We Stand for Peace and Justice

The statement We Stand for Peace and Justice was released by an international group of some of the most hard-working and dedicated activists out there, days after the attack on Iraq began in March 2003. Recently, there has been interest in gaining more signers--over 100,000 have now signed, some 2,000 in the past week--and so I encourage all visitors to this weblog to read over and consider the statement linked above. I encourage you to take its message seriously and put it into action in what ways you can.

I have had numerous debates with many people of good will on the subject of mass-mobilizations (including marches, protests, and statements of this sort). Some people are able to articulate rationally and almost convincingly their objections to such group activity. Let the following suffice in favor of We Stand... Subcomandante Marcos, the former leader of the Zapatista movement for indigenous rights in Mexico, wrote in support of the statement:

"Signing a document could appear to be little for some, but it is not just the signing that is being proposed, but its discussion and enrichment. The signing of the statement does not involve abandoning the carrying out of other mobilizations. On the contrary, it will allow more people to participate, more people to listen, and more people to be involved in a movement that is worldwide, like the war which has provoked it."

The last few lines of the statement itself:

"I stand for justice. I stand against economic, political, and cultural institutions that promote a rat race mentality, huge economic and power inequalities, corporate domination even unto sweatshop and slave labor, racism, and gender and sexual hierarchies.

I stand for a policy that redirects the money used for war and military spending to provide healthcare, education, housing, and jobs.

I stand for a world whose political, economic, and social institutions foster solidarity, promote equity, maximize participation, celebrate diversity, and encourage full democracy.

I stand for peace and justice and, more, I pledge to work for peace and justice."

In the next post I'll provide some links to the people and organizations behind the statement.

Some current media criticism

Check these out...

Paul Street: A Barely Noticable Example of War Crime Journalism

Frank Rich: All The President's Newsmen

Greg Palast: CBS'Cowardice and Conflicts Behind Purge

Creating Animosity vs. Creating Solutions

I received this unexpected--and thoughtfully worded--response to my previous post...

pjd said...

It is more important to me that the citizens of the United States and caring individuals of other nations come together and support our duly-elected leader so that we can begin to improve today's society. It seems to me that too much time is spent trying to create animosity and enmity and not enough time is spent trying to solve the world's problems. The generous and appropriate response of the United States government (i.e. our President) after the terrible Tsunami disaster should be more than a small piece of evidence that our leader's heart and mind is in the right place, even if the actions of the USA do not always seem to make the most sense to all peoples of the world.

...to which I would like to respond. First, however, I recommend this well-written piece by Bruce Cole, highly relevant today.

PJD, when you say "...too much time is spent trying to create animosity and enmity and not enough time is spent trying to solve the world's problems" I agree completely. Not all activism is goal- or vision-oriented. Not all goals or visions are, in and of themselves, worthy. I value exerting energy on improving things, and while one can argue about what is an "improvement" and what is not, I think there are some basic assumptions we can make.

Since inequality remains a problem in the world and in the US, addressing it and proposing solutions does not, in my understanding, create animosity and enmity. Eradicating inequality would "improve today's society". Very simply: there are questions regarding serious voting irregularities in some parts of Ohio. Those disctricts where the irregularities took place are districts where the majority of the voters are black. The possibility that black voters were disenfranchised is something that should be looked into, as it was not following the 2000 race.

There is nothing wrong or destructive about debating a worthwhile issue in a democracy. About this I suppose we can agree. In my previous post I call for those who worked towards electing someone other than George Bush to follow through by encouraging their senators to support a debate of an important issue. I believe this is "solution"-oriented, since debate may uncover a failure of democracy in the US (surely not the single occurence). Uncovering one failure might lead to exposing the larger problems of racism and the totally flawed electoral system extant in the United States.

I then call for something which you, PJD, may see as more "radical" or indicitive of "animosity and enmity" on my part: taking part in mass protests of Bush's inauguration. Fact is, Bush was not "duly-elected", not in 2000 and not in 2004 (again, the vast majority of eligable voters did not vote for him). There are too many questions and irregularities. Mass asembly is a democratic right, some would even say a duty in certain cases. But for argument's sake let's assume that Bush was elected--at least in 2000, by an overwhelming majority. Has he fulfilled a single one of his campaign promises? Has his administration demonstrated--even once--that its heart and mind are in the right place? What are his reasoned and reasonable solutions to the problems facing today's society? Does he have any solutions?

I do not believe that "citizens of the United States and caring individuals of other nations [should] come together and support our duly-elected leader" when--duly-elected or not--the actions of his administration run counter to the best interests of everyone in the US and the world (with the exception of the ultra-rich in the short-term). Consider the issue of the environment as one example. There is not a single thing this administration has done to ameliorate global environmental collapse. No long term goals, no short term goals. Everybody suffers.

You bring up the issue of the tsunami disaster. There is nothing "generous" about the response of the Bush Administration, at least if you compare it to the much higher offers of support (proportional to their economies) of other industrialized nations. And though perhaps it is counter-productive to consider such analogies, I can't help but remember Senator Leahy's comment that "we spend 35 million before breakfast in Iraq".

I do not believe the laughably small offer was made because George Bush's heart bleeds for the victims and survivors of the tsunami. I cannot believe that someone whose "heart and mind is in the right place" could possibly see some victims of disaster as being more worthy of aid and support than others. What does the Bush Administration's aid package to the victims of the war on and occupation of Iraq look like? Does Bush's heart bleed for those innocent victims? Does it bleed for the US soldiers needlessly killed and wounded in combat? (Hey, does it bleed for all the Americans who can't afford health care? For the millions of Africans without access to generic AIDS drugs? For the Acehnese fighting for independence?) We're talking about much higher casualities here, and--worse--we're talking about Bush's complicity--our complicity in those deaths. We are complicit if we remain silent. We take our democratic responsibilities seriously when we act positively toward viable goals and solutions.

Here's one goal: open debate on the voting irregularities in Ohio, leading to a national discussion on racism and our flawed electoral system, ultimately resulting in the eradication of institutional racism in America and free, fair, open elections in a multi-party system.
Here's another goal: the removal of George Bush from an office he has no business occupying in the first place.

Counter Inauguration

The Hague—2 January 2005

Many of us spent our time, energy and money last year in support of John Kerry's campaign for president, or--as in my case--in opposition to the campaign of the incumbant. If you're among us, it is likely that you spent this energy in part because you perceived the grave danger of the Bush Administration’s continued “arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence” (Noam Chomsky).

Some of you may have heard of the election-tally irregularities in Ohio, which if fully investigated may invalidate the outcome of the race there and thus overturn the national results.

Recently, Ukrainians demonstrated a mature and responsible attitude toward democracy when they responded to voting irregularities in their country by seeing to it that the results where overturned.

The effort you made to prevent George Bush from a second term in office should not be for nothing. If we are truly convinced of the danger Bush and the rest of his administration pose to the US and the world, we must continue our efforts, both in and out of the scope of electoral politics.

Important opportunities are fast approaching and should not be missed. First, on January 6th, a joint-session of Congress will meet to certify the election results. With questions regarding the validity of the results still unanswered, the objections of a single senator and a single representative of Congress are all that are needed to force a debate of this issue.

Remember the footage in Fahrenheit 9-11 in which black members of Congress from Florida were unable to get the support of a single senator? This is a repeat of the same. I believe it is urgent that you contact your senators immediately and request that they support the objection, led by Representative John Conyers. Encourage everyone you know to do similarly. Imagine the difference that would have been made in 2000 had a single US senator demonstrated the democratic credentials of ordinary Ukrainian citizens! There will be a public demonstration on the morning of the 6th in Washington DC (you can find details here).

The second opportunity will present itself on January 20th. As you may know, approximately 70% of eligible voters rejected Bush on election day (roughly 30% voted for Kerry and about 40% didn’t bother to vote). The Bush gang believes it has earned a mandate (albeit thanks to widespread opposition to civil rights)—obviously a danger to us all. Whether or not the irregularities in Ohio are sufficient (or sufficiently investigated) to nullify the November election results, it is crucial that opposition is clearly and consistently displayed. The counter-inauguration of George Bush will take place in Washington DC on January 20th, and I encourage you to participate there or at a related local event.

Here are some helpful links:
Conyers to Object to Ohio Electors by William Rivers Pitt
Kerry Won by Greg Palast
Re-vote Ohio by Ted Glick
counter-inaugural.org
United for Peace and Justice

Below is a text you can copy and type into the contact form on your senators’ websites. (Clinton, Schumer, find others). Please alert your contacts quickly and widely.

1 January 2005

Dear Senator,

As you know, a number of irregularities have been reported with regard to the presidential race in the state of Ohio. In the interest of democracy these irregularities must be investigated.

Representative John Conyers, ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, has written you and your colleagues in the Senate a letter seeking support for his objection to the counting of the Ohio Electors.

As your constituent, I strongly urge you to lend this objection your full support at the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2005.

Sincerely,