The JvL Bi-Weekly

James van Luik

Publisher & Editor

Tuesday, February 04, 2003

Volume2, No. 2

3Articles

1.The Cairo Declaration

Against U. S. Hegemony and War on Iraq

And

In Solidarity with Palestine

2. Bush Regime Intent on World War III

3.Old Words on War Stirring a New Dispute at Berkeley

(Emma Goldman)

by

Dean E. Murphy

(I want to explain why this issue of the JvL Bi-Weekly has been delayed in publication. It  was because of the last article in this issue, page 7, having to do with the initial action of the University of California, Berkeley, prohibiting Dr. Candace Falk, Director of the Emma Goldman Papers Project at the University, from raising money by using quotes of Emma Goldman. These quotes were deemed political and therefore inappropriate by Dr. Robert M. Price, Associate Vice-Chancellor for Research. This, as if the prohibiting of the fund-raiser was not in itself political, and a First Amendment issue.

The prohibition caused strong protest throughout the United States and elsewhere including from myself. Apparently, the Chancellor, Dr. Robert M. Berdahl, too, had reservations about the prohibition, the action Dr. Robert M. Price,  Associate Vice-Chancellor for Research had taken.

Today, Sunday, I have just received telephone confirmation from a source very close to Dr. Falk that the Chancellor of the University of California has overridden the Associate Vice-Chancellor, in his action prohibiting The Emma Goldman Paper’s Project from raising money by using Emma Goldman’s insightful quotations. These quotations certainly have a modern appeal and applicability.    James van Luik)

1.The Cairo Declaration

Against U.S. Hegemony and War on Iraq

And

In Solidarity with Palestine

 The international meeting organized by the Egyptian
Popular Campaign to Confront U.S Aggression was
convened in Cairo on December 18 and 19 to launch the
International Campaign.

 We, the participants reaffirm our resolve to stand in
solidarity with the people of Iraq and Palestine,
recognizing that war and aggression against them is
but part of a U.S. project of global domination and
subjugation. Solidarity with Iraq and Palestine is
integral to the internationalist struggle against
neo-liberal globalization. The Cairo meeting is not an
isolated event, but an extension of a protracted
international struggle against imperialism, from
Seattle and Genoa to Lisbon and Florence, to Cordoba
and Cairo.

 The U.S. provides unlimited support, and even
justification, to the Zionist perpetrators of
genocidal crimes against the Palestinian people. The
suffering of the Iraqi people under a regime of
genocidal sanctions lasting over a decade, and the
aggressive militarism which they face today is but a
logical outcome of the structures of power asymmetry
of the existing world order:

 The U.S. monopolizes political, economic and
military power within the framework of capitalist
globalization, to the detriment of the lives of the
majority of the world's people

 The U.S. imposes control through naked aggression
and militarized globalization in pursuit of its
rulers' interests, all while reinstating the
characteristic direct occupation of classical
colonialism

 The U.S. global strategy, which was formulated prior
to September 11 2001, aims to maintain the existing
uni-polar world order, and to prevent the emergence of
forces that would shift the balance of power towards
multi-polarity. The U.S. administration has exploited
the tragic events of September 11, under the pretext
of fighting terrorism, to implement the pre-existing
strategy.

 Attention to this global context helps explain current
world developments:

 FIRST: Capitalist Globalization and U.S. Hegemony

prioritize the interest of monopolistic capitalist circles above those of the people, including Europeans and

U.S. citizens.

 Integrate the economies of different countries into
a single global capitalist economic system under
conditions which undermine social development and
adversely affect the situation of women, child health,
education, and social services for the elderly. In
addition, unemployment and poverty increase.

 Generalize the culture of consumerism and
individualism, to the detriment of a sense of
collective responsibility, whether towards the
thousands of infant and child deaths in Iraq resulting
from polluted water, malnutrition and deficiencies in
medical supplies, or towards the victims of AIDS,
malnutrition and famines around the world. Among
millions of people standards of living have
deteriorated while unemployment and poverty have
become widespread. Globalization has resulted in the
marginalizing of entire peoples who could no longer
acquire the basic necessities to sustain life.

 SECOND: In the absence of democracy, and with
widespread corruption and oppression constituting
significant obstacles along the path of the Arab
peoples' movement towards economic, social, and
intellectual progress, adverse consequences are
further aggravated within the framework of the
existing world order of neo-liberal globalization.

 Admission to restrictions on democratic development
in Iraq in no way constitutes acceptance of U.S.
justifications for continuation of sanctions, and now
preparations for war. Without disregarding
long-standing restrictions on democratic development
in Iraqi society - as is the case in all Arab
societies - it is evident that the U.S.-imposed
sanctions have had a devastating effect on Iraq's
development. Whereas Iraq had once enjoyed a
relatively positive profile according to certain human
development indicators, its people now suffer severely
as a result of the sanctions regime. Iraq has
witnessed a significant rise in child mortality rates,
the spread of several diseases, reduction of
opportunities in education, and a marked deterioration
of the standard of living. As human suffering
increases it generates a sense of defeatism.

 The Palestinian people are suffering as a result of
the loss of their land and continued Zionist
aggression, which the U.S. supports militarily,
economically, and politically, making its
administration a de facto accomplice in the crimes
committed against the Palestinian people. The U.S.
protects Israel from condemnation in international
forums under the pretext of combating terrorism, and
it asserts additional false claims, such as when it
equates the legitimate struggle of the Palestinian
people to resist occupation, liberate their land, and
return to their homes, on the one hand, with terrorism
that we all abhor, on the other.

 The policies of Structural Adjustment associated
with neo-liberal globalization have precipitated
global crises manifest in a widening wealth gap,
increase in poverty and unemployment, and general
deterioration of standards of living.

 U.S. military presence in the Arab region, and its
dictates to governments of sovereign nations of the
region has compounded the suffering of the Arab
people. Interference in the internal affairs of these
nations now extends to demands of educational reform,
and insistence on "democratization". Ironically this
is occurring at a time when civil liberties in the
U.S. are clearly under siege, especially with regard
to Arab and Muslim Americans, along with other
minorities. The U.S. administration also violates
international law by its inhumane treatment of the
POWs in Guantanamo. Also evident is the wealth gap in
the U.S., which is the widest among the industrial
nations of the world.

 Far from secretly, the US intends to partition Arab
countries into smaller entities on ethnic or religious
basis. This would enable Israel to become the dominant
regional power within the framework of the Middle East
Project, to the peril of an Arab project of equitable
development and regional unity.

 The suffering of the Arab people and U.S. unwavering
support of the system of apartheid imposed on the
Palestinian people, will undoubtedly fuel conflict and
lead to the escalation of violence in one of the most
sensitive areas of the world. Such danger can easily
extend to neighboring Europe, Asia and Africa.
Continued preparation for war on Iraq in spite of its
acceptance of a UN resolution of aggressive inspection
of its armament, as well as civilian industries,
signals a predetermined intent to control the Arab
region, its oil and indeed the entire world supply of
oil.

 THIRD: For all these reasons we declare our total
opposition to war on Iraq and our resolve to continue
the struggle against U.S. policies of global
domination. We strongly believe in the urgency of
mobilizing against these policies. All democratic
forces in the world that are for genuine Peace and
Justice must join together within the framework of an
international campaign against neo-liberal, US-centric
globalization and promote an alternate globalism based
on Equity and Justice. This would mean better
utilization of the world's resources and protection of
the environment. Together the people of the world are
quite able to combat aggression and all forms of
injustice, prejudice and racism, and make a better
world possible.

 The Cairo conference against war on Iraq and in
solidarity with Palestine represents the launching of
an international popular movement that creates
effective mechanisms for confronting policies of
aggression. The participation of international
activists who are prominent for their struggles for
Human Dignity, Rights and Justice, as well as
intellectuals, authors, unionists, human rights
workers, journalists and artists- from Egypt and the
rest of the Arab World, Africa, Asia, Latin America,
Europe, and the United States- will no doubt
accelerate this noble endeavor in spite of the
numerous obstacles that we have to confront.

 FOURTH: It is important that this international
popular initiative of solidarity with Iraq and
Palestine proceed according to an Action Plan which
includes clearly defined priorities:

 1. Condemnation of U.S. military presence on Arab land
along with pressuring the Arab governments that allow
U.S military bases on their territory to close them
down, and not to provide air, naval, or land
facilities

 2. Develop cooperation among popular organizations of
the South to reinforce solidarity in confronting the
policies and practices of neo-liberal globalization
and U.S. hegemony

 3. Work towards cooperation with the international
anti-globalization movement of the North and South,
and participation in activities and meetings organized
by this movement

 4. Promote the unity of democratic forces and popular
organizations in different parts of the world, and
form solidarity committees which oppose war on Iraq,
and the genocidal crimes faced by Palestinians,
supporting their right to resistance and struggle for
liberation

 5. Under the banner "Together against globalization
and U.S Hegemony" add Iraq and Palestine to the
agendas of international progressive meetings,
particularly the next Social Forum at Porte Allegre

 6. Invite Arab and international human rights
organizations to evaluate humanitarian conditions in
Iraq and disseminate their findings worldwide

 7. Prepare to send human shields to Iraq

 8. Introduce the boycott of U.S. and Israeli
commodities in solidarity campaigns in support of Iraq
and Palestine, with emphasis on the right of return
for Palestinians

 9. Elect a Steering Committee to follow up on the
implementation of the Cairo Declaration, and
coordination among organizations which commit to its
principles, and enhance awareness through appropriate
actions ranging from the preparation of posters to
organizing marches and demonstrations in solidarity
with Iraq and Palestine.

2.Bush Regime Intent on World War III

(author not found)

Either Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Company are a bunch of idiots or

they are intent on starting World War III. Most likely, they are, in

fact, both.

Since Bush seized power the US has unilaterally
withdrawn or refused to be a part of any number of international

agreements and treaties. These include those relating to global

warming, an international court of justice, chemical and biological

weapons, and anti-ballistic missile defense to name a few.

At the same time the US has specifically labeled three countries

as an Axis of Evil, undertaken preparations to invade one of them,

and threatened the others. The Administration, without any qualms,

declares it has proof of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass

destruction but refuses to provide even a shred of such proof to

anyone. The Bush regime has declared a policy which includes the

right of first strike, preemptive attack, regime change and the

like. The Bush regime has declared a World Wide War on Terror but

never disclosed what that means.

It has undertaken actions to undermine and overthrow
the democratically elected government of Venezuela, carry out

a Vietnam style campaign in Colombia (where it, amongst other

things, calmly provides the constituents for chemical warfare),

and without a bit of proof accuses Cuba of manufacturing biological

weapons.

It has walked arm in arm with the reactionary Sharon group in

Israel and turned its backs on human rights violations of any

nation, such as Saudi Arabia, it decides it needs at the moment.

It welcomes acts of brutal aggression such as those by Russia

in Chechnya when it suits its "global strategy." It has managed

to anger even the most faithful of allies with its arrogance. It

has undertaken measures at home to abridge freedom of speech,

freedom of movement and has for all intents and purposes declared

parts of the US judicial system null and void. It has admitted

without a bit of shame its abusive treatment of prisoners of war

while giving the President pretty much free reign to decide who

qualifies as such. It has terrorized the immigrant community and

called anyone and everyone who disagrees with its policies unpatriotic

and traitors. And then it has the gall to
act shocked, dismayed, and indignant when certain countries,

most recently, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea react in

kind.

 Plainly, this claque now running America are marching the

world toward the edge and grinning about it.

Old Words on War Stirring a New Dispute at Berkeley

By

Dean E. Murphy

BERKELEY, Calif., Jan. 13 - In her own day, the

Russian-born anarchist Emma Goldman roused emotions

including considerable fear with her advocacy of radical causes like 

organized labor, atheism, sexual freedom and opposition to military 

conscription. 

"Emma Goldman is a woman of great ability and personal magnetism, and 

her persuasive powers are such to make her an exceedingly dangerous 

woman," Francis Caffey, the United States attorney in New York, wrote

 in 1917. 

Goldman died in 1940, more than two decades after being deported 

to Russia with other anarchists in the United States who opposed 

World War I. Now her words are the source of deep consternation 

once again, this time at the University of California, which has 

housed Goldman's papers for the past 23 years. 

In an unusual showdown over freedom of expression,

university officials have refused to allow a fund-raising appeal 

for the Emma Goldman Papers Project to be mailed because it quoted 

Goldman on the subjects of suppression of free speech and her 

opposition to war. The university deemed the topics too political 

as the country prepares for possible military action against Iraq. 

In one of the quotations, from 1915, Goldman called on people 

"not yet overcome by war madness to raise their voice of protest,

 to call the attention of the people to the crime and outrage 

which are about to be perpetrated on them." In the other, from 

1902, she warned that free-speech advocates "shall soon be obliged 

to meet in cellars, or in darkened rooms with closed doors, and 

speak in whispers lest our next-door neighbors should hear that 

free-born citizens dare not speak in the open." 

Berkeley officials said the quotations could be construed as a 

political statement by the university in opposition to United 

States policy toward Iraq. Candace S. Falk, the director of the

 project and author of the appeal, acknowledged that the excerpts

 were selected because of their present-day resonance. But Dr. 

Falk said they reflected Goldman's views, not the university's 

policies. 

Robert M. Price, the associate vice chancellor for

research, said, "It wasn't from nowhere that these quotes randomly

 happened to fall on the page." Dr. Falk "was making a political

 point, and that is inappropriate in an official university 

solicitation," he said. 

Dr. Price edited the fund-raising appeal, striking the two quotations. 

A third quotation - "the most violent element in society is 

ignorance" - was not removed. "We didn't think that was political," 

Dr. Price said. About 400 of the altered solicitation letters were 

mailed late last month. 

The university's action has infuriated Dr. Falk and her small staff,

 who work out of a cramped former dentist's office a few blocks 

from campus. It has also raised concerns among scholars at similar

 documentary editing projects about academic freedom and free speech. 

It was at Berkeley in 1964 that the free speech movement got its 

start when the administration tried to limit the political activities

 of students. 

"I feel this is not the way the university either should or wants 

to operate," said Robert H. Hirst, general editor of the Mark Twain

 Project, another documentary editing project at Berkeley. "We just 

got through creating the Free Speech Cafe on campus, and we have a 

free speech archive. How many times does this have to happen at 

Berkeley before they

learn?" 

Roger Bruns, the acting executive director at the National Historical

 Publications and Records Commission, which is part of the National

 Archives in Washington, said he had never heard of a university 

objecting to a documentary editing project using quotations from 

its subject. The commission provides financing for 40 such projects, 

including some for the Goldman Project. 

"If it were repeated a number of times, it would have a chilling 

effect," Mr. Bruns said. 

In protest, Dr. Falk withheld the revised solicitation from most

people on the project's mailing list of 3,000. She then had an 

alternative mailing printed at her own expense.

"You can't work on the Emma Goldman Papers Project and fold on

something like this," said Dr. Falk, who sent out 60 of the new 

solicitations last week. "We just had to find a way to get this 

out." 

Since 1980, the project's annual mailing for donations had 

included at least one quotation from Goldman, often with current 

events in mind, Dr. Falk said. After Sept. 11, the project sent 

out a bookmark with a one from 1912: "Out of the chaos, the future 

emerges in harmony and beauty." 

Dr. Falk called the university's editing censorship and said 

it violated the spirit of Goldman's work, which emphasized freedom

 of expression. During a time when many universities depend heavily 

on government grants and contracts, she accused the Berkeley 

officials of worrying too much about crossing the Bush administration. 

"Sadly it is the politics of scarcity and fear, that

instead of opening up they have shut down," Dr. Falk said. "We 

are a group with a lot of integrity on a campus that has a lot 

of financial problems. We are like the canary in the mine." 

Robert Cohen, an associate professor at New York University and 

a co-editor of a new book about the free speech movement said the 

university's action reminded him of the 1950's. At that time,

 Professor Cohen said, professors were barred from identifying 

themselves as employees when they participated in outside activities

 deemed political. 

"This strikes me as being a sign of the times, that

something has changed in the political climate and people 

are more tense in the administration," said Professor Cohen, 

who worked at the Goldman Project while in graduate school at

 Berkeley and remains a consulting editor. 

Last Wednesday, Dr. Falk hand-delivered a five-page letter to

 the office of Chancellor Robert M. Berdahl that detailed her

 concerns. 

Dr. Falk said she received a telephone call from the

chancellor on Thursday in which she said he sympathized with

 her viewpoint. Though nothing changed as a result of the 

conversation, Dr. Falk said the chancellor assured her that 

"there would be no retaliation" against the Goldman Project for 

speaking out against the university's action. 

George Strait, an assistant vice chancellor for public affairs, 

said that the decision to remove the quotations "did not rise 

to the chancellor level," but that Dr. Berdahl was aware of the

 dispute. 

"He doesn't necessarily feel the two quotes make a direct political

 statement, but he understands how someone can infer that they do," 

Mr. Strait said. 

Mr. Strait said the dispute was not a free speech issue. 

"Clearly Ms. Falk had one opinion on the best way to raise 

money for the Emma Goldman Papers Project, and the person with 

direct responsibility for supervising that project had another," 

he said. "At best, what we are talking about here is a difference of

 opinion between two people who are

valued members of the Berkeley community." 

Leon F. Litwack, a professor of history who until recently was the 

liaison between the administration and the Goldman Project, said 

the university's explanations did not ring true. In purely scholarly

 terms, Professor Litwack said, the project had the right to quote

 any of Goldman's works, so long as the excerpts were not abridged

 in a manner that altered the meaning. 

As such, he said, Goldman's views already appear in many forms 

associated with the university - from university publications to

 high-school curriculum materials prepared by the project to an 

Internet site

(http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/) - but no one has suggested 

that they are an endorsement of Goldman's views by the university. 

"It seems the administration is mocking freedom of

expression by limiting it," Professor Litwack said. "The First 

Amendment belongs to no single group or ideology, but that message 

is often difficult to implement even at the University of 

California, Berkeley." 

Dr. Price, the associate vice chancellor, said the central issue

 was not the content of Goldman's quotations. 

"We are not saying these quotes should never appear

anywhere in the publications of the Emma Goldman Papers Project, 

but that they are not appropriate in the context that Candace Falk 

put them in," he said. "She can disagree with us, but it is not a 

matter of the First Amendment."