Why the Golden Mean is Fatal

The “Golden Mean” is not now a common expression. However, adherence to it has grave implications for our current and forthcoming problems regarding climate change. Colleague and friend, Prof. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, contends that this decade is the most important decade in human history. Some citizens remain unconvinced that such can be the case. The rest of us, hopefully an increasing majority, accept the data and predictions of most scientists in diverse fields regarding climate change. We need to be a creative and committed population to react to the forthcoming crises with effectiveness and a sense of urgency.

Why is a “Golden Mean” very inadequate, even fatal in results? The term refers to a “happy medium”, a “safe, comfortable position”, overall a compromise result, but not fully satisfying to any of those involved. Paul Wellstone, colleague and former Minnesota Senator, recognized, as do I, that perfection is not of this world. Yet compromises to get some legislation passed, fail to deal adequately with issues. However, Wellstone contended that if one gets a part of their goal, without violating their values or ethics, then the small gain remains “progress.”

However, our history has many examples of long-term indecision about basic problems. Our staunch American women who organized in the 1800’s to secure their right to vote, the “suffrage movement”, experienced arrests, jail terms, beatings, and opprobrium from the majority. After a century of struggle, they gained the right to vote in 1920 (the 19th Amendment, Constitution). Yet our women still have not full legal equality with men. [Uruguay passed their Equal Rights legislation in 1948. Their sky hasn’t fallen!]

A similar, but much longer example pertains to our African American constituency, beginning with the Constitution about 1789, to eliminate slavery in this country. The 15th Amendment (1870) granted the right, but was ignored. Not until President Johnson did “Blacks” gain a firm right to vote, secured and implemented in 1965. The Native Americans were granted the right to vote in 1924! These classic movements finally achieved their goals after decades of penalties for the activists and long deprivation of the rights of these citizens that could have been, should have been instituted initially. The “Golden Mean” of compromise, delay, and argument withheld rights due them. These equal civil rights were delayed by the dominant power of the whites and males who catered to a “majority view”. The Congresspersons, judges, and executives held the power. The standard was maintaining a “Golden Mean” but it had a lot of lead in it!

A recent, current example has been the struggle for provision of full health care for our populace. However, the final legislation included something for virtually everyone, but did not implement legislation that gave the best, most economic, full population coverage, with single-payer health service. A very complicated legislation result makes the provisions difficult for even very literate citizens to comprehend. The influential pharmaceutical companies, private health care agencies, and others that sought financial profit, “won the day.” [A wag once said that a camel was a horse put together by a committee!]

Now, to attend to the current paramount challenge that faces all humanity; men and women and children of every race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, rich and poor. Together we face the challenges of great climate change and its consequences. The climate clocks are “ticking”. “Tipping points” are occurring. Productive lands can become deserts. Island nations or shoreline cities can be flooded, creating millions of refugees. Glaciers are melting as are the Arctic/Antarctic ice shelves. Many plants and animal species may become extinct. And so on. Yet, many of our corporate economic and other interests prefer to put the “Gold” first and “fiddle while Rome burns.” Many of the climate changes may be irreversible. Friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone, believed that without a strong sense of urgency and coordinated planning around the world, the best result possible for our children of the future will be less worse for them (and all other living creatures) than it would have been if we had not acted during these available years. Actions planned for 2050 generally are too late!

Former Czech Republic President, Vaclav Havel, provides us a humbling perspective about our place in the universe:”…we must see this issue as a challenge to behave responsibly and not as a harbinger for the end of the world….We need not fear for our planet. It was here before us and most likely will be here after us.” Thus, wholesale “genocide” can be the product of our delayed and insufficient action.

During World War II, the USA marshaled much of its spirit and resources so that “success” was possible. Lester Brown, in his Chapter 10, “Can We Mobilize Fast Enough?” indicated:

The choice is ours, yours and mine. We can stay with business as usual, and preside over an economy that continues to destroy the natural resources until it destroys itself, or we can adopt Plan B and be the generation that changes direction, moving the world into a path of sustained progress. The choice will be made by our generation, but it will affect life on earth for all generations to come. (p. 268). **

Scientists have provided us with Knowledge beyond the symptoms and what needs to be done, the WHY we need to act. The denial by some citizens must not be permitted to jeopardize us all.

In his 1/6/1942 address to the American public, President Roosevelt announced goals of producing 45,000 tanks, 60,000 planes, 20,000 anti-aircraft guns, and several thousand ships. Sale of new cars was banned for almost three years. Highway construction was halted. Tires, gasoline, fuel oil, and sugar were all rationed, beginning that year. As a result, 229,600 aircraft were produced; more than 5,000 ships were added to the merchant fleet, and the other goals were greatly exceeded. A sense of urgency existed and the people met the challenge. [Summary from Brown, Chapter 10 “Can We Mobilize Fast Enough?” (page 260-261]**

As with healthcare legislation, we can anticipate that agribusiness, coal, oil, and other economic forces will exert all their influence to prevent Congress from taking actions that will be necessary to address the climate change issues. Also, with half of our Congressional discretionary budget, acted upon each session, now assigned to “war-related endeavor, we are not in Roosevelt’s situation. Thus, to deal adequately with climate change we must end warfare as a policy for dealing with international problems. War must be seen as obsolete. The “military-industrial complex” will also block how we must use our resources. Humanity will then lose to warfare. If we organize ourselves for warfare why can we not take actions necessary for peace? We need to advance the techniques of nonviolent ways to resolve our international challenges.

Nonviolence must become a way of life. We are well able to create our own Armageddon! The major world religions—Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, as well as Humanists and surviving indigenous cultures, all have bases for peace. The sooner we change our orientations, the less likely conflict will occur.

We need to create a civilization based on different assumptions and practices! Population size needs to be reduced. We need to create “transitional communities”, closer to the earth, respecting it, decentralize our major cities, recycle all products possible, grow and rely on foods grown locally, change our principal sources of energy, protect our natural resources and the wildlife therein, broaden mass transit, educate from childhood up, the essentials of nonviolent conflict resolution, create a civilization that does not rely on violence internally and abroad. We have much learning to surmount. Can we look into the wonderful, eager, caring faces of our children and grandchildren,--and subsequent generations,--and at least be able to say WE TRIED to keep a world friendly to you!

To return to the initial theme: a half-hearted, compromised, piece-meal, endeavor will NOT bring peace or save all the wonders of diverse cultures and people. Are we able and ready for this “long haul”, taking roads not previously traveled? Will young couples decide to have children, and if so, how many, when the world their children and their grandchildren’s children soon will probably be in a very different and difficult world, greatly altered from the one we are now experiencing? We who are now living can provide the answer.

**Lester R. Brown, Plan B 4.0: Mobilization to Save Civilization. New York: Earth Policy Institute and W.W. Norton & Company, 2009. [President of the Institute.] pp. 260-261, 268.

Why Knowledgeable Voting Requires A Wider Spectrum

In Tikkun (Summer 2000) I found an important article by Michael Lerner: “Don’t Vote Lesser Evil Politics.” His insights are still valid for this decade. In what follows I will summarize by quoting and paraphrasing Lerner, but without reference to specific candidates. Personally, I don’t identify any candidates as evil; but the consequences of some of their policies may undermine a true democracy.

Many political progressives are conflicted about the November elections. Learner wants us “to encourage debate about the morality and social consequences of …’lesser evilism’ in politics.” By ‘lesser evilism’ he means choosing the candidates “who will do the least harm rather than choosing the candidate who comes closest to expressing your own views and attitudes” out of fear that a worse candidate may win.

1) Powerlessness corrupts – By “accepting the lesser evil we lose the inner quality of soul that makes it possible to fight for anything against the odds.” This can lead us to accommodating evil on other occasions, “a moral and spiritual corruption.”

2) Liberal and Progressive forces are disempowered – In accepting the lesser evil argument we weaken democratic politics by supporting a wing of the pro-corporate “Property Party” (our current system) when we believe in neither wing.

3) Winning is abandoned – Actually, you might win! If many operate on a “we can’t win” assumption we contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy. “By not voting your conscience you are giving the media the justification it seeks to ignore significant alternate views,” marginalizing yourself.

4) Consequences of the lesser evil winning are unknown – Getting “snookered out” after elections has happened repeatedly to many of us. Supreme Court appointments and international actions may not in fact reflect a lesser evil.

5) Lesser evilism weakens faith in democracy – If we repeatedly vote for candidates in whom we do not believe, we end up feeling we are without representation and “government itself feels less legitimate.”

6) Lesser evilists ignore how policies get shaped – “The key factor in determining what happens in politics is the relative balance between corporate power and popular mobilization for progressive ideals.” Candidates of a dominant political party will feel little pressure to satisfy “progressives” to initiate and establish programs and policies that are urgently needed to rescue democracy from our current plutocracy when they assume that these citizens will vote for them anyway!

7) Voting for a lesser evil means abandoning those who share your perspectives – When “you look around for allies for some visionary idea or moral cause that inspires you, you will find fewer people ready to take risks, because when they stood up for their ideals at election time you weren’t willing to support them.” Voting for the lesser evil reinforces despair about changing the system. We will “never win a society we believe in unless we are willing to stand up and fight for it, even if in the short run we lose some of our battles.”

In sum, Lerner contends that we shouldn’t throw our votes away by “authorizing someone we don’t believe in” to represent us. However you vote, consider not only your choice at the polls but how your decision affects the choices all of us have in the future.

All humanity and other living things depend upon radical, prompt action regarding climate change. Half-hearted endeavors by governments and citizens will not prevent coming generations from catastrophic consequences.

P.S., more personally—My plea is that we each vote for individual candidates who have modeled integrity in their careers, have not been “bought” by lobbyists or by big money. (To whom are they beholden for their election and service?) Some have been “bought” by rigid party-line loyalty. Some have manifested integrity by an ability to buck popular but unwise legislation. Now that corporations have been given the status of “persons”, we need to be even more cautious regarding those who are “bought”.

When I lived in Washington State during the McCarthy “communist fear” years, I once voted for fine persons I knew in four parties! I trusted them, wanted more of them. The actions needed for responding to climate change will require innovation and a strong commitment for actions that will buck “corporate special interests”. So, I do vote for some people I know and trust in the two major parties. Officially, I am a Green Party member for their basic policies of nonviolence, full gender equality, supporting the right of workers to organize, and other aspects of their party platform. We need commitment to future generations by actions NOW and vote for those candidates, building a committed corps of official Congress persons, judges, governors, and so on that are so dedicated.

The two major parties have arranged structures that keep other orientations from being read, seen, or heard. A price will be paid if all approaches are not included in political debate.

SOME ACTIONS ARE INTENDED TO BE BETTER THAN BEFORE: WHY/HOW? -- Part II

An Era of Apologies

Earlier official USA apologies—

I am aware of only two official US government apologies offered by the Congress, in earlier years.

1) An official apology was rendered to the thousands of Japanese-Americans citizens who were “interned” (concentration camps) during World War II, having committed no crimes. A modest recompense of $20,000 was granted to each of those who suffered those experiences and were still alive decades later. The sum was certainly very inadequate for the losses of homes, employment, schooling, businesses, and lands owned.

2) An apology was publicly and officially presented when Congress, years later, offered its regret for the “take-over” of Hawaii in 1898. The islands had been an independent nation. Collaboration of corporate land owners/growers and USA officials converted the islands into a “US Territory” for many years. Hawaii became a state after WWII, along with Alaska, making 50. [See Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. 2006]

Recent American apologies—(among others)

In 2009 there was a ceremony in Mankato, Minnesota seeking to recognize the pain and injustice of the hanging of 38 Dakota Indians in 1862.

William Calley, former US Army lieutenant, convicted of 22 counts of murder in the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, publicly apologized for the first time at a Kiwanis Club meeting in Georgia. (2009)

The American Medical Association apologized for its history of racial inequality toward African American physicians. (2008)

The Richmond-Times Dispatch in Virginia expressed regret in 2009 for supporting the state’s white political leaders to maintain separate public schools for Whites and Blacks in the 1950’s.

President Alvaro Colom of Guatemala apologized to Cuba in 1990 for his country’s role in permitting CIA training of Cuban exiles on Guatemalan soil to take part in the “Bay of Pigs” invasion in 1961.

The California legislature apologized in 2009 for that state’s persecution of the Chinese immigrants who “built” the state’s railroads.

In 2010, the British Premier apologized for the “Bloody Sunday” by British soldiers in 1972, for killing 14 unarmed civilian demonstrators.

In 2010, Serbia’s parliament passed a resolution condemning the massacre of 8000 Bosnian men and boys from Srebrenica.

In 2010, the Czech Republic doctors’ organization apologized to Jewish doctors for the persecution they endured pre-World War II in 1938 before the Nazi invasion.

The US Senate in 2009 approved a resolution apologizing to the American Indians for official depredations, the breaking of covenants with the tribes by the US government and maltreatment, violence and neglect inflicted on the American Indians by our governmental policies and US citizens.

In 2010, some Minnesota protestors called for tearing down Ft. Snelling, where 1700 Dakota women and children were imprisoned. Hundreds died of disease, exposure, and murder before their forced removal from the state.

In 2009, the US Senate passed a resolution calling on the US to apologize officially for the enslavement and segregation of millions of Blacks, to acknowledge the fundamental injustice, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow laws.

In 2000, the Pope in Rome apologized to Jews for their mistreatment at the hands of Christians over the ages. Recently the Pope has apologized publicly for the violation by priests in several countries concerning sex relations with boys.

Former President Bill Clinton apologized for the Western world’s inaction with regard to the genocide taking place in Rwanda.

Elouise Cobell, Blackfoot Indian woman, pressured our government since the days of the Reagan administration, and finally gained a “landmark settlement” for the benefit of as many as half a million Native Americans (2009). The US agreed to pay 3.4 billion dollars ($) to correct more than a century of wrongs that deprived the Indians of the justice due them. Cobell labored for 13 years to secure these commitments. She was the original plaintiff that challenged the USA to pay the royalties due for minerals extracted, grazing leases, forestry products taken, and so on, from the lands “held in trust” for the Native Americans and tribes. Although the legislation passed is far short of what may be due the Native Americans, it is the largest class action award ever to them by our government. So, to a degree, action has followed some of the “heart-felt” apologies.

However, the implementation is currently snarled. “The Obama administration would like to have the money paid out, but a few Democrats aren’t happy with the settlement, partly because of delaying tactics from Republicans. . . Whatever the reason, the delay has compounded a historic injustice. . . The Senate must make it happen.” [New York Times editorial, 8/5/10].

In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II, 100 Japanese officials and crew members of the planes that struck Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, offered their apologies, representing their government. President Obama deployed the Ambassador to Japan as an official delegate to the 65^th anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. [Have we offered apologies for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The claims that those bombings were “necessary” to end the war are debatable. Japanese officials knew that they were defeated and had already approached the Soviet Union to seek an armistice and peace agreement, before the two bombings. That is my understanding of the actual history. Some commentators wondered if our military dearly wished to “try out” their new “toys.”]

Recently, from the corporate world, we have the “So sorry” statements from BP (British Petroleum or “Beyond Petroleum?”) about the Gulf tragedy from the deep sea oil drilling, “promising” to pay the costs of the damages (how defined and by whom?). Also, Target stores leadership has publicly apologized for their financial support of a Governor candidate who opposes Gay-Lesbian marriages, while the company has a “longstanding commitment to workplace equality.” (StarTribune 8/6/10)

So much for “just apologies. Words are cheap.” Indicating that oneself is sorry, very sorry, if genuine and not perfunctory, is just a first, small step. There is need for reparations, making amends for the one or group disadvantaged, with commitments to end the unwarranted inequalities. Some gains have been made in our country: the elimination of slavery; outlawing discrimination by race, creed, color, or gender; legislation for fair employment; outreach among the several religious entities; wider representation in government. President Obama probably has created the most diverse Cabinet, staff, and Commission heads of any prior Presidents. Still, the mentalities remain that are evident in Arizona’s action regarding incoming Mexicans, the public response re: the installation of an Islamic Centre near the 9/11 site in New York City, and the election of a Black President, among many other responses.

We are all human beings inhabiting the same wonderful globe, and sharing the common human needs, and distinct personal aspirations. But, sorry to say, we have yet a long way to go before Saving Paradise (by Rita N. Brock, my former colleague, and Rebecca A. Parker—Boston: Beacon Press, 2008).

SOME THINGS ARE BETTER THAN BEFORE! WHY/HOW?—YOU CONSIDER! -- Part I

Societies change. Then people change. Roles/statuses change!

Nelson Mandela—Imprisoned for 27 years; former President of South Africa: Nobel Peace prize recipient; recently removed from the USA “terrorist” list! (HR 5690)

Women gain official leadership—Many women in diverse nations and all continents have gained official leadership positions. Lynda Lovejoy, first woman candidate for presidency of the Navaho Nation, Arizona. Nilda Garre, attorney, named as first woman Minister of Defense, Argentina. Julia Gillard, first woman Prime Minister in Australia. Michelle Bachelet, first woman President of Chile. Haya Rashed al-Khalifa, Bahraini attorney, elected President of the UN General Assembly. Angela Merkel became the first woman Chancellor of Germany. Four women were candidates to the Kuwaiti parliament. for the first time women were allowed to vote. A woman serves as acting President, since the fleeing of the prior President of Kyrgyzstan. Cristina Fernanda de Kirchner serves as President of Argentina, after her husband. Dora Lakoyannis, former mayor of Athens, is the first woman appointed as Foreign Minister for Greece. Liberian President is Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. Portia Simpson Miller has been the first woman Foreign Minister for Jamaica. Dalia Grybauskaite was elected last year as Lithuanian’s first woman President. Helen Clark was recently the first woman Prime Minister of New Zealand; Megawati Silarmoputro is President of Indonesia. Gloria Macapagal Arrove is President of the Philippines (though not the first one). In Rwanda now women hold 48 percent of the legislative seats: a woman heads the Supreme Court, and; half of the judges and college students are women. Joyce Bamford-Addo, retired Supreme Court Justice, was unanimously elected Speaker of Ghana’s parliament. Yulia Tumoshenko almost won the Presidency of Ukraine (2006) in a contested result, having been former Prime Minister and was instrumental in the “Orange Revolution.” Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Laureate, joined protesters in declining to vote in the Iran 2004 elections, as a human rights lawyer. In 2002 hundreds of Nigerian women took control over four Chevron-Texaco oil facilities in the Delta. Amnesty International gave its highest honor in 2009 to Myanmar’s long-detained democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi—Ambassador of Conscience Award—in Dublin before 80,000 cheering supporters at a concert. Laura Chinchilla was recently elected President of Costa Rica.

Of course, there have been Golda Meir (Israel), Indira Gandhi (India), Margaret Thatcher (Britain) and other women prime leaders since World War II. The roles of women make them less prone to violence in most societies and are perhaps more often sensitive to human life. However, Indira Gandhi, Thatcher, and Meir were well able to conduct wars (Kashmir, Falkland Islands, or Palestine). So, we cannot assume that women leaders may be stronger leaders for peace.

As “democracy” arises, more women are joining the political process. But, the USA is “way behind” many other nations. Ranked for women’s involvement in legislatures and government, the USA is 61^st. Rwanda was first, followed by Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Iraq (with new “national assembly”—not yet very functional) was 15^th. In Saudi Arabia women can’t vote or hold office. We in the USA came close in 2008 to electing a woman President, and in 2010, close in Minnesota to electing its first woman governor. We have had three women USA Secretaries of State in a row, and now a woman is our Ambassador to the United Nations. We have 17 women in the Senate where we have no “quotas” in Congress for proportionate roles for women. With confirmation of Elena Kagan, on August 5, 2010, as a Justice of the US Supreme Court, this brings the total to three women Court judges, the first in US history. (Still not Half the Sky!)

A few variations—

Danica Patrick became in 2008 the first woman winner in Indy Car history, Japan 300.

Ada Yonath became the 2009 Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry.

Elinor Ostrom in 2009 became the first woman to win a Nobel Prize in Economics.

Sharon Lubinski, last year became the first openly gay US marshal, former police officer in Minneapolis.

Why Is There Terrorism? Part Three, Conclusion

Powerful vs. Weak/Privileged vs. Disadvantaged

“Terrorism” does not arise from a vacuum. There are reasons for such violence, though we may reject the rationales given by the initiators or the recipients of such tragic and disruptive actions. Understanding and ameliorative actions need to follow if such problems are to be truly resolved, not just accentuated.

Part I dealt with “terrorism” as experienced within families and/or communities. Resolution of such behaviors can best be dealt with on the local level.

Part II reviewed our nation’s behaviors in relation to other countries. Our frequent exhibition of official arrogance, double standards, unilateralism, and claims to “exceptionalism” irritate even our “allies” and anger our “opponents,” internationally.

Now, how did we become an “empire”? [One citizen crowed: “Sure, we’re an empire. Let’s make the most of it!” We have!] How did we gradually come to be so extensive and powerful since 1789? This continent had been occupied by indigenous peoples for thousands of years, with self-sustaining cultures. These Native Americans faced the intrusion of Europeans, with some initial friendly relationships. However, bows and arrows were no match for guns. Diseases for which the natives had no prior contact, or had developed resistance, proved fatal to thousands.

In violation of the British Crown’s regulations, colonists passed through the Appalachians. So began the western movement across the continent, initiating the “Manifest Destiny” that John Adams, our second President, considered in eyeing the Caribbean. The 1803 Louisiana Purchase from France doubled the size of the original “colonies.” A gradual “genocide” of Native Americans began. Thereafter, Indians killing whites were “massacres”, whereas whites killing Indians were “victories.” [Labeling theory].

The 1848 Mexican-American War was strongly opposed by Lincoln, then a Congressman, because it was “trumped up.” Our early republic then gained about half of Mexico, creating much of our Southwest. The purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867 added an area about twice the size of Texas. The 1898 Spanish-American War, became a Philippine-American War, Thousands of the islanders died as they were about to declare their independence from Spain, which the USA did not grant them until after WWII, 60 years later. Puerto Rico was also obtained after that war and is still a USA colony in 2010. Cuba was allowed to gain independence after our generals secured the commitment for the “perpetual” use of Guantanamo base, to be “leased” to the USA. [Since the Batista dictatorship, I understand that Cuba does not cash the “rental checks”, contending, correctly that the base area is Cuban territory, but under complete US control. In 1898, Hawaii was acquired via a manipulated non-violent “coup” becoming a US “territory.” More than a half-century later, Hawaii became one of the two last USA States. Being one of the “winning allies” in World War II, the USA acquired a number of South Sea Islands, including the Marianas (Guam, among them). [Like the earlier British empire spread, the sun also doesn’t set on the USA empire].

Meanwhile, there were Indian wars in the 1800’s, followed by the forced movement of the Native Americans onto reservations, most of them with few resources. Numerous treaties made with the Indians were often revised or ignored. The Native Americans of diverse tribal cultures found it difficult to retain their languages and cultures. Their much reduced original populations were granted US citizenship only in 1924.

Were the persons who constituted the populations of all these acquisitions even asked if they wished to be American/US citizens? None that I know of. The people were “acquired” with the land, without consent on their part: some just “taken”, several by purchase, and others from warfare.

The USA now has hundreds (some say 700) military bases in more than 100 countries! What impact on these populations does the presence of US military bases have on their sovereignty, freedom of action, choice? The Okinawans in the late 1990’s voted for the US military to leave. Tokyo ignored their desire. Ecuador has closed the American base at Manta. Stateside and Puerto Rican “peace groups”, with non-violent actions, recently forced the closure of the Navy base on Vieques Island. Military bases generally bring exploitation of the “native” women, among other problems. How many military bases of foreign nations exist in the USA? None that I know. [How would we respond if foreign bases peppered our landscape?]

France, Britain, Portugal, Spain, Belgium and other “colonial powers” began releasing their colonies after WW II or after struggles by those being occupied. We remain THE EMPIRE. Colonial powers became the objects of resistance by the populations that felt dominated, manipulated. “First World” nations’ economies invaded the weaker for their resources and cheap labor. “Terrorists” do not seem focused on Sweden, Norway and other non-colonial powers. The “First World” dominates the World Bank, the UN, World Trade Organization and other mechanisms of the privileged and technically advanced nations.

The natural resources and cheap labor of the poorer nations are sought and exploited by these “foreigners”. [Let’s observe carefully what occurs, related to the recent discovery of numerous mineral deposits in Afghanistan!] These resources are Afghanistan’s—foreign corporations will “move in” to gain control. Will the Afghans profit by their own resources, for schools, health care, and so on? Why “must” control and profit from the resources be by others? [I do not wish to live well at the expense of decent lives for other people.] Under the circumstances, the weaker, poorer nations are often manipulated via monetary adjustment and into permanent debt to those who remain dominant. [See Perkins, below]. Those with greater power maintain dominance over the usually smaller, weaker countries. Our “American way of life” stems in significant degree from the exploitation of the resources and cheap labor (kept that way) of the lesser powers. Over time, such control brings opposition, sometimes by violence, by the weaker population’s resistance to perpetual poverty. So-called “Terrorism” can be a response against repressors.

If a population doesn’t have helicopters, high-flying bombers, and other “sophisticated” martial equipment, some repressed, disadvantaged individuals, lacking hope for change, utilize the only weapon they have—their own bodies. Suicide bombers have dreams for education, family, food, health, and hope. They do not destroy themselves “willy-nilly.” Their despair, failure to discern change for the better, makes them very susceptible to aggressive tactics. [Without hope for their futures is living worthwhile?] The suicide bombers do indeed give their lives; whereas some military personnel, in guarded rooms pushing buttons, send drones off to kill people, take lives and receive medals. Who exhibit the most courage, risking the most? Labeling theory applies. The powerful refer to the suicide bombers as “terrorists”. They control the media and officialdom and make the label stick. Their own brutalities are not so designated!

The Nuremberg trials were against the losers of WWII. Those who dropped the nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities, who created “shock and awe” in Iraq, have not been charged with inhumanity to others. We maintain prisons for “suspects.” They have lacked access to family or legal aid, charges or legitimate trials. Often they had experienced torture, well documented for hundreds. Double standards are applied. Warfare is brutal, inhumane, wasteful and counter-productive no matter who conducts it. War should be viewed as an obsolete response to threats in modern “civilization.”

During the Gulf War, British and American planes bombed Iraqi water plants, electrical facilities, hospitals, sewage disposal, and so on. Human rights agencies indicate that about a million Iraqis died. Half of them were children under five, dying mostly from lack of medical aid for treatable diseases and injuries. Weren’t those actions “terroristic”? “Double standards” are employed by our “peaceful”, well intentioned USA against others who, close to hopelessness, are labeled “terrorists.”

“Terrorists” can be “readily” recruited when large life disparities exist and continue after civil pressures have failed to bring basic changes. The American CIA and other affiliated “secret” entities currently are authorized to seek out and kill noncombatant civilians. Should those American agents be imprisoned, tortured, held for years as others have been at Guatanamo and Abu Ghraib [See Miles, below]. Understandably, some of us demonize opponents, ignoring the demons in our own national behaviors. Robert Naiman, indicated that the “Gaza Flotilla Did More than 10,000 Rockets!” (See Naiman, below)

Violence is not necessary. There are always alternate choices for “conflict resolution!” [Our current administration asserts that nuclear weapons would be used as a “last resort.” Such could create the greatest disaster ever experienced!] India gained its independence from Britain with nonviolence. The three small Baltic nations brought the Soviet Union’s removal with a united nonviolent physical demonstration. Though quite a few went to prison, Norwegian teachers did not accept the Nazi education goals. Norway and Sweden separated peaceably in the early 1900s. Australia became a nation without violence by joining their several “colonies.” The UN is currently working to bring peace to Sudan with a north-south separation. Martin Luther King, Jr. warned us that we must pursue nonviolence if we are to avoid nonexistence!

We as a nation, and the global community, are at a “fork in the road.” We need to follow “the road less traveled!” If we are to confront adequately the challenges of climate change, we cannot continue having warfare and investing half of our Congressional “discretionary budget” for military-related endeavors. We need to marshal all possible talents, resources, and commitments to secure a future for the coming human generations and all other living beings. Resistance to making these accommodations will make their lives worse. If we, as the most powerful nation, continue to use warfare as an instrument to foreign policy, we will not end “terrorism”, retain a democracy, or have peace. The recent Supreme Court decision granting “personhood” to corporations, undercuts “one person, one vote.” We are now a plutocracy. Such a military-industrial complex, about which Eisenhower warned us, seems to have arrived full-force. “Fear of terrorism” is bringing threats to our civil rights.

Climate change can create deserts from former food production land, flood low-land populations, destroy glacial water sources, and so on. Severe stress could result over time in massive “dog-eat-dog” human struggles, and extensive terrorism! [See Brown note, below].

There are actions we can take. Directly or indirectly, they all have relevance to “terrorism.” We can with delays bring about our own Armageddon.

1) Strengthen the United Nations so it may intervene promptly in incipient genocidal movements.
The UN also needs to be more democratically arranged. Why should Britain have Security Council veto and not India or Brazil? Why should the General Assembly gather with only a “suggestive” capacity? The UN also needs better financing. [See Schwartzberg note below].

2) Our world leaders, official and otherwise, need to respect not only the more privileged nations at conferences (like Copenhagen) dominated by them, but also to genuinely respond to subsequent conferences like Cochabomba (Bolivia), which enabled the generally less powerful to voice their concerns. The latter were virtually ignored by the media and major powers. “Being ignored” fosters “terrorism”.

3) The USA should join the majority of nations and ratify a number of important treaties we have thus far declined to support: international standards about the rights of women (while we oppose the treatment of women in some countries), rights of children (while we are seemingly involved in financing child soldiers in Somalia), law of the sea, the International Criminal Court, Kyoto, and other endeavors to set climate change firm goals (while being the greatest contributor of carbon levels).

4) We should abide by the treaties we have already ratified, and often violated—nuclear weapon aid, Geneva Conventions, United Nations’ charter regarding warfare, violations of the OAS charter, by numerous intrusions in the internal affairs of Latin American nations, frequent coups, invasions and occupations.

5) Our government should cease support of dictators, which we have often done for extensive periods of time. Dictatorships create opposition, often violent, which some would label “terrorism” as the suppressed seek justice.

6) Remove our troops from the 100’s of our military bases around the world. [We have no foreign bases in the USA that I know.] The cost saved can be used for our own domestic needs and for genuine humanitarian aid abroad. The dollars saved can then aid these returned military to have their income continued for a designated period to enable them to return to civilian life, reunite with family, pursue more education, and/or find meaningful employment.

7) Assess our behavior abroad with those of other nations’ people with a single, not double standard. (“They are warlike; we are peaceful!”)

8) Terminate the intrusion of military aspects in our civilian life and public schools. ROTC faculty need not even have a college degree. ROTC costs the local school expenses. They provide trips to military bases, teach the military perception of world events, provide honors at graduation, and have full access to all the students for administering “aptitude” tests (which the students assume are required but are not). Young students are insufficiently informed to challenge the claims of recruiters. The Minnesota National Guard recently had a full page ad seeking enrollment in their youth educational program. I am not aware that such programs are the function of National Guard units. In recent New Years Days TV broadcast the national football game by high school students, with military insignia on their uniforms. Our civil society is being gradually, subtly militarized.

9) Every reader, if they wish to counter the stimuli that war brings, can join, help finance, and publicly support nonviolent peace groups in endeavors, such as the International Nonviolent Peace Force, Peace Brigades International, Witness for Peace, and other organizations. All of these groups operate abroad and the volunteers accept the personal risks in battle zones. We need to personally risk for peace, no longer for war. We can make peace possible, war never can

Back to the beginning: “I do not love my country because it is perfect. I want to perfect my country because I love it!”

1) Lester R. Brown, Plan B 4: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble. (2009)
2) Nicolas Kristof/Sheryl WuDunn, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. (2009)
3) Steven Miles, Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity and the War on Terror (2006)
4) Greg Mortenson/David Relin, Three Cups of Tea (2006) (Pakistan endeavors)
5) Robert Naiman, “Hamas Lawmaker: Gaza Flotilla Did More Than 10,000 Rockets,” Truth Out
July 7, 2010.
6) Joseph Schwartzberg, Designs for a Workable World re: United Nations reforms (in process)

Why Is There "Terrorism?" -- Part Two

At a court trial involving numerous citizens who had “trespassed” on the property of Alliant Tech, a young woman defendant began her presentation to the judge, saying: “I do not love my country because it is perfect. I want to perfect my country because I love it.” This essay has been prepared with this same sentiment and context. [Alliant Tech, Minnesota’s largest weapon manufacturer, was then located in Edina].

Each of us, as well as national and/or cultural entities, carry some “mythical baggage” that aid us and them to believe in our “goodness” and aids “self-respect.” Collectively and personally we consider ourselves to be “peace-loving,” “generous”, and law-abiding.”

Why did Americans support policies that brought suffering to people in foreign lands? . . . . . the deepest belief of most Americans (is) that their country is a force for good in the world. Thus, by extension, even the destructive missions the United States embarks on to impose its authority are tolerable. Generations of American political and business leaders have recognized the power of the noble idea of American exceptionalism. When they intervene abroad for selfish or ignoble reasons, they always insist that, in the end, their actions will benefit not only the United States but also the citizens of the country in which they are intervening—and by extension, the causes of peace and justice in the world. (Kinzer, page 107).

Arrogance. -- Being a bit presumptuous is one quality that our officials abroad have sometimes manifested. a) Bolton, our Ambassador to the United Nations during the term of George W. Bush, was one of our most arrogant representatives. b) During an interview on TV by a well-known US journalist with the President of Iran, in a very brief moment, a staff member entered and delivered a note to the guest. The American journalist had the gall to ask, “What’s in your note?” c) President Obama, usually very careful in speaking, has indicated that the USA (America) should regain its “leadership” of the world community, recognizing that in recent years we’ve disappointed even some of our closest European allies with our decisions and actions. Who elected us to be “leader”? Some of us believe that the USA now needs to be a better “follower”, supporter, before presuming to be the leader! How many international laws have we been violating? How many desirable treaties have we opposed? How lacking in treating other nations as equals? Do we wish to be “king on the hill?”

“Conflict resolution”—Do we respect the “sovereignty and rights” of other nations? Currently, half of the discretionary Congressional budget (the portion voted on each session excluding Social Security and Medicare) is allotted to war-related endeavors. Included are the Pentagon (increasing each time), supplemented by allotments for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars), Veterans Affairs (inadequate for present and future care needs), nuclear programs of the Energy Department, interest on the Vietnam debt, and so on. Our military budget exceeds that of every other nation or virtually the sum of them all! We have military bases in at least 100 countries. [Some say 700 bases in 130 countries, depends on definition, size of the base, etc.] How many foreign military bases are located in the USA? None that I know of. [The Naval base in Vieques, Puerto Rico, did “rent out” some “bombing practice time” to allies; but the base was forced to close]. Obama is currently arranging for seven new US military sites in Colombia. Plan Colombia, which we strongly finance, fumigates peasants farms, killing all crops, forcing peasants off the land and into refugee sites elsewhere (the second largest percentage of in-country refugees in the world, with a corrupt “drug war”, with more assassinations by the para-militaries we finance than by the rebel FARC elements. Our current “help” is very detrimental.

US troops have invaded Latin American nations at least 80 times, and stayed for a decade or more in several cases. We’ve been instrumental in arranging coups in numerous countries against democratically elected presidents, often by assassinations and generally with CIA involvement. For example: Arbenz (Guatemala), Zelaya (Honduras), Aristide (Haiti), Chavez (Venezuela, briefly), Allende (Chile), Massadegh (Iran), in Vietnam and other arenas.

In contrast, the USA has supported numerous dictators for lengthy periods: the juntas in Uruguay and Argentina (part of Operation Condor, with CIA involvement), Pinochet (Chile), Batista (Cuba), the Somozas (Nicaragua), Hernandez (El Salvador), Stroesner (Paraguay), Banzer (Bolivia), and Noriega (Panama), whom we later deposed and sent to trial and prison, among others.

Unilateralism—the foregoing data indicate that the USA has been audacious as a “super-power,” for taking military actions against other nations, when we wished, where we chose, and for whatever rationales we expressed, with little regard for international laws, charters of the United Nations or Organization of American States (the OAS). We helped organize the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which tends to “circumvent” United Nations involvement, as in Afghanistan. We were instrumental in organizing SEATO in Southeast Asia and are in the process of establishing an American African Command. Since 1945 the USA has bombed 20 countries. [Compiled by historian, William Blum]. With regard to our “indirect involvement” in Nicaragua’s Contra War, we ignored the World Court’s decision against us, assessing several millions of dollars for our damages to the country. [Like not paying a parking ticket!] Congress has not “officially” declared war since 1942. (Re” Iraq, Bush was given authority “to do what is deemed necessary.”) Since my birth, we seem to be engaged in “perpetual war”!

Double standards/Exceptionalism—Inconsistencies and irritations, for other nations as well, result from our “duplicity” in the application of permissible behaviors and regulations. a) For example, it is against our US laws for any foreign nation to be involved in our election processes. Yet we have financed dissidents, opposition candidates, and media in Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua in Latin America and elsewhere in the world. b) Israel, the USA and others have refused from the beginning to recognize the election of Hamas via a democratic election by its citizens. We have accepted the results of very questionable elections elsewhere and dealt with their leadership. c) We condemn “terrorist tactics” by opposition forces while employing practices against opponents that can also be defined as “terrorist.” [Elaboration in Part III]. d) A major problem arises regarding the implementation of treaty regulations re: nuclear developments for energy and/or weapon purposes. Regarding Iran, under increasingly greater pressure to cease nuclear development, “double standards” are again involved. The Nonproliferation Treaty authorizes any nation to pursue nuclear programs for energy creation for civic use. Those who already have nuclear weapons may keep them; but others are not to develop them or aid others to create them. Iran has signed the Treaty. Israel, India, Pakistan—near neighbors, have not, yet they possess nuclear weapons. Iran, as a co-signer of the Treaty is pressed, with increasing penalties, for pursuing nuclear developments that could become weapon-level. The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna has not yet concluded that Iran actually is making nuclear weapons or has them, if that is their intent. Are Israel and the other neighbors open to full inspections of their nuclear weapon possessions? Standards should be the same for all countries! During the recent Bush years, India was aided by the USA to enhance its nuclear potential, and an Indian scientist has shared nuclear data with other countries. What does a very important treaty mean to us? e) Finally, there is obvious imbalance between the powers of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly powers, in the process of treaty implementation. The few, most powerful nations that constitute each UN Security Council, are able to oppose/penalize actions of any of the other 130+ nations that constitute the General Assembly, regarding any Treaty implementations. However, a veto by any of the “Big Five” et al makes it unable to act against the behaviors of one or more of its members! f) With regard to Treaties, President George W. Bush forwarded six treaties to the Congress, none of which have been ratified. He also reversed US support for at least six major treaties:
1) Ending US involvement in the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change negotiations.
2) Violating the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty by developing new nuclear
weapons and negotiating a new pact with Russia that does not comply with Treaty terms.
3) Pulling out of the negotiations for a verification protocol under the Biological
Toxins Weapons Convention.
4) Reversing a prior US commitment to ratify the Landmines Treaty by 2006.
5) Withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and
6) Nullifying the obligations of the US signature on the International Criminal
Court.
Of the total 550 treaties, the USA has ratified 160, or 29%. Among others still in abeyance are Rights of the Child, Rights of Women, Law of the Sea,, Migrant Workers; and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban. [The Treaty Database: US Compliance with Global Treaties. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, St. Paul. (2005 data)]

References

Noam Chomsky, Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs, 2000

Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, 2006

Why Is There "Terrorism" Domestic and International?

Dictionary definitions of “terrorism” are not helpful when they record that “terrorism” is the use of terrorizing methods!” A state of fear, panic, fright is produced. Terrorism doesn’t arise from a vacuum. There are reasons! Citizens and their leaders need to understand WHY, if problems are to be addressed effectively. The uses of fear, threats regarding personal dangers, are utilized to control individuals or groups. Such manipulation of feelings can be utilized even by one’s own nation to build and maintain military power. e.g. “Fear levels”, with colors, are announced. Continued support for production of weaponry serves corporations’ interests in maintaining profits. Remember President Eisenhower’s caution about the “military-industrial complex.” [We seem now to be in a state of perpetual warfare.]

Domestic settings—Terror tactics can appear within households and family life, between husbands and wives, men and women “friends”, and in parent-child relationships. In our own communities we often read/hear about husbands/men physically abusing their wives/partners, resulting in serious injury or death of a spouse. Women being “courted” are sometimes victims of male “friends” who hold the assumption that “If I can’t have her, neither can another.” Women often need to seek court orders to protect themselves in advance of such tragedies, being “terror stricken”, in relationships with abusive males who have the greater physical power.

Physical violence and aggressive behaviors are fostered in our culture, promoting male aggressiveness rather than “conflict resolution” techniques for resolving interpersonal difficulties. It is not easy in our society to rear boys to be really “gentle men.” Militarization is increasing within the schools and the wider society priorities. TV films with violence and computer “war games” are accepted as “entertainment.” Terror is also expressed in the lives of children in response to abusive parents/caretakers. [It is recognized that virtually all of us have our limits to exasperating behaviors in children. Some adults “cease to reason” and severely terrorize their children, even injuring them severely.] When parents lose employment, confront mortgages they can’t pay, don’t have sufficient $$ for food and other family needs, the strain can result in severe abuse of children. “Terrorism” isn’t restricted to “foreigners in other nations.” [See Part II for international aspects].

Community “gangs”— Each generation confronts its own problems, often with different responses than prior ones. “Street gangs” do not arise in a vacuum either. These “groups,” challenge each other physically, often with lethal weaponry. A few young women, but mostly young males, form close relationships and identities with others in their area, their claimed domain, a “territorial” claim. They are often, perhaps generally, unemployed, not attending school regularly (or not faithfully), and thus probably have distraught adults/parents who have lost control over their youth. Gang members create their own symbols, hand signals, colors specific to their clothing. They endeavor to retain control over “their segment” of a selected area of the community. Some social scientists recognize that in modern, urban disjointed communities these “gangs” serve as substitute “families” for individuals that support each other, adrift from general norms. The claims to area domination, as rivals to other nearby gangs, often result in “terrorism” in the streets endangering others besides themselves. They challenge their opponents using fear, threats of injuries or death.

During the New Deal of the 1930’s there were several national programs for youth. The NYA (“National Youth Act”) provided financial aid for pursuing education while the youth were employed in part-time jobs. WPA—The Work Progress Administration provided employment with diverse opportunities. The CCC, Civilian Conservation Corps employed young men, full-time with pay, to repair and construct trails in national forests and parks, work on construction tasks, and so on. These “Great Depression” aids provided youth who were not in school and were unemployed, with some constructive jobs, wages, and training, reducing the idleness that otherwise would likely foster gang behavior. [I personally benefited from the NYA student aid program, working for 30 cents an hour in the University of Colorado mail room. I graduated from college without owing a cent!]

Cultural domination—There are many instances in the world—past and present—whereby ethnic/cultural populations have been incorporated, without their full consent, even against their desires, to be under the rule of another and dominant population. They are coerced to remain ruled as a suppressed minority with little hope for change. They oppose the coercion over time, increasingly resistant to the impediments put upon them by the dominant power. Without perceptive ameliorative actions by the dominant power, the oppressed build means to force changes, often through violence. They rebel, but are viewed as “terrorists” by those holding official power. [E.g. Violence in a divided Ireland, Basques in Spain, Tamils in Sri Lanka, among others.]

Increasing pressure from the suppressed minority may result in severe reactions on the part of those in power. Those controlling the government usually resist making the changes necessary to satisfy the challenging minority. Power is not usually or readily altered until “greater pressures,” even force, are employed by the minority. Much tragedy could be avoided with greater wisdom. [The British could have given India its independence “more promptly” and France could have offered Algeria its freedom earlier, avoiding the tragic delays and sufferings; but they did not so act]. Limited space doesn’t permit elaboration of the many instances that continue “colonialism” [the USA relations with Puerto Rico, Guam, the Palaus, and other island “possessions.”]

The Kurds were separated after WWI by the colonial powers, and they have since lived separated in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. [They would have been satisfied with a Kurdistan!] The Armenians have been under strong Turkish control/influence, including a genocide of the former by the latter, now being admitted finally by the Turks, who are proceeding with some greater recognition of Armenian desires. The Tamils have suffered badly in the recently terminated war in Sri Lanka, but remain subordinated. The Chechnya of Russia have suffered severe casualties, but remain forcibly in Russia. East Timor, after much suffering from the Indonesian military, now struggle with independence. In our own nation, the Native Americans lost their centuries-old tribal lands to the expansion of the initial 13 colonies, being subjected ever since to less productive living areas and limited lives.[Our Native Americans did not receive US citizenship until 1924!]

In each of these instances, the dominating powers employed much force to gain and retain control over the weaker, suffering cultural entities. The powerful victors, with greater control of media and other platforms, tend to label the rebelling minorities as “terrorists,” whereas their own more powerful and damaging actions are “patriotic.”
[More about labeling theory in Part II]. Current examples are the often suicidal resistance of the oppressed using what they have—their “bodies”—lacking helicopters, cannon, bulldozers, white phosphorus, bombers, drone planes, electronic communications, and so on. Is a “suicidal terrorist” in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Gaza any less human and courageous than our military personnel, [or those of Israel, for example] who “push buttons” in some secluded place to destroy their weaker challengers? Are we content with double standards of the value of human life?

WHY are there immigration problems on our southern border?

Why are migrants, mostly from Mexico, entering our southern borders illegally, annually by the thousands, in contrast to foreigners crossing into the USA from Canada? Our governments, national and local, have generally responded with regard to the symptoms and not to the causes for these concerns. Several kinds of actions have generally been taken.

By expanding personnel, endeavors have been increased to identify illegal arrivals. Then the “illegals” are usually retained, perhaps jailed for a limited time, with minimal care, and then “shipped back” to Mexico, a growing expense.

Under the presidency of George W. Bush, Congress authorized the construction of a wall/barrier for about 700 miles of our southern border. The wall was begun and seemingly will not be completed. [Whether it’s the “wall of China” or the “Berlin Wall” desperate people will find ways around, under, or over barricades.]
Another attempt at control, with additional personnel and equipment, is to apprehend “smugglers of persons,” individuals with families, across less monitored routes, often by “truck/van-loads.” Sometimes the “victims” who have paid considerable money for the presumed aid, are abandoned. A tragic number have died of heat and exhaustion without food and water in the desert areas.

All of these USA endeavors have been insufficient for solving the problems, for they do not deal with the reasons for the migrants’ risky endeavors. [Some religious groups have aided such refugees – mainly in the 1980s during the Central American civil wars, providing “overground passages.” Legal results came when government then turned “every man, woman and child who is in the country without authorization into a criminal, and turn people who give even humanitarian aid to unauthorized foreigners into felons.(1)”]

In a Yes! magazine article from 2006, authors Oscar Chacon, Amy Shannon, and Sarah Anderson offered five policies that may ameliorate the problem:

a) Create policies for USA and others that will raise the Mexican living standards.

b) Give attention to the future of their countryside, which is now being taken over by multinational agribusiness and other entities.

c) Reduce the economic insecurities that tend to arouse opposition from US citizens.

d) Cancel the major international debts these impoverished nations have had put upon them.

e) Arrange ways to have our citizens understand and appreciate the contribution that such immigrants provide us.

Former President Bill Clinton and some Congresspersons are having “second thoughts” about NAFTA (Canada, USA, Mexico) and CAFTA (Central America).(2, 3) The recent Arizona legislation placing further restrictions on illegal immigrants has brought surprising opposition from a diversity of groups nationally. In a recent Minneapolis Star Tribune article, Joseph Moriarity said:

Why are so many willing to risk everything, including their very lives, to live a desperate and clandestine existence in Arizona and other US states? The answer is simple: because they see no alternatives.(3)

Moriarity then also wrote:

We, the United States, brought this calamitous situation on Mexicans and on ourselves when Congress passed the NAFTA treaty in 1993. NAFTA was sold as a major formula that could improve the American economy while at the same time reducing poverty in Mexico … In practice, NAFTA accomplished exactly the opposite.(3 )

Corn (maize) is the basic food staple of the traditional Mexican diet. The US highly subsidizes our corn for shipment to Mexico (and other Latin nations). As a result of NAFTA more than two million Mexican campesinos and their families could no longer subsist on their land. Those who remained became even poorer moving to the metropolitan masses. [I’ve observed such changes occurring in Zumpango, Tlaxcala, where we have worked with the campesinos six times in a 20-year period.] Further, big US chain stores entered the scene and the small, local community stores could not compete in the “race to the bottom” prices. Our USA corporations thus provided large numbers of “cheap workers without a job, voting rights, or organizing power.”

Most such immigrants would rather remain at home where they know the language, have their religious affiliations, accustomed diet, extended families, and maintain their culture. Our immigration laws (e.g. Arizona) anger the Mexicans. Mexican President Calderon recently stated that “the criminalization of the migrant phenomenon…represents an obstacle for the solution of common problems in the border region.” He intends to work with the Mexicans abroad to protect their human rights, whatever their immigration situation.

These Mexicans are good workers (planting trees, they each dug three holes for my one!). If their compensations were paid by checks, with a record, they would have Social Security payments, adding to the US sums (though many of them would not remain to receive payments at later ages.) They are often young men (or with family) who collectively send millions of dollars home to relatives each year.
Further, the corporate profits do not remain for the benefit of Mexican banks or families, but may “add” to the Mexican GNP “without aiding” the Mexican citizenry.

Historically, Mexicans (and Guatemalans, et al) have raised their own corn, storing seeds for the next season. The introduction of genetically-altered corn erases that traditional and economic practice and replaces it with the need to buy seeds each year, with accompanying pesticides, herbicides, and machinery. Likewise, “clear-cutting” of jungle timber for cattle, etc. provides our hamburgers, but wipes out the carbon benefits of those jungles (“lungs for the world”) that aid our breathing and climate.

Thus, to enhance the living levels of most Mexicans, the NAFTA (and CAFTA) treaties need to be repealed. The campesinos need to be able to survive on their remaining lands. The Mexican workers and those workers here in the “trades” need to be able to form unions to enhance their own livelihoods, as Cesar Chavez did with the Farmers Union. Enable all who qualify to become citizens. Do not break up families. We need to join in building more satisfying lives for all.

[The implications of climate change should lead us in the “industrial world” to decentralize our food production, reducing the expense of shipping food and other perishable products for great distances. We need to be focusing on “transitional communities,” better able to adjust to the changes surely to come. As Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer has contended, “this decade may be viewed as the most important one in human history.” Where do we discern a general “sense of urgency”?]


Addendum

Significant impacts during and after World War II were the refugees who fled their countries, fearing imprisonment, torture, or assassination under dictators that our American leadership supported or tolerated. Among these were Hugo Banzer (Bolivia), D’Aubusson and Fernando Martinez (El Salvador), Jean-Claude Duvalier (Haiti), Fulgencio Batista (Cuba), Manuel Noriega (Panama), the Somozas (Nicaragua), various Generals (Guatemala), and Pinochet (Chile) among others. These refugees also provided the USA with diversity beyond our mainly European-related population. And our involvement in wars in Vietnam and Cambodia, in Iraq and Somalia more recently, have added many Hmong, Somalia, Iraqi, and Vietnamese to further diversify our population.


Resources:
1. Oscar Chacón, Amy Shannon, Sarah Anderson, “Alternatives to a Wall,” YES Summer 2006, pp. 48-50.
2. Ian Fletcher, “Thinking the Unthinkable: Could America Repeal NAFTA?” Truth Out, April 20, 2010
3. Joseph Moriarity, “See ‘Immigration Problems’? Blame NAFTA,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 1, 2010

See Also:
Jose Luis Rocha, “A Look at the Gringo Wall,” Envio, April 2010, pp. 44-53
Aarti Shahani, “A Stronger Movement for Immigration Rights,” Resist March-April 2010, pp. 5-10 (the central crisis is one of human rights)

Part II: Reviving Their Hope and Rebuilding Their Nation

“The quake hasn’t stopped Haiti’s well-heeled from spending lavishly while the scores of homeless barely scrape a living in the streets.”
[Simon Romero, New York Times, in Star Tribune 3/28/10]

“Act of Nature that it was, the earthquake…was able to kill so many because of the corruption and weakness of the Haitian state, a state built for predation and plunder.”
[Mark Danner, “To Heal, Look to History, not Nature.”]

The goal “demands an approach to the development planning that calls for the active participation of the Haitian people.” Robert Maguire, Trinity College professor and head of Haitian working group of US Institute of Peace, said: “We will simply see another lost generation with hundreds of millions of donor dollars being directed to projects that perpetuate the status quo and enrich those business, government and military elites who have been personally profiting from international donor generosity for many generations… Haiti is a lot more than a free-enterprise-zone filled with low-wage textile workers.”
[William Fisher, “Haiti Beyond the Cleanup,” 2/9/10, Truth Out]

“Letting people retake control of their lives and letting them know they are the actors in advancing the people…Believe in your strength. In your capacity to rebuild this country.”
[Beverly Bell, interview with social psychologist, Lenz Jean-Francois, Truth Out, April 13, 2010]


From this distance, and lacking all the “on the ground” information, I can only offer some of my insights for rebuilding Haiti, based also upon faithful reading of news and recently published books and reports. My many sojourns in Latin America and the Caribbean since 1967 have exposed me to the numerous examples of the exploitation and manipulation of these peoples and their economies, politics, and lifeways by the consequences of NAFTA, “structural adjustments” forced on them, debts impossible for them to repay, manipulations of their elections, facilitating coups, actual invasions by our military, and so on. Moreover, I’ve little faith in the major international entities comprised of privileged persons from governments and corporations, unelected and operating without full transparency, “traveling first class,” well-paid elites, voicing concern for the “poor,” with whom they have little association or real commitment. Such as AID, World Bank, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, and so on.
The USA has for too long related to Haiti as if it were “our colony.” They wish to remain Haitian. They do not need NIKE on their shoes (if worn) or GAP on a t-shirt (if they have one)!
Perhaps, given its history, the Haitians might wish to review and consider a revision of its Constitution with a national convention. They need to protect the nation from being dominated by other countries, politically, economically, or culturally. Let them be Haitians! They need strong constitutional principles that assure fair and full citizen participation in elections, regulations of elected or appointed officials to avoid corruption, protection against the intervention by other countries in their internal affairs, ownership of their land only by Haitians, and so on. Some legal specialists from Sweden, Norway, or other “non-colonial” powers might offer guidance for such a democracy. The Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) should be enforced – forbidding interference in the internal affairs of any other member for “any reason.” The UN Charter and international law, plus the International Human Rights document should have application. The right of workers to organize should be assured. Perhaps its “Congress” might allocate equal representation of men and women. Haitian land should be owned only by Haitians. Exploitation of its resources should result in negotiated charges when extracted – mines, forests, crops, and manufactured goods.
Given the impending impacts of “climate change,” Haiti has the opportunity to foresee the implications and incorporate NOW changes that make adjustments gradual and effective. About 60 nations and international groups have pledged at least $5.3 billion (by 4/1/2010). In the past, Haiti has often been forced to “stand aside” and watch as internationally financed “aids” went forward without Haitian rights protected. Former President Bill Clinton said, “It will be tempting to fall back to old habits – to work around the government rather than to work with them as partners… We cannot retreat to old strategies.” (Star Tribune 4/19/2010). Haiti could now set an example for creative social change!
A lengthy article in the New York Times (3/31/10, Arts Section) sets forth ideas for the de-centralization of Haiti, spreading out beyond Port-au-Prince. Smaller “transition communities” might be organized as cooperatives, with homes grouped. Garden spaces – pastures, trees, streams, etc. centered within or spread outside of the clumping of homes. Much of their food could be home-grown, not imported. They should return to their own rice and cease importing the genetically-treated rice from the USA and elsewhere. Rice is their main food base (as corn is in Mexico, Guatemala, etc.) They can return to providing their own food base and eliminate the altered seeds (which can’t be saved, must be bought each cycle) and the special needs for fertilizers/pesticides, and so on that pollute their soil, water, air. Human waste and other organic materials can be composted and provide added soil quality. Small animals could be incorporated for meat/eggs/milk. The Creole pig has been reintroduced already. The International Heifer Project could aid in providing young food/farm animals.
There are strong women’s groups, long-standing and organized, that should be included in the planning of the housing, gardens, schools, clinics. Focus strongly on the education of the women and girls.
My conception would have a small health clinic and grade school for each community of “functional size.” Larger districts could combine for secondary schools and more extensive clinics, with a major hospital in the capital. Perhaps communication could be now fully electronic (cell phones), eliminating the care costs and obstructions of telephone poles/wires, etc. Perhaps by then electric cars/buses would provide transportation for secondary and college students via public buses (available also to the general public separately). Dr. Paul Farmer, a physician who has served in Haiti for many years, would be a fine consultant-head for planning the medical clinics and greater resources.
The Habitat for Humanity project could be fine aid in rebuilding homes, using local labor (as should also be utilized in every possible rebuilding endeavor – streets, roads, civic buildings, and so on). Some planners may not be Haitian, but they should utilize Haitian workers on construction projects, providing training if necessary and income for the Haitians.
Like Kenya, reforestation could be instituted to reduce loss of soil, eliminate mud slides, provide shelter, wild life areas. Streams could be returned to greater purity with fish re-introduced.
Like Costa Rica, Haiti would benefit and reduce costs, by having no military establishment. Only a police force (or “national guard”) would be needed. The international Nonviolent Peace Force might be invited to help phase in such a system. (It has served in El Salvador, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere.) For school children, the Alternatives to Violence Project and “conflict-resolution” learnings could be introduced. Children might be reared bilingually – adding either Spanish or English – to enhance their future employment opportunities and travel/study abroad chances.
Finally, I believe there remains one action that could galvanize the entire rebuilding of the infrastructure and revitalize the population – invite and arrange for the return (as a citizen) John Bertrand Aristide. He now resides as a refugee, from his own country, in South Africa. He knows Haiti well, its Creole language and culture. He is greatly admired by the large majority of citizens who voted him to be president. The forces that terminated his presidency should have no veto power. The USA, as an enabler of the coup which displaced him, should accept such invitation by the populace, the largely poor citizenry. His presence would bring renewed support, civic integrity, rising spirit!!
Blessings on the Haitians as they regain their hope, achieve what may now seem impossible, and set an example for the rest of the world facing our shared human future.

Suggested readings: Paul Farmer, The Uses of Haiti; Lester Brown, Plan B 4.0; Nicholas Kristof et al, Half the Sky; Greg Mortenson, Three Cups of Tea; John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

WHY have the Haitians been so poor so long?

Part one: Past

When it comes to foreign policies, our nation seems prone to respond to the symptoms rather than seeking out the causes of such problems. Thus, serious problems are not resolved. The relations of the USA and Haiti go back at least to our second president, John Adams, who eyed the Caribbean islands as possible “take over” colonies. Haiti has suffered US interference many times since then. However, the causes of her poverty didn’t begin with us.

Probably few of our citizens read the magazine envío, which focuses on Latin America and the Caribbean countries. The January/February 2010 issue presents an analysis that I wish to share (pages 1-3 of that issue). Quote marks “” will indicate words of the envío editors; but for reasons of brevity, I’ve summarized their elaborations. (I do hope readers will seek out and read the full article, entitled “For Suffering Haiti, The First Word…”)
The envío editors set forth eight “devils” that account for much of Haitians’ suffering these past several centuries. Of course, the recent earthquake they experienced greatly added to their present tragedy.

“The first devil was called Spain. At the end of the 15th century, Spaniards invaded the Americas…” Columbus and his sailors committed mass murders. New diseases were introduced. The indigenous Taino population, then about half a million, became 30,000 in 20 years. No Taino remained after 50 years.

“The second devil was called France.” They drove the Spaniards out of the western portion of Hispañola and took over Haiti. Slaves from Africa were introduced to work on sugar plantations. Slaves died by the thousands, but were continually replaced. Such slavery certainly didn’t manifest France’s claim to liberty, equality, and fraternity! The slaves finally rebelled against French cruelty, led by François Dominique Toussaint Louverture, defeating the troops of Napoleon. Thus, in 1804, Haiti declared its independence and was the first country to legally abolish slavery. But their land had been greatly damaged by the huge sugar plantations, by deforestation, and by the ravages of war. A third of their population had died from the battles.

“The third devil was called Europe.” With defeat, France blockaded the island. No nation recognized Haiti’s independence. Europe supported France’s claim for 150 million gold francs in “war damages” to be paid by Haiti. Haiti, being abandoned, was saddled, having to use its resources to pay “the French debt.” Europe did not want a nation of former slaves to succeed.

“The fourth devil was called the United States. US bankers lent money to Haiti to build railroads and banana plantations.” However, the loans (and ever-increasing interest rates) became too large for the poor republic to pay, and it was clear they would be in perpetual debt to others. (See John Perkins, Confession of an Economic Hit Man, which indicates how major countries keep the poor ones in perpetual debt, and under control.) Thus, Haiti remained beholden to “outsiders,” without relief. President Wilson sent in the Marines in 1915. The customs house and tax collection offices were occupied and the gold reserves were taken to New York to “protect” them. The US withdrew in 1934 after 19 years of occupation. The Marines left a well-trained national guard behind to stop any future rebellion by the Haitians. Our Secretary of State justified the long occupation saying, “the Negro race is incapable of governing itself.”

“The fifth devil was called François Duvalier, the infamous ‘Papa Doc.’” This “leader,” backed by the US army, terrorized the populace and created a vicious militia called “tonton macoute” that committed many atrocities and killed 30,000 people. Upon his death, his son Jean Claude (Baby Doc) succeeded him. In 1986, after 30 years of tyranny, a popular movement deposed Jean Claude. Finally, Haiti could hold a democratic election.

“The sixth devil was called the Vatican. In 1991, Jean Bertrand Aristide, a very popular priest coming out of the base communities in Haiti, launched a campaign and won the presidency.” Pope John Paul II, an opponent of Liberation Theology, opposed Aristide. Aristide was “allowed” to serve only a few months before the US government facilitated his overthrow. The Haitian general that led the coup had been trained at the School of the Americas. The Vatican promptly accepted the government of the new “dictator.” Aristide now resides in South Africa, displaced from his own country. “To erase the evidence of US and Vatican participation in General Cedras’ organized slaughter, the Marines carried off 160,000 pages of secret Haitian archives.”

“The seventh devil was called the International Monetary Fund. In 1996 René Préval was elected president of Haiti…he wasn’t really president at all…since… the IMF and World Bank were the ones that controlled the Haitian economy.” Haitians used to grow their own rice but were forced into the “free market” by the IMF. “The peasant rice growers, who were the majority, became either beggars or boat people. Today, Haiti buys all its rice from the United States.” And it’s all transgenic rice.

Now, will there be an eighth “devil”? “The earthquake that destroyed Haiti didn’t start on January 12 [2010] but more than 500 years ago.” Will we see a free Haiti, with dignity, much less poverty, having hope?

[Coming next will be part II, Concern with Haiti’s Future]