---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 17:27:43 -0700
From: radtimes <resist@best.com>
Subject: Antiwar News...(# 10)
[multiple items]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Anti-war links/resources are now at the end of this page.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York City protest opposes war in Afghanistan
<http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/nyc-o12.shtml>
12 October 2001
Over 10,000 people turned out in New York City on Sunday, October 7 to
oppose the Bush administration's
so-called war on terrorism. The demonstration, which had been planned for
several weeks by a coalition of pacifist and activist groups, was expected
to draw only a few hundred but grew in size as word spread that the US had
begun bombing Afghanistan.
Marchers assembled at Union Square, which has been the site of an impromptu
outdoor memorial to the victims of the World Trade Center attack. Speakers
there included Ruben Schaffer, whose grandson Gregory Rodriguez was killed
in the WTC collapse, reading a letter from Mr. Rodriguez's parents to
President Bush: "Your response to this attack does not make us feel better
about our son's death. It makes us feel worse. It makes us feel that our
government is using our son's memory as a justification to cause suffering
for other sons and parents in other lands." Rita Lasar, whose brother died
at the World Trade Center when he stayed behind to help a wheelchair-bound
friend, also spoke.
Heeding the call of the organizing coalition, a number of marchers wore
white and carried white dove-shaped placards, as a symbol of mourning and
of peace. However, the majority of people showed up in regular
street-clothes, indicating a broad participation by layers not close to the
usual radical activists.
Marchers wound their way up Broadway, at one point stretching out for 15
blocks, stopping just south of Times Square. The march included contingents
of students from New York University and Hunter College, among others.
Signs read: "New York, Not in Our Name," "Islam, Arabs and Immigrants Are
Not the Enemy" and "Our Grief Is Not a Cry for War." Speakers at the rally
on Broadway included two Nobel Peace Prize winners, Adolfo Perez Esquivel
from Argentina and Mairead Maguire from Ireland. Passersby flashed peace
signs in support of the marchers, while one small group of
counter-demonstrators heckled.
The perspective of the march organizers was limited to appeals to the Bush
administration and the Democrats to abandon military action, calling
instead for bringing terrorists before a "new, specialized international
tribunal with jurisdiction over terrorist crimes."
The significance of the demonstration, however, lay in the active
opposition of thousands of people to US military aggression in the city
most affected by the terrorist attack, even in the face of a patriotic
media frenzy. The October 7 march was only the latest in a string of
anti-war protests in major US cities and on college campuses, including
some 20,000 people rallying in Washington DC on September 29.
Demonstrations also took place in other countries in recent days, including
in Paris where 5,000 marched from the Place de la Republique to the Place
de Nation to protest military action by the US.
Mainstream media coverage of the protests has been minimal to nonexistent,
compared to endless reports on every aspect of the war drive, including one
retired general after another appearing as commentators. Despite repeated
claims that there is widespread support for war, even the New York Times
was forced, in its front-page news analysis October 8, to acknowledge the
shakiness of popular support for the bombing with the headline "Home Front:
Edgy Sunday, Nagging Uncertainty About Consequences." Indeed, as the
consequences of US military adventurism become apparent, so will the split
between millions of working and middle class Americans, on the one hand,
and the ruling elite and their media mouthpieces on the other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace Activists Protest U.S. Attacks
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Attacks-Peace-Movement.html
October 11, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
BOSTON (AP) -- His gray hair pulled back in a ponytail, a
52-year-old pacifist clutched an anti-war sign in a city
square this week, again mobilized to decry an American war.
But this time, it was different: Americans are scared as
never before.
``As for convincing people, you may have to go a little bit
further, because there has been an attack on this
country,'' said the protester, Bill Leary, a Vietnam
veteran converted to the peace movement 30 years ago.
Around the country, peace activists are again scrawling
slogans and taking to the streets, this time to protest the
U.S. attacks in Afghanistan. But they are striking a
gentler, less confrontational tone than in the past,
searching for tactics better adapted to the political
terrain transformed by the Sept. 11 attacks on the American
homeland. They have been avoiding civil disobedience and
other confrontation.
``It's a different situation, and it creates a special
challenge for the peace movement,'' said Howard Zinn, the
American historian and anti-war activist. ``The peace
movement finds itself with a message of peace in a
situation where people's emotions have been aroused ... in
a way they have never been aroused before.''
Shaped by Vietnam and last mobilized en masse in 1991
during the Persian Gulf War, the modern peace movement has
never confronted such an atmosphere of intense patriotism
steeped in fears for safety at home. Even at the height of
the nuclear arms race with the Soviets, the domestic threat
-- however frightening -- was still only potential.
``We have a tough sell this time,'' said Ofer Levy, a
35-year-old doctor wearing a peace symbol on his jacket
during the Boston demonstration. ``People who disagree with
us say, `We just had 6,000 casualties on our own soil. What
do you mean, peace?'''
Anti-war protesters, who have been gearing up since the
first U.S. threats of retaliation, have mounted
demonstrations in Boston, Washington, Chicago, San
Francisco and elsewhere this week. Within hours of the
first attacks in Afghanistan, more than 1,000 protesters
converged on a New York City park less than two miles from
the World Trade Center.
On Tuesday, at the Boston protest, organizers had hoped for
up to 1,000. Instead, barely 100 came. They somberly lit
candles, hoisted anti-war signs, listened to an Arabic
prayer chant and some words of inspiration, and left.
Most rush-hour pedestrians breezed by, declining protest
leaflets. But a jogger, clearly upset by talk of peace,
waved his arm, uttered an obscenity, shouted ``Death to
them all!'' and sprinted away.
Nearby, Patrick Faherty, a 15-year-old Boston student,
watched with two friends at a distance. ``They want peace?
They don't want to go to war? I hate that. Thousands of
people are killed. I would actually want to go to war,'' he
said. ``I get too mad to talk about it,'' he said. He too
stomped away.
Kevin Martin, director of Washington-based Peace Action,
said some activists have been subjected to hate mail and
even death threats.
``It's understandable that out of people's fear and anger
of the Sept. 11 attacks that they would support a war,'' he
said. ``I do think we need to be sensitive to people's ...
questions about personal security, which they really
haven't had since World War II.''
Even some lifelong protest veterans feel torn. Charles
Deemer, a writer who teaches at Portland State University,
in Oregon, quit the movement.
``When a nation is under attack, the first decision must be
whether to surrender or to fight,'' he wrote in an open
letter to a local newspaper. ``I believe there is no middle
ground here: you either fight or you don't fight, and doing
nothing amounts to surrender.''
Wishing his old comrades well, he advised them to work out
new strategies. For starters, he suggested marchers carry
American flags to make their cultural allegiance clear.
Many activists are putting aside old anti-war mantras like
``give peace a chance,'' which risks sounding naive or
irrelevant in a country that feels itself under attack.
Their new rallying cry is ``No More Victims!'' In the
post-Sept. 11 world, they hope to find heightened
compassion for civilian bystanders anywhere.
``If the killing of the people in the World Trade Center
was wrong, then why kill more people?'' asked Michael
Borkson, a Boston protester with a guitar slung over his
shoulder.
Activists are for the first time coordinating a mass
mobilization on the Internet. A unified message is
emerging: The attacks of Sept. 11 were criminal acts of
mass murder, and the attackers should be pursued by
diplomatic and legal means. War will make domestic
terrorism more likely, destabilize countries like Pakistan,
and make the world more dangerous in the end.
The peace movement is also declaring a common cause with
Islamic and Arab rights advocates. Peace activists are
demanding stronger protection for civil liberties,
defending the rights of Arab-Americans, and even teaching
followers the rudiments of Islam.
They hope to turn up anti-war pressure in coming days,
especially if the fighting drags on or turns bloodier. But
Joseph Gerson, an activist at the American Friends Service
Committee, said, ``If we suffer another serious attack
right here in the United States, that's going to come as a
blow'' to the anti-war movement, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Message to Troops, Would-be Troops and Other Youth
By Jeff Paterson
Note: On August 30, 1990, 22-year-old Marine Corporal Jeff
Paterson refused to board a military plane in Hawaii heading to
Saudi Arabia. He was the first active-duty military resister in the
U.S.-led attack on Iraq. The photo of Jeff sitting on the airstrip,
defying orders to go fight in the Gulf War, appeared on TV and in
newspapers around the world. Later Jeff edited the Anti-WARrior
newsletter of military resistance to the Gulf War. Jeff currently
resides in the San Francisco Bay Area and is a member of Vietnam
Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist (http://www.oz.net/~vvawai).
He can be reached through VVAW-AI, or directly at emailjp@post.com.
------
In August 1990 I was an active duty U.S. Marine Corps Corporal. I
was ordered to the Middle East -- the Gulf War was about to come.
Four years prior -- thinking I had nothing better to do with my life -- I
had walked into the Salinas, California recruiting station and told
them to "put me where I was most needed."
"What am I going to do with my life?" has always been a huge
question for youth, and today, in the wake of the horror and tragedy
of September 11th, this question has increased importance for
millions of young people.
No one who has seen the images will ever forget. In a scene as
unreal as a Hollywood picture, a conflict reached into American
reality in an unthinkable way. Copy clerks to admin assistants,
restaurant workers to firefighters -- thousands of lives ripped away
from friends and family. Now the television shouts, "revenge,"
"infinite justice," and "something must be done!" Wave a red, white
and blue flag to ease the sorrow, to declare, "We're not going to take
it."
And, I might be like the youth who are going down to the recruiters
now, if I hadn't spent those four years in the Marine Corps. Most of
the time my unit trained to fight a war against peasants who dared to
struggle against "American interests" in their homelands --
specifically Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala. I saw dire
poverty in the Philippines; U.S. government-sanctioned prostitution
rings to service the U.S. armed forces in South Korea; and unbridled
racism towards the peoples of Okinawa and Japan -- where the
standard response to a child waving a "peace sign" at us with his
fingers was "yeaa, ha ha, two bombs little gook."
I began to understand why billions of people around the world really
do hate the United States -- specifically its war machine, covert
"contra" wars, and the whole system of economic globalization that
replaces hope with 12-hour days locked in sweatshops producing
"Designed in the USA" exports.
Faced with this reality, I began the process of becoming un-
American -- meaning that the interests of the people of the world
began to weigh heavier than my self-interest.
When the U.S. launched the Gulf War, I realized that the world did
not need or want another U.S. troop. Although they did not look
much like me, I found I had more in common with the common
peoples of the Middle East than I did with those who were ordering
me to kill them. My Battalion Commander's reassurance that "if
anything goes wrong we'll nuke the rag heads until they all glow" was
not reassuring.
Up against that, I publicly stated I would not be a pawn in America's
power plays for profits, oil, and domination of the Middle East. I
pledged to resist, and I pledged that if I were dragged out into the
Saudi desert, I would refuse to fight. A few weeks later, I sat down
on the airstrip as hundreds of Marines -- many of whom I had lived
with for years -- filed past me and boarded the plane. I fought the
Gulf War from a military brig, and after worldwide anti-war protesters
helped spring me, we fought the war in the streets.
But back then we failed to stop the war. Since 1990 over 1.5 million
Iraqi people have died -- not mainly from the massive U.S. bombing
which continues from the sky, but from a decade of economic
sanctions. All the while the U.S. government has coldly declared that
these Iraqi deaths are "worth it" in order to achieve strategic regional
objectives. So today, as the U.S. government demands the world
mourn with us for our loss, we in turn are expected to ignore the
suffering that this nation produces.
Every time the U.S. war machine is kicked into high gear,
acknowledgements are made about past "mistakes": Gulf War
sickness, Agent Orange and napalm in Viet Nam, massacres of
refugees in Korea, U.S. troops used as nuclear exposure guinea
pigs after World War II, concentration camps for Japanese-
Americans during World War II. And always: "Trust us, this time it
will be different." But it never is.
One need not be a pacifist, a communist, a Quaker, or a humanist to
oppose this war. However, it certainly helps to be an internationalist
-- realizing that our collective future is bound up with the majority of
humanity, and not with those who are taking this horrific opportunity
to threaten war. For those woman and men now in uniform, you
have a choice to make. Silence is what your "superiors" expect of
you, but the interests of humanity require more. Think. Speak out.
And if you make the choice to resist, there are hundreds of
thousands who will support you -- many of whom have already taken
to the streets to oppose this war.
Like his father before him, Bush Jr. has drawn a line in the sand:
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Simply put,
the rulers of the U.S. see much unfinished business for their "New
World Order." While we grieve, they announce that "the normal
rules no longer apply" (translation: now is the time to settle our
scores), and we have "a blank check to act, the nation is united"
(translation: dissent will be ignored, or suppressed as required). Now
more than ever, the people of the world are not safe from the U.S.,
and the people in the U.S. are not safe from the U.S.
I will not wave the red, white and blue flag -- instead I'll wear a green
ribbon in solidarity with immigrants and Arab Americans facing
increasing racist attacks. Stop the War. Support the troops who
refuse to fight.
Let's dedicate our lives to changing this situation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building A Peace Movement In Wartime
http://www.antiwar.com/bock/b101001.html
October 10, 2001
by Alan Bock
With the launching of cruise missiles and bombs the war is truly on. It
would be prudent to take American leaders at their word that this is likely
to be a protracted conflict think Cold War rather than Gulf War if only
because war is the health of the state and a protracted war can serve as
justification for accretions of state power.
There may be episodes of relative calm and respite from direct military
conflict times when, as President Bush would have it, the forces of
freedom are enjoying invisible victories over the invisible enemy. But it
is probably wise to expect something resembling a wartime footing for at
least several years and possibly more.
THE ONGOING WAR
One could argue that this is only a more active phase of a continuing
conflict. Back in the 1980s sociologist Robert Nesbitt gave the Jefferson
address for the Smithsonian Institution and noted that in his view what
would surprise the founders the most about the United States was that it had
been in a constant state of war for 70 years and counting. Most Americans
thought active war would end or at least ratchet downward a bit with the
demise of the Soviet Union and the end of communism as a worldwide threat.
Quibbles from neocons aside, however, the defense budget was not really
reduced all that much and U.S. commitments were certainly not scaled back.
The propensity to meddle in the troubled affairs of other countries never
abated. The Clintonistas might have preferred symbolic skirmishes and
bombing from 15,000 feet to the kind of hand-to-hand combat that some
traditionalists believe is the defining characteristic of true manhood for
other mothers' sons. But they continued to intervene, and the regnant
ideology that bombs and military action are the most effective if not the
only way to deal with nasty folk out there in the rest of the world was
reinforced rather than seriously challenged.
Nonetheless, the missiles and bombs of the last few days represent a serious
ratcheting up of military hostilities. With military hostilities will come
changes in domestic policies and repression, from the relatively gentle
repression of self-censorship in the face of war enthusiasm to much less
gentle forms.
So what are those who believe in peaceful policies and restraint in the rest
of the world to do during these relatively active phases of hostility?
PATRIOTISM V. NATIONALISM
There's an old saw to the effect that patriotism is the love of one's own
country, while nationalism is hostility toward some other country or
countries. It's a simplistic distinction that might not be entirely valid
in every case. But it's a useful distinction with a certain amount of
analytical power.
If that is the distinction, I'm a patriot but not a nationalist. I would
urge other antiwar activists and writers to think about adopting a similar
stance if they can do so conscientiously.
LIBERATION AND MARKETS
There are people who genuinely believe America is a pox on the earth and the
source of most of the globalist capitalist evil that threatens everything
good, true and beautiful in the world. If that's really their sincere
belief, bless 'em. But I don't think that viewpoint will sell very well in
the American body politic.
I'm an enthusiastic capitalist unfortunately a theorist rather than a
practitioner, so I have trouble meeting my mortgage payment every month. I
think that what mainly afflicts the troubled spots of the earth is a lack of
capitalism or of free markets, to refine the terms a little bit. What
irks me most about US foreign policy is not that it spreads anything
resembling capitalism though it often enough does serve the interests of
certain US mega-corporations but that it subverts genuine free trade and
free markets.
All that said, as the war on terrorism drags on and I think our would-be
masters intend to drag it on for as long as they can, using it to enhance
state power at home and abroad I'm more than happy to join hands and form
coalitions with people who believe that the IMF is an instrument of global
capitalism instead of global socialism, so long as they're sincerely
interested in slowing down the spread of global militarism.
MORE BLUNDERING THAN EVIL
But I, for one, will express myself in terms of American patriotism, of this
country being true to its origins, ideals and better angels (and the real
wishes of the majority of American citizens), rather than characterizing the
United States as a demonic force in the world. I yield to few in my
criticism of US foreign policy as fashioned by arrogant ignoramuses with
educations so incomplete that they are barely aware of the vast stretches of
their ignorance. But I think of America more as a blundering, essentially
good-natured giant rather than a malignant force though the results are
often the same.
Insofar as people can do so and still be true to themselves, I would urge
others to avoid characterizing America as evil.
One of the reasons the United States is ill-suited to the role of world
policeman is that for various reasons of history, geography and culture, few
Americans know very much or care to know very much about the rest of the
world. (Unfortunately, too many of those with an interest are more
interested in trying to run the world than in trying to understand it.) As a
consequence, most Americans are baffled and then indignant when confronted
with a litany of the sins of the CIA and American hegemonists and the
implication that this country is a malignant sore on the world.
Most Americans know that they aren't personally malignant, and in fact are
generous and openhearted. They find it difficult to take in the idea that
their country is malignant, and are more likely to reject the idea than
think about it when confronted with a hostile presentation.
On the other hand, most Americans don't have much confidence in politicians
or the government, and might be open to the idea that they are making
horrendous mistakes, either because they fail to understand the full
implications of their actions or because institutional imperatives push them
in the direction of unwise actions. So I advocate a patriotic tone even a
reminder that it is not only our birthright but to some extent our American
duty to be willing to criticize the government and hold it in check rather
than a blame-America-first attitude.
KEEPING THE CRITICISM GOING
Speaking of America First, I do think it is imperative not to follow in the
footsteps of those early critics of American interventionism and war fever
in at least one respect. Once Pearl Harbor was attacked and the United
States declared war in 1941, almost all the members of the America First
Committee were essentially silent in public for the duration of the war.
Some became supporters of the war effort and others kept their criticism or
misgivings to themselves, whether because of fear of offending the majority
or essential patriotism.
One can make a case either way as to whether that was the wise course. In
today's circumstances, however, I believe it is essential that critics of
the War Party maintain a steady drumbeat of criticism and sometimes
opposition. For starters, Congress hasn't declared war, despite all the
metaphors and military action, so there's no justification for wartime
repression of speech and criticism. If we're smart, it should be
responsible criticism, delivered in measured tones and backed by solid
research and a reasonable appreciation of the facts as we are able to
determine them.
There may be circumstances in which it is more effective to criticize
particular tactics or actions rather than getting to the root of what's
wrong with American foreign policy in every presentation. We should be
prepared for the likelihood that we will sometimes get little attention and
will sometimes be dismissed as cranks. But we should determine that we will
not relent in our determination to change American foreign policy over
time which means we have to be willing to criticize it at almost every
step.
I have no idea how dangerous this course might be for some. It is certainly
likely that patriotism will morph into jingoism from time to time and
critics will be threatened. It is possible that we will face official
sanction, especially if Attorney General John Ashcroft gets the kind of
repressive "anti-terrorist" legislation he craves. But I think the best
defense is to establish a record at the outset of calm, reasoned,
thoughtful, patriotically grounded criticism.
WARTIME DANGERS
As the United States embarks on a campaign our leaders assure us is narrowly
targeted on known terrorists and their supporters, a campaign to protect
freedom and democracy, there are subtle dangers of which we should be aware.
It is typical during time of war or military action for tolerance of
differing opinions, of different cultures, even of innocent eccentricity to
decline. This is likely to be especially true of a war initiated by an act
of terrorism on American soil, when most authorities expect terrorists of
some sort (perhaps not directly connected to those who carried out the first
atrocities) to seek to retaliate with another act of dramatic destruction.
Already we have heard retired military people on television urging Americans
to be ready to report suspicious activities to the FBI.
Heightened vigilance is to be expected and is important, given the
circumstances. But we must be vigilant and persistent ourselves, reminding
our fellow citizens that among the values assaulted by the terrorists are
freedom of speech and the right to be odd, different or unusual and be left
alone.
This freedom doesn't, or shouldn't, end during wartime; indeed, it is
desirable in many ways that it be encouraged. Promoting unity and
discouraging troubling questions are not only subversive of enduring
American values, suppressing honest criticism can often lead to bad
decisions.
In the weeks and months to come we and other Americans will question
everything from the timing of certain attacks to the weapons used to ways to
minimize casualties all the way to the broader question of whether we
should be in a war at all. This is healthy in a free country. A strong
America can not only tolerate impertinent questions, it will become stronger
as a result.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Africans march against war
BBC
Thursday, 11 October, 2001
South Africans are divided on what the US is doing
Thousands of South Africans have taken part in a march in Cape Town to
protest at the US-led retaliatory strikes against Afghanistan.
The march around the American Consulate of several thousands people was
called by the Christian and Muslim councils as well as trade unions.
Some angry protesters broke through security Condon and charged towards the
building but were stopped by three layers of security wires
The South African Government had earlier in the week given its support to
the air strikes undertaken according to the US and Britain because of
Afghanistan's failure to hand over Osama Bin Laden.
He is the chief suspect of the 11 September terror attacks on the US which
killed more than 6,000 people.
The BBC's Mohammed Allie in Cape Town says Thursday's march passed off
peacefully as riot police, soldiers and security marshals were out to
ensure order.
But at one stage the Associated Press news agency reported some angry
protesters broke through the security cordon and charged towards the
consulate building but were stopped by three layers of security wires
protecting it.
Cape Town is home to South Africa's Muslim population and they formed the
bulk of those who took part in Thursday's action.
Our correspondent says a delegation of four people were allowed in to hand
over a statement to the Consulate in which they called for an end to the
bombing raids which began on Sunday.
He says some of the demonstrators, wore Bin Laden T-shirts or carried
posters saying "Long live Bin Laden".
Others read:: "America is a Terrorist State" and "Stop War Against Hungry
Children".
But according to our correspondent many also denounced the carnage at the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon a month ago.
They urged Britain and America to pinpoint the culprits and bring them to
justice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report from Bay Area Emergency Response to US Bombing Afghanistan
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001
From: LIST@ACTIONSF.ORG
On just a few hours notice up to 5,000 people crowded into the
trolley turnaround at Powell and Market in San Francisco Sunday night
to say no to the US bombing of the Afghani people. Since the Gulf War
in 1991, Powell and Market has been the site where emergency response
protests take place at 5pm the day US bombing begins. The
demonstration was organized by the International ANSWER Coalition. It
included a huge banner that read "Stop Bombing Afghanistan" that
volunteers made in the office and took to the protest with the ink
still wet. A long spirited march followed the gathering rally and
went into the Mission District, gaining people as it went. It ended
on the steps of Mission High School where a short rally was held.
The following day as planned another 1,500 protesters met at the
Berkeley BART Station and then marched to a freeway entrance where
they were met by a row of police in riot gear. After a short
standoff, the demonstration moved back up University Ave., displaying
the anti-war message to hundreds of cars waiting to get on the
freeway. The action was organized by Middle East Children's Alliance
and the International ANSWER Coalition.
VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED in the office to help with follow-up to these
activities and in preparation for upcoming rallies and teach-ins. A
message with details on the upcoming Oct. 20 rally and Oct. 27 teach-
in in SF will be sent out soon. You can also get updates by calling
the IAC office or checking the www.InternationalANSWER.org website.
Please call (415) 821-6545 or email ANSWER@actionsf.org to plug into
the work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Anti-War Actions Oct. 27
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Oct. 18, 2001
issue of Workers World newspaper
AS BOMBS START TO FALL: NATIONWIDE ANTI-WAR ACTIONS SET FOR OCT. 27
By Sarah Sloan
Washington, D.C.
As word spread around the country on Oct. 7 that the U.S.
had begun to bomb Afghanistan, anti-war and anti-racist
activists immediately went into action. Many of them had
just one week before rallied in Washington, D.C., San
Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities in the first
national anti-war actions sponsored by the new International
ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) coalition.
The D.C. protests drew more than 20,000 people from as far
away as California, Minnesota and Florida.
To continue the momentum from the Sept. 29 actions and the
emergency response protests that have since taken place
around the country, the International ANSWER has designated
Saturday, Oct. 27, as an internationally coordinated day of
action against racism and war. Rallies, marches, teach-ins
and other actions will take place in cities around the U.S.
and the world.
Nancy Mitchell, an ANSWER youth organizer who traveled from
San Francisco to D.C. to help out in the last two weeks of
the mobilization, told WW: "In the days before the September
29 demonstrations, we met with activists who had driven as
long as 24 hours from Nebraska and Minnesota, who had flown
in from the West Coast, and who had organized large
contingents from the East Coast. They described the
tremendous response they had found to organizing in the last
weeks. In some cities, the recent organizing against racism
and war had produced the largest protests and meetings to
take place for literally decades."
Mitchell continued, "Activists traveled from around the
country to D.C. for September 29 because standing among so
many others gave them inspiration to continue to organize in
their cities around the country. This internationally
coordinated day of action on October 27 offers that same
opportunity. For every city where hundreds or thousands
march against the war, they can feel the strength of the
anti-war movement around the country and know that they
represent tens of thousands of people who are in motion
against this war."
In New York City, organizers are planning a march beginning
at the New York Times building. The march will be followed
by a teach-in. In Washington, D.C., a rally is planned at
the White House. In San Francisco there will be a major
teach-in. Organizers expect activities to take place in 50
to 100 cities around the country.
For more information, see InternationalANSWER.org, email
iacenter@iacenter.org or call 202-543-2777, 202-544-9355 or 212-633-6646.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outcry Against War Grows Louder
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Oct. 18, 2001
issue of Workers World newspaper
A YOUTHFUL MOVEMENT: OUTCRY AGAINST WAR GROWS LOUDER
By Gery Armsby
As the news came that U.S. bombs were falling on
Afghanistan, people all over the world who oppose a new war
made their way to the streets and main squares of countless
cities, towns and school campuses.
In the United States, a tidal wave of pro-war and national-
chauvinistic propaganda from the corporate media failed to
stop many thousands, who came out in emergency protests
against the bombing of Afghan cities and the massive police
repression at home that has led to the detention of over 600
Arab people.
Marches, vigils, rallies, walk-outs, sit-ins and student
strikes across the country urged an end to bombings,
condemned the racist attacks and incidences of profiling,
and expressed solidarity with the millions of besieged
Afghan people.
In New York, just three miles from the "ground zero" of the
Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center, thousands
gathered in Union Square on Oct. 7 within hours of the
announcement of strikes against Afghanistan. A local
coalition, "New York Not in Our Name," had already been
planning a Sunday afternoon memorial prayer service and
peace march.
This became a gathering point for New Yorkers who wanted to
show opposition to U.S. retaliation. Speakers addressed the
crowd demanding that no more innocent people be killed in
the name of New Yorkers who suffered the brunt of the
terrorist attack.
After a rally, the crowd of thousands poured into the
streets and marched up Sixth Avenue to Times Square.
Manhattan traffic was snarled for hours as anti-war, pro-
peace messages echoed through the air in chants ranging from
"Salaam, shalom, peace" to "U.S. hands off Afghanistan!"
On Monday, Oct. 8, about 700 people assembled in Times
Square and marched to NBC's Rockefeller Plaza headquarters.
Signs and banners proclaimed, "Stop bombing Afghanistan" and
"No more war--no more racist attacks." The demonstration was
organized on one day's notice by the International ANSWER
(Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) coalition, which had
issued a call for emergency protests on the day after the
first U.S.-led strike.
In Washington, D.C., protesters met in front of the White
House on Oct. 7 and again on Oct. 8, growing to about 100.
They were mostly high school and university students from
School Without Walls, George Washington University, American
University and other D.C. area schools.
The very multinational crowd of youths formed a picket line,
waved signs and chanted, "George Bush, we want peace; U.S.
out of the Middle East," "We remember Vietnam, U.S. hands
off Afghanistan," and "No more tanks, no more bombs, no more
unjust Vietnams."Ten were arrested Monday by D.C. cops for
standing while they sang anti-war songs in front of the
White House. Their crime? Police claim they violated a
federal regulation that requires protesters to remain in
motion on the sidewalk.
Two days of protests in Boston brought hundreds into
Government Center plaza against war on Oct. 7 and 8. Fifty
people assembled on Sunday, including students from
Massachusetts College of Art, Lesbian Avengers, MIT, Emerson
College, and Harvard University. Several hundred made it out
on Monday. Protesters and rally speakers included Amer
Jubran of the Al-Awda Palestine Right of Return Coalition,
Harvard's Living Wage Campaign, the Boston Campus Anti-war
Coalition and the Student Labor Action Project (SLAP). Mass
Art students made banners and protest props.
ACROSS U.S.: DOZENS OF PROTESTS
Chanting "One world, no war," some 75 Princeton University
students, staff members and Princeton, N.J., town residents
marched together. "We're asking for the bombing to stop,"
said Zia Mian, a representative of the Princeton Peace
Network that organized the protest.
One hundred or more protesters loosely organized by a pro-
peace working group of the Vassar College Student Activist
Union assembled at the college chapel in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.,
and marched two-by-two through surrounding neighborhoods
voicing opposition to U.S. military attacks on Afghanistan.
They encouraged community members to join them along the
way.
In Buffalo, N.Y., 50 people came out in Bidwell Park in the
middle of driving wind and freezing sleet. A large banner
stood out in street lights: "War is not the answer."
Protesters from the Northeast Ohio Radical Action Network at
Public Square rallied in downtown Cleveland on Oct. 8
against the bombing. "One, two, three, four, our grief is
not a cry for war," they shouted while carrying signs
indicating that U.S. military action is not the answer. The
group plans to continue speaking out against war until the
military action stops.
Fifty protesters gathered in front of the University of
Michigan library in Ann Arbor, Mich., on Oct. 8 armed with
leaflets, petitions and information to share with each other
about what the big media is leaving out. The protest and
information session was organized by Students for a Peaceful
Alternative.
On Oct. 7, 80-100 protesters in Atlanta held an emergency
rally and vigil in Woodruff Park as bombs began to drop in
Afghanistan. The event was coordinated by Georgians For
Peace.
The Houston chapter of the International ANSWER coalition
rallied against the U.S. attack on Central Asia. The group
picketed in front of the Mickey Leland Federal Building on
Monday afternoon.
Wesleyan University students in Middleton, Conn., walked out
of their morning classes Monday, Oct. 8. Protesters showed
solidarity with the people of Afghanistan and opposition to
U.S. military retaliation.
Over 150 people marched against war in Denver Oct. 7, after
President Bush announced "Operation Enduring Freedom." A
vigil of almost as many people was held in nearby Boulder,
Colo.
WEST COAST ACTIONS VS. U.S. WAR
Some 5,000 people assembled at Powell and Market streets in
San Francisco Oct. 7 to denounce the U.S. bombs that began
raining on Afghanistan that day. The gathering spot has
become known as a site where demonstrations take place in
response to U.S. aggression, going back to the U.S. bombing
of Iraq in 1991.
The demonstration was organized by International ANSWER. The
crowd marched behind a huge banner that read, "Stop bombing
Afghanistan," and was carried by Afghan women and African
American youths. Many students and youths attended from UC
Berkeley, San Francisco State and San Jose State, including
members of Berkeley's Students for Justice in Palestine and
San Jose's Students for Justice, and the American Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee.
A diverse collection of photos posted to San Francisco's
independent media center Web site show people reacting to
the protesters as they marched by stores and residential
areas. People came to their doors and windows and cheered
for the anti-war message, most making the peace sign.
A final rally was held at the Mission High School, where an
anti-war teach-in was being held.
The demonstration filled the surrounding streets and spilled
into nearby Dolores Park, where it concluded with messages
of determination to continue building an anti-war struggle
and solidarity for the people of Afghanistan.
Significant demonstrations of several hundred to over a
thousand were also held in Berkeley, Oakland and in Palo
Alto. In the Westwood area of Los Angeles, 200-300
protesters picketed at the Federal Building during an
emergency demonstration called jointly by CISPES, the Office
of the Americas and the International Action Center.
Protests were held in other California cities and towns such
as Fairfax, Huntington Beach, Irvine, San Diego, Sebastopol,
Ukiah and Willits.
More small and large actions, protests, vigils, walk-outs,
strikes and rallies were held in: Chicago; Detroit;
Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; Seattle; Albuquerque, N.M.;
Amherst, Andover and Northampton, Mass.; Dearborn and
Marquette, Mich.; Roch ester, N.Y.; Charlotte, N.C.;
Colorado Springs, Colo.; Concord, Dover, Plymouth and Salem,
N.H.; Des Moines, Iowa; Duluth, Minneapolis and St. Paul,
Minn.; Gainesville, Pensacola and Tampa, Fla.; Greensboro,
N.C.; Hartford, Conn.; Jersey City, N.J.; Lewisburg and
Wilkes-Barre, Pa.; Milwaukee, Wi.; Norfolk and Richmond,
Va.; Oak Ridge, Tenn.; Portland, Ore.; St. Louis, Mo.;
Tucson, Ariz.; and Yellow Springs, Ohio.
A listing of recent and upcoming anti-war protests is updated daily at:
www.internationalanswer.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
War protests: Your tax dollars at work?
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/whispwebarch.htm
Labor unions and independent groups aligned with the antiwar effort sparked
by President Bush's retaliation campaign against Osama bin Laden will come
under attack this week in the House as lawmakers seek to cut off their
federal grants. GOP sources tell Whispers that an amendment to block grants
to the groups will be offered to the appropriation bill for the Labor and
Health and Human Services departments up for consideration as early as
Thursday. A new analysis of federal grants to groups involved in the antiwar
effort identifies unions including the United Auto Workers, the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the Service
Employees International Union. The Heritage Foundation analysis from census
documents [see here] also found grants to independent groups that have
blasted Bush's war. "Should tax dollars be going to groups that protest the
war? I don't think so," says an architect of the plan to end the grants.
A list of the war protest groups: http://www.s29.org/endorsers.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE TOP FIVE LIES ABOUT THIS WAR
How many people do you know who claim to be skeptical,
who pride themselves on their distrust for authority, who
like to pretend that they're wise to the ways of the
world -- and then, every time there's a war, they swallow
the lies of the government with all the gullibility of a
three-year-old child in the lap of a department store
Santa Claus? Don't fall into that trap yourself! Learn to
identify and refute official misinformation when you see
it. Let's count down some of the common misconceptions
about this war:
Lie #5: "We're not at war with the Afghan people -- look,
we're bringing them food!"
Reality: Afghanistan is in the midst of a severe drought
which threatens literally millions of people with
starvation. Even before the threat of US bombing, the
World Food Program (WFP) said that nearly 6 million
people were in need of immediate food assistance. When
the threat of war caused massive movements of refugees
and internally displaced people, the WFP raised that
number to 7.5 million. UN agencies were keeping huge
numbers of people alive, but the war danger -- as well as
the US demand that Pakistan seal its border with
Afghanistan -- caused the WFP to suspend deliveries of
wheat flour to the country. We have no idea how many
people have already died as a result. Meanwhile, the US
dropped 37,000 individually-wrapped packages of food from
the sky. You do the math. That's enough to feed about
37,000 people for one day, in a country where seven and a
half million are in danger of starvation. Additionally,
the spokesman for an international charity active in
Afghanistan told the London Independent that "Random food
drops are the worst possible way of delivering food aid.
They cause more problems than they solve." Not the least
of which is the fact that Afghanistan has the highest
number of unexploded land mines in the world. There are
already 10 or 15 mine incidents every day, and with
people scrambling into mine-ridden areas to pick up
random packages of food dropped from US planes, that
number is only going to go up.
Lie #4: "Oil? Who said anything about oil?"
Reality: The Caspian Sea region has potentially the
world's largest oil reserves, likely making Central Asia
the next Middle East. The problem is piping it out.
Afghanistan occupies a strategic position between the
Caspian and the markets of the Indian subcontinent and
east Asia. It's prime territory for building pipelines,
which is why the oil company Unocal -- as well as the US
government -- welcomed the Taliban's rise to power in
1996 as a promising source of "stability." That turned
out to be a pipe dream (so to speak), but people like our
Commander-in-Chief and the oil men around him have never
given up on the tremendous profit possibilities that
Central Asia offers. And if you don't think such
considerations are crossing their minds at this time of
crisis, may we suggest a refresher course in The Facts of
Life?
Lie #3: "The US is trying to liberate the people of
Afghanistan from Taliban tyranny."
Reality: The US, Russia, and Iran have been aiding a
rough coalition of armed groups called the Northern
Alliance. The Northern Alliance's fighters are drawn
mainly from ethnic minority groups in Afghanistan who
have been persecuted by the Taliban. But their record is
also a bloody one. Groups like the Revolutionary
Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), which
have been fighting against fundamentalism and for
democracy in Afghanistan for years, have publicly stated
that the fundamentalist gangsters of the Northern
Alliance are not an acceptable alternative to the
fundamentalist gangsters of the Taliban. No wonder: Human
Rights Watch implicates the Northern Alliance in
"indiscriminate aerial bombardment and shelling, direct
attacks on civilians, summary executions, rape,
persecution on the basis of religion or ethnicity, the
recruitment and use of children as soldiers, and the use
of antipersonnel landmines." By now everyone knows that
Osama bin Laden was among the mujihadin recruited by the
CIA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Meet the next
generation.
Lie #2: "America is coming together."
Reality: Tens of thousands of people have been laid off
in the airline industry alone. The government quickly
responded to the airline industry crisis with a multi-
billion-dollar bailout package for the companies in order
to keep afloat the profits of shareholders and the
salaries of CEOs, but when it came to aiding the
thousands of workers laid off, Congressman Dick Armey
said that that would be contrary to "the American
spirit." Maybe it is. Maybe it's the "American spirit" to
make common working people pay for a crisis and to bear
the burdens of an expensive war. But it certainly doesn't
have anything to do with "togetherness."
And the biggest lie of them all . . .
Lie #1: "It's possible to win a 'war against terrorism.'"
Reality: Terrorism is a tactic, not a political or social
force in and of itself. Anyone can use it, and the idea
that you can wage a "war" against it is as dishonest as
the idea behind the "War on Drugs." The use of food as a
political weapon, indiscriminate aerial bombardment, and
the arming of gangsterish groups of religious fanatics
all count as "terrorism" by any reasonable definition of
the word, and the United States has long employed all of
them -- and more. This war is really about sordid
material interests and power (see especially Lies numbers
2 and 4, above), and in defense of these interests the US
is prepared to shift the label "terrorist" as it sees
fit, to apply to all manner of dissident political
movements and not just marginal bands of fanatics like
bin Laden's al-Qa'ida. Conversely, it's willing to call
its own terrorists "freedom fighters" (see Lie number 3
above). Maybe some of them will get transformed into
"terrorists" again in a few years. It's a sick game and a
charade, and the government is manipulating the very real
grief and anger of the people of the United States after
the September 11 atrocities to get us all to fall for it
again. Don't believe them for a second.
---------
Produced by the Anti-War Committee of Students in
Solidarity at the University of Pittsburgh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Lost My Brother on 9-11; Does He Matter?
<http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11686>
by David Potorti, AlterNet
October 10, 2001
[Ed's note: On Tuesday, September 11, the writer lost his brother, James
Potorti, at the World Trade Center. James worked on the 96th Floor of the
first tower for a company called Marsh & McLennan.]
On October 8th, as most Americans rose concerned and curious about the
military action taking place on the other side of the globe, NPR's Morning
Edition host Bob Edwards asked Cokie Roberts to weigh in. "Leaders of
Congress were quick to issue a statement in support of the military action
in Afghanistan," he said. "Were there any dissenters?"
"None that matter," she replied.
It's a jaw-dropping statement when you think about it, one that says
nothing and yet says everything. There was opposition to the bombing. But
how much? From whom? But before you go demanding simple facts or objective
reportage, let's cut to the chase: it doesn't matter.
It's an opinion unlikely to be shared by California Representative Barbara
Lee, the only member of Congress brave enough to vote her conscience in
declining to authorize the use of military force. Or to other members of
Congress who expressed similar concerns. Do they matter? To countless
Americans who share their concerns, they do.
But in a larger sense, of course, Roberts is right. In a media universe
where you're likely to find right-wing conservatives on ABC, Fox, or NPR,
the facts don't matter; only the framing. And in the hands of biased
pundits posing as objective journalists, the framing is always going to be
the same: pro-military, pro-government, and pro-war.
Still, Roberts may have done us a favor with her comment. Those three
little words tell us worlds about the values informing the operation of
U.S. intelligence, the State Department, and the Pentagon. Understanding
those words may bring us some much-needed clarity on U.S. policies
seemingly at odds with U.S. values.
Have sanctions against Iraq have killed more than 500,000 innocent children?
None that matter. Did bombing Yugoslavia kill more civilians than
soldiers? None that matter. Did lobbing cruise missiles at a Sudanese
pharmaceutical factory result in the deaths of medicine-starved civilians?
None that matter.
The phrase is useful for understanding domestic policies as well. At the
Koyoto summit, did any significant criticisms of U.S. energy policies
emerge? None that matter. Has the U.S. stance on eliminating the ABM
treaty produced any significant concerns from the rest of the civilized
world? None that matter. Has U.S. reliance on the death penalty inflicted
any damages on our moral authority? None that matter.
It's equally handy at explaining our current crisis. Are the militaristic
responses to the terrorist attacks likely to endanger the lives of more
American civilians? None that matter. Will the war on terrorism endanger
the civil liberties of Americans at home? None that matter. Will bombing
Afghanistan cause any significant improvements in the lot of the innocent
Afghan people? None that matter.
And let's not forget: it's a handy phrase you can use at home as well. Will
network news divisions, owned by defense contractors, give us any useful
insights into the workings of the U.S. military? None that matter. Will you
hear any coherent news reports from outside of a narrow, statist
perspective? None that matter. And are there any mainstream media outlets
willing to criticize U.S. foreign policy? None that matter.
Thanks, Cokie. By telling us it doesn't matter, you've done more than
express your biased political opinion. You've explained the arrogant,
provincial, and value-free attitudes at work behind American foreign
policy. And you've also given us valuable insight into the mindset of the
terrorists behind the events of September 11.
Won't innocent American civilians die in the attacks? None that
matter. Won't Islam be defamed in the eyes of other nations? None that
matter. And, in the end, are the attacks likely to achieve much-needed
changes in U.S. foreign policy?
None that matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Successful peace demonstration in Leiden, The Netherlands
Tue, 09 Oct 2001
On Monday 8 October, the day after US and British military attacks against
Afghanistan began, there were a successful peace meeting and march in
Leiden, The Netherlands. The Leiden Anti War Committee [founded in 1999 to
protest the NATO Balkans war] had organized it.
In spite of the extremely short notice, between 80 and 100 people gathered
on the Stadhuisplein, the square next to the 16th century city hall. A big
sign said: No to war, no to terrorism. There were Arab Dutch families with
small children; pensioners; anarchists with a black flag; feminists; Driek
van Vugt, member of the First Chamber of Parliament (Senator) for the
Socialist Party; and many others. RTV West, regional radio, reported on the
event.
The introductory speech said that George W. Bush and the Dutch government
say people should believe in war. However, to believe in war as a solution
(to terrorism, or anything else) is similar to believing in quackery as a
solution to AIDS or cancer. In war, the results are still much more deathly
than with quackery. Just look at the results of the Gulf War and the
Yugoslavia war, at what these "solved". Gulf war: Saddam Hussein still
there in Iraq; over a million civilians dead; women in Kuwait cannot vote;
violence against Palestinians worse than ever. So far the New World Order
of Daddy Bush. Look at Kosovo now: still no human rights; war expanded to
Precevo and Macedonia. If we let Baby Bush have his way, the war in
Afghanistan will probably have a similar outcome. Either many dead
civilians, and the Taleban still in power. Or a pro-US American regime, as
cruel as the Taleban, but more servile to big oil companies. If they turn
out to be less servile, then, in a few years, the Afghan people may have to
suffer from US American bombs again. The lesson of history is: Give peace a
chance! Not war! We must do everything for a big grassroots peace movement,
everywhere in the world.
Who put the Taleban and Bin Laden into the saddle? The CIA of Daddy Bush.
So, if Baby Bush threatens violence against anyone with links to
terrorists, then he can begin with his father. Or with his brother. The
plane hijackers lived in Florida, where his brother is Governor.
Bush spoke of a crusade. Well, during the real medieval first crusade, the
crusaders slaughtered all citizens of Jerusalem: Muslim, Jewish, Christian.
The Australian government supports Bush. The same Australian government,
which uses armed forces against Afghan boat people, refugees from the
Taleban. Stop hatred against Muslims, against Sikhs, against everyone!
George W. Bush, it is better to build homes for poor people in the US, than
to destroy them in Afghanistan.
George W. Bush, instead of contemplating invading Yemen, free political
prisoners in the US! Like Mumia Abu Jamal! Free Imam Jamil (formerly Rap
Brown)! Free Leonard Peltier!
George W. Bush bombs electricity plants. These are civilian; it is illegal
to attack them, according to international law. George W. Bush, while you
are busy with electricity: do something better; abolish the electric chair
for death penalties! Not more pollution with depleted uranium; for a real
policy for the environment and climate!
In the long run, things should not depend on people like Bush. Things
should depend on us, the hundreds and hundreds of millions of peace loving
people all over the world. With active anti war committees
in every school, university, business, neighbourhood, the politics of war
will be unable to prevail.
After this, there was a short speech by Ms Margje Vlasveld, local
councillor for the Green Party. Also others used the open microphone,
including an anarchist peace activist. A Dutch Arab lady emphasized the
suffering of Palestinians by Israeli government sponsored violence. A reply
agreed with her, while we must distinguish between the Israeli government
and the common people of Israel, like we should not equate the inhabitants
of the United States with their militarist government. Ms Marrie Kardol
read a poem by a US American peace activist. Herman de Tollenaere read two
poems of his own: on Milica Rakic, three year old victim of the NATO bombs
on Belgrade in 1999; and Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi, neo-Crusader
and 'hero' of Genoa. Then, we were silent to commemorate all the innocent
dead, whether in the Twin Towers in New York, Kabul, or elsewhere.
Someone proposed to march. The proposal was carried. People gathered for a
spirited march to the monument for the World War Two resistance fighters.
They shouted: Stop the wear, peace now! Not one man, not one woman, not
one cent, for the army! War-no; terror-no; racism-no, no, no! Racists out,
foreigners stay! They decided to march again on Thursday 11 September,
again at 19 h. from the city hall.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'There isn't a target in Afghanistan worth a $1m missile'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,566516,00.html
Mohamed Heikal, the Arab world's foremost
political commentator, talks to Stephen Moss
Wednesday October 10, 2001
The Guardian
It feels surreal to be talking to Mohamed Heikal, the Arab world's most
respected political commentator and the former foreign minister of Egypt, in
the lounge of Claridge's, one of London's swishest hotels. As the missiles
rain down on Afghanistan, Heikal unveils his vision of the possible chaos
ahead to the accompaniment of a tinkling piano and a lilting clarinet.
Rarely has the gulf between west and east, first world and third, seemed so
great.
Heikal, an effortlessly urbane 78-year-old, spans those worlds and unpicks
the hypocrisies of each. He has been a journalist for almost 60 years, was
editor and chairman of the influential Egyptian daily Al-Ahram for almost
20, and has written a dozen highly regarded books on Egypt and Iran. From
the first days of the revolution, he was close to President Nasser, and was
briefly - and reluctantly - his minister of information and foreign affairs
in 1970. He enjoyed an equally close but rather more volatile relationship
with President Sadat, who imprisoned him in 1981 for opposing the Camp David
negotiations.
Heikal can see no logic in the attack on Afghanistan. For a start, he says,
there is nothing there worth attacking. "I have seen Afghanistan, and there
is not one target deserving the $1m that a cruise missile costs, not even
the royal palace. If I took it at face value, I would think this is madness,
so I assume they have a plan and this is only the first stage."
He also questions whether Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network were
solely responsible for the September 11 attacks, arguing that the limited
evidence so far presented is far from convincing. "Bin Laden does not have
the capabilities for an operation of this magnitude. When I hear Bush
talking about al-Qaida as if it was Nazi Germany or the communist party of
the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there. Bin Laden has been
under surveillance for years: every telephone call was monitored and
al-Qaida has been penetrated by American intelligence, Pakistani
intelligence, Saudi intelligence, Egyptian intelligence. They could not have
kept secret an operation that required such a degree of organisation and
sophistication."
Heikal gives little credence to suggestions that a more central planning
role may have been played by Bin Laden's nominal deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri,
the leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. "He is dangerous and was involved in
the assassination of Sadat, but he is not a great thinker or a great
planner. He played a peripheral role in the assassination, which itself was
marked by superficial planning and only succeeded because of luck. As their
interviews with al-Jazeera showed, Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri rely on nothing
but their instincts. This is not Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood, this is an
isolated minority who reflect neither Islam nor our times. They are the
historic residue of oppression; they don't represent the future."
There may, Heikal believes, be some as yet undiscovered element in the
atrocity of September 11. Whatever the truth, he says that the explanations
so far have been hasty, inconclusive and remarkably convenient. "I
understand that the American administration wanted an enemy right away to
hit, to absorb the anger of the American people," he says, "but I wish they
had produced some real evidence. I read what Mr Blair said in the House of
Commons carefully: they had prepared the atmosphere for that statement by
saying he is going to reveal some of the proof, but there is no proof,
nothing; it is all deductions. Colin Powell was more honest than anybody: he
said if not this, it doesn't matter, he has committed so many other crimes
that necessitate taking action against him. But that is like the Chinese
proverb: 'Hit your wife every day; if you don't know the reason, she does.'
You can't do it this way."
It is important, Heikal says, to differentiate between the powerful
anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East and the response to the
attack on the World Trade Centre. "I know there were some demonstrations by
people who expressed happiness," he says, "but they are not representative.
People in the Middle East know what terrorism means. When tourists were shot
at Luxor, there was indignation in Egypt. On the other hand, there is an
unbelievable degree of anti-American feeling all over the area."
The reasons for that loathing of the US are, he says, easy to pinpoint - the
Americans' "blind" support for Israel and their backing for illegitimate,
discredited regimes across the Middle East. He castigates every government
in the region, including his own, and blames the US for propping them up.
"The people did not choose these governments and in any free election none
of them would succeed. They are not legitimate governments; they do not
represent anything other than power."
This is bad enough, but the fact that the US - the shining city on the
hill - colludes with them is even worse. "The US supports the status quo
whatever it is. They talk about democracy and then ignore it; they talk
about the UN and ignore it; in every way you can accuse them of double
standards. It is revolting to see them talking about democracy and then
supporting undemocratic regimes. They talk about international legitimacy
and then support what the Israelis are doing." All this is said with an
analyst's precision, rather than an orator's passion.
So will Islam now rally to the cause of Afghanistan? Heikal says there is
little direct sympathy for the Taliban, who he describes as being "out of
this world". He relates the story of Mullah Omar Mohammed, the Taliban
leader, attending a meeting of Islamic leaders in Pakistan and refusing to
sit down until a picture was removed from the room. "But that is Jinnah,"
[Mohammed Ali Jinnah led Pakistan to independence in 1947] protested his
Pakistani hosts. "Who is Jinnah?" he replied. He also failed to recognise
Yasser Arafat. Heikal tells the story to demonstrate that just as the
problems of the Middle East fail to register on Mullah Omar's radar, so the
Taliban is not the key issue for the rest of the region.
Nevertheless, as a symbol of American imperialism, the attack on Afghanistan
is potent, and there are likely to be far-reaching repercussions, especially
if Iraq and other countries in the region are added to the target list.
Inevitably, says Heikal, when there is a vacuum, Islam - a ready-made
cultural unifier and the answer to the region's multiple identity crises -
is there to fill it. He identifies Pakistan as the country most likely to be
destabilised. "There is a danger that the action will bring down the
Pakistani regime," he says. "It could create a split in the army, where many
of the officers are pro-Islamic. The worst-case scenario is chaos with no
one strong enough to take over, and that chaos could easily spread into the
Middle East." He also says that Turkey is vulnerable, despite the army's
self-proclaimed role as the bastion of secularism.
Standing behind everything is the issue of Palestine - unresolved and
apparently unresolvable. "The current crisis in Afghanistan can spill over
into other countries," says Heikal, "but the chronic crisis is the
Palestinian issue." He is pessimistic about any compromise, recalling the
telegram sent to the Zionist leader, Theodor Herzl, by the two rabbis he
dispatched to Palestine to look at the land that might form the state of
Israel: "The bride is beautiful but she is married."
His solution is a Palestinian state and "an Israel for all its citizens",
where the million Arabs are not second-class citizens. "The most important
thing is to get religion out," he says. "You are talking to me about a
Muslim state, yet you are not discussing a Jewish state - a state built on
religion. That cannot be. Religion can be no basis for a state."
He has no faith in the current softening of the American line towards the
Palestinians, which he says is a replica of their approach during the Gulf
war. "Whenever the US needs the Arabs, they are ready to offer a carrot," he
says. "In 1991 the Arab world was lured into the Gulf war against Iraq
because they were promised that they would be compensated by a just solution
of the Palestinian problem. The Americans sent letters of reassurance to all
the parties and the Arab states went to Madrid to negotiate on the basis of
those assurances. It is 10 years since Madrid and nothing has happened. Now
the same scenario is being repeated. Strangely enough, it is even the same
people - Cheney, Powell, a Bush. It is as if nothing has changed. People in
the Arab world will see that our leaders are deceived again. Those who
repeat their lessons are very bad pupils, and we are very bad pupils. We
don't learn from our mistakes, so we are doomed to repeat them."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For immediate release:
Wednesday, October 10, 2001
Contacts:
Nancy Allen, Media Coordinator
207-326-4576, nallen@acadia.net
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator
202-518-5624, scottmclarty@yahoo.com
THE GREEN PARTY RELEASES A MAJOR STATEMENT ON THE
SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS AND THE U.S. RESPONSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party of the United States has issued an
official statement on the
September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and U.S.
airlines. The statement is printed below.
"The statement represents a broad consensus of the 33 states in the party's
Coordinating Committee," said Ben Manski, a Wisconsin Green and a member of
the national Steering Committee of the Green Party. "It addresses the
atrocities committed on September 11, the surrounding issues, and what
Greens believe is an appropriate response that emphasizes justice instead
of vengeance, the safety of our people, the rule of
law, and a systematic approach to deterring terrorism. It urges President
Bush and his Cabinet to respond to the attacks as crimes against humanity
punishable under international law, rather than a motivation for war -
which would result in many more civilian deaths."
GREEN PARTY STATEMENT On The September 11th Events
The Green Party of the United States is shocked by the terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001.
We extend our deepest sympathy to those most personally affected by these
horrific events. We remember especially the injured, the loved ones of
those who have died, the innocents who lost their lives in the midst of an
ordinary day's work, and those heroic firefighters, police officers and
other relief workers who gave their
lives unquestioningly. These were our neighbors, co-workers, friends and
family members. As Americans and as members of the human family, we are all
irrevocably affected by this terror.
GREEN PARTY URGES ADHERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL LAW
Greens fully support the right and obligation of the U.S. to seek justice.
The complete disregard for the sanctity of human life displayed by the
perpetrators of these atrocities must be countered by a just and lawful
response. Justice is the goal and mark of a civilized society. Thus, we
call on the United States Government to exercise caution and restraint as
we form a response to these attacks. Indiscriminate military actions and
acts of vengeance would only escalate violence and generate additional hatred.
Furthermore, a unilateral and indiscriminate military response, especially
on the Afghan or Arab peoples, can easily be misperceived as an attack on
Islam. This would undermine international support for the US, further
fanaticism and terrorism and ultimately imperil the possibility of peace in
the future.
Therefore, we believe that the September 11, 2001 attacks on innocent
civilians should, in accordance with domestic and international law, be
characterized as an international crime against humanity, not a war. A full
investigation, undertaken with international cooperation, must take place
before the President and Congress attempt to bring those responsible to
justice. Accordingly, the identification of any perpetrator of these
offenses and their supporters must be based on solid and credible evidence
not by innuendo or conviction in the media. A sound legal case must be made
and brought to federal and international courts for
arrest and extradition as necessary. American declarations of war inhibit
rather than promote this international cooperation. Attempts to
unilaterally seek redress through bombs and missiles, rather than a court
of law, will undermine international law, and set back recent international
successes in bringing those who have committed crimes against humanity to
justice.
Accordingly, the Green Party specifically opposes any attempt by President
Bush to wage war outside
the scrutiny of Congress and the American public for whom they speak. The
U.S. Constitution addresses war powers explicitly and does not, under any
interpretation, allow a president a "blank check" power to wage war.
GREENS FEAR EROSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES AT HOME
No matter who the perpetrators of the September attacks prove to be, unjust
attacks in the U.S. or abroad against Arab-Americans, Arabs, Muslims or
anyone else of Middle Eastern ancestry are unacceptable and un-American.
Therefore, we encourage President Bush and other public officials to
continue to denounce sentiments and behavior that target ethnic or
religious groups in revenge for the September 11th attacks.
The September 11th attacks struck out at American democracy as well as the
World Trade Center and
Pentagon. By definition, terrorism opposes representative government,
undermines civil liberties, and represses religious freedom and ethnic
diversity. Therefore, our response to terrorism must not erode these very
same civil liberties and constitutional rights. While we understand the
immediate need for measures like
increased airport security, we oppose any restriction on civil political
dissent, which would, in effect, make democratic accountability a casualty
of the September 11th attacks. Critical, open and honest civic debate about
our past and future policy is essential to a solid and lasting democracy.
We urge our fellow citizens to be vigilant in supporting our civil
liberties, which are always vulnerable during times of conflict.
LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS TO TERRORISM AND VIOLENCE AGAINST CIVILIANS
While there is never any justification for acts of terror against innocent
civilians -- indeed it is the quintessential act of dehumanization -- the
events of September 11th bring Americans the unique occasion to reconsider
our government's role on the world stage. The Green Party calls attention
to the fact that, even in the midst of our national anger, grief, and fear,
the US remains the most militarily powerful and influential country in the
world at present. In accord with this and our identity as a leading
defender of democracy, we have the obligation to act democratically and
model moral and just standards for others.
Thus, in seeking to prevent further terrorist attacks in the US and
elsewhere, the Green Party urges our nation to reassess our government's
policies and actions, which at worst, may have served to justify terrorism
in the minds of our attackers and their sympathizers, and at least,may
continue to be sources of frustration and anger for many freedom-seeking
peoples around the world.
The Green Party asserts that a significant aspect of preventing future
terrorist attacks on the United States is to insure that our foreign policy
is firmly based on economic and social justice. Specifically, we call on
the U.S. to end the economic sanctions against Iraq which have resulted in
the death of over a half million
innocent Iraqi children and civilians. We also call on the U.S. to insist
that international law be strictly observed with regard to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Furthermore, the Green Party of the United States urges our fellow citizens
and people everywhere
to view September 11th as an opportunity to call for an end to all violence
towards civilians. As our platform states, the Green Party seeks strength
through peace and asserts that security and liberty prosper together. While
we recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in
helpless situations, we trust that non-violence provides the surest road to
peace.
Therefore, at this turning point in world affairs, we strongly urge
President Bush to lead the world forward, toward a realignment of peoples
and nations, not backward into an era of military and economic conquest
characterized by endless violence. We can signal this new era with a
declaration strictly banning the targeting of civilians and non-combatants
and the use of weapons of mass destruction. This new era can be sustained
by a rededication of our vast resources away from producing more weapons
and towards eradicating the poverty, disease and ignorance that foster
despair and insecurity for most of the world's people. Finally, we urge
people and governments around the world to join us in the most pressing
challenge of this new
millennium: to create a culture of peace. It is in meeting these demands of
peace, that we will know what peace truly is. The deaths of over 6000
innocents demand it.
MORE INFORMATION
The Green Party of the United States
http://gpus.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fighting the Next War, Not the Last One
Wed, 10 Oct 2001
by Michael Novick
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20011009132625.00e3fb00@shell4.ba.best.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-UIDL: 4afd570303342476feb30da972e081e6
It has been said that generals are always preparing to fight the last war.
In this case, it looks
like the generals and spy-masters are way out in front fighting the next
one, while it is we
on the left and in the peace movement who are fighting the last one.
Compared to what we are
entering on, the Gulf War or even the Vietnam War were only skirmishes. We
are facing a
colossal political watershed. Bush, Cheney et al have lied about many
things over the past
weeks, but they have told one truth -- this is going to be a long, total
war, and the terrain on
which we struggle has been fundamentally changed. It establishes the
groundwork for all
on-going struggles, in the US, Canada and throughout Bush's global
"coalition" of states.
Nonetheless, if we allow Bush to set the terms and definitions of the
struggle -- for example,
if we attempt to define ourselves reactively and exclusively as a peace
movement, or to
subsume all our efforts into anti-war activism -- then I think that we will
have lost the battle
before we begin it. We would have allowed Bush et al to wipe the slate
clean of all
our successes and growth in the recent period in taking an initiative
against the state and
capital, against the empire. This would allow Bush to solidify the
temporary "national unity"
he has achieved, and to successfully use the brand of "terrorist" to launch
a new McCarthyism
domestically with even sharper teeth than cold-war anti-communism or
COINTELPRO.
Bush has launched a program and campaign comparable in scope to World War
II or to the
Cold War. The shadowy and malleable nature of the enemy is perfectly suited
to his purposes,
and the war will be waged domestically as well as throughout the rest of
the empire. In response
to the mirror image "lines in the sand" drawn by Bush and Bin Laden, we
need to declare our
opposition to the fascist terror and war of both Bush and Bin Laden, and we
need to put forward
an analysis and program for dealing with both. We must put forward
non-state methods for dealing
with fundamentalist terror. This terror is in no way revolutionary. Read
Bin Laden's statements, in
which he calls for the American people to put in place a "nationalist"
government. Look at Bin
Laden's practice, beginning with his terror assaults on coeducational
education in Afghanistan.
He is no friend or ally of the world's people. But we cannot accept
imperial war and state terror
as an answer or response, nor can we ally or align ourselves as a loyal
left wing of Bush's coalition.
What can we put forward as a revolutionary program against terror?
1. Civilian-based defense domestically against terror. The empire has
demonstrated its inability
to deter terror attacks on the U.S. (or possibly its complicity in them).
War is a guarantee of more
terror here, and the precautionary security measures have been
self-evidently unresponsive to
the threats and possibilities. We need to be involved in active, grass
roots community self-defense
efforts -- if we are not, they will become a province of right wing mass
organizing and base-building
and for breeding racist paranoia. We must pose this as a clear alternative
to the state program,
not an adjunct. Such civilian based defense established on a sound basis
can also deal with
organized racist terror, or police abuse, or with rescue and recovery in
the event of disaster.
2. Solidarity with the Afghani people, in particular material aid to RAWA,
the Revolutionary
Association of the Women of Afghanistan, which has been struggling in
clandestinity within
Afghanistan and among Afghan refugees for a democratic secular society,
providing education and
health care. We must pose this as clearly opposed to the US alliance with
the reactionaries of the
Northern Alliance.
3. Alliances with social revolutionary forces in the Muslim and Arab world.
The US and Israel promoted
and financed the creation of Islamic fundamentalism as a strategic attempt
to divide and divert the
Arab masses in Palestine, in the reactionary Arab regimes, and elsewhere in
predominantly Muslim
societies. This is well-documented. It happened in Palestine with Hamas, in
Iran with Khomeini, and
in Afghanistan with Bin Laden and the various mujaheddin factions (whether
Taliban, Northern Alliance,
etc). We must seek out the authentically revolutionary and anti-imperialist
forces in those societies,
learn from them and build solidarity with them.
4. Opposition to state terror by the U.S. government and its NATO and other
allies, such as Israel,
Turkey and the reactionary Arab regimes like Saudi Arabia or the emirates;
and opposition to
racist terror inside the US. This includes identifying and opposing the
terror components in all 2-1/2
wars the pentagon is fighting, such as in Colombia.
5. Projecting a global vision of decolonization and human liberation, a
redefinition and redistribution of
wealth. This involves reasserting all the issues of corporate domination,
environmental devastation, and
domestic and international (neo-)colonialism that we were raising prior to
September 11, and that hold
true even more in its wake. Reasserting our people's globalization
movement, in which oppressed and
exploited people in all countries began to learn from and about each other
and to make common cause.
War and international relations are too important to leave to the generals
and diplomats. We must create
a new grass-roots, non-hierarchical "international."
6. Developing methods of struggle that sink roots, diversify and integrate
our movement with popular
resistance, below the radar of state surveillance and disruption. The
empire's drive towards war and
a police state will clearly not easily be deterred and we can anticipate
that the arena for open, public
and legal struggles will be severely curtailed. We have to foster struggles
for cultural and political
independence and transformation, for dealing with protracted and growing
economic deprivation,
for sustaining and building movements under conditions of incarceration and
intimidation. The class,
racial, gender and national contradictions that plagued our society -- and
our movement -- prior to
the hijackings and attacks did not vanish; in fact they will be
increasingly exacerbated by war and
fascism. We have to unite oppressed and exploited people on the basis of
solidarity and internationalism
and to recognize that white supremacy and identification with the oppressor
continue to be central
obstacles to such unity.
Such a program is the only valid basis for opposing the imperialist war.
There is no problem of the
chicken and egg here. We can't oppose the terror without opposing the war,
nor can we effectively
oppose the war without opposing the terror. Doing both says we are acting
independently of the state
and the empire as we must now and in the future. Implementing our program
allows us to demarcate
ourselves clearly from terrorism, to put forward a politically and morally
consistent opposition to all
forms of terror, and to avoid the pitfalls of a purely pacifist response
that will condemn our movement
to ineffectiveness and irrelevance. There is an unease with Bush and his
war, but people seriously
want to know what else they can do. Unless we speak directly to that need,
we will be (rightly)
dismissed.
Even more so than under Reagan/Bush and Thatcher, the empire is relying on
the concept that
There Is No Alternative [TINA] -- or perhaps, more pointedly, that terror
is the only alternative to the
empire state, and that the empire state is the only alternative to
terror. Our task centers on
breaking through that deadly duopoly.
We can anticipate that the war will not immediately resurrect the economy
and that widespread
unemployment in the context of the drastically reduced social safety net,
and a renewed fiscal crisis
-- especially for state and local governments -- will provide ample
opportunities for social, political and
economic struggle over housing, education, jobs, prisons, police abuse,
health care, etc etc. In this
context, we must put forward a fundamental critique of capitalism,
imperialism and colonialism as
they function both inside and outside the United States, and a vision of
creating a sustainable and
liberated society in their place.
--Michael Novick
People Against Racist Terror/Anti-Racist Action
POBox 1055, Culver City CA 90232
310-495-0299
part2001@usa.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctors Without Borders
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1008-04.htm
Nobel Peace Prize Winning Doctors Group Calls US Afghanistan Aid 'Military
Propaganda'
Published on Monday, October 8, 2001 by the Associated Press
PARIS Nobel Peace Prize winner Medecins Sans Frontieres condemned the
humanitarian operation accompanying the U.S.-led strikes on Afghanistan as
"military propaganda" designed to justify the strikes.
On Sunday, the United States dropped 37,500 food packages from two planes,
destined for starving Afghans. Medicine is also expected to be dropped.
In a statement, the French humanitarian group, known in English as Doctors
Without Borders, said the operation "isn't in any way a humanitarian aid
operation, but more a military propaganda operation, destined to make
international opinion accept the U.S.-led military operation."
"What sense is there in shooting with one hand, and giving medicine with the
other?" the group asked.
The United States has a stockpile of some 2 million food packets that each
provide at least 2,200 calories per day.
Afghanistan is among the world's poorest countries and has the lowest
per-person food intake in the world, according to the U.S. Agency for
International Development.
Medecins Sans Frontieres won the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize for its medical
relief work in more than 80 countries. Like many international aid groups,
it suspended its work in Afghanistan shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks in the United States.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The roots of terrorism
<http://www.sfbg.com/News/35/51/51zinn.html>
An interview with historian Howard Zinn.
By A.C. Thompson
September 19, 2001
AS IF THE Bush presidency wasn't scary enough before, it's becoming, well,
terrifying. In the wake of the Day Everything Changed, Bush is doing his
best Arnold Schwarzenegger impression. He's spitting out a constant stream
of manly though grammatically challenged rhetoric. He's hitting up
Congress for $40 billion and unlimited war powers. His deputies are hinting
at a protracted battle in some far off and as of yet undetermined
land. And for the most part, the American populace is cheering W. on.
With images of World War III stuck in my head, I called up a man with a
very different perspective, historian Howard Zinn. Zinn is a Boston
University professor, the author of A People's History of the United
States, and a longtime icon of the left.
Bay Guardian: What would you do if you were president?
Howard Zinn: The president should first call on the American people to be
calm, not to react in the spirit of revenge, anger, to understand that the
roots of terrorism are long-range and cannot be dealt with by immediate
military responses. As president I would remind the American people that
the use of military force against terrorist acts in the past has only
resulted in more terrorist acts. I would point to the experiences of
Clinton and Reagan and their bombings how that did not produce any end to
terrorism. I'd point to the Israeli situation.
I would also make a statement to the world and say the United States is
going to reconsider its position in the world, reconsider its foreign
policy. We know that our station of military troops abroad, naval vessels
all over the world has resulted in a lot of resentment against the United
States. We are going to pull back from trying to be a military superpower
and try to be a peaceful nation.
I would announce that we're going to cut down our military budget, and
we're going to use that money to give economic aid to people abroad with no
strings attached, no IMF and World Bank requirements. We would use that
saved money to help the countries of Africa to combat AIDS and tuberculosis.
I would put pressure on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
There was an op-ed piece in the New York Times today by Amos Oz, who is an
Israeli, and he made the point: Israel must withdraw from the occupied
territories. If an Israeli citizen, a prominent one, a writer, can urge
that, the United States certainly can do that. Our policy towards Israel
must make very drastic change.
BG: The left has been nearly invisible in the media.
HZ: That's not because the left hasn't spoken but because the media has
made the left invisible. That's one of the terrible things about the
situation: by keeping out dissident voices, the media presents nothing but
a kind of slavish agreement with our political leaders.
Mainstream media are just doing their usual thing. The major media are huge
corporate conglomerates, and they're tied to the most powerful political
and economic entities in the country. They're doing what they've always
done. They've always gone along with U.S. foreign policy. They've always
fallen in line and supported military actions abroad. Look at the
newspapers during the Gulf War. Look at them during the war against Panama,
the invasion of Grenada.
BG: You're a historian. What do you think about the comparisons to Pearl
Harbor?
HZ: It's a poor comparison. Pearl Harbor was part of a world war, and this
action is the work of a small group of fanatical militants who don't
represent a nation. One of the advantages for the establishment of
comparing it to Pearl Harbor is that after Pearl Harbor we could strike
back against a nation, Japan. By comparing it to Pearl Harbor we can find a
nation to strike against, in this case probably Afghanistan. The comparison
with Pearl Harbor is intended to get the country ready to accept war.
BG: The likely back story to the attacks, the conflict in Palestine and
Israel, has been glossed over as well.
HZ: Yeah. There's just no recognition of the amount of animosity that's
been created in the Arab world by the American support of Israel, [sending]
American military supplies to Israel. This has been years building up, this
resentment against American support of Israel's occupation of the West Bank
and Gaza. The United States has incurred an enormous amount of anger in the
Arab world because of that policy, and while most of the people who are
angry about it are not going to resort to terrorism, a small number may
well do it, and that's what happened in this case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
Monday, October 8, 2001
Interviews Available
As Bombing Proceeds: Now What?
JIM JENNINGS, conscience@usa.com
President of Conscience International, a humanitarian aid organization,
Jennings was in Afghani refugee camps in Pakistan this May. He has been
involved in humanitarian work for the past 20 years around the world.
Jennings said today: "The conditions of the Afghan refugee camps in
Pakistan earlier this year were the worst I have ever seen -- and I have
seen a lot. The camps inside Afghanistan are in even worse shape; for
example in Herat there are 600,000 people on the verge of starvation. Food
drops from high altitudes alone absolutely cannot provide sufficient and
effective relief that is urgently necessary to prevent mass starvation. If
you provide one pound of food per day, the minimum for bare survival, it
would take 500 planeloads a month to supply the one camp in Herat alone,
and Afghanistan is the size of Texas. The administration has stated that
two aircraft are being used for food relief so far -- for all of
Afghanistan. Three weeks ago the head of the United Nations High Commission
for Refugees (UNHCR) in Islamabad said that the food would run out -- in
three weeks." [In response to the U.S./U.K. attacks, the World Food Program
today suspended food convoys to Afghanistan.]
AS'AD ABUKHALIL, abukhali@toto.csustan.edu
Author of the forthcoming book "Bin Laden and Taliban: The New American War
Against Terrorism" and associate professor of political science at
California State University at Stanislaus, AbuKhalil is a fellow at the
Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of California at
Berkeley. He said today: "Both Bin Laden and Bush say that you are either
with them or against them; yet much of the Middle East stands in opposition
to both. Al Jazeera [http://www.aljazeera.net] is showing demonstrations in
Oman against the U.S. strikes, which is very rare -- protests are illegal
there. Bin Ladin clearly is attempting to reach out to an audience well
beyond a small community of followers."
STEPHEN ZUNES, stephen@coho.org, http://www.fpif.org
Associate professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, Zunes
is senior policy analyst and Middle East editor at the Foreign Policy in
Focus Project and author of the articles "U.S. Policy Toward Political
Islam" and "International Terrorism." He said today: "The use of heavy
bombers against a country with few hard targets raises serious doubts about
the Bush Administration's claim that the attacks are not against the people
of Afghanistan. The Taliban has allowed Bin Laden and his followers
sanctuary, but there is little evidence that they have provided the kind of
direct financial or military support that can be crippled through air strikes."
JOHN QUIGLEY, quigley.2@osu.edu
Professor of international law at Ohio State University, Quigley said: "We
have to ask, 'Will this protect the U.S. from further attacks?'....
Military action should have been done through the Security Council at the
United Nations. As it is -- a U.S. and U.K. military action -- it is
illegal under international law."
For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020 or (202) 332-5055; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40,000 people sign CND petition opposing military retaliation
<http://www.cnduk.org/press/press71.htm>
For immediate release: 3 October 2001
As a special session of Parliament convenes on 4 October to debate the
crisis following the suicide
bombing of the United States on 11 September, CND members will present a
petition calling on the
government to work for a peaceful solution.
Kate Hudson, Vice Chair of British CND, will lead a delegation to ask MPs
to tell Tony Blair to use his
influence to urge the US government to seek 'justice through international
law and not through military
means'.
In less than two weeks, the petition has attracted 40,000 signatures from
across the country. Among those
who have so far agreed to receive the petition are Tam Dalyell MP, Father
of the House of Commons, Alice
Mahon MP and Jeremy Corbyn MP.
CND urges parliament to refuse the use of bases in the UK for military
retaliation and not to allow British
troops to take part in such action.
Kate Hudson, CND Vice Chair, said: 'CND abhors the death of thousands of
innocent civilians. Residents
of the US do not deserve to die because of the policies of their
government. Neither do civilians of other
countries deserve such a fate.'
Alice Mahon MP, said: 'My sympathy goes out to all those, including British
citizens, whose family, friends
or colleagues suffered in the World Trade Centre bombings. I am distressed,
too, at the sight of hundreds of
thousands of Afghan families fleeing their homes in fear of what the US
might do. More violence is not the
answer. Terrorism cannot be eradicated without eradicating its causes.'
Thursday 4 October Handing in petition, 9am: PHOTO OPPORTUNITY CND will
hand over the petitions to MPs as Parliament meets to debate the crisis, St
Stephens Entrance, House of Commons, London SW1
Vigil,12 noon to 7pm: As MPs debate the crisis, CND members will hold a
Vigil for peace and justice in
Parliament Square, London SW1.
For information: London Region CND on 020 7607 2302
For comment: Kate Hudson on 07932 633556
Notes for editors:
Saturday 13 October, CND March and Rally, 'Peace and Justice for All'. No
more violence, no to Star Wars
Assemble 12 noon, Hyde Park (Marble Arch end)
March at 1pm to Trafalgar Square for rally
Contact Nigel Chamberlain at CND on 07968 420 859
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-war resources:
http://www.actionla.org/S11/
http://www.warisnottheanswer.org/
http://www.9-11peace.org/
http://pax.protest.net/
http://www.s29.org/
http://Antiwar.com
http://www.alternet.org/issues/index.html?IssueAreaID=26
http://www.sfbg.com/News/altvoices.html
http://www.peacefuljustice.cjb.net/
http://www.warresisters.org/attack9-11-01.htm#things
http://www.legitgov.org/peaceprotests.html
http://www.igc.org/inkworks/www/downloads.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/studentsnowar/files (members only)
http://www.honoringourhumangoodness.homestead.com/
http://www.earthflag.net/
http://www.peaceflags.org
http://www.mwaw.org
http://www.stopworldwar3.com/
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/
www.internationalanswer.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 02:18:48 EDT