Statements Page 3

  Labor Committee for Peace and Justice     Russian Human Rights Groups  Carl Davidson Worker's Liberty

Labor Committee for Peace and Justice

Attached is a statement drafted by an ad hoc group of activists in Washington, DC who are members or staff of unions. We came together to discuss our growing concern, as trade unionists and activists for social justice, about the war agenda being pursued by the Bush Administration after the tragedy on September 11. As a result of these discussions, we developed the attached statement and agreed to circulate it among our colleagues and friends.

If you agree with the statement, indicate your agreement by e-mail and return your name to Emilie Junge at SEIU: [email protected] .  You can also sign the petition online 

Your name will be added, with your union affiliation or status for identification purposes only. If you would like only your nameadded, please so indicate.

Emilie Junge.

SEIU Eastern Region Coordinator (202) 898-3424 (202) 898-3348 (fax)

========================================

A Time for Justice, Not Vengeance An Open Letter to the Labor Movement

The stunning events of September 11 struck especially close to home for those of us in the labor movement. Hundreds of union members-and thousands of other working people-have been killed in the assaults. Food service workers, secretaries, window washers, janitors, maintenance workers, flight attendants, communications workers, public employees, firefighters and police officers are among the brothers and sisters we have lost. They reflected the vast diversity of today’s labor movement: women and men, people of all colors and ethnic backgrounds, gay and straight, and recent immigrants.

Along with the rest of America, we condemn the attacks of September 11, mourn the losses and feel anger at the injustice of innocent victims, and empathize with the devastated families who must now go on. But much of the substance and tone of the US government’s response to these events has also troubled us. We fear that blind anger and violent retaliation will only result in further loss of innocent lives, both American and foreign, and perpetuate a destructive cycle of violence that has already gone on too long. We also do not believe that such violence will result in the justice that most Americans are truly seeking.

As a result, we call upon all those who work for social and economic justice, especially our sisters and brothers in the labor movement, to incorporate into their response to the crisis six basic principles:

1. Promote Solidarity. We cannot let the acts of a few extremists be used to justify hostility towards other Muslims, Arab-Americans, immigrants in general, or any other targeted group. We must be willing to speak out publicly against any acts of discrimination or intimidation based on race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, national origin, or immigration status. We must stand in solidarity with all working people.

2. Support Working People. We must insist on a relief package for displaced workers and compensation for the injured and families of the lost, paying particular attention to the needs of undocumented workers and those not protected by union representation. We must also be vigilant for attacks on organized labor, ranging from employers exploiting the situation to undermine organizing and bargaining, to legislators passing anti-labor legislation in the name of the "war effort."

3. Protect Civil Liberties. Domestic security is necessary to protect our freedoms and way of life. But we cannot let the quest for such security actually undermine those very freedoms and liberties. Especially in this time of crisis, civil liberties must be maintained.

4. Stop the Cycle of Violence. Nothing excuses the attacks. We must take seriously the threat of terrorism and develop an effective response. To do so, we must recognize that the violence did not begin on September 11. Instead, those terrible events were merely the latest in a long-standing cycle of violence. To perpetuate that cycle with a lengthy series of overt and covert military operations will merely result in the loss of more innocent lives and will pave the way for more retaliations and assaults on innocent Americans in the future.

5. Address the Sources of Violence. Instead of more violence, we must be willing to seriously examine the conditions and policies that have provided the soil within which terrorism germinates. We must reexamine US foreign policy, the stationing of massive numbers of US troops abroad, and US support for undemocratic regimes. We must be willing to hear the cries for justice and freedom that come from the world’s poor, and act to support efforts that promote justice.

6. Seek Justice, not Vengeance. We should reject the crude calls for frontier "justice" of "dead or alive." Instead, we should affirm the importance of international law and seek civilized justice through the international courts and multi-national mediating bodies. Justice is a global issue that requires the cooperation of many nations. It cannot be imposed on the world by a single "super- power." True justice will punish those responsible for injustice while providing insurance against future violence.

We call on all people to incorporate these principles into their work and actions. We call especially on those in the labor movement to join us as we continue to do what the labor movement should always do: work for fairness and justice in our society and across the globe.

--- Labor Committee for Peace and Justice

Russian Human Rights Organizations, "On the Consequences of the Terrorists Act in the US"

We welcome the intention, voiced by the leaders of many states, to unite the efforts of democratic nations in the fight against terrorism. At the same time, we cannot help but register our concern about statements made in the mass media by numerous analysts and political figures, both in our country and abroad. We reject simplistic solutions to complex and knotty problems. We reject the theory, currently receiving much attention, that there exists a "global Islamic plot."

We protest the conflation of such different issues as international terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, the barbaric regime of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the dictatorial regimes of Iraq and Libya, the war in Chechnya, the Balkan conflicts, the Arab– Israeli conflict, and so on. We also protest attempts to use the tragedy in the United States to incite religious and interethnic animosity, specifically to advocate hatred toward Muslim peoples. Such attempts will not make our world a safer place.

As human rights activists in Russia, we are particularly concerned about the predictable intent to use the new world situation to justify the resolution of the Chechen problem exclusively by force.

Carl Davidson, "Terrorism and the Present Danger: A Perspective for the American Left

Osama bin Laden's al-Quaida committed an atrocious crime against humanity   on September 11, 2001. In addition to slaughtering thousands in New York   City and Washington, DC , this organization of theocratic fascists is   campaigning for the destruction of Western "infidel" civilization generally, with special emphasis on Americans and Jews. To do so, it is   trying to rally and mobilize the one-fourth of humanity that makes up the Islamic world for the reactionary "jihad" or holy war it has declared.

  The horrendous attack of Sept. 11 has thus thrown out a challenge to everyone--to the U.S. ruling class, to the American public, and to the   international community.

It has also thrown down a challenge to the American left. For if we are to present ourselves as an alternative to the current leadership and   policymakers of our country, then it is incumbent upon us to define how we   would do things differently, not only strategically, but also in the face   of the immediate present danger. In doing so, we must also be willing to take responsibility for the consequences of our ideas, proposals and actions.

The terrorism confronting us is not simply aimed at political or military   targets; it's also aimed at our society and economic life in the broadest   sense. Thousands of families are struggling to survive after burying their   loved ones. Hundreds of thousands are now unemployed, civil liberties are   being constricted, public health and public safety facilities are being   challenged, even the postal system is compromised. All this, in turn, has   an even wider impact on the global economy and other urgent matters of   international peace and security.

Coalition Effort

The Bush administration quickly moved to build a broad coalition of   countries against terrorism with an emphasis on al-Quaida and those helping   it. The president sent U.S. special forces into Afghanistan, formed an   alliance with the anti-Taliban forces based among the Tajik and Uzbek  nationalities, and launched a powerful air war against the Taliban's   military forces and infrastructure. Also, U.S. security agencies have   linked up with their counterparts in other countries, and have arrested   dozens of suspected members of al-Quaida cells in the United Kingdom,   Germany, France and Spain. In the U.S. several hundred foreign nationals   are being held, with a smaller number under high suspicion of being linked to Bin Laden's network.

At the same time, the Bush White House talks about getting back to normal,   getting on with our lives. But the fact of the matter is that we can't get   back to where things were before Sept. 11. It's not just buildings and   human bodies that were destroyed that day; a deep wound has been cut into our social fabric. The global conflict, despite the retreat of the Taliban   from Afghan cities, is far from over; and most Americans expect more terror attacks to come.

Two Americas

What perspective can help make sense of this global emergency? What should   be our response, as an American left, to the crisis now confronting us?

The reality is that two Americas find themselves in a basic conflict with   al-Quaida and the forces it leads.

One is the America of Empire. It seeks security for its sources of energy,   stability for its markets, reliable and expanding returns of its   investments, fear and respect of its military power, and hegemony for its   politics and culture.

The other is the America of Popular Democracy. It seeks peace and   prosperity for itself and everyone else, freedom from the restrictions of   racial, sexist and class privilege, democratic participation in political   life, freedom of speech and tolerance of differences in creeds and styles   of life, freedom of religion and freedom from the violence and intimidation   of religious zealots.

Al-Quaida makes no distinctions between these two Americas; it has declared   its holy war on both of them. The Bush White House, for its part, is   delivering the American Empire's "first war of the 21st century" response-a   response which, despite its immediate gains on the ground, is inherently compromised by hypocrisy, narrow economic interests, policy divisions and   several self-defeating tactics. It is now widely known that successive U.S.   administrations helped to form and nourish bin Laden's forces in the Afghan   resistance to the Soviets, gave early support to the Taliban as a counter   to Iran's influence, helped Unocal plot with various regional factions over access to the region's oil and gas resources, and fought within the U.S.   establishment's own ranks to discredit earlier efforts to destroy   al-Quaida. With this background, even when Bush says all the right things   on the current crisis, his message is considerably compromised, especially   in the Islamic world.

Our task is to define and put out an alternative. We need to take a clear   stand for the destruction of al-Quaida's terrorist network, but within that   struggle, to project a progressive voice and vision, a strategy and   tactics, for the other America, in order to defeat the threat posed to us   by reactionaries at home and abroad.

This is not a simple task. Nothing quite like this has ever happened   before-the forces and contradictions involved are highly complex and the   scale is enormous, covering the entire globe.

Getting Clear on What Happened

But the first thing we need to do our work is clarity, starting with clarity about what happened to us on Sept. 11.

The White House and the media immediately described the hijackings and attacks as acts of war, and that the required U.S. response was to wage war   in return.

This was their first mistake. It wasn't because the attack wasn't horrible   enough to be labeled an act of war. Rather, it was wrong because it ceded  to the terrorists exactly what they were trying to do: provoke a holy war   between the U.S. and militant Islam, a war the al-Quaida network hopes will soon draw in all of the "infidel" West and Muslim civilization generally.

A better approach for our America is to name the Sept 11 events as a crime against humanity, a crime that has evoked a national and international   security emergency. Because of its scope, all necessary forces-police,   civil authority, national guard, intelligence and military, here and   abroad-should be mobilized to deal with it. But the insistence on the   criminal character of the perpetrators is required, not only to deny them a   political victory, but also to frame further action and response within the   duties, limitations and constraints of law, national and international.

The British military historian Sir Michael Howard, in a recent speech now   being widely circulated at top levels of Western governments, explains the importance of the matter this way:

"To use, or rather to misuse the term 'war' is not simply a matter of   legality, or pedantic semantics. It has deeper and more dangerous consequences. To declare that one is 'at war' is immediately to create a   war psychosis that may be totally counter-productive for the objective that   we seek. It will arouse an immediate expectation, and demand,  for spectacular military action against some easily identifiable adversary,   preferably a hostile state; action leading to decisive results.  "The use of force is no longer seen as a last resort, to be avoided if   humanly possible, but as the first, and the sooner it is used the better.   The press demands immediate stories of derring-do, filling their pages with   pictures of weapons, ingenious graphics, and contributions from service   officers long, and probably deservedly, retired. Any suggestion that the   best strategy is not to use military force at all, but more subtle if less   heroic means of destroying the adversary are dismissed as 'appeasement' by ministers whose knowledge of history is about on a par with their skill at political management."  The fact that this conflict is not yet a war in any traditional sense came   up immediately when Congress was queried about a declaration of war, and   many replied, "Against Whom?" The perpetrator doesn't have a state, or an army, or a definite people, or even a fixed territory or location. Al-Quaida is more like a network of drug cartels or a politicized mafia   with a large bankroll and terrible weapons than any comparison that might   be made with a third world country or even a third world national   liberation movement.

  It fact Congress, in its declaration, called the crisis an emergency. But   part of the problem of being an imperialist superpower is that it breeds an   unrealistic arrogance in the national psyche, especially at the level of  leadership. If something terrible happens to us, it has to have the most   extreme label. It won't do to call it a crime, even a crime against  humanity. That's too wimpish; it makes us too much of a victim, and we're not victims, we're the tough guys. Attack us and you've declared war and you'll get even tougher war from us in return.

Getting Clear on the Terrorists

Calling Sept. 11 a monstrous crime, however, doesn't belittle al-Quaida's   dangerousness, strength, skill or political acumen. It has plenty of all   these. It has obtained support of various kinds from a number of states, while being careful not to be dependent on any of them for anything. (Even   with the Taliban, it is not certain in this symbiotic relationship who   controls whom, or who has the ability to "turn over" whom.) It is united   around a feudal-theocratic-fascistic ideology anchored in thousands of cult   training schools. These schools, located in centers of Muslim populations   around the world, supply a steady stream of recruits.

What about al-Quaida's fighters and cadres? Depending on which sources you   read, Bin Laden in Afghanistan has an inner circle of 500 personal guards,   surrounded by another circle of 2000 terrorists-in-training, surrounded by an outer circle of 5000-10,000 fighters more loyal to him than the Taliban.   Now place these forces in the context of globalization: secret cells and allies in 60 or so countries, access to weapons and technology, enormous   transnational wealth, and millions of active fundamentalist Muslim sympathizers on every continent.

This gives us some clarity about al-Quaida. It is neither a handful of   fanatics nor a front for Iraq or some other country. This criminal "network   of networks," nonetheless, is the present, immediate danger to the safety and security of American people. It is also a serious threat to other Western countries and to world peace and security generally. It is a   serious danger not only because of its global reach and demonstrated use of terror, but also because of it now claims possession of nuclear weapons. Bin Laden has for several years openly expressed the desire to acquire and   use weapons of mass destruction, including biological warfare and   ground-delivered "suitcase" nuclear devices.

Key Question Can't Be Ignored

How to stop and defeat this danger is the principal question on the minds   of the American people. It can't be ignored or set aside by any progressive   force working for peace that wants to be taken seriously. We may not yet   have all or even a substantial part of the answers to the questions  involved, but we must do our best to deal with it. Refusal to include a   focus against al-Quaida's terrorism as a critical part of the struggle for  peace dooms the movement, at best, to irrelevancy and failure.

We are already in a difficult situation. Thanks to the White House and the media, the Empire's rhetoric of war has started the anti-terrorism campaign off on the wrong foot, at the wrong pace and with all the attendant   unrealistic expectations. After only a few weeks, the media lamented the   lack of more spectacular victories and decisive engagements. The hard   right's politicians and pundits clamored for massive troop deployments,   harsher bombing with less concern for casualties among the Afghan people,   and wider attacks on Iraq and Iran. Some are even raising the specter of tactical nuclear weapons to shatter hideouts embedded in Afghanistan's   mountain ranges. Now, with the Taliban retreat to the mountains and success of the Northern Alliance and other anti-Taliban forces in the cities, new   confusion reigns on how to reshape Afghanistan and pursue bin Laden at the same time.

This discord is reflected at the top. No secret has been made of the   division in the Bush administration between Secretary of State Colin Powell   and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Powell has maintained a "narrow the target" focus on al-Quaida and has worked to build a broad   coalition of support, including many countries with large Islamic   populations. Other terrorisms will be dealt with later on a case-by-case basis. For the Wolfowitz faction, taking on al-Quaida is just a stepping   stone to strike at Iraq, Iran and Syria, and the sooner, the better.  

The Main Danger at Home

Clarity on these divisions is also important to us. The hard right and its   policies are the most dangerous threat to peace and the most self-defeating   response to terrorism in our country. Its opinion journals and think tanks, like the National Review, the Weekly Standard and the New Republic, are in   open polemics against Colin Powell and his coalition-building efforts. This   faction does not yet have the upper hand in the Bush administration, and it   is extremely important for the left and the progressive forces generally to   prevent it from gaining ascendancy.

Why is it to our advantage, as the democratic alternative to Empire, to   focus on the hard right and the extremes it encourages, rather than, say,   imperialism generally? What is our advantage in stressing the moderating   constraints of criminal justice, even when we know apprehending the criminals and destroying their operations will require decisive and   appropriate military force, which we should support, at the right time and   place?

The reason is that the military defeat of the present immediate danger,   al-Quaida, also requires concurrent victories against it on the political, cultural and economic fronts. These victories will require the broadest   alliances-the vast majority of the American people, the peoples and   governments of other countries, the UN, and elements of our own government   and military.

New Thinking on Warfare

There is, in fact, an important discussion going in the U.S. military on  the concept of "netwar." Spurred by RAND Corporation analysts John Arquilla  and David Ronfelt, the non-traditional terrorist and drug cartel threats to   peace and security require equally non-traditional responses. Arquilla   introduces his views in a recent interview with the Foreign Policy Association:

"What we are seeing is a kind of dark league of networked non-state actors   who have a great deal of capability to do harm. They capitalize upon a   trend that is about a century long now, beginning with the rise of high explosives that has seen the increasing destructive and disruptive power of   small groups. So some years ago, David (Ronfelt) and I came up with the   notion that networks would fight in a particular way against hierarchical   states, and other large institutional actors, and so we called that   "netwar." The idea being that these networks didn't need a territory of   their own, so that they distribute themselves across a global grid, could   strike at will, could mass when they choose, and would hold the initiative, would remain shadowy, perhaps we wouldn't ever know exactly who they were,   and that they could cause a great deal of increasing harm over the years.   We caught this glimpse of netwar some years ago, and now I am afraid to say   we are living in this period. The terror war is indeed the first full-blown netwar."

  Arquilla describes al-Quaida, in information theory terms, as a "network of   networks" chained together as a global "hybrid peer-to-peer network." Most   computer networkers will know exactly what he means. But to put it briefly,   it means each widely distributed cell or node can communicate directly with   any other cell, yet at the same time gain access to and share centrally stored resources. There is also a high degree of redundancy, meaning that   taking out one or even several nodes or resources doesn't necessarily bring down the whole network.

Arquilla and Ronfelt argue that "it takes a network to defeat a network,"   meaning that traditional military hierarchies are not very effective. The December 2001 Wired Magazine sums up their theory in five points:

Decentralize Intelligence. This means information needs to be shared and   open, although without compromising sources. National and bureaucratic   firewalls won't do. Case in point: A Middle Eastern man was detailed in   Minnesota on the tip of a flight school that had become suspicions because   he paid cash and only wanted to learn to steer 747s, not takeoff and   land. He was in jail on Sept. 11. But he was also at the same time being   sought by French intelligence, who knew he was an extremely dangerous   member of an Algerian terrorist group linked to al-Quaida. The U.S. and   the French did not know about each others efforts on this matter until way   after the fact.

Learn to Swarm. This is where small, dispersed forces quickly concentrate   for attack, rather than the slower maneuvers of larger force   structures. The Sept 11 hijackings are an example, as were the embassy bombings in Africa. The negative example on the other side is what the Soviets did in Afghanistan, bringing in large forces that could be bled to death.

Attack the Core. Although a peer-to-peer network, al-Quaida has core resources in training centers, money and leadership. Disrupt these, and the overall network is knocked down several levels. The local nodes are then   easier to pick off.

Rethink Technology. Al-Quaida demonstrated the damage that could be done by fanatically combining boxcutters, know-how and the internet. Star   Wars-type missile and anti-missile systems are a sink hole for resources   and relics of a different era. It may be more cost-effective to spend more   billions on the Peace Corps.

  Manage the Story. Terrorist groups all have a narrative, a story they tell   about themselves to unite internally, bring in recruits and expand their   supporters. Not only does their story need to be discredited and disrupted   with accurate information, an honest counter-story needs to be projected by   the anti-terrorists.

"I think that we have a terrible event that occurred a month ago," said   Arquilla to the FPA, "but it is also one that should galvanize us to build   a global network to confront terror. We have this opportunity to do so   before terrorists can strike with, say, nuclear weapons. I think that is   the real stakes in this conflictâ€|I would suggest that as much as religious   belief is a basis for cohesion in al-Quaida, so we can build an  international network, and indeed a national network within our own  country, that can fight nimbly against al-Quaida, and it can be held   together by this overarching mission statement, which is 'We must defeat terror, before it acquires weapons of mass destruction.' I don't know how   much time we have to wage that war, but I have a real sense of urgency   about it. It seems to me that the real glue in a network is the belief and   the loyalties of its members. Al-Quaida achieves this through religion and   kinship ties. I believe global civil society and our various allies around   the world can achieve a similar level of cohesion."

The nonmilitary, civil society methods of obtaining victories against   terrorism and wider war-political mobilization, public discussion and   education, participation in homeland defense, investigation and exposure,   legal indictments and economic sanctions-are tedious and will try our   patience and courage. There will be considerable contention and debate on   how to proceed among the various class and social forces. Sometimes we will   win and sometimes we will lose to other elements in the broad alliances we will find ourselves in. But these political and democratic methods are   essential groundwork if our final victory is to affirm the values we want   to defend in the first place.

Bin Laden's terrorism opposes our democratic values. It is basically a   political and psychological weapon to manipulate, twist and control mass   consciousness of both friends and enemies. The control of symbols and   meanings are extremely important to its craft. With ruthlessness and   stealth, it creates violent, irrational spectacles that shatter the   ordinary rational patterns of life, spectacles that evoke fear in the enemy   camp and courage among friends and allies-the more violent, intimidating   and daring the spectacle, the greater the fear, disruption and admiration   to be evoked.

Terrorism is also judo-like in its inclusion of the enemy's immediate   reaction to the initial deed in its broader plan of changing public   perception of the enemy among its potential friends. Terrorists often hope,   for instance, to provoke an indiscriminant, violent response from the   authorities so as to further expose the repressive, class character of the   state in the minds of those they hope to win over, neutralize or agitate   into greater confusion and division.

Osama bin Laden is playing this political game with considerable skill. In   less than 20 years, he has transformed himself from an oil-rich Saudi   playboy into an anti-Western hero in the eyes of millions of Islamic youth   around the world. The only way to defeat him and unravel his organization   is to turn that equation around. His "freedom fighter" status must be   changed to "criminal and mass murderer" through a protracted and   resourceful public opinion battle, especially among his sympathizers. Some   of the friends of al-Quaida know where the terrorist "heros" are hiding, in   the Afghanistan mountains as well as in their safe houses in other countries. But if the hero status is stripped away and the more sinister   nature revealed, even former friends can be convinced to give them up and   help bring them to justice.

Terrorism and anti-terrorism, then, is all about "winning hearts and   minds." As Howard puts it, "Without hearts and minds one cannot obtain   intelligence, and without intelligence terrorists can never be defeated." Every military and economic action has to be measured with this   yardstick. An air war can destroy its military targets, but it can still   be turned into overall defeat with unacceptable civilian casualties. In the   end, al-Quaida's forces have to be seized or destroyed on the ground. But   it is next to impossible to do so amidst a civilian population that has   been enraged and alienated by indiscriminate attacks destroying their lives and livelihood.

Critical Battles Ahead

It is also important to be clear about where the front lines are in this   conflict. Strategically, they reach far beyond Afghanistan. The most   important political battle exists all along the fault line revealed by the  hundreds of thousands of Islamic youth that turned out in the streets in demonstrations supporting bin Laden, the Taliban and "jihad" against the   West. The fact that the mullahs were rallying the poorest of the poor  against the richest of the rich did not make the political thrust of these   events any less reactionary.

What these demonstrations reveal is the depth of the problem: Corrupt and   anti-democratic regimes persist throughout the Islamic world in a context   where the medievalist, fascistic opposition to their rule is often far stronger than any democratic, progressive alternative.

One thing is certain. Strategically, the America of Empire is part of the   problem, not part of the solution. To secure oil for bankrupt energy   policies, it has spent billions after billions, decade after decade, to bankroll militarism in both Israel and the Arab oil-producing countries.   Playing power politics in regional conflicts, it has manipulated Iraq   against Iran, then Iran against Iraq-all the while indifferent to a million   dead on the battlefield and mutual ruin of the peoples concerned. In the  name of the Cold War, it went to every length to destroy a progressive   Islamic left and nurture a traditionalist Islamic right. Globalization and   technology, which hold the promise of overcoming North-South inequality,   have expanded in the face of deep unemployment and harsh living conditions   throughout the Islamic world.

"In a globalized world with instant communications, it is impossible to have excessive opulence alongside grinding poverty without something,   sometime, somewhere, exploding," said William Van Dusen Wishard, a former official in the Commerce Department and president of WorldTrends Research.

Our America, on the other hand, can be part of the solution. With all the   resources of civil society, of a broad movement against terror and war, we   can severely limit, in the short run, the harm the American Empire could do by ignoring civilian casualties and suffering, expanding the war to Iraq or   Iran, one-sidedly encouraging Israel against Palestine, or aggravating   divisions between India and Pakistan. As an American left, we would do best   to build a broad consensus, here and abroad, around the following points:

•  No Wider War. Opposition to the hard right's efforts to subvert the global coalition against terrorism by invading Iraq and Iran. Change can be brought about in these countries by other means.  
•  Oppose the attack on civil liberties, especially Bush's new military   tribunals. Oppose torture of prisoners and other detainees. Respect for the U.S. Bill of Rights at home and the UN Declaration on Human Rights abroad.  
• Support an UN transitional government in Afghanistan that support basic human rights and would be representative of all Afghan  nationalities. Support the development of oil and gas pipeline resources that would primarily benefit the peoples of the region, rather than the   energy companies.
•  End the food, medical and other nonmilitary sanctions against Iraq. These   do little to weaken Hussein and cause great suffering to the people of Iraq.
•  Support Palestinian Statehood and oppose Israel's ongoing seizure of   Palestinian land through its "settlement" policies.
•  Work to secure and then eliminate all weapons of mass destruction,   especially nuclear and bacteriological weapons.
•  Work for a Green Energy and Transportation Policy. Shift tax subsidies   from nonrenewable carbon-based energy to wind, solar, geothermal and other   renewable resources. Shift tax subsidies from air travel to high-speed   intra-city rail systems.

In the long run, we can do even more. Since we are not constrained by a lust for profit or hegemony, we can take on the global plunderers who think   global equality is a race to the bottom and everything human is a commodity. But this doesn't mean making alliances with the anti-modernist attack of the mullahs on globalization. There is a positive, progressive   high road through globalization and beyond that can bring the benefits on modern science, technology and culture to the vast majority of humanity.

But we can't do so by ignoring the present danger. It is said that the   mistakes and tragedies of war are caused by generals who try to fight   today's conflicts with the battle plans of the previous war. Today the same danger faces the peace movement; it must not make itself a prisoner to   old ideas formed when the only enemy was at home and the just cause was on the other side.

Carl Davidson ( cdavidson@i... ) is the editor of the cyberMarxist   journal, cy.Rev available at www.cyrev.net. He is also a national committee   member of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism,   although this article does not necessarily reflect the views of CCDS. In   the 1960s and 1970s, he was a national leader of the student and peace   movements.

Workers' Liberty

∑ The 11 September attacks should not be condemned because they were supposedly attacks on "imperialism", if ill-chosen ones.

∑ Every evil in the world is the fault of "imperialism" (by which those who argue this view seem to mean, essentially, the USA).

∑ Islamic fundamentalists, even those who have been funded and boosted by the USA in the past, become progressive anti-imperialists as soon as they clash with the USA.

∑ Although the first and most numerous victims of the terrorist-fundamentalists are the people, mostly Muslim, of the countries where their movements are powerful, we should not explicitly denounce the fundamentalists because that might offend Muslims.

∑ The fundamentalists' demand for Israel to be destroyed and Jews to be driven off "Muslim land" represents a progressive, anti-imperialist opposition to US policy.

[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Staremtents page 2 ] [ Statements page 3 ]