be done.

Michael True, Worcester, Massachusetts

Extending the peacemaking community, i.e. "building the muv-mint," is a constant challenge. So it's always encouraging to discover thoughtful, imaginative approaches to achieving that goal. The July Presbyterian Peacemaking Conference in Asheville, North Carolina, is a concrete model of what religious institutions can do to help build a peace culture. Acknowledging the wisdom of Dorothy Day's statement, "No one has a right to sit down and feel hopeless. There's too much work to do," peace activists, along with over 500 church members from throughout the country, took up the challenge by focusing on "what must be done."

"A Force More Powerful: Embracing Jesus' Way of Nonviolence," the conference title taken from the powerful film about successful nonviolent movements throughout the 20th century, questioned and confronted the ways in which individuals and institutions put their trust in domination and violence to bring about justice and peace. In plenary sessions, Walter Wink, a biblical scholar, and June Keener Wink, an artist, also offered concrete examples of resistance to the domination system, in referring to the life of Jesus and to recent "grass roots eruption of diverse nonviolent strategies." In their view, the domination system will change only when people address the invisible, inner, and spiritual forms, as well as the visible, outer, and physical forms of domination.

Relying on the biblical exegesis in his important book, Violence and Nonviolence in South Africa (1985), Walter Wink showed how Jesus' teaching in the New Testament about turning the other cheek and walking the extra mile, advocated nonviolent resistance, rather than acquiescence.

Throughout the conference, the intergenerational gathering focused on the interconnections between faith and witness or peace "within and without," in workshops and discussion groups facilitated by Christian Peacemakers from Israel and Colombia, nonviolence trainers from Fellowship of Reconciliation, Presbyterian Peacemaking staff from the United Nations Office, and mission personnel teaching in Croatia. These activists showed how the Domination System is often sustained by the myth that violence in redemptive, and how specific strategies of nonviolent social change offer realistic alternatives to the violence of the status quo.

The conference was, in fact, a model of what churches and religious institutions might do to make the connection between their religious traditions and strategies for social change, based upon the teachings of Jesus and active nonviolence associated with Gandhi and Martin Luther King, as well as the theoretical and strategic insights of Gene Sharp. Roger Powers, editor of the indispensable volume, Protest, Power, and Change: An Encyclopedia of Nonviolence from ACT-UP to Women's Suffrage (1995), a former associate of Gene Sharp's and now a Presbyterian minister in Oakland, California, directed the proceedings.

Traditional peace churches (Friends, awake!) may recognize that various institutions are now outrunning them in peace-building initiatives, and begin to reach out to various communicants and evangelicals. One can hope other Christian bodies might follow the lead of Presbyterians in sponsoring similar conferences and activities. Martin Luther King said that Jesus provided the inspiration and Gandhi provided the method for nonviolent social change, thereby offering a solid foundation for building whaRabbi Michael Lerner has called "a politics of meaning."

Refuseniks at Home & Abroad

"Refuseniks" is the term coined in Israel for those who are willing to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces, but who refuse to participate in Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory.

Statement from Stephen Funk

My name is Stephen Funk. I am a Marine Corps reservist who spoke out against the invasion of Iraq. Now I am being charged with desertion, even though I returned to my unit after completing an application for discharge as a conscientious objector. My military court date is scheduled for [mid-Sept.] here in New Orleans and I am facing two years in the brig.

I spoke out so that others in the military would realize that they also have a choice and a duty to resist. On base I've been harassed a few times. Some people have told me I'm a traitor, a coward, and unpatriotic. I have also had a few death threats. However, I have also received tremendous positive feedback, even from some of the enlisted people. As my commanding officer explained to the press, "The Marine Corps understands there are service members opposed to the war." I am certainly not alone.

For Stephen Funk's full statement or to make a contribution toward the expenses of his legal defense, contact the Stephen Funk Legal Defense Fund, 1230 Market St. #111, San Francisco CA 94102

Israeli Refusenik Writes to Stephen Funk

Dear Stephen,
We live half a world from each other, we have led quite different lives, and yet we are both in the same situation: Conscientious objectors to imperial war and occupation, we are both standing military trial this summer. Reading your statement I couldn't help but smile at the basic sameness of military logic around the world--including its inability to understand how anybody could be enough against a war to resist going to kill and die in it.

Your trial is set to begin soon. Mine has already begun so maybe I can give you a few pointers.

Look the judges in the eyes. Use every opportunity you have to explain why you stand there. They are human just like you, but they try to deny it to themselves. Don't let them. War is shit and they know it. They should let you go and they know it.

It's likely that we'll both get thrown in prison when this all ends. There will be dark moments in prison, moments when it seems that the outside world has forgotten all about us, that what we did and refused to do was in vain. Well, I know what I'll do in those moments: I'll think of you, Stephen, and I'll know that nothing we do for humanity's sake is ever in vain.

With greatest solidarity,
Matan Kaminer, Tel Hashomer Camp, Israel

For the full text of this letter, see www.znet.org

Peace Center in East Jerusalem Under Threat of Demolition

From an Aug. 20 bulletin of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (www.icahd.org/eng)

As a project of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, volunteers from Israel and abroad have been working on the construction of Beit Arabia, also known as the Rachel Corrie Peace Center. The structure is being built on the site of the home of Arabia and Salim Shawamreh of Anata. Four times on this site, the Israeli authorities have demolished the Shawamreh home.
Located in East Jerusalem, the Center will memorialize Rachel Corrie, a US activist killed this spring while protesting home demolitions, and Nuha Makadma Sweidan, a pregnant Palestinian killed in March when her house was bulldozed over her. The center will feature a mural by US labor muralist Mike Alewitz and a permanent exhibit on the tragedy of house demolitions, and will serve as a center for educational activities, study tours, and peace-building activities for Israelis and Palestinians.

On August 19, the Beit Arabia work site in East Jerusalem was visited by a representative of the Civil Administration (Israeli military government of the West Bank), accompanied by several police officers and soldiers in combat gear. The Director of the site, Devorah Brous, was informed that our building activities were illegal. She responded by inviting the armed men to join us for lunch which was then being served. The police officer declined. Then the representative from the Civil Administration entered the building and removed a generator and one window which he put in his van. A receipt was written for the confiscated items and Devorah was invited to go to the police station with them to be given a demolition order.

It should be noted here that all civil demolitions are banned under the Road Map.

Devorah declined to go to the police station and the police and army then left the camp. It was decided to invite more activists to spend the night and for others to come in the early morning when most demolitions occur. However the night was uneventful and work continues today with the building about 95% complete.

Bernie Sanders Talks to Alan Greenspan

House Financial Services Committee, Question for Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan from Rep. Bernie Sanders (Vermont-Independent), July 15, 2003, transcribed from www.c-span.com

SANDERS:

Mr. Greenspan, I have long been concerned that you are way out of touch with the needs of the middle class and working families of our country. That you see your major function in your position as the need to represent the wealthy and large corporations, and I must tell you that your testimony today only confirms all of my suspicions, and I urge you-and I mean this seriously-because you're an honest person, and I think you just don't know what's going on in the real world. And I would urge you, come with me to Vermont. Meet real people. The country clubs and the cocktail parties are not real America. The millionaires and billionaires are the exception to the rule.

You talk about an improving economy while we have lost three million private sector jobs in the last two years. Long term unemployment has been tripled.

Unemployment is higher than it has been since 1994. We have a four trillion dollar national debt. 1.4 million Americans have lost their health insurance.

Millions of seniors can't afford prescription drugs. Middle class families can't send their kids to college because they don't have the money to do that. Bankruptcy cases have increased by a record-breaking 23%.

Business investment is at its lowest level in more than fifty years. CEOs make more than 500 times what their workers make. The middle class is shrinking. We have the greatest gap between the rich and the poor of any industrialized nation.

And this is an economy that is improving? I'd hate to see what would happen if our economy was sinking.

Now today, you may not have know this-I suspect that you don't-but you have insulted tens of millions of American workers. You have defended over the years, among other things, the abolition of the minimum wage-one of your policies-and giving huge tax breaks to billionaires. But today you reached a new low, I think, by suggesting that manufacturing in America doesn't matter. It doesn't matter where the product is produced. We lost two million manufacturing jobs in the last two years alone. Ten percent of our work force. Walmart has replaced General Motors as the major employer in America, paying people starvation wages rather than living wages and all of that does not matter to you? Doesn't matter! If it's produced in China where workers are making 30 cents an hour, or produced in Vermont where workers could make twenty bucks an hour-it doesn't matter!

You have told the American people that you support a trade policy which is selling them out, only working for the CEOs who can take our plants to China, Mexico and India.

You insulted Mr. Castle. Mr. Castle, a few moments ago, a good Republican, told you that we're seeing not only the decline of manufacturing jobs, but white collar information technology jobs. Forrester Research says that over the next 15 years, 3.3 million US service industry jobs and $136 billion in wages will move offshore to India, Russia, and to China and the Phillipines.

Does any of this matter to you? Do you give one whit of concern to the middle class and working families of this country?

That's my question.

GREENSPAN:

Congressman, we have the highest standard of living in the world.

SANDERS:

No we do not. You go to Scandinavia and you will find that the people have a much higher standard of living in terms of education, health care, and decent paying jobs. Wrong, Mr. Greenspan.

GREENSPAN:

May I answer your question?

SANDERS:

You sure may.

GREENSPAN:

Thank you. For a major industrial country, we have created the most advanced technologies, the highest standard of living for a country of our size.

Our economic growth is crucial to us. The incomes, the purchasing power of our employees, our workers, our people, are by far more important than what it is we produce. I submit to you-may I?-that the major focus of monetary policy is to create an environment in this country which enables capital investment and innovation to advance. We are at the cutting edge of technologies in the world. We are doing an extraordinary job over the years, and people flock to the United States. Our immigration rates are very high, and why? Because they think this is a wonderful country to come to.

SANDERS:

That is an incredible answer.

Overcoming Powerlessness: One Small, but Significant Step You May be Able to Take

Don Lathrop is Professer Emeritus at Berkshire Community College, Pittsfield, MA, where he teaches in its Peace and World Order Studies program.

Did you ever wonder what your local bank(s) do with the money they have on deposit? I decided to inquire and compare the banks in town. My particular concern was to find out if any of the banks either loaned to or invested in any corporation that, at least in part, was involved in the arms industry. This is because my wife and I do not wish to collect interest that in any way come from an industry which profits by manufacturing items designed to take the lives of fellow human beings.

There were six local banks listed in our yellow pages. A simple phone call to two of them revealed that, while most of their business is local, they do have some financial dealings with some major corporations which are involved in the arms industry. I appreciated their forthrightness. Next, I found a credit union and a cooperative bank that were free of such contacts and whose primary customers were small businesses and folks taking out home mortgage and car loans, etc.. There was a fifth bank which had only a small branch office on the other side of town. This left only the bank we had been using for over 45 years. A call there met with a refusal to answer my question about whether or not they did business with any corporations involved with the arms industry. Further inquiries in person at the bank ended up in being passed up the line a couple of times until we were told we had to address our question in writing to the president of the bank. This we did and we had no response until exactly two months had transpired. By this time we had concluded that the bank was not going to answer our question and we began to move our funds to the credit union and the co-operative bank. When the letter from a Senior Vice President of our bank finally arrived, it was not note-worthy for its clarity and we had no regrets about moving our funds.

This is not the end of the story. Decades ago, we owned a very modest amount of shares of stock in a few firms which did business with the military. We sold those stocks and reinvested in other securities, plus a "socially responsible" mutual fund with no involvement in the arms industry. As a result of thinking about what banks do with their money, we realized that the dividends or interest payments we received from any investments we held went into the bank which owned the brokerage firm we used and accumulated there until we wanted them or decided to invest them. This, we realized, left whatever funds we had accumulated for the use of a massive bank, with a morally despicable record and we therefore arranged for any interest or dividend payments to be sent directly to us rather than residing in this bank. This had the further benefit of highlighting any brokerage fees so we were made more aware of them. The decision was a good one for us and our lack of confidence in that bank was verified not long after when it was fined $400 million dollars for, among other things, giving false investment information to its customers through its brokerage division.

To finish this part of our little saga, it was much to our surprise when we made all these moves, that we now had both a savings and a checking account which pay somewhat more interest than our original bank provided and much more interest than the bank owning the brokerage firm we've been using.

We suggest others concerned about the possibility of unknowingly profiting from the arms industry, or supporting multinational corporations involved in various forms of exploitation, get on the phone and inquire about the use of their money by their bank and compare this with other options available for their funds. This can be an easy first step to action and may be a source of some surprises. Just the act of showing banks that there are customers who care where their funds are utilized is a good opportunity for education.

One Giant Step for the Corporate Accountability Movement

Patti Lynn is Campaign Director for Infact, a corporate accountability organization that has been challenging Philip Morris/Altria and the tobacco industry for a decade.

Early projections indicate that President Bush may raise a quarter of a billion dollars to finance his re-election campaign. It is hard to say what is more astonishing, the number itself, or the unabashed influence that corporate supporters have over this administration. On everything from laws that protect our environment to US foreign policy, corporations have tainted the decision-making process.

Discouraging stories on corporate abuse dominate the papers while the successes of people fighting for a better world are often relegated to the back pages. However the global effort to rein in the abuses of Big Tobacco reminds us that unprecedented changes in favor of people and the environment are still possible.

Working alongside allies across the globe for ten years, the corporate accountability organization Infact has involved millions of people worldwide in pressuring Philip Morris/Altria to stop marketing tobacco to children and interfering with public policy. Today, we celebrate the adoption of the world's first public health treaty.

In late May, the 192 countries of the World Health Assembly unanimously adopted the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)--a major milestone in the history of public health and corporate accountability. One of the FCTC's most groundbreaking provisions is a ban on tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship. The treaty will also protect public health policy from interference by tobacco corporations, giving governments the right to prioritize the health of their citizens over trade and commercial interests. Thus, the treaty establishes important precedents for other abusive industries. In recognition of this victory, Infact has lifted its Boycott of Philip Morris/Altria's Kraft Foods.

Twenty eight countries, including South Africa, Thailand, Brazil, and Iran, signed the FCTC on the first day it was open for signature at the World Health Organization Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. Since the opening ceremony, twelve more countries have signed. On June 30, the FCTC opened for signature at the UN Headquarters in New York City, raising a major outstanding question: When will the US sign and ratify the world's first public health treaty?

As home to Philip Morris/Altria, the world's largest and most profitable tobacco corporation, the US has a particular responsibility to play a lead role in the fight to curb the global tobacco pandemic. However, Philip Morris/Altria is a leading contributor to the Republican Party. Furthermore, the US has increasingly isolated itself from the global community on issues of enormous humanitarian and environmental consequence. There is a clear pattern in recent history of the US negotiating down treaties to the lowest common denominator, then failing to support international agreements such as the: Kyoto Protocol, Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty, Basel Convention, Biosafety Protocol, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention, and Landmine Ban Treaty.

Even if the US never signs or ratifies it, the FCTC will have a dramatic impact in the countries that have the most to gain from preventing the further spread of tobacco addiction--the countries of the Global South. Many of these countries stood up to US bullying throughout the FCTC negotiation process to ensure a strong treaty.

As President Bush continues to raise millions of dollars a week from corporate fat cats, the world will be watching to see how strong Republican ties to Philip Morris/Altria will influence the ratification process. The good news is that with or without US participation, the global playing field is changing dramatically for Big Tobacco. The countries of Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, the Pacific, and Caribbean Islands are leading the way.

Homeland Insecurity

The Council on Foreign Relations estimates the cost of occupying Iraq with 75,000 troops at $20 billion a year. But the real cost is likely to be higher since we have 125,000 troops in Iraq now. How long they will be there is any body's guess. If the Iraq war adds to the growing deficit, so does the fact that under Rumsfeld's command the Pentagon has somehow lost track of $1 trillion worth of materiel. According to a study from the GAO, conducted late last year, those losses include 56 planes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin cruise missile command launch units. Then there are the little things, like the cost of blowing up Saddam's bunker. Bush said he had to start the war early on March 20 so as to kill Saddam, his sons, and other top officials at a secret meeting in a bunker. According to reports last week, that bunker did not exist. But consider what it cost, according to estimates by an analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non- Proliferation:

• Two stealth fighters, at $1,500 an hour each for three hours: $9,000

• Two Navy Prowlers as escort, at $4,000 an hour. Total for three hours: $24,000

• Two bunker-buster bombs, at $60,000 a pop. Total: $120,000

• Two Tomahawk missiles, at $750,000 to $1 million each. Total: $2 million

The grand total? Somewhere between $1.6 million and $2.2 million to take out a nonexistent bunker. That might not seem like much, the way the Pentagon throws around money, but it would pay for at least 1 million school lunches (at $2.14 each) for kids from poor families.

--James Ridgeway, The Village Voice (NY), June 4-10, 2003, http://www.villagevoice.com/print/issues/0323/mondo1.php

Previous Article