From: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com (abolition-usa-digest) To: abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #468 Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest Sender: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk abolition-usa-digest Thursday, September 20 2001 Volume 01 : Number 468 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:10:59 -0700 From: Tom Condit Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Dellums backs Lee vote against armed force At 11:59 AM 9/18/01 -0700, Andrew Lichterman wrote: >[snip] > He left office nearly 30 years later, an expert in national > security, having earned the respect of his ideological foes, and > having voted against every use of military force from Vietnam to > Operation Desert Storm. Actually, Dellums didn't vote against Operation Desert Storm. He was one of the handful in the House who cast their votes as "Not Voting", rather than "Yes" or "No". Tom Condit tomcondit@igc.org The Peace & Freedom Party needs to raise its registration to 86,212 to get back on the California ballot. http://www.peaceandfreedom.org - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:40:08 -0700 From: "Andrew Lichterman" Subject: RE: (abolition-usa) Dellums backs Lee vote against armed force Please note that the passage objected to below appeared in a forwarded news article which appeared in the Oakland Tribune. A. Andrew Lichterman Program Director Western States Legal Foundation 1504 Franklin St. Suite 202 Oakland, CA 94612 USA phone: +1 (510) 839-5877 fax: +1 (510) 839-5397 web site: www.wslfweb.org - -----Original Message----- From: owner-abolition-usa@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-abolition-usa@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Tom Condit Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 4:11 PM To: abolition-usa@lists.xmission.com Cc: Abolition USA (E-mail); ANA Full (E-mail); Abolition Caucus (E-mail) Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Dellums backs Lee vote against armed force At 11:59 AM 9/18/01 -0700, Andrew Lichterman wrote: >[snip] > He left office nearly 30 years later, an expert in national > security, having earned the respect of his ideological foes, and > having voted against every use of military force from Vietnam to > Operation Desert Storm. Actually, Dellums didn't vote against Operation Desert Storm. He was one of the handful in the House who cast their votes as "Not Voting", rather than "Yes" or "No". Tom Condit tomcondit@igc.org The Peace & Freedom Party needs to raise its registration to 86,212 to get back on the California ballot. http://www.peaceandfreedom.org - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 08:42:24 +0100 From: Sally Light Subject: (abolition-usa) [Fwd: [abolition-europe] Fw: THOUSANDS march for peace in downtown Portland] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------2AF3FC72A1499D6DF43DAC39 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - --------------2AF3FC72A1499D6DF43DAC39 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from n10.groups.yahoo.com ([216.115.96.60]) by eagle (EarthLink SMTP Server) with SMTP id tqgu8c.jsf.37tiu0o for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 03:53:00 -0700 (PDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-2366078-698-1000896286-sallight1=earthlink.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.55] by ej.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Sep 2001 10:44:46 -0000 X-Sender: jbloomfield@gn.apc.org X-Apparently-To: abolition-europe@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 19 Sep 2001 10:44:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 68531 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2001 10:44:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2001 10:44:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hose.mail.pipex.net) (158.43.128.58) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Sep 2001 10:44:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 8828 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2001 10:44:43 -0000 Received: from userdn69.uk.uudial.com (HELO jbloomfieldgn) (62.188.4.188) by smtp-4.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2001 10:44:43 -0000 Message-ID: <004701c140f8$63e98540$bc04bc3e@apc.org> To: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Janet Bloomfield" From: "Janet Bloomfield" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list abolition-europe@yahoogroups.com; contact abolition-europe-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list abolition-europe@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:34:19 +0100 Reply-To: abolition-europe@yahoogroups.com Subject: [abolition-europe] Fw: THOUSANDS march for peace in downtown Portland Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Sent: 19 September 2001 02:53 Subject: THOUSANDS march for peace in downtown Portland > In a message dated 9/17/01 11:20:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, clowe@igc.org > writes: > > << >Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 17:11:46 -0700 (PDT) > >From: Red Emma > >Subject: THOUSANDS march for peace in downtown Portland > >To: redemma13@yahoo.com > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > >Many thousands of people gathered on the South Park > >Blocks Sunday at noon to rally and march for peace. > >The event, put on by Portland Peaceful Response, had > >three themes: (1) to mourn the victims of Tuesday's > >terrorist attack; (2) to speak out against racist > >scapegoating; and (3) to demand that there be no more > >violence, including no military retaliation by our > >government. The crowd was the largest seen at any > >anti-war demonstration since the Gulf War ten years > >ago. A count taken at one street corner registered > >2,630 people. Estimates of the total number of people > >ranged from 3,000 to 4,500. > > > >Attendees and speakers ran the gamut from members of > >the local Middle Eastern community, to Native American > >and Christian spiritual leaders, to teachers and union > >activists, to long-time peace activists, and many > >more. We all were very much heartened to see so many > >of our fellow Portlanders coming out and standing up > >for peace. As several speakers remarked from the > >stage, the media accounts saying 85% of Americans > >support war do not seem so believable now. > > > >There was no counter-demonstration, and I personally > >did not see any harassment or overt hostility from > >passers-by, although there may have been some. > > > >For a fuller account, with pictures, go to > >www.portland.indymedia.org (give them a few hours to > >get everything loaded up!) Look for us on tonight's > >news--just about every local station was there. > >Listen to KBOO 90.7 FM Monday morning at 7am for audio > >coverage. If there's nothing about this in Monday's > >Oregonian, call them up and ask them why. > > > >Above all, help spread the word. In this frightening > >and confusing time, those of us who support peace are > >not alone! > > > >Attendees at the rally signed a letter to President > >Bush, and were urged to make calls to our > >representatives in Congress. EVERY ONE of our Oregon > >congressional representatives voted for Friday's > >resolution authorizing use of force (basically, a new > >"Gulf of Tonkin" resolution authorizing the President > >to do whatever he wants). But they may change their > >tunes, if they hear from enough constituents. This > >could be the beginning of a long war, and it is not > >too late for our congress to change course and > >reconsider. We should tell them: NO declaration of > >war against Afghanistan; the PEOPLE of Afghanistan are > >not our enemy. The Capitol Switchboard number is > >1-888-449-3511 or 202-224-3121. The White House > >comment line number is 202-456-1111 (not that HE's > >going to listen, but heck, we can try.) > > > >If/when the bombing starts, there is still a standing > >plan for an emergency protest action: 4-6 pm at Terry > >Schrunk Plaza (SW 3rd and Madison, across the street > >from the Federal Building). This will be the DAY OF > >the bombing, if it starts before 4pm; and the DAY > >AFTER, if it starts after 4pm. Portland Peaceful > >Response will continue to coordinate these actions. > >We can be reached at 503-223-1399 (voice mail) or > >portland911.tripod.com (website). > > > >Peace be with you, > > > >Kathleen > > > >> > - ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck Monitoring Service trial http://us.click.yahoo.com/MDsVHB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/xbTolB/TM - ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: abolition-europe-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ - --------------2AF3FC72A1499D6DF43DAC39-- - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 13:49:32 -0500 From: Lisa Ledwidge / IEER Subject: (abolition-usa) IEER Reflections on September 11, 2001 - --=====================_15049256==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At http://www.ieer.org you will find a link to "Reflections on September 11, 2001" by Arjun Makhijani, along with other recent postings to IEER's web site. The piece is also pasted below, but I encourage you to go to the web version, which contains links to some of the referenced items. Apologies for double postings. Lisa Ledwidge, IEER - ---------------------------------------- Reflections on September 11, 2001 by Arjun Makhijani 20 September 2001 Through violence you may murder a murderer, but you can't murder murder. Through violence you may murder a liar, but you can't establish truth. Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can't murder hate. Darkness cannot put out darkness. Only light can do that.... -- Martin Luther King, Jr. An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind. Satyagraha is a process of educating public opinion, such that it covers all the elements of the society and makes itself irresistible. Satyagraha is a relentless search for truth and a determination to search truth. Satyagraha is an attribute of the spirit within. Satyagraha has been designed as an effective substitute for violence. -- Mahatma Gandhi The destruction of the World Trade Center towers and a part of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, was more than an attack on the symbols of financial and military power of the United States. It was more than what the media have called an "Attack on America." It was mass murder of people from around the world. The flames of fear and sorrow and tears spread rapidly across the oceans and north and south across the Americas that day. U.S. as well as international phone lines to New York and Washington were jammed. People from more than fifty countries were among those who perished along with thousands of Americans. No goal, however lofty, can justify the murder of innocent people. People from around the world are grieving and share the immense sadness of the families and friends of the victims of the tragedies. The staff of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) grieves with them. I have written this message and these suggestions for resistance to violence and terror and militarism at the instance of and on behalf of the entire IEER staff. The September 11 events of global terror cry out for and deserve a global response to help make the world as secure as we can from the threat of mass destruction. This was not the first or the most devastating event of mass destruction. As is well known, air warfare was created in the twentieth century as an instrument of state terror to entirely neutralize or destroy "vital centers" - that is, cities, thereby obliterating the difference between combatants and non-combatants in war. (A brief history of air warfare doctrine is posted on IEER's website.) Nuclear weapons extended the terror of conventional explosive bombing and fire bombing to a new dimension. But September 11, 2001 has nonetheless created a dreadful watershed in world history. The preponderance of evidence indicates that a non-state party, a terrorist network, has now used civilian aircraft as weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands. The possibility that terrorists may create destruction on a vast scale has until now been postulated in studies and hinted at by many actual acts of terrorism such as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and the 1995 chemical attack on a Tokyo subway. But the enormous scale and coordination of the assault, the choice of targets, the years of preparation, and the results of the September 11, 2001 attack mean that what was once largely hypothetical has moved into the column of grim reality. The risk of continued terrorist attack remains, according to the U.S. government. Retributive violence would add to the risks of continued terrorism, and it may also add to the risk of escalation to the use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons by a terrorist group. We do not know if some non-state groups already have nuclear materials. And we do not know how much they might have, if they do. Specifically, instability and conflict in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state, over cooperation with U.S. military actions might have unpredictable consequences. It is imperative that we try to persuade the U.S. government against a policy of violence and for a process that will lead to capture of the suspects and a trial. Moreover, if eradication of terrorism is the overall goal, a trial of the suspected plotters and financiers would reveal more about how terror networks are organized and maintained than a violent elimination of the suspects. The Nuremberg trials not only brought many of the perpetrators of the Holocaust to justice but also revealed great detail about how it was organized and implemented. They also led to important advances in international law. A trial in relation to the September 11 attacks would also show the world the best side of the traditions of the United States: the struggle for the rule of law and justice that motivated the American constitution, which has inspired not only generations of Americans but also freedom fighters worldwide. But we need more than a trial. We need a process will lead to a progressive diminution of the conflicts and hatreds that lead up to acts of terror and indiscriminate killing. It is widely recognized that they are rooted in the terrible injustices and inequities that characterize our world. Reducing violence requires a reduction in militarism and repression by states and a systematic reduction of the great inequities in the world, so that people can have hope instead of despair. One analysis and discussion of the world economic and military structure as a kind of global apartheid (with some important differences) can be found in a July 9, 2001 article in The Nation by Salih Booker and William Minter. Another can be found in my book, From Global Capitalism to Economic Justice, (Apex Press, 1992, reprinted in 1996), along with a discussion of possible approaches to reduce global inequity and violence. Given the level, scale and geographical spread of inequity, injustice, and anger in the world, it is likely that violent retribution by the United States would lead to global disunity and more conflict. It would increase the likelihood of more terrorist attacks, possibly more devastating ones. Such a prospect would be made more likely if U.S. retribution produces large-scale civilian casualties. Oil is and has been, through much of the twentieth century, one of the central aspects to the violent tangle of Middle Eastern, Central Asian, U.S., and world politics. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor came after the U.S. imposed an oil embargo to prevent Japan from getting access to and eventual control of Indonesian oil, which belonged neither to Japan, nor to the United States, nor to the Dutch colonialists who then ruled Indonesia. As another example, the CIA-supported overthrow of an elected government in Iran in 1953 (in reaction to nationalization of the Iranian oil industry) and its replacement by the Shah of Iran led to two and a half decades of repression in which substantial dissent was only possible in the mosques. The process was central to the dynamic that led up to the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. For an excellent history of oil politics, see Daniel Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991). For a fine, recent analysis of Central Asian oil resources and U.S. policy see Michael Klare, Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict, (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2001). Much U.S. policy in the Middle East makes for alliances with undemocratic regimes, including the one in Saudi Arabia, where, as in Afghanistan, no freedom of religion is allowed. That the Saudi Islamic government has allowed the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which has the two places most sacred to Muslims as well as the largest oil reserves in the world, has been in the center of the anger of some Islamic militants of the region. (See for instance a TV interview with Osama bin Laden partly conducted by ABC news correspondent John Miller in 1998. See also Mary Ann Weaver's article on Osama bin Laden in the New Yorker and John K. Cooley, Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, Second Edition, (London, Pluto Press, 2000).) And as is increasingly recognized, those angry militants largely come from the phase of U.S. policy that funded and trained them in the 1980s to oust the Soviet military from Afghanistan. Later, the Taliban was partly funded by Saudi Arabia until the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. (For a brief history of the Taliban, see Ahmed Rashid, "The Taliban: Exporting Extremism," Foreign Affairs, November/December 1999, pp. 22-35). If retribution and violence are the wrong answers, how can the people of the world work together to pursue justice and increased security? Active, non-violent resistance to evil that goes to the root of the problem in a manner that everyone could participate was the hallmark of the Gandhian struggle for India's independence, known as Satyagraha, as it was of the U.S. civil rights movement, and the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. Making salt, making cloth, and desegregating lunch counters and buses were everyday acts that mobilized millions. The Gandhian struggle in India had a part of its inspiration in U.S. history - in the acts of Henry David Thoreau in the mid-nineteenth century to resist an unjust war and slavery. The civil rights struggle led by Martin Luther King, inspired in part by Gandhi's example, was non-violent resistance to injustice returning to the United States. This rich history can perhaps provide us with the inspiration we need in these grim and sad days to find ways to resist the violence both from weapons of mass destruction but also from injustice and exploitation that has come to characterize global society. More than five hundred million children have died needless deaths from starvation, lack of clean water, and lack of elementary medical care since World War II. At the same time, the wealthiest 400 people control more wealth than the poorest two billion. Maintenance of such inequalities requires a vast and global repressive machinery that has led to many valiant struggles for justice, but also bred hopelessness, anger, and hate. October 2 is Gandhi's birthday. Perhaps it can be a day when we can all reflect on what we might do individually, in our communities, and on a global scale to resist militarism and violence, whether it comes from non-state groups or from states and to help create security, peace and justice. For instance, one way in which those of us who live in the West and consume more than our fair share of fossil fuels can resist the cynical and militarist politics of oil be to reduce our petroleum consumption as much as we can. A 25 percent reduction in oil consumption in the wealthy countries would amount to about 10 million barrels a day - more than the production of Saudi Arabia, which is the world's largest oil exporter. That could change the face of oil politics. While we cannot completely eliminate the use of oil in short and medium term - it would cause immense economic dislocation and suffering - significant voluntary reduction of oil consumption as well as sensible policies to that same end could help create a direction of greater equity, security, and environmental sanity. The soldiers who may be sent to fight in the desert sands, or those who are already there, with oil as a prime objective, would breathe easier too. (For an analysis of the proposed Bush administration energy policy and for IEER's energy policy recommendations see Science for Democratic Action, vol. 9 number 4, August 2001) Another idea that has been put forth is to send food to the villages of Afghanistan instead of bombs. That act of love might create cooperation from the heart that may increase the chance that there will be a trial instead of cycles of escalating violence. The official rhetoric in Washington makes it seem unlikely that the U.S. government would, at this stage, take actions friendly to the people of Afghanistan - indeed it is in the contrary direction. How people to people diplomacy might be conducted around the world to create a direction of peace at time when the talk of war is so loud is a major challenge, to say the least. But Nelson Mandela, the African National Congress, and the people of South Africa joined by people all over the world used Gandhi as an inspiration to get rid of apartheid in South Africa. We now need a bigger struggle that taps into the same roots to get rid of global apartheid. It will take the cooperation of organizations and people of goodwill around the world to rise to the challenge. We might begin this October 2 by gathering in our communities to remember those who died in a common global disaster and to ponder what we might do together across national boundaries that would honor the global nature of the tragedy and prevent its repetition. At meetings around the world on that date, we might gather to consider the questions of justice and of finding a path away from global apartheid, global violence and militarism, whether by states or terrorist groups, and towards global democracy, justice, equity, and friendship. Lisa Ledwidge Outreach Coordinator and Editor, Science for Democratic Action Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) 2104 Stevens Ave. South | Minneapolis, MN 55404 USA phone: (612) 879-7517 | fax: (612) 879-7518 ieer@ieer.org | http://www.ieer.org - --=====================_15049256==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At http://www.ieer.org you will find a link to "Reflections on September 11, 2001" by Arjun Makhijani, along with other recent postings to IEER's web site.  The piece is also pasted below, but I encourage you to go to the web version, which contains links to some of the referenced items. Apologies for double postings.
Lisa Ledwidge, IEER
- ----------------------------------------

Reflections on September 11, 2001
by Arjun Makhijani
20 September 2001


             Through violence you may murder a murderer, but you can't murder murder.
             Through violence you may murder a liar, but you can't establish truth.
             Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can't murder hate.
             Darkness cannot put out darkness. Only light can do that....
                         -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

             An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.
             Satyagraha is a process of educating public opinion, such that it covers all the elements of the society and makes itself irresistible.
             Satyagraha is a relentless search for truth and a determination to search truth.
             Satyagraha is an attribute of the spirit within.
             Satyagraha has been designed as an effective substitute for violence.
                          -- Mahatma Gandhi


             The destruction of the World Trade Center towers and a part of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, was more than an attack
             on the symbols of financial and military power of the United States. It was more than what the media have called an "Attack on
             America." It was mass murder of people from around the world. The flames of fear and sorrow and tears spread rapidly across
             the oceans and north and south across the Americas that day. U.S. as well as international phone lines to New York and
             Washington were jammed. People from more than fifty countries were among those who perished along with thousands of
             Americans. No goal, however lofty, can justify the murder of innocent people.

             People from around the world are grieving and share the immense sadness of the families and friends of the victims of the
             tragedies. The staff of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) grieves with them. I have written this message
             and these suggestions for resistance to violence and terror and militarism at the instance of and on behalf of the entire IEER staff.

             The September 11 events of global terror cry out for and deserve a global response to help make the world as secure as we can
             from the threat of mass destruction. This was not the first or the most devastating event of mass destruction. As is well known, air
             warfare was created in the twentieth century as an instrument of state terror to entirely neutralize or destroy "vital centers" - that is,
             cities, thereby obliterating the difference between combatants and non-combatants in war. (A brief history of air warfare doctrine
             is posted on IEER's website.) Nuclear weapons extended the terror of conventional explosive bombing and fire bombing to a new
             dimension. But September 11, 2001 has nonetheless created a dreadful watershed in world history. The preponderance of
             evidence indicates that a non-state party, a terrorist network, has now used civilian aircraft as weapons of mass destruction to kill
             thousands.

             The possibility that terrorists may create destruction on a vast scale has until now been postulated in studies and hinted at by many
             actual acts of terrorism such as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, the 1993 bombing of
             the World Trade Center, and the 1995 chemical attack on a Tokyo subway. But the enormous scale and coordination of the
             assault, the choice of targets, the years of preparation, and the results of the September 11, 2001 attack mean that what was once
             largely hypothetical has moved into the column of grim reality.

             The risk of continued terrorist attack remains, according to the U.S. government. Retributive violence would add to the risks of
             continued terrorism, and it may also add to the risk of escalation to the use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons by a
             terrorist group. We do not know if some non-state groups already have nuclear materials. And we do not know how much they
             might have, if they do. Specifically, instability and conflict in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state, over cooperation with U.S. military
             actions might have unpredictable consequences.

             It is imperative that we try to persuade the U.S. government against a policy of violence and for a process that will lead to capture
             of the suspects and a trial. Moreover, if eradication of terrorism is the overall goal, a trial of the suspected plotters and financiers
             would reveal more about how terror networks are organized and maintained than a violent elimination of the suspects. The
             Nuremberg trials not only brought many of the perpetrators of the Holocaust to justice but also revealed great detail about how it
             was organized and implemented. They also led to important advances in international law. A trial in relation to the September 11
             attacks would also show the world the best side of the traditions of the United States: the struggle for the rule of law and justice
             that motivated the American constitution, which has inspired not only generations of Americans but also freedom fighters
             worldwide.

             But we need more than a trial. We need a process will lead to a progressive diminution of the conflicts and hatreds that lead up to
             acts of terror and indiscriminate killing. It is widely recognized that they are rooted in the terrible injustices and inequities that
             characterize our world. Reducing violence requires a reduction in militarism and repression by states and a systematic reduction of
             the great inequities in the world, so that people can have hope instead of despair. One analysis and discussion of the world
             economic and military structure as a kind of global apartheid (with some important differences) can be found in a July 9, 2001
             article in The Nation by Salih Booker and William Minter. Another can be found in my book, From Global Capitalism to
             Economic Justice, (Apex Press, 1992, reprinted in 1996), along with a discussion of possible approaches to reduce global
             inequity and violence.

             Given the level, scale and geographical spread of inequity, injustice, and anger in the world, it is likely that violent retribution by the
             United States would lead to global disunity and more conflict. It would increase the likelihood of more terrorist attacks, possibly
             more devastating ones. Such a prospect would be made more likely if U.S. retribution produces large-scale civilian casualties.

             Oil is and has been, through much of the twentieth century, one of the central aspects to the violent tangle of Middle Eastern,
             Central Asian, U.S., and world politics. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor came after the U.S. imposed an oil embargo to
             prevent Japan from getting access to and eventual control of Indonesian oil, which belonged neither to Japan, nor to the United
             States, nor to the Dutch colonialists who then ruled Indonesia. As another example, the CIA-supported overthrow of an elected
             government in Iran in 1953 (in reaction to nationalization of the Iranian oil industry) and its replacement by the Shah of Iran led to
             two and a half decades of repression in which substantial dissent was only possible in the mosques. The process was central to the
             dynamic that led up to the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. For an excellent history of oil politics, see Daniel Yergin, The Prize:
             The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991). For a fine, recent analysis of Central
             Asian oil resources and U.S. policy see Michael Klare, Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict, (New York:
             Metropolitan Books, 2001).

             Much U.S. policy in the Middle East makes for alliances with undemocratic regimes, including the one in Saudi Arabia, where, as
             in Afghanistan, no freedom of religion is allowed. That the Saudi Islamic government has allowed the stationing of U.S. troops in
             Saudi Arabia, which has the two places most sacred to Muslims as well as the largest oil reserves in the world, has been in the
             center of the anger of some Islamic militants of the region. (See for instance a TV interview with Osama bin Laden partly
             conducted by ABC news correspondent John Miller in 1998. See also Mary Ann Weaver's article on Osama bin Laden in the
             New Yorker and John K. Cooley, Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, Second Edition,
             (London, Pluto Press, 2000).) And as is increasingly recognized, those angry militants largely come from the phase of U.S. policy
             that funded and trained them in the 1980s to oust the Soviet military from Afghanistan. Later, the Taliban was partly funded by
             Saudi Arabia until the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. (For a brief history of the Taliban, see
             Ahmed Rashid, "The Taliban: Exporting Extremism," Foreign Affairs, November/December 1999, pp. 22-35).

             If retribution and violence are the wrong answers, how can the people of the world work together to pursue justice and increased
             security? Active, non-violent resistance to evil that goes to the root of the problem in a manner that everyone could participate
             was the hallmark of the Gandhian struggle for India's independence, known as Satyagraha, as it was of the U.S. civil rights
             movement, and the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. Making salt, making cloth, and desegregating lunch counters and buses
             were everyday acts that mobilized millions.

             The Gandhian struggle in India had a part of its inspiration in U.S. history - in the acts of Henry David Thoreau in the
             mid-nineteenth century to resist an unjust war and slavery. The civil rights struggle led by Martin Luther King, inspired in part by
             Gandhi's example, was non-violent resistance to injustice returning to the United States. This rich history can perhaps provide us
             with the inspiration we need in these grim and sad days to find ways to resist the violence both from weapons of mass destruction
             but also from injustice and exploitation that has come to characterize global society. More than five hundred million children
             have died needless deaths from starvation, lack of clean water, and lack of elementary medical care since World War II.
             At the same time, the wealthiest 400 people control more wealth than the poorest two billion. Maintenance of such inequalities
             requires a vast and global repressive machinery that has led to many valiant struggles for justice, but also bred hopelessness,
             anger, and hate.

             October 2 is Gandhi's birthday. Perhaps it can be a day when we can all reflect on what we might do individually, in our
             communities, and on a global scale to resist militarism and violence, whether it comes from non-state groups or from states and to
             help create security, peace and justice.

             For instance, one way in which those of us who live in the West and consume more than our fair share of fossil fuels can resist the
             cynical and militarist politics of oil be to reduce our petroleum consumption as much as we can. A 25 percent reduction in oil
             consumption in the wealthy countries would amount to about 10 million barrels a day - more than the production of Saudi Arabia,
             which is the world's largest oil exporter. That could change the face of oil politics. While we cannot completely eliminate the use of
             oil in short and medium term - it would cause immense economic dislocation and suffering - significant voluntary reduction of oil
             consumption as well as sensible policies to that same end could help create a direction of greater equity, security, and
             environmental sanity. The soldiers who may be sent to fight in the desert sands, or those who are already there, with oil as a prime
             objective, would breathe easier too. (For an analysis of the proposed Bush administration energy policy and for IEER's energy
             policy recommendations see Science for Democratic Action, vol. 9 number 4, August 2001)

             Another idea that has been put forth is to send food to the villages of Afghanistan instead of bombs. That act of love might create
             cooperation from the heart that may increase the chance that there will be a trial instead of cycles of escalating violence. The
             official rhetoric in Washington makes it seem unlikely that the U.S. government would, at this stage, take actions friendly to the
             people of Afghanistan - indeed it is in the contrary direction.

             How people to people diplomacy might be conducted around the world to create a direction of peace at time when the talk of
             war is so loud is a major challenge, to say the least. But Nelson Mandela, the African National Congress, and the people of South
             Africa joined by people all over the world used Gandhi as an inspiration to get rid of apartheid in South Africa. We now need a
             bigger struggle that taps into the same roots to get rid of global apartheid.

             It will take the cooperation of organizations and people of goodwill around the world to rise to the challenge. We might begin this
             October 2 by gathering in our communities to remember those who died in a common global disaster and to ponder what we
             might do together across national boundaries that would honor the global nature of the tragedy and prevent its repetition. At
             meetings around the world on that date, we might gather to consider the questions of justice and of finding a path away from
             global apartheid, global violence and militarism, whether by states or terrorist groups, and towards global democracy, justice,
             equity, and friendship.

Lisa Ledwidge
Outreach Coordinator and Editor, Science for Democratic Action
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER)
2104 Stevens Ave. South |  Minneapolis, MN 55404  USA
phone:  (612) 879-7517  |  fax:  (612) 879-7518
ieer@ieer.org  |  http://www.ieer.org - --=====================_15049256==_.ALT-- - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #468 *********************************** - To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.