Saturday, March 8, 2003
Friends,
I have two requests:
1. I have more or less given up posting my notes to this list, for the
reasons I previously explained, but I tried to put the entire SftP list on
my personal mailing list, so as not to cut you off. If you are NOT getting
my messages (generally less than one a week, even in these emergency times)
and want to get them, please send me a note [log in to unmask]
2. In response to a note I sent out yesterday (to my personal list) I got a
note from one of the SftP list members suggesting that I suppress the names
of the recipients. I thought I was doing that, by addressing them as Blind
Carbon Copies (BCC), but apparently that doesn't suffice. If someone can
tell me how to suppress the names of recipients, I will appreciate it. The
reason I want to do it is because it's a pain in the ass to get a message
with about 100 other recipients listed. My messages go out in batches of
about 100 (or 50 if the server can't swallow all 100 at once), and there are
now about 600 entries, including, hopefully, most of you.
The message I got, from Martha Livingston (one of us) is reproduced below,
in the only format this listserve allows for. Martha says she doesn't know
who I am. OK, I'm not Noam Chomsky, I admit. I initiated this listserv by
writing Steve Cavrak several years ago and proposing that it might be a good
idea to try to "resuscitate" -- on the internet, the then-inactive group
begun during the Vietnam era. Steve, who's at the Univ of Vermont, is a
"computer savvy person", was always a lot of fun in SftP in the old days,
was politically right on the ball, and so it happened. Steve and I are
considered to be the "owners" of the listserv, which allows us to access the
membership list. That's how I got your name, Martha. As new members sign on,
Steve and I get notified. And as people withdraw, we get that info too. So
I've been adding new members to my personal list as I learn about them, BUT
NOT REMOVING THOSE WHO QUIT. Any of you who want off my personal list can do
so by sending me a note.
Here's Martha's note:
Subject: Re: The Tide is Turbulent but Turning. No fig leaf for Bush!
Planning Ahead.
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:23:40 -0500
From: Martha Livingston <[log in to unmask]>
To: George Salzman <[log in to unmask]>
Dear George Salzman,
Thanks for the good information and organizing effort. I'm not sure
who you are, and I appreciate your efforts, but would like to suggest that
you suppress your recipient list.
Peace,
Martha Livingston
Thursday, March 6, 2003
Friends,
There hasn’t been any doubt since the mammoth worldwide demonstrations
of February 15th that the world’s peoples are almost universally opposed to
the threatened U.S. attack on Iraq. But the governments of the world’s
nations, all subject to bullying by the Bush cabal and wanting to hedge
their bets, had been somewhat less than unanimous.
Within the past week, however, it has become manifestly clear that the
U.S. government is so hated almost universally by the world’s peoples that
even the jockying governments, responding to popular demands, are moving
towards opposition to the planned war against Iraq.
And now even the corporate media in the United States, which has been
beating the drums of war ever since 9-11, are being forced, in order not to
totally lose their remaining shreds of credibility in peoples’ eyes, to
acknowledge the turning of the tide.
By a narrow margin, the Turkish Parliament refused to allow U.S.
troops to attack Iraq from its soil, a major blow to the war planners.
Except for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, almost every other government
that had supported a war against Iraq has now made its support contingent on
authorization by the UN Security Council. Before going against the clear
opposition of their populations, they want to be able to point to a
UN-provided fig-leaf for Bush.
The U.S. has been turning up the heat on the Security Council member
nations whose votes for authorization are not in the bag, but with notable
lack of success. On Monday, “Secretary of State Colin Powell . . . told Bush
he has only four of the nine votes needed for approval of a second
resolution.” “Powell told Bush . . . Turkey’s refusal to allow U.S. troops
to stage at the country’s border with Iraq doomed any chance of consensus at
the UN.” Powell’s meeting on Tuesday with Mexico Foreign Minister Luis
Ernesto Derbez “did not produce results”, said a Powell spokesman. (Mar 4
Capitol Hill Blue,
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1870.shtml )
“ . . . In a new blow, Russia's top diplomat said Moscow may use its
veto against the measure . . .Even without a veto from Russia, China or
France, the United States still doesn't have the nine votes . . .” (Mar 4
Las Vegas Sun,AP
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2003/mar/04/030404249.html )
“A war policy in collapse . . . In other developments, all
highlighting Washington's panicky ineptness, the Philippines rejected the
help of arriving US combat forces, North Korea apparently prepared to start
up plutonium production, and . . .” (James Carroll, Mar 4 Boston Globe,
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/063/oped/A_war_policy_in_collapseP.shtml )
Step I. Despite indications that the U.S. will not prevail in the UN
Security Council in the coming days, it seems to me important to again
consider sending e-mails to the member delegations urging them to hold fast
against U.S. war plans. Once again, here are the addresses of the 14
delegations (other than that of the U.S.):
Ambassador <[log in to unmask]>,
Ambassador <[log in to unmask]>,
Ambassador <[log in to unmask]>,
Ambassador <[log in to unmask]>,
Ambassador <[log in to unmask]>,
Ambassador <[log in to unmask]>,
Ambassador <[log in to unmask]>,
Ambassador <[log in to unmask]>,
Ambassador <[log in to unmask]>,
Ambassador <[log in to unmask]>,
Ambassador <[log in to unmask]>,
Ambassador <[log in to unmask]>,
Ambassador <[log in to unmask]>,
Ambassador <[log in to unmask]>
There are active links to these addresses, convenient for mailing messages,
at
http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strategy/Salz-mania/2003-02-21.htm
l [note: this link will be incorrect- to make it work it's necessary to
all the final l, which will be on the line after the link.]
Step 2. I’m trying to initiate a campaign to prevent the U.S. from
unilaterally going to war without UN approval. Two days ago I sent the
following note:
----------------------------------------------------
To: "Edward W. Said" <[log in to unmask]>
CC: Noam Chomsky <[log in to unmask]>
Tuesday, March 4, 2003
Dear Edward Said,
It appears to me that almost the entire world is opposed to the
threatened attack on Iraq.
I believe that if the Arab League asks the United Nations General
Assembly to call for strict international sanctions against the U.S. if it
attacks Iraq (or any other nation), such a move would meet with the widest
support.
Five months ago I called for tough sanctions. The time for action by
the international community -- not just the Security Council -- has come. If
you think my proposal is worth putting forward, either as is or modified,
please use it to help encourage action by the Arab League and the United
Nations. I will enclose it here.
Thank you deeply for your tireless efforts on behalf not only of the
Arab peoples, but all humanity.
----------------------------------------------------
We ought to try to make it prohibitively costly to the U.S. to attack
any nation. I believe this campaign for tough sanctions, if successful,
would be effective either to deter an attack before one occurs, or
afterwards, to stop it. The suggested sanctions are at
http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strategy/Discussion/2002-09-30Call
ToStopUS.html [again, the link address will be incomplete]
I think that if world public opinion strongly supports such action by
the United Nations General Assembly, it would be likely to consider, and act
positively upon the idea.
Step 3. We need to shift away from being swallowed up with negative efforts.
Massive protesting has been essential, and may continue to be for some time
to come. But protesting is a strategy forced on us by our relative weakness
-- we do not yet have the power to decide what “our” societies, ruled by
governments, do. It is the governments’ hands that hold the levers of power.
Armies, police, and so on, unfortunately still for the most part loyal to
the rulers, follow orders from “the top.”
Our massive, repeated protests consume massive expenditures of effort,
material resources, and time. And force us, those of us who are actively
protesting, to dance to the tune of the rulers. It has been, and will
continue to be an enervating virtual roller coaster ride determined by them
as long as the power is in their hands. We must change this. Thus,
simultaneously with protesting, we must build our global grassroots
infrastructure, even faster than is already happening.
Fortunately there are billions of us, and so we, i.e. some of us, can
actively protest and others of us can pour our energies and creative
imaginations into the positive effort of building the world we want. Indeed,
many millions of us are already doing that in different parts of the world.
Some thoughts about how to do it are in the essay, “Building the global
grassroots infrastructure-7: A task both local and global,” at
http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strategy/Infrastructure/
Building our infrastructure is a form of non-violent resistance.
George Lakey, an activist and long-time practicioner of non-violent
resistance, has written persuasively on its advantages as compared to
violent resistance. An inspiring excerpt from his forthcoming book,
Strategizing for a Living Revolution, titled “Stage Three: Confrontation” is
at
http://www.actagainstwar.org/documents/LakeyFiveStages.pdf (not correct)
[correct one: http://www.actagainstwar.org/downloads/LakeyFiveStages.pdf]
I will provide links to this essay in pdf, html and rtf formats at
http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strategy/Discussion/
Step 4. Although listed after step 3, these two steps can be pursued
simultaneously. We urgently need to rid the world of all weapons of mass
destruction. The UN Security Council acted unanimously to rid Iraq of all
such weapons it might possess (Resolution 1441). Of course the U.S.
government would veto a Security Council resolution aimed at disarming the
U.S. as thoroughly as 1441, directed at Iraq.
Therefore, it is the UN General Assembly (where there is no veto)
which should take on the historic responsibility of this bold but essential
action. A simple extension of the call for tough international sanctions
suggested in Step 2 above, applied to any nation that refuses to disarm to
the same extent demanded of Iraq, and to do so under UN supervision, is a
possible strategy for world disarmament. I believe it is well worth thinking
about and pursuing.
George Salzman, March 6, 2003
|
