Nell (Cooke) Elperin, a lifelong peace and justice activist, died in her Hyde Park home Saturday after a long struggle with debilitating osteoporosis. She was 85.

Ms. Elperin was a leader in the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom for close to fifty years. In the 1950s, she helped found a chapter in her small Wisconsin town because she believed women needed their own space to assume leadership in the peace and civil rights movements.

When she sought out WILPF in Boston, she discovered a chapter with a dwindling, aging membership. Undertaking a campaign to recruit younger women that reflected the diversity of Boston, she aggressively promoted WILPF at peace rallies and demonstrations in Boston and Washington, D.C. She also pushed to expand WILPF's priorities to include gay rights. In the early years, she appeared undaunted when she was sometimes the sole member proudly marching with the organization's blue and white banner with her husband, Ronald. Last summer, a revitalized Boston chapter of WILPF honored Ms. Elperin for a lifetime of commitment to peace and justice.

Ms. Elperin moved to Boston in 1978 from Terre Haute, Indiana, after her husband's retirement from Indiana State University and her own retirement from a public high school in Montezuma, Indiana, where she delighted in teaching English and Latin to the children of farmers. A graduate of Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, Ms. Elperin pursued an earlier career as a freelance writer for a local newspaper in Sheboygan, Wisconsin while her husband taught at Lakeland College. Looking back, Nell regretted having passed over an opportunity to work at a New York daily newspaper when she indignantly turned down an offer to write for its "women's pages." So instead, Elton remembers, his mother drove all over Wisconsin coming up with human interest stories like one about "Dynamite Bill," a man who, hired to dynamite buildings set for demolition, was reputed to have inadvertently blasted a still-occupied building.

Her daughter, Katy Polony, recalls that the strength of her mother's convictions led Ms. Elperin to lose her first teaching job, in Brazil, Indiana. Ms. Elperin had dismayed the school principal by displaying a photograph depicting a police officer beating of a civil rights demonstrator and asking her class to write an essay imagining the perspectives of both individuals. In another incident, when a student asked to leave the class to get a haircut ordered by the principal, Ms. Elperin directed the boy to the front of her classroom, snipped a small lock of his hair, and asked him to return to his seat.

Ms. Elperin stood up to small-mindedness wherever she saw it. In 1961, disturbed by the racial segregation at the local roller-skating rink in Terre Haute, Ms. Elperin and a friend showed up on the "blacks only" day to insist that their daughters be allowed to skate with the other children. When the rink owners insisted that the black parents would object, Ms. Elperin won the parents' support and forced the rink to acquiesce.

In Ms. Elperin's early days at anti-war rallies, Katy recalls that her mother showed up in big floppy hats as disguises, fearful that her activism would lead her or her husband to lose their jobs.

Shortly after arriving in Boston, Ms. Elperin's osteoporosis became apparent and gradually worsened, making walking and standing difficult and increasingly painful. Despite this, she threw herself into grassroots political action in her new home. In the 1980s, she doorknocked in various Boston neighborhoods for the mayoral and U.S. congressional campaigns of civil rights activist Mel King and the presidential bid by Jesse Jackson. She would bring a folding camp stool to rallies so that she could rest during long speeches.

With her tall, stooped figure and distinctive shock of thick, white hair, characteristically held in place with a bandana headband, Ms. Elperin was known to many by first name only, and to still more only by sight. She also developed lasting friendships through her activism. Jamaica Plain residents running Saturday errands came to expect friendly chats with her outside their post office, where she collected signatures and distributed literative throughout the 1980s. On the anniversary of the U.S. bombing of Japan, she stood outside the post office with a sign urging passersby to "Remember Hiroshima."

As recently as this past year, Ms. Elperin joined rallies against the invasion of Iraq and in support of the Boston janitors' strike. Despite being laid up in a rehabilitation hospital recuperating from a broken hip this summer, Ms. Elperin continued to follow world affairs on public radio.

WILPF-Boston chapter co-chair Joan Eckstein says that Ms. Elperin called her a number of times from the hospital to urge that the organization get involved in various developing issues.

During WW II, Ms. Elperin worked as a lathe operator in a war production factory. She met her husband during the war and they married on their seventh date, while he was on a three-day leave from the U.S. Army. Born in Des Moines, Iowa, Ms. Elperin grew up in Syracuse, NY, where her father, a Congregational minister, served. Ms. Elperin, however, did not embrace organized religion for herself. Asked recently if she believed in God, she replied that she did, "in a way," explaining that she believed in the goodness of people. Indeed, this trust in people, coupled with her strong sense of adventure, led her to dare to hitchhike across France in 1950 with her 3-year-old son in tow. However, in recent years, she lamented a concern that people were not kind enough to each other in daily life.

In recent years, Ms. Elperin received honors for her peace and justice work from a number of Boston area organizations. Beyond WILPF, she was active in many organizations promoting peace and civil rights, including the Citizens for Participation in Political Action, the Boston Rainbow Coalition, and Cuban solidarity organizations.

Ms. Elperin leaves her huband, Ronald; a brother, James Cooke, of Columbus, Ohio; a sister, Doris (Cooke) Coward, of Superior, Wisconsin; her daughter Kathryn (Elperin) Polony of Oakland, CA; a son, Elton, and daughter-in-law, Anne (Winbourne) Elperin of Brookline; four grandchildren; and nine nieces and nephews.

What will Containment Mean for the People of the USA? By Gretchen Klotz

The US government has pursued a policy of containment for a long time. First we were containing Soviet expansion. We had to contain Japanese economic growth in the 80's. Since 1991 we've been containing Iraq. We have to contain China's potential and we certainly have to contain terrorism.
But now the tables are turning. Since the proclamation of the Bush administration's policy of "full spectrum dominance", the rest of the world suddenly realizes that it must contain US expansion if it is not to end up as a feeble colony of US imperial designs. The poor third world has always realized this and so far has not been able to do very much about it.
But the Eurasian continent including the wealthy countries of Western Europe, Russia with its nuclear arsenals and a rapidly growing China as well Japan with its economic strangle hold of US debt together are powerful. If they unite they can contain US expansionism. Furthermore, they know this and they are trying to figure out how to do it.
On the other hand some of the more thoughtful US policy makers also understand that this is happening. They will try to counter it with threats, bribery and by stirring up enmity between the many factions which will not be difficult. Unifying the Eurasian continent will be far more difficult. But when faced with a common enemy, utilitarian unification is possible and first steps are being taken. One of them, the most disconcerting, is rearmament. There is more.
What will it mean for the people of the USA?

1. Rearmament.
   The US will insist on keeping its vast military superiority even while encouraging Europe and Japan to spend more on arms. There will be an arms race which will waste huge sums of tax payers money and keep the world in an ever more dangerous state of permanent warfare with vast advances in the ability of weapons of mass destruction to wreak havoc.
2. Economic boycotts
   There is broad sentiment against buying US products in Europe as well as a number of boycott campaigns. But these are based on US corporate names and it may not have the effect Europeans expect, because so much of US corporate production does not occur in the USA. Still it could keep corporate growth sluggish and that could hinder hiring.
3. Trade wars
   The EU is threatening to slap tariffs worth billions of dollars on US products. This is in retaliation for US tariffs on various products. The falling dollar is also an incentive for Europe to protect itself.
4. Debt
   Because of the US negative balance of payments in its trade with other nations, they are forced to lend the US money to pay for their products sold in the USA. This is a disadvantage for other nations because they are lending money at virtually no interest. However, it is also ultimately bad for the USA, because the US must someday pay back the debts. Where will the money for this come from? Most likely, as always, the weakest will pay. Money will come from pension funds, social security funds and medical insurance. A prime example of how that works is what happened at Enron. The wealthy companies who held Enron debt have already received their payment due. The pension funds have disappeared.
5. Environmental decay
   With a permanent war that will require interventions of a military, covert and monetary nature to counter the attempts at containment by others, the US will have no money to preserve the environment. The consequences are the climatic chaos of global warming, illnesses because of increasing ozone, loss of pristine nature and on and on.
6. Destruction of infrastructure
   As the infrastructure of the US decays, schools worsen, health care worsens, roads worsen, public services are eradicated, crime increases, the costs of doing business in the US will increase. Even the corporations will have to pay in the end. And this too will bring increasing unemployment and lower wages. Corporations want this because it cuts their costs, but consumers will not be able to keep buying and increasing debt forever.
7. Greater danger for US citizens in other countries
   US citizens are the primary target of terrorists all over the world. The destabilization caused by the USA's permanent war will bring new opportunities for terrorists.

Europe and Asia do not want to take the path of military containment. They have enjoyed the long period of peace and its people's like it that way. But they do not want to be crushed. The increase in Anti-americanism is a result of the US unilaterialist policies and preventive war. Neo-cons think that the pacifistic Europeans will not defend themselves against the imperialistic encroachments. And maybe they won't. The decision has not been made, although already military spending is increasing in the EU and in Japan and China. If US policies are not changed, the potential of economic, environmental and military catastrophe grows exponentially.

Code Pink and WILPF: Bridging the gap between the old and the young
Virginia Pratt

This summer's WILPF/CODE Pink retreat offered a unique opportunity to meld the wisdom of the old with the energy of the young. More than 35 women took advantage of the opportunity to meet in the clean fresh air of rural Vermont to discuss a myriad of issues, learn from activists and strengthen our bonds with one another. Robin Lloyd graciously offered her farm for the retreat which began June 26th and ran through June 29th with provision for an extra overnight for those who wanted more time to linger in the beautiful surroundings.

Paradoxically, this meeting in the serene rural setting was abuzz with activity and creativity, maybe it was the influence of the stars, multiple, varied and bright at night, the fireflies and other winged creatures or the orchestra of well fed frogs croaking in the pond.

Robin Lloyd also offered a stimulating agenda and range of speakers and presenters for our meetings. Moreover, all of this was offered at rock bottom prices to allow maximum participation. Many thanks to Maggie our 24-year old single mom cook.

There was time for singing; "we are the ones that we've been waiting for." There was time for swimming, to relax and rejuvenate. There was time for planning. There was a time for acting and reacting. We learned from the women working on the WILPF United Nations and International projects as well as the spontaneous Code Pink organizers. --- When they say code orange; we say code pink.

Grace Paley, Gary Davis along with WILPF elders, provided the wisdom of the ages and shared there stories. Grace reminded us to all wear buttons and hand out flyers. Gary encouraged us to become world citizens. During some of the workshops healthy debate ensued as to whether to include men. However, there was consensus on the need to get rid of Bush and his administration. We gained insight into the plight of people in Iraq, immigrants in this country, and efforts to preserve the rights of working people.

So, if you want to recharge your batteries, improve your skills, and enhance your intellect come to the next WILPF retreat.

REPORT ON NGO MEETING WITH J.KAVAN
On Monday, April 14, Branch members Laura Roskos, Gretchen Klotz, Joan Ecklein and Nancy Lee Wood met with Jan Kavan, Czech ambassador to the United Nations currently serving as president of the General Assembly to discuss the potential for a Uniting for Peace resolution censuring the U.S. invasion of Iraq. They were accompanied by Merrick (last name?), Gretchen's son, and by Justine McCabe and Julia Willebrand from the Green Party USA. It was a powerful learning experience for everyone, including Mr. Kavan, who seemed both surprised and profoundly interested in the information we provided about Security Council Resolution 1325 and its relevance to post-war reconstruction and humanitarian assistance.
The WILPF delegation spent considerable effort establishing communications with other peace and human rights organizations committed to supporting the United Nations in asserting the jurisdiction of international law over international conflict and aggressor states. In other words, the actual face-to-face meeting in Mr. Kavan's office was just the glamorous tip of the iceberg. Most of the delegation's work took place in preparing for and following up on the meeting.
Although Branch work in support of a strong role for the United Nations in post-war (hey, Gretchen: can we even call it that? Is the war over? Was a war ever declared?)Iraq, advocacy efforts so far have yielded the following outcomes:

1. We were able to alert the U.S. WILPF section to a statement in support of a UfP resolution and SC Resolution 1325, and secure U.S. section endorsement for this statement;
2. We worked with the Uniting for Peace drafting committee to ensure that a clause supporting SC Resolution 1325 appeared in their current petition (if you have not yet signed this petition, you can at www.(--Gretchen, I no longer have the web address for the current petition, can you add it?)
3. We filed a report on our meeting with the WILPF U.N. office and with the NGO working group on women, peace, and security and urged them to follow-up with outreach to educate members of the General Assembly on SC Resolution 1325.

On Saturday, March 29, 2003, WILPF Boston Branch joined with the New England Women's Studies Association in presenting a one-day conference, "International Feminism, Human Rights, and the Women's Studies Curriculum," which was held at Suffolk University's Law School.

The New England Women's Studies Association is a feminist, anti-racist network open to all which actively seeks new meeting ground for discussions about Women's Studies and social change. You can sign up to join their mailing list and read more about the conference at http://ase.tufts.edu/womenstudies/newsa.

The conference was designed, in part, to respond to the Bush administration's policies of American exceptionalism and military aggression. Such policies threaten feminist practices of building transnational ties of solidarity and accountability among women internationally. Thus it seems urgent that women's studies faculty, students, and advocates think strategically about how to preserve and build on alliances made over the past decades.

Increasingly women's struggles for equity and advancement globally are being framed in the language of international human rights treaties and progressive women's non-governmental organizations are promoting the rule of international law over the use of force or economic coercion in ordering international relations. This conference was designed to encourage and facilitate women's studies practitioners in taking a human rights approach to a number of social problems affecting women by demonstrating both why this approach is effective in defining "issues" and how situations can be understood in these terms.

On March 29th, more than 50,000 gathered in Boston Common, just yards away from the conference site, to protest the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. Many conference participants decided to participate in both events creating an energetic, yet somber atmosphere.

The day began with a keynote speech from Anannya Bhattacharjee (editor of Policing the National Body, South End Press 2002) addressing the topic "From Civil Liberties to Global Democracy: Feminist Citizenship in a Changing World Order." Presenters highlighted a number of strategies for challenging the legality of U.S. domestic and foreign policy and shared materials designed to raise awareness of women's economic, social, and civil rights. Conference proceedings will be published in Meridians-a journal: race, feminism, transnationalism in Spring 2004.

Report on International Women's Day Forum March 15, 2003
Women Speak Out

These are ideas we had about what we can do.

Building communities, coming together and supporting our unity.
Assume we can stop the war - then focus on whom are the decision-makers.
Try to be creative in making new connections, for example to labor supporting peace - UJP
Lobbying for budget issues.
Focus on wars in our community - gang wars - how safe it is for my children to cross the street. That's where the Office of Homeland Security should be focusing - making the streets safer. Also the war of the minds - ripping off the minds of our kids.
Don't get limited to just focusing on local - or just on global issues.
Emphasize how war causes economic cuts and how they're affecting us.
"Our communities are not collateral damage."
Human Rights angle - sets the bar higher - this is what we want things to look like.
Make politicians accountable - really, personally supporting them.
Need election reform - nobody elected Bush.
Need tax reform - corporations and the rich should pay a fair share of taxes.
Connect with the rest of the world so nobody in the world gets shafted
Tell everyone how important it is to vote.
Campaign reform - As long as both parties are taking money from corporations, they will control lawmakers.
Education - "homeland security" will never happen if there is no peace and security in schools and no health care.
Campaign reform - government contracts must not be given to companies that have connections to elected officials - for example, Cheney's Halliburton is getting billions in government contracts.
This Congress must be voted out. They will not do what we need to get done.
Prison Reform
They can out-buy us, but we outnumber them.
Get people involved. Door to door contact and discussions.
Make and wear T-shirts with our messages.
Chuck Turner has been trying to put together multi-issue coalitions - to help us support each other.
We have 1 year and 8 months until the next election. War is distracting us. We need to focus on the election, get people registered. Time is of the essence.
Help people eligible to be citizens fill out forms and start the process before the rules change (soon). Then register these voters.
Stop election fraud - have people monitoring at voting precincts to make sure any person there doesn't "give Bush 135 votes".
Computerizing voting machines leave no paper trail, fraud could be increased.
Get women to run for office who believe the way we do.
Need workshop on meaning of Democracy.
Can invite friends/neighbors in for coffee and talk about issues.
Need to let people who resist being "political" know that everything is political.
Need to keep in mind that oil and our over-consumption of oil are part of this war. It's effect on Environment, energy and greed.
Knocking on doors for peace.
Listening Project.
Fight the administrations' policies.
Support young people.
Connect with veterans shelters.
Write the President, write Congressmen and women.
ID ways to dialog with neighbors during "door knock campaign"
May 9th "Mothers March" (poor womens' rights) attend. The emerging superpower of peace

March 15, 2003

Amidst the agonizing crisis over Iraq, the violent contortions of the world's only military superpower have given birth to a transcendental force: the global Superpower of Peace. That George W. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein has become a global issue at all is perhaps the most tangible proof of this new superpower's potential clout. Only one thing has slowed (or stopped) Bush from launching this attack: the economic, political, moral and spiritual power of an intangible human network determined to stop this war. Bush has amassed the most powerful killing machine humankind has ever created. He's set its fuse on the borders of an impoverished desert nation with no credible ability to protect itself from this unprecedented attack. His military henchmen believe the conquest of this small country can be done quickly, with relatively few casualties on the the attacking side (though many civilians would die on the Iraqi side, as they did in the 1991 Gulf War I).

The potential prizes are enormous:

· Outright control of the world's second-largest oil reserve;
· Removal of Bush's hated personal rival, a US Frankenstein gone bad;
· A pivotal military base in the heart of the Middle East;
· Hugely lucrative contracts for both the destroyers and the rebuilders of Iraq;
· The ability to test a new generation of ultra high-tech weaponry;
· The chance to display the awesome killing power of that weaponry;
· The chance to demonstrate a willingness to use that power;
· The fulfillment of Biblical prophesy as seen through the eyes of religious fanatics.

But after months of preparation, the world's only military superpower has hesitated. Instead of obliterating Baghdad---as it physically could at any time---the Bush cabal has flinched. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he needs no military allies. But he's desperately courting them. Bush says he doesn't need UN approval. But he's desperately sought it.

Why?

One could argue the US has been marking time because it's not quite ready, with deployments and other technical needs not yet met. But all that is now far more difficult with an astounding rejection by Turkey, which shares a strategic border with Iraq. Turkish opposition to war is running a fierce 80-90%. Major arm-twisting (and a $26 billion bribe) has not bought permission to use Turkish land and air space. Meanwhile, the "no" votes of China, Russia, France and Germany represent the official opinion of some 2 billion people. They are irrelevant to the mechanics of armed conquest. But the four nay-sayers represent enormous political and economic power. So do scores of other nations whose nervous millions now march for peace.

"Never before in the history of the world has there been a global, visible, public, viable, open dialogue and conversation about the very legitimacy of war," says Robert Muller, a long-time UN guiding light who views this global resistance as virtually miraculous. To all this has been added the opposition of the Pope. The Bush cabal may be asking that infamous question: "How many divisions does the Pope have?" But about a quarter of the US---and its armed forces---are Catholics. They may soon be forced to choose between the opinion of their infallible spiritual leader and that of their unelected president. The Pope has already been asked to put himself between the people of Baghdad and a US attack. He could also speak "ex cathedra," banning Catholic participation in the war.

Meanwhile the spiritual opposition has been joined by a wide spectrum of religious organizations, including Bush's own church. Though constantly speaking in religious terms, Bush has refused to meet with the broad range of clerics who oppose his war. Meanwhile, worldwide demonstrations are growing bigger and more focused. In Britain one wonders if the next march might shut down London or the entire country. Massive civil disobedience is inevitable at dozens of US embassies. Consumer boycotts are likely to erupt with staggering force.

Within the US, the fiercest opposition may well be coming from Wall Street. Specific corporations such as Dick Cheney's Halliburton and Richard Perle's consulting firm stand to make a fortune from Gulf War II. But mainstream financial and commercial institutions are understandably terrified. The American economy is already staggering under deep recession. Bush's tax cuts will yield stratospheric deficits for decades to come. The US economy now bears the sickly pallor of a collapsing empire. With war, a depressed stock market that hates instability could well plunge another 25-50%. Next would come the worldwide boycott of American products. China counts a billion-plus citizens and a rapidly emerging economic powerhouse. France and Germany dominate the European Union, which will soon outstrip the US in gross output---and consumer spending. A billion-plus Muslims must also be accounted for.

Tragically, violent terrorism would also accompany a Bush attack. In bloodshed and degraded quality of life, the cost would be horrifying. The US airline industry has already warned it might not survive another round of terrorism. That's probably a tiny tip of the economic iceberg.

Through the internet, the nonviolent movement is linked by billions of e-mails and forwarded articles meant to surround and circumvent the corporate media. They warn the blood shed in this proposed war would be unconscionable. That its ecological costs would be unsustainable. That civil rights and liberties are being trashed. And that the multiplier effects of such devastating chaos cannot be predicted. A war between unelected macho madmen, launched by a military superpower against its own puppet gone astray, is the ultimate yin to the new movement's yang.

If, as you read this, war has broken out, know this: the global Superpower of Peace can bend, but it won't break. If Bush still hasn't attacked, and Saddam continues to be disarmed, count another day the Superpower of Peace has extended its pre-emptive influence, its maturity, its scope. No matter what ultimately happens in Iraq, the new millennium will be neither American nor Chinese nor European nor military nor corporate nor dictatorial. It belongs to the Superpower of Peace, being born before our electronic eyes.

Harvey Wasserman is senior editor of www.freepress.org and author of THE LAST ENERGY WAR (Seven Stories Press).

JUST WAR--OR A JUST WAR
Op/Ed for the Washington Post 3/09/03

By JIMMY CARTER

ATLANTA ‹ Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options - previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations - were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations.

The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade.

For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions - with war as a final option - will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

Christiane Northup's advice on wartime

The fear and anxiety caused by the possibility of war are the biggest health challenges we face right now. As a physician, I know full well that emotions such as fear and anger impede the healing process and, if held long enough, actually lock us into a vicious cycle that produces more pain, more fear, and more anxiety. This can wreak havoc on our minds, bodies, and spirits. But this doesn't have to be the case.

There are very specific things each of us can do right now to help prevent war and at the same time create peace in our bodies, minds, and spirits. I was strongly reminded of this week. Both of my daughters called from their respective colleges with concerns and worries about what they've heard on the news about a possible terrorist attack. One wanted to know what I thought about stockpiling cash, water, and canned goods. Her roommate's mother had sent them warnings. The other daughter wanted to know if I thought it was safe for her to go to NYC this weekend. I told them to go about their lives as usual, while paying attention to their inner guidance. I reassured them that they each had access to guidance from within that would lead them in the right direction if they paid attention.

I also gave them a way to think about the current global situation that eads to healing and peace, not further conflict, and shared with them my unshakable belief that each of us has the power, through our thoughts and emotions, to influence the energy of the planet in a way that helps prevent further conflict and also creates peace.

Here's what you can do:

1. Use your thoughts wisely. Understand their power. Thoughts have a tendency to become their physical equivalent. This is one of the fundamental laws of the universe. Another one is the law of attraction, which states that "like attracts like." Because it is consciousness that creates reality, the kind of consciousness you hold-your vibration-actually creates the kind of life you're living. It's impossible to create peace and harmony if you're pushing up against a war. It's impossible to create peace and harmony if you're condemning George Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, etc. You don't have to agree with them, but realize that you'll be contributing to the energy that creates war if you assume an "embattled" mentality concerning them. The split in our nation right now about war is actually creating more of the energy of war. It's not possible to "fight" for peace without creating war.

2. To create peace, you have to be peaceful. The only way to stop war is to start from within you. You must do personal disarmament. The only way to get and stay peaceful is to concentrate on what brings you peace and resist the downward spiral of negative emotions that blames others for your lack of peace. Remember, that to which you give your attention expands. Although there is no denying that we're in a perilous and frightening position right now, that doesn't mean we are powerless to change it. But the only way to do so is by changing your thoughts and emotions from those of anger, hatred, and fear to those associated with compassion and peace.

Spend 30 seconds several times a day creating a "virtual" reality of what peace would look and feel like. Imagine that it's a year from now and the economy is flourishing. George Bush is radiantly healthy; the governments of the free world are all cooperating to ensure global harmony and peace. And Saddam and Bin Laden and their influence have disappeared from the planet. Imagine all our soldiers back home and reunited with their families. Imagine a global village in which all of us can travel freely and joyously and with understanding and acceptance of each other's cultures. When thinking about Iraq or North Korea, imagine the women and children. Send your energy and compassion to them. Don't try to change the men of these countries. In fact, don't even give them any thought lest you energize them. Withdraw your energy from them so that you will no longer be "feeding" them.

Dozens of studies have documented the fact that our thoughts can and do affect others in profound and measurable ways. When a critical mass of individuals (1 percent of the population) was brought together to practice Transcendental Meditation in various areas of the world, for example, there was a measurable decrease in the number of violent crimes, suicides, terrorist attacks, and even international conflicts worldwide. (Orme-Johnson, et al. (1988). International Peace Project in the Middle East: The effect of the Maharishi technology on the unified field. Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 32, (4), pp. 776-812.)

There are also over 180 studies that have documented the positive effect of prayer on everything from other humans to yeast cells.

3. Imagine all the angels and non-physical beings who are working on the other side to protect and uplift all of us. Know that they can only do their work in an atmosphere of compassion, not condemnation. The energy of condemnation will prevent them from connecting with the hearts of those who most need their inspiration and love.

4. Avoid watching the news and reading the newspapers. Headlines are designed to keep you afraid and disempowered so that you will buy more papers or watch more TV. Then you get "hooked" on the news because you're waiting for some official "guidance" that will keep you safe and secure. This simply can't happen, because it's not the way the media is set up. The media is designed to get you riled up, so that you remain tuned in to the "chain of pain." The only lasting safety and security come from the peace that you create within yourself. What's safe for one person will be dangerous for another. Remember all the hundreds of stories from September 11, about the people who were supposed to be at the World Trade Center but, for hundreds of different reasons, simply weren't there that day. Tune in to how you are feeling when you've severed the influence of the mass media. This will give you the guidance you're seeking.

5. Finally, know that when you are tuned into your heart, your Inner Wisdom, and God, then your energy lightens up and your vibration literally changes. You become a beacon of light and peace. You become an "uplifter" and a peacemaker. There's an old saying, "The rising tide lifts all boats. But it won't raise a stone." Stop looking at and thinking about the stones. Join me in raising the tide. And remember the words of the great M. K. Gandhi, "When in despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won; there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall."

Warmly,
Christiane Northrup, M.D.
She is internationally known for her visionary, empowering approach to women's health and wellness. As a practicing physician, obstetrician/gynecologist for over 20 years, Christiane is a leading proponent of medicine and healing that acknowledges the unity of the mind and body, as well as the powerful role of the human spirit in creating health. http://www.drnorthrup.com

Stop That Train!
by Adele Oliveri; March 02, 2003
from zmag.org ZNet | Anti War

Italy is already at war. Nobody would have noticed, had it not been for a handful of trains carrying US military equipment from the military base of Ederle (north-eastern Italy) to Camp Darby (Tuscany); and had it not been, of course, for the mobilizations of a few hundreds of Italian activists who over the past few days have been chasing those trains all along their route, to stop or at least delay their journey, in an attempt to enforce "an embargo against American weapons that will kill civilians in Iraq".

This week's protests, following in the wake of the successful demonstrations of February 15, are contributing to the strengthening of the Italian anti-war front, as the presence on the Italian territory of these "trains of death" rekindles the debate over Italy's logistic role in supporting an attack on Iraq.

Due to its geographic location, since the end of World War 2 Italy has been a key strategic location for the establishment of US and NATO military bases, initially to contain the threats posed by the then Soviet Union. There are currently 6 major US bases and 4 major NATO bases located across the country, plus countless military installation, employing about 13 thousand military and 15 thousand civilian personnel.

Camp Darby, near Pisa, Tuscany, widely considered the largest US arsenal abroad, allegedly hosts 20 thousands tons of artillery ammunitions, missiles, bombs and over 8 thousand tons of high explosives; due to its proximity to the port of Livorno, one of the two largest in Italy together with Genova, Camp Darby is also one of 6 US bases worldwide used for mobilizing troops and equipment. And Livorno is precisely the final destination of the train's military cargo; from there, it will be shipped to Turkey and to the Iraq war front.

Since the inception of the Iraqi crisis, the US Administration has been pressing the Italian government to grant access to the country's airspace, bases and transport infrastructure, to facilitate the deployment of troops and equipment towards the Middle East. Needless to say, Berlusconi and his cabinet proved all too easy to convince. On February 14, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Antonio Martino, sent a letter to the Italian Parliament informing that he had granted all the US' request concerning transport infrastructures, both civil and military, specifying that "those requests are not part of actions leading to the preparation of war against Iraq, but of an effort to put pressure on Saddam Husseins's regime".

Martino's letter aroused widespread indignation among the opposition and the anti-war movement, as it was rightly perceived as a declaration of unilateral support to a US military action on Iraq, regardless of any decision taken by the UN Security Council, without giving the Parliament the opportunity to debate Italy's involvement in the conflict, and in stark opposition to the widespread public opposition to war.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the most militant wing of the anti-war movement, headed by the Disobbedienti ("The Disobedients") decided to step up the confrontation, preparing to intervene with peaceful direct actions at the earliest signs of military maneuvers on the Italian territory. They didn't have to wait long. A week later, on Friday 21, the first two trains (out of a planned total of 26), departing from a minor station in North East, were already being loaded with military vehicles and equipment, heading for Camp Darby. Alerted by rail workers, demonstrators made it quickly to the spot, holding up for a few hours one of the two trains while the second managed to depart. But it was not going to be an easy ride.

Thanks to an efficient communication network, protesters, often operating in relatively small groups (20-30 people) set up mobile blockades all along the route, lighting up fires and obstructing the tracks, forcing the train to come to a halt and to change its route several times before it reached its final destination. Their actions didn't go unchallenged, of course, as the police promptly stepped in to clear the route as the train advanced at a walking pace. The train eventually made it to Camp Darby, with several hours' delay. By the end of day one, it was clear that demonstrators were not going to be alone in their pursuit: rail workers, tacitly supported by their unions, immediately declared the would boycott the trains' operations, refusing to work and providing the demonstrators with all the logistic information required to set up blockades (itineraries, timetables, etc.); the mayors of Pisa and Livorno (the two Tuscan cities near to Camp Darby) formally asked the government to provide detailed information of the military cargo, complaining they had not been notified that such operations were going to take place; and dockworkers in Livorno proclaimed their intention to strike in the event they were asked to load military equipment.

The workers' resistance received the full support of Sergio Cofferati, former leader of CGIL (the largest Italian trade union) and widely regarded as one of the most influential figures of the Italian left, who on that same day issued a statement encouraging "the use of all possible democratic measures to contrast war". Cofferati's declaration was (unintentionally?) matched by a very similar (yet profoundly different) statement by the Minister of the Interiors Giuseppe Pisanu who, taken aback by the strength of the protests, advocated the "use of all possible measures, and if necessary [...] the full restraining force of the state" against the demonstrators. Indeed, as actions intensified over the following days, so did police repression: demonstrators were often beaten and forcibly removed from the tracks, and in some cases identified and reported to the local police station. But this was not enough to deter protesters, who partially changed their strategy switching to what they called "creative disobedience".

Given that the trains of death were transiting on the same tracks and at the same time as regular trains, what easier way to block the former than by arresting the latter? The "put a brake to war" campaign was launched: activists would get on board civil trains and operate the emergency brake, creating further delays to the trains of death that were following on the same tracks. (Interestingly enough, there weren't reports of any complaints by travelers and commuters affected by the delays, who on several occasions where seen to be very supportive and encouraging, cheering up the activists with rounds of applauses.) Blockades, rallies, occupations and sit-ins spread like wildfire, also thanks to alternative media such as global radio, radio sherwood and indymedia italy, that provided live coverage of the protests, advised demonstrators on how to reach the hot spots along the rail tracks, invited to report the sighting of trains, offered the necessary legal advice and even acted as forums for discussing methods and forms of civil disobedience (on indymedia, a rail worker was explaining how to turn the semaphores red without hurting oneself).

By Tuesday 25 February it was apparent that the blockades were being successful in creating some serious disruptions to the military maneuvers: the Ministry of Interior and the Public Security Department had decided to make trains travel at night, in an attempt to escape the blockades, while some of the military cargo was being deviated on the highways causing severe delays and long queues. On the same day, demonstrators also learnt that the US military were negotiating with Slovenia the possibility of redirecting the remaining trains across their borders, to reach Turkey through Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. While initial instructions (later classified) mentioned 26 trains, only 8 had made it to their final destination by Tuesday. And no trains were spotted on the following day either, as the demonstrations reached their peak with a 10,000 people march in Pisa and blockades, occupations and demonstrations all across the country, even in those regions where no trains of death were due to travel.

Are there any lessons we can learn from these events? First, there are acts of civil disobedience capable of bringing together a wide range of social forces, beyond the most radical constituencies. By joining forces with rail workers and their trade unions, not only did demonstrators get access to key logistic information, but their actions gained a greater credibility among the general public, large sections of which have until recently been quite cautious in supporting acts of civil disobedience.

Second, successful action does not necessarily require rigid, entralized organizational structures. Indeed, last week's train blockades were the outcome of the efforts of diverse groups, mainly from social centers and militant organizations, sharing a long history of coordinated actions >while maintaining their own identity and organizational autonomy. > > Third, there is no point in sitting around waiting for the next big >demo to >be arranged, before we mobilize over and over again. Small local actions, if cleverly organized, can be equally powerful and effective in showing our determination to stop the war. It didn't take thousands to obstruct the plans of the American military in Italy: a handful of courageous and determined people was all that was needed. As the African proverb goes, "if you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a small room with a mosquito."

PS - as i write, i learn that, according to the Minister of the Interior, "the shipment of US military equipment was regularly completed" with the arrival of the last train in Pisa, and that "police managed to guarantee at the same time public security and the right to demonstrate". In the meanwhile, however, il Manifesto (Italian left-wing daily) is reporting the sighting of at least 10 "ghost" planes, carrying military personnel and equipment, that have been stopping over at night at the Roman civil airport of Fiumicino, directed to Kuwait...

The Recolonisation of Iraq Cannot be Sold as Liberation
Seumas Milne
Thursday January 30, 2003
The Guardian

Tony Blair's government is running scared of the British people and their stubborn opposition to war on Iraq. The latest panic measure is to try to ban what has been trailed as the biggest demonstration in British political history from Hyde Park, where a giant anti-war rally is planned for February 15. As the US administration accelerates its drive to war, its most faithful cheerleader is having to run ever faster to keep up.
Never mind that every single alleged chemical or biological weapons storage site mentioned in Blair's dossier last year has been inspected and found to have been clean; or that the weapons inspectors reported this week that Iraq had cooperated "rather well"; or that most UN member states regard Hans Blix's unanswered questions as a reason to keep inspecting, rather than launch an unprovoked attack. Jack Straw nevertheless rushed to declare Iraq in material breach of its UN obligations and fair game for the 82nd airborne.
Most people have by now grasped that regime change, rather than disarmament, is the real aim of this exercise and that whatever residual "weapons of mass destruction" Iraq retains are evidently not sufficient to deter an attack - as they appear to be in North Korea. Since both the US and Britain have said they will use force with or without United Nations backing, the greatest impact of any new resolution blackmailed out of the security council is likely to be damage to the UN's own credibility.
To harden up public support, the US has now promised "intelligence" to demonstrate the supposed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, along with evidence that the Iraqis have been secretly moving weapons to outwit the inspectors. Since this will depend entirely on US sources and prisoners - including those we now know have been tortured at the US internment camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - it may not prove quite the breakthrough "Adlai Stevenson moment" the US is hoping for either.
But if none of this seems likely to make a decisive difference to public attitudes to an invasion of Iraq, there is one argument which is bound to resonate more widely in the weeks to come. This is the case made by President Bush in his state of the union speech on Tuesday that war against Iraq would mean the country's "day of liberation" from a tyrannical regime. A similar point was made by a British soldier heading for the Gulf, when asked whether he wasn't concerned about the lack of public support for war.
"Once people know what Saddam has done to his own people," Lance Corporal Daniel Buist replied, "they will be fully behind us." It is a theme taken up most forcefully by liberal war supporters in Britain and the US - the celebrated laptop bombardiers - who developed a taste for "humanitarian intervention" during the Yugoslav maelstrom. The Iraqi people want a US invasion to oust Saddam Hussein, they claim, while the anti-war movement is indifferent to their fate. Where was the "left movement against Saddam" 20 years ago? one critic demanded recently.
In fact, leftwingers were pretty well the only people in the west campaigning against the Iraqi regime two decades ago - left activists were being imprisoned and executed in their hundreds by Saddam Hussein at the time - while the US and British political establishments were busy arming Iraq in its war against Iran and turning a blind eye to his worst human rights abuses, including the gas attacks on the Kurds in the late 1980s.
What changed after 1991 was that the greatest suffering endured by Iraqis was no longer at the hands of the regime, but the result of western-enforced sanctions which, according to Unicef estimates, have killed at least 500,000 children over the past decade.
Nor is there any evidence that most Iraqis, either inside or outside the country, want their country attacked and occupied by the US and Britain, however much they would like to see the back of the Iraqi dictator. Assessing the real state of opinion among Iraqis in exile is difficult enough, let alone in Iraq itself. But there are telling pointers that the licensed intellectuals and club-class politicians routinely quoted in the western media enthusing about US plans for their country are utterly unrepresentative of the Iraqi people as a whole.
Even the main US-sponsored organisations such as the Iraqi National Congress and Iraqi National Accord, which are being groomed to be part of a puppet administration, find it impossible directly to voice support for a US invasion, suggesting little enthusiasm among their potential constituency. Laith Hayali - an Iraqi opposition activist who helped found the British-based solidarity group Cardri in the late 1970s and later fought against Saddam Hussein's forces in Kurdistan - is one of many independent voices who insist that a large majority of Iraqi exiles are opposed to war. Anecdotal evidence from those coming in and out of Iraq itself tell a similar story, which is perhaps hardly surprising given the expected scale of casualties and destruction.
The Iraqi regime's human rights record has been grim - though not uniquely so - over more than 30 years. If and when US and British occupation forces march down Baghdad's Rashid Street, we will doubtless be treated to footage of spontaneous celebrations and GIs being embraced as they hand out sweets. There will be no shortage of people keen to collaborate with the new power; relief among many Iraqis, not least because occupation will mean an end to the misery of sanctions; there will be revelations of atrocities and war crimes trials.
All this will be used to justify what is about to take place. But a foreign invasion which is endorsed by only a small minority of Iraqis and which seems certain to lead to long-term occupation, loss of independence and effective foreign control of the country's oil can scarcely be regarded as national liberation. It is also difficult to imagine the US accepting anything but the most "managed" democracy, given the kind of government genuine elections might well throw up.
The danger of military interventions in the name of human rights is that they are inevitably selective and used to promote the interests of those intervening - just as when they were made in the name of "civilisation" and Christianity. If war goes ahead, the prospect for Iraq must be of a kind of return to the semi-colonial era before 1958, when the country was the pivot of western power in the region, Britain maintained military bases and an "adviser" in every ministry and landowning families like Ahmad Chalabi of the INC's were a law unto themselves. There were also 10,000 political prisoners, parties were banned, the press censored and torture commonplace. As President Bush would say, it looks like the re-run of a bad movie.

Published on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
The American Emergency
by Ronnie Dugger

Those of us who keep up with serious events know we are in an American emergency. It is the emergency of all our American emergencies. Are we a democracy, or have we degenerated into a Presidential-corporate-military dictatorship? Can we save our country, or will we lose the United States as we know it?
In the United Nations we and other nations agreed, largely on the basis of our experience of Mussolini and Hitler, that the one great national war crime is the war of aggression across a nation's borders. We solemnly and legally bound ourselves to act together against that crime.
In December 2000, 26 months ago, for the first time in our two centuries of history our presidency was stolen from us in a presidential and judicial coup. Instead of the people electing the President, the Supreme Court stopped the vote-counting and selected George W. Bush. Everything the Bush administration has done since then has been illegitimate and illegal because he as President is illegitimate and illegal.
And five things he is doing sharply increase the physical danger to Americans from terrorism and war, seek to change us from a democracy to a plutocracy, and threaten the world with bullying and massive American high-tech military violence, even unto nuclear war.
1. Bush immediately mis-categorized 9/11, declaring it to be an act of war against us by nations harboring terrorists instead of what it was, a crime against humanity by a group of terrorists. On the basis of this pretext, he then declared a permanent war against nations that he will select.
2. Last March Bush declared, in a secret policy paper revealed by the Los Angeles Times, that our country can and prospectively will make first use of nuclear weapons for three new reasons: against non-nuclear nations that use chemical or biological weapons, against targets that non-nuclear weapons cannot destroy, and in the event of "surprising military developments."
3. Last September 20th Bush sent to Congress a new national security doctrine that amounts to aggressive war for world domination. He told Congress outright that he will not allow any other nation to equal or surpass the power of the United States and that the U.S. can and will launch wars against nations that have not attacked us and are not imminently about to do so but that he determines are potential threats to us.
4. Since 9/11 he has cudgeled and bullied the Congress and the press, using fear as his goad, to set aside our constitutional liberties in a rush to war. He has championed gigantic tax cuts for the rich in order to bankrupt the government and thereby destroy or gravely cripple Medicare, Social Security, and the rest of the government's programs for the people, and by seeking to totally abolish the estate tax he is attempting to establish a permanent hereditary aristocracy in our country.
5. And now, in pursuit of control of Iraqi oil, he is about to give the final order for the world's one superpower to attack, with a rain of 1,300 missiles, then to invade, with 200,000 troops, and to the extent he desires to destroy a nation 6,000 miles away--a nation of 24 million people, more than half of them 14 years of age or younger, whom we outnumber 12 to 1.
We are becoming the bully of the world. An American attack on Iraq without UN sanction will be a war of aggression as defined and prohibited by the UN. Our waging it will be a war crime.
We must stay calm. We must believe that all this is happening, even though it is amazing and astounding. We must be nonviolent in all that we do. And we must have courage now. We are taught by our parents and from grade-school on to obey, that it's patriotic to obey. Now we must have the courage to do the opposite, the courage to disobey. To march. To resist. To refuse to cooperate in this or any other war of aggression that Bush launches. We must say No and we must mean and continue to mean No. These are our unfamiliar but sacred duties now as patriots, as American citizens, and as human beings.
God Forgive and God Bless America.
Ronnie Dugger (rdugger123@aol.com) is a founder of the Texas Observer and the Alliance for Democracy. He has written biographies of Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan.

U.S. Diplomat John Brady Kiesling
Letter of Resignation, to:
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 2003


Dear Mr. Secretary:
I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.
It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.
The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.
The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?
We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.
We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto?
I urge you to listen to America’s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?
Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.
I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.
John Brady Kiesling

Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences

by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed

economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

10 Lessons from the Corporate Collapse
By David Moberg, In These Times

September 25, 2002

Judging from George W. Bush's "Wacko" economic forum, the fragile economy needs more tax cuts for the rich, more unfettered markets, more personal virtue -- and then everything will be all right. Give the Bush-Harken-Enron-Cheney-Halliburton team an A+ for consistency, but failing marks on all other counts. There are many lessons to be learned from the collapse of the bubble economy and the scandals of corporate financial skullduggery, but the White House hasn't learned any of them. Here are 10 for starters.

1. There is no new economy.

Remember endless growth? The Dow 30,000? Well, business cycles may vary in their details, but they go hand-in-hand with capitalism, and ultimately companies must make real profits if the system is going to work. "Irrational exuberance," as economists Robert Shiller and Charles Kindleberger most famously explained, is endemic to capitalism. And as Nobel Prize-winner Joseph Stiglitz's work emphasizes, inevitable distortions and inadequacies of information create irrationality.

Despite novel conditions created by computer and telecommunications technologies, and by the expanded global markets, real-world capitalism remains an amalgamation of a narrow concept of rationality (based on the most efficient -- that is, most profitable -- use of capital) and some fundamental irrationalities. Left on its own, the market is not a perfectly self-regulating mechanism for universal good, but a limited, useful machine that can easily veer off on a destructive course.

2. The crisis is not the result of a few bad apples.

The entire barrel is rotten. In this case, the barrel is the framework of rules and regulations for business. Not every executive is a fraud or cheat, but if the system permits cooking the books, defrauding investors, overcompensating executives, rigging prices, polluting the environment, breaking unions and abusing workers, then it puts pressure on every business to move in those directions. The failures of the much-vaunted U.S. model of deregulated cowboy capitalism were already evident in growing inequality and insecurity and a declining quality of life. Now even much of the positive side -- growth, profits, new businesses, productivity, soaring stock markets -- has been called into question as an accounting chimera. It's time to question the whole model -- lock, stock and barrel.

3. Banish the cult of the invincible CEO.

The excesses of managers have helped destroy many corporations, millions of good jobs and the retirement security of tens of millions. CEOs have treated their posts as a license to loot their own corporations, workers and even investors. The problem is not just bad accounting, but no accountability. Every corporation needs at least a majority of independent directors (as well as directors selected directly by employees). Protection is also needed against self-serving actions (like CEO-appointed compensation committees and golden parachutes), greater power for shareholders, and guarantees of the right of all employees to organize. Ultimately, corporations must answer not just to their executives, or even their shareholders, but to society as a whole.

4. Regulation is good.

Indeed, regulation is necessary, both for the survival of the system and, more important, to make the system fairly deliver the goods. First, the financial system should serve the needs of the broader economy, not create speculative bubbles. Over the past two decades, old regulations of finance were dismantled -- like the separation of investment and commercial banking. The Federal Reserve failed to rein in the exuberance (as tougher requirements on lending for stock speculation might have done). Financial "innovations" sprang up without any control (like the special purpose entities used by Enron or a vast world of financial derivatives). And crony capitalism flourished.

Second, the market must be governed by certain rules of fair play to maintain competition and channel it in socially productive directions. While non-governmental groups, including unions, can play an important role, the government is the essential regulator, even if the mechanisms government uses and the way regulations are written are open to debate.

5. Regulation must go global.

The expanded global market has given corporate executives and financial speculators more freedom to escape regulation and to play off one country against another. But governments also have rushed unwisely to give away the power they still possess. Expanded "trade" agreements are locking in a worldwide order that makes it more difficult to regulate corporations in the public interest. And the exposure of more economies to the deregulated global financial markets has increased instability and hardship.

Take the example of American companies relocating to foreign locales to avoid taxes. Initially Bush was fighting European efforts to rein in tax havens, but the public temper has turned as a result of the corporate scandals and a heightened sense that escaping taxes during wartime is unpatriotic. Political and labor movement pressure recently stopped Stanley Works from leaving Connecticut for Bermuda, and Congress barred military contracts to companies that fled after January 1 (and may close the loophole entirely).

But there is still a big problem that hurts poor countries as much as the rich: One-third of total global gross domestic product is now held in financial havens, Oxfam reports, and the conservatively estimated $50 billion in revenue that poor countries lose every year to tax havens is equal to six times the cost of achieving universal primary education.

6. Let the sun shine in.

The International Monetary Fund and the U.S. government demand that poor countries be more financially transparent. That would be a good idea in the United States, too, especially for so-called public companies. Now the whole system is an insider's game, with stock analysts -- promoters, more accurately -- giving special access to stock offerings managed by their companies to favored executives (or insiders like Martha Stewart and George Bush getting tips to dump stocks before bad news is released publicly). Instead, there should be one set of books open to everyone.

Relationships among research, brokerage, banking, consulting and auditing businesses also should be kept at arm's-length. There should be tougher regulation of insider trading, full accounting of stock options as expenses, and prohibitions against short-term holding of options by executives. Institutional investors, like big mutual fund companies, should be open about and publicly accountable for how they vote their shares.

It's simply ludicrous to assume that bowing to the whims of the market is the best way to provide what most people need. Capitalism can be creatively productive, or it can be parasitic (as in the capitalist classes in so many undeveloped countries). Despite the technological innovations (and it's worth remembering that the Internet and much of the computer revolution would never have happened without government funding in the early stages), American capitalism has turned increasingly into a scheme for the powerful to plunder existing wealth through takeovers, corporate restructuring, privatization and other financial maneuvers.

This is reflected in growing inequality and the concentration of wealth and income at the very top -- a development exacerbated by tax cuts for the rich. The trend is shown most starkly in how the new "barons of bankruptcy," to borrow the Financial Times' phrase, enriched themselves while driving their companies into the ground. Meanwhile, in courtroom bankruptcy proceedings, workers are near the end of the line when it comes to claims on corporate assets.

Adding injury to insult, Congress is likely to approve new personal bankruptcy legislation when it returns in September. That bill greatly harms individuals, protecting the banks and credit card companies but not those losing their health insurance (though health-related financial problems are a leading cause of personal bankruptcy). This is precisely the inverse of the lesson that Congress should have learned.

8. Stop shifting risk.

In every sphere of life, the trend has been to shift increasing amounts of risk to the average American. Although sold under the attractive names of "choice," "freedom" and "flexibility," the typical result has been to threaten their livelihoods. For example, riskier defined-contribution pension plans -- like 401(k)s, which Congress still hasn't protected and regulated -- have been replacing defined-benefit pension plans. Growing numbers have no pension plan at all. And though Bush and the Republican leadership continue to push Social Security privatization, which would massively increase retirement insecurity, some Republican candidates are changing their positions -- or at least their rhetoric -- as public opinion swings against such schemes.

Safety nets are diminishing: While the boom economy in the late '90s reduced poverty somewhat, the numbers of people in "extreme poverty" actually increased, as welfare and other assistance was cut. Fewer families have health insurance, and the insurance they do have covers less.

Meanwhile, free trade exposes more workers to the risk of losing their jobs. Yet while a diminishing percentage of workers have union contracts to protect them, no CEO will take a job without a contract that pays him or her handsomely, even if the exec screws up and is forced out.

9. The corruption of politics by corporate money is bad for democracy -- and the economy.

The Democrats, who should be for government regulation of the economy to help working people, have lost any sense of conviction and direction. Much, though not all, of the blame for their submission to the market-fundamentalist, pro-corporate agenda lies with the current campaign-finance system. As a result, the range of political debate has been narrow, and working people have little voice. That means there is less ability to win the kinds of reforms that are needed to make the economy work well. The McCain-Feingold reforms are not likely to change that situation significantly, though public financing could.

10. It's the powerful versus the people.

For a brief moment, Al Gore had it half-right, even if he (and especially his running mate Joe Lieberman) didn't really believe it. For the past three decades, the powerful have waged a very successful but "one-sided class war" (in the words of former United Auto Workers President Doug Fraser). Of course, it has been fought in different terms -- against big government, taxes, regulations and inflation, but for free trade -- and it has hidden under many other banners (including a wide variety of social issues like gun control and abortion that obscured the economic agenda of the powerful).

There has been a much less vigorous effort to mobilize the people to curtail the powerful and keep them socially accountable. The final lesson is that the times and popular sentiment may be as ripe as any in decades for reviving that old populist message.

TOP-SECRET IRAQ WEAPONS REPORT REVEALS U.S. CORPORATIONS, GOV'T AGENCIES & NUCLEAR LABS HELPED ILLEGALLY ARM IRAQ

Hewlett Packard, Dupont, Honeywell and other major U.S. corporations, as well as governmental agencies including the Department of Defense and the nation1s nuclear labs, all illegally helped Iraq to build its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

On Wednesday, December 18, Geneva-based reporter Andreas Zumach broke the story on the US national listener-sponsored radio and television show "Democracy Now!" Zumach's Berlin-based paper Die Tageszeitung plans to soon publish a full list of companies and nations who have aided Iraq. The paper first reported on Tuesday that German and U.S. companies had extensive ties to Iraq but didn1t list names.

Zumach obtained top-secret portions of Iraq1s 12,000-page weapons declaration that the US had redacted from the version made available to the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council.

"We have 24 major U.S. companies listed in the report who gave very substantial support especially to the biological weapons program but also to the missile and nuclear weapons program," Zumach said. "Pretty much everything was illegal in the case of nuclear and biological weapons. Every form of cooperation and supplies was outlawed in the 1970s."

The list of U.S. corporations listed in Iraq's report include Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel, International Computer Systems, Unisys, Sperry and TI Coating.

Zumach also said the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, Commerce, and Agriculture quietly helped arm Iraq. U.S. government nuclear weapons laboratories Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia trained traveling Iraqi nuclear scientists and gave non-fissile material for construction of a nuclear bomb.

"There has never been this kind of comprehensive layout and listing like we have now in the Iraqi report to the Security Council so this is quite new and this is especially new for the U.S. involvement, which has been even more suppressed in the public domain and the U.S. population," Zumach said.

The names of companies were supposed to be top secret. Two weeks ago Iraq provided two copies of its full 12,000-page report, one to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Geneva, and one to the United Nations in New York. Zumach said the U.S. broke an agreement of the Security Council and blackmailed Colombia, which at the time was presiding over the Council, to take possession of the UN's only copy. The U.S. then proceeded to make copies of the report for the other four permanent Security Council nations, Britain, France, Russia and China. Only yesterday did the remaining members of the Security Council receive their copies. By then, all references to foreign companies had been removed.

According to Zumach, only Germany had more business ties to Iraq than the U.S. As many as 80 German companies are also listed in Iraq's report. The paper reported that some German companies continued to do business with Iraq until last year.
***
Democracy Now! is publishing a translation of Andreas Zumach's articles from Die Tageszeitung on its website www.democracynow.org

I’ve been asked to speak about "How to confront Empire?" It’s a huge question, and I have no easy answers.
When we speak of confronting "Empire," we need to identify what "Empire" means. Does it mean the U.S. Government (and its European satellites), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and multinational corporations? Or is it something more than that?
In many countries, Empire has sprouted other subsidiary heads, some dangerous byproducts — nationalism, religious bigotry, fascism and, of course terrorism. All these march arm in arm with the project of corporate globalization.
Let me illustrate what I mean. India — the world’s biggest democracy — is currently at the forefront of the corporate globalization project. Its "market" of one billion people is being prized open by the WTO. Corporatization and Privatization are being welcomed by the Government and the Indian elite.
It is not a coincidence that the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, the Disinvestment Minister — the men who signed the deal with Enron in India, the men who are selling the country’s infrastructure to corporate multinationals, the men who want to privatize water, electricity, oil, coal, steel, health, education and telecommunication — are all members or admirers of the RSS. The RSS is a right wing, ultra-nationalist Hindu guild which has openly admired Hitler and his methods.
The dismantling of democracy is proceeding with the speed and efficiency of a Structural Adjustment Program. While the project of corporate globalization rips through people’s lives in India, massive privatization, and labor "reforms" are pushing people off their land and out of their jobs. Hundreds of impoverished farmers are committing suicide by consuming pesticide. Reports of starvation deaths are coming in from all over the country.
While the elite journeys to its imaginary destination somewhere near the top of the world, the dispossessed are spiraling downwards into crime and chaos. This climate of frustration and national disillusionment is the perfect breeding ground, history tells us, for fascism.
The two arms of the Indian Government have evolved the perfect pincer action. While one arm is busy selling India off in chunks, the other, to divert attention, is orchestrating a howling, baying chorus of Hindu nationalism and religious fascism. It is conducting nuclear tests, rewriting history books, burning churches, and demolishing mosques. Censorship, surveillance, the suspension of civil liberties and human rights, the definition of who is an Indian citizen and who is not, particularly with regard to religious minorities, is becoming common practice now.

Last March, in the state of Gujarat, two thousand Muslims were butchered in a State-sponsored pogrom. Muslim women were specially targeted. They were stripped, and gang-raped, before being burned alive. Arsonists burned and looted shops, homes, textiles mills, and mosques.
More than a hundred and fifty thousand Muslims have been driven from their homes. The economic base of the Muslim community has been devastated.
While Gujarat burned, the Indian Prime Minister was on MTV promoting his new poems. In January this year, the Government that orchestrated the killing was voted back into office with a comfortable majority. Nobody has been punished for the genocide. Narendra Modi, architect of the pogrom, proud member of the RSS, has embarked on his second term as the Chief Minister of Gujarat. If he were Saddam Hussein, of course each atrocity would have been on CNN. But since he’s not — and since the Indian "market" is open to global investors — the massacre is not even an embarrassing inconvenience.
There are more than one hundred million Muslims in India. A time bomb is ticking in our ancient land.
All this to say that it is a myth that the free market breaks down national barriers. The free market does not threaten national sovereignty, it undermines democracy.
As the disparity between the rich and the poor grows, the fight to corner resources is intensifying. To push through their "sweetheart deals," to corporatize the crops we grow, the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the dreams we dream, corporate globalization needs an international confederation of loyal, corrupt, authoritarian governments in poorer countries to push through unpopular reforms and quell the mutinies.
Corporate Globalization — or shall we call it by its name? — Imperialism — needs a press that pretends to be free. It needs courts that pretend to dispense justice.
Meanwhile, the countries of the North harden their borders and stockpile weapons of mass destruction. After all they have to make sure that it’s only money, goods, patents and services that are globalized. Not the free movement of people. Not a respect for human rights. Not international treaties on racial discrimination or chemical and nuclear weapons or greenhouse gas emissions or climate change, or — god forbid — justice.
So this — all this — is "empire." This loyal confederation, this obscene accumulation of power, this greatly increased distance between those who make the decisions and those who have to suffer them.
Our fight, our goal, our vision of Another World must be to eliminate that distance.
So how do we resist "Empire"?
The good news is that we’re not doing too badly. There have been major victories. Here in Latin America you have had so many — in Bolivia, you have Cochabamba. In Peru, there was the uprising in Arequipa, In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez is holding on, despite the U.S. government’s best efforts.
And the world’s gaze is on the people of Argentina, who are trying to refashion a country from the ashes of the havoc wrought by the IMF.
In India the movement against corporate globalization is gathering momentum and is poised to become the only real political force to counter religious fascism.
As for corporate globalization’s glittering ambassadors — Enron, Bechtel, WorldCom, Arthur Anderson — where were they last year, and where are they now?
And of course here in Brazil we must ask …who was the president last year, and who is it now?
Still … many of us have dark moments of hopelessness and despair. We know that under the spreading canopy of the War Against Terrorism, the men in suits are hard at work.
While bombs rain down on us, and cruise missiles skid across the skies, we know that contracts are being signed, patents are being registered, oil pipelines are being laid, natural resources are being plundered, water is being privatized, and George Bush is planning to go to war against Iraq.
If we look at this conflict as a straightforward eye-ball to eye-ball confrontation between "Empire" and those of us who are resisting it, it might seem that we are losing.
But there is another way of looking at it. We, all of us gathered here, have, each in our own way, laid siege to "Empire."
We may not have stopped it in its tracks — yet — but we have stripped it down. We have made it drop its mask. We have forced it into the open. It now stands before us on the world’s stage in all it’s brutish, iniquitous nakedness.
Empire may well go to war, but it’s out in the open now — too ugly to behold its own reflection. Too ugly even to rally its own people. It won’t be long before the majority of American people become our allies.
Only a few days ago in Washington, a quarter of a million people marched against the war on Iraq. Each month, the protest is gathering momentum.
Before September 11th 2001 America had a secret history. Secret especially from its own people. But now America’s secrets are history, and its history is public knowledge. It’s street talk.
Today, we know that every argument that is being used to escalate the war against Iraq is a lie. The most ludicrous of them being the U.S. Government’s deep commitment to bring democracy to Iraq.
Killing people to save them from dictatorship or ideological corruption is, of course, an old U.S. government sport. Here in Latin America, you know that better than most.
Nobody doubts that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator, a murderer (whose worst excesses were supported by the governments of the United States and Great Britain). There’s no doubt that Iraqis would be better off without him.
But, then, the whole world would be better off without a certain Mr. Bush. In fact, he is far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein.
So, should we bomb Bush out of the White House?
It’s more than clear that Bush is determined to go to war against Iraq, regardless of the facts — and regardless of international public opinion.
In its recruitment drive for allies, The United States is prepared to invent facts.
The charade with weapons inspectors is the U.S. government’s offensive, insulting concession to some twisted form of international etiquette. It’s like leaving the "doggie door" open for last minute "allies" or maybe the United Nations to crawl through.
But for all intents and purposes, the New War against Iraq has begun.
What can we do?
We can hone our memory, we can learn from our history. We can continue to build public opinion until it becomes a deafening roar.
We can turn the war on Iraq into a fishbowl of the U.S. government’s excesses.
We can expose George Bush and Tony Blair — and their allies — for the cowardly baby killers, water poisoners, and pusillanimous long-distance bombers that they are.
We can re-invent civil disobedience in a million different ways. In other words, we can come up with a million ways of becoming a collective pain in the ass.
When George Bush says "you’re either with us, or you are with the terrorists" we can say "No thank you." We can let him know that the people of the world do not need to choose between a Malevolent Mickey Mouse and the Mad Mullahs.
Our strategy should be not only to confront empire, but to lay siege to it. To deprive it of oxygen. To shame it. To mock it. With our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness — and our ability to tell our own stories. Stories that are different from the ones we’re being brainwashed to believe.
The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling — their ideas, their version of history, their wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability.
Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them.
Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.
—Arundhati Roy
Porto Alegre, Brazil
January 27, 2003

War for World Dominance
by Karen Talbot
February 1, 2003

George Bush's recent State of the Union speech should alarm the people of our country and the entire planet about the perils facing us all—and they are not the ones he spoke of with arrogance, lies, and threats. The true significance of his words is yet to be fully comprehended by many of us.

The real reasons for a war against Iraq Bush, and the ruling Wall Street elite he represents, are desperately seeking to cope with a growing economic crisis attributable to fundamental contradictions in the very system over which they reign. As in the past, war is seen as the answer. Today, they want to go to war to grab the vast untapped oil riches of Iraq and the Persian Gulf. More importantly, they want to literally rule the world because they think it will rescue them from the deepening economic morass and bring a cornucopia of super profits. They are also massively shifting the burden of the crisis to the workers, poor, and middle strata in the United States and in every corner of the world. In the process they intend to siphon off even more wealth to the minuscule top one percent of society. Such were the undercurrents beneath Bush's State of the Union rhetoric.

There is no question, Bush and the oil interests he and his cohorts represent, aim to seize the "black gold" reserves of Iraq, second only to those of Saudi Arabia—easily extractible, easily refined, high quality, and therefore highly profitable petroleum, the possession of which would allow U.S. oil companies also to undermine OPEC and thus control prices. They are driven by the fact that Iraq is strategically located near other oil-rich nations of the Middle East, critical waterways, and key pipeline routes from Central Asia. They are also driven by the reality that the world's hydro-carbon reserves are being depleted rapidly, yet the oil wells of Iraq will continue to produce after most others run dry.

To take over these oil reserves, they need to occupy Iraq and stave off companies from rival powers like France, Russia, and China, all of which have been granted concessions by the Iraqi regime to develop a considerable portion of those riches.

Equally important: they need to control the people of Iraq. After all, from the time oil was discovered in their country, the mass of Iraqi people waged bitter struggles for nationalization of their natural resources against brutal imperialist domination by Britain and the United States who were acting on behalf of the giant oil corporations. This was also the experience of the Iranian people when the CIA deposed their democratically-elected leader, Mohammad Mossadegh, in 1953, because he nationalized Iran's oil. The same dynamics are being echoed today in Venezuela.

Moreover, a war against Iraq will generate even greater profits for the armaments industry. What better way to stuff their coffers than to build weapons and then blow them up— perfect "built-in obsolescence." There are built-in consumers, as well—the taxpaying public which has dished out trillions of dollars to the Pentagon in recent years while basic social programs have been undermined or eliminated. And now, more than ever, there is the lucrative sale of U.S. weaponry to the new NATO members from Eastern Europe who are being prevailed upon to update their military and vastly increase their armaments budgets to the tremendous detriment of their own social programs.

World dominance These are key reasons for the current war frenzy. But there is something qualitatively more dangerous underway. There is an overriding long-planned agenda being orchestrated and directed by the Bush regime for total world dominance—economically and militarily. Such dominance is sought in order to wield full control over the governments and peoples of the poorer nations, but also over the European Union, Japan, and the other imperial rivals. Bloody wars have been waged in the past among such competitors seeking control over global markets and resources. It would be a mistake to assume we are beyond such confrontations today.

Attacking Iraq is the lynchpin in the scheme for world dominance. Bush, Colin Powell, and others in the administration have said the assault will begin within the next few weeks, no matter what the UN does. In fact, it probably will work to Washington's advantage to act without the UN as this will eliminate the necessity of making deals with France and Russia for sharing the spoils in order to win their votes in the Security Council. Nevertheless, it is possible that on the eve of an actual attack, these nations will capitulate, perhaps even voting at the last minute for a new enabling resolution in a desperate attempt to latch onto at least some of the booty.

Leading up to this critical turning point, we have seen the alarming growth in clout of the military-industrial complex, about which President Eisenhower sounded a dire warning. We have seen the advent of new military doctrines projecting "full spectrum dominance," "pre-emptive" nuclear strike, and the "war against terrorism." We have heard the U.S. Space Command speak openly about "dominating space to dominate Earth" in order to protect U.S. investments. We have witnessed the moves to weaponize and nuclearize space and to build destabilizing anti-ballistic missiles, while scrapping the ABM Treaty . We have seen the rapid eastward expansion of NATO with the U.S. at the helm. We have seen a significant increase in the huge number of globe-encircling U.S. military bases. These new installations are strategically located near oil fields and pipeline routes, particularly in Central Asia, Georgia, Afghanistan, and the former Yugoslavia. We have seen the use in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan, of ever-more powerful and illegal weapons, including fuel-air explosives, cluster bombs, radioactive depleted uranium- tipped armaments and "bunker busting" bombs, all of which have killed thousands of civilians. Are these not weapons of mass destruction?

"Shock and Awe" All of that will pale by comparison with what's ahead. When Bush gives the word, "the full force and might of the U.S. military" will be unleashed in an unprovoked assault against a nation of 22 million people who already have suffered immeasurably from brutal war and economic sanctions—a country which ironically is the "cradle of civilization."

Even as Bush spoke before the joint session of Congress, the Pentagon leaked reports that the U.S. will hit Iraq with up to 800 cruise missiles in two days—more than twice the number of missiles launched during the entire 40 days of the 1991 Gulf War. The intent is to shatter Iraq "physically, emotionally and psychologically." The objective is to "shock and awe."

The "Shock and Awe" scheme was concocted by military strategist Harlan Ullman who said "you have this simultaneous effect—rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima—not taking days or weeks but minutes."* A Pentagon official told CBS News following a briefing on the plan: "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before."

A senior Bush official confirmed that "Shock and Awe" is the concept on which the war plan is based," according to CBS News.

"Shock and Awe" is aimed at demonstrating what Armageddon would look like. It is aimed at trying to terrify the people and nations of the world—any who might dare challenge U.S. dominance or stand in the way of conquest and plunder. Bush and his entourage have repeatedly stressed that Iraq will be just the beginning of an unprecedented ongoing war. Add to this his threat to use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive first strike. Any country he labels part of the "axis of evil" is fair game. Zbigniew Bzrezinski in his book, "The Grand Chessboard" dubs this as a "new kind of hegemony," a "benevolent" imperialism.

Bush exhibits absolutely no glimmer of human concern for the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who will die horrible deaths. Almost half of the Iraqi people are under age 14, so a high percentage of civilian deaths will be children. This is on top of the more than 500,000 children who have died from the sanctions according to UNICEF. And what of the additional hundreds of thousands who will suffer injuries, illness, hunger, and total disruption of their lives.

There's barely a murmur of concern for the likely casualties among U.S. troops, or the probability that many of them, as with veterans of the 1991 Gulf War, will be stricken by "Gulf War Syndrome" caused by radioactive depleted uranium and other toxins.

What of the United Nations? Bush, Colin Powell, and other administration insiders have made it clear the U.S. will carry out the assault on Iraq with or without the authority of the United Nations. Joining Bush's war will be junior partner Britain, dragged into the fray by Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is totally disregarding the overwhelming opposition of the British public. After-all, Britain is keen to restore at least some of its previous imperialist status in the region.

They will carry out this war in defiance of the UN Charter and international law, and with disdain for the pleas for peace of tens of millions of people the world over. This includes the protest of what has certainly become a wide-ranging majority of people in the U.S. They will proceed with the assault without "smoking gun" evidence, merely resorting to presenting more circumstantial "proof" before the Security Council as the hour of the attack nears. But then, Washington really feels it doesn't need to convince the UN because they have decided to wage war no matter what happens.

There is a growing worldwide demand that there should be no legitimization of this war through capitulation of UN Security Council members to bribes and threats. Such a development would not only violate every tenet of international law but it would it would undermine the United Nations itself.

Despite the Bush administration's obvious disdain for the rest of the world, the economic turmoil spreading in the U.S. ironically has been partially staved off by a massive inflow of capital from Europe, Asia, Middle East oiligarchies and elsewhere, which has furthered the extravagant accumulation of wealth by the super-rich. Borrowing from abroad has amounted to $2 billion a day. But the abrupt decline of the dollar in recent weeks threatens to undermine confidence, which could interrupt that massive influx of capital and lead to a dramatic further decline in the economy.