Thursday, March 29, 2007
ZNet Commentary: Missing in Action: The Peace Movement’s Silence on the Impact of War on Women
Missing in Action: The Peace Movement’s Silence on the Impact of War on Women
Posted on March 20th, 2007
The Peace Movement’s Silence on the Impact of War on Women
On March 17 I joined the wonderful surge of patriotic Americans who braved horrendous weather to march from Constitution Gardens to the Pentagon in opposition to the Iraq war. One of the dominant themes of the day in signage, t-shirts and speeches was to “Bring the Troops Home Now.” But honoring the lives of those in the military and bringing the troops home now is only part of what is necessary. By focusing on this mantra that was framed by the Neocon “Support the Troops” drumbeat, issues such as the violence against women that occur as a result of militarism become all but invisible at events such as the March on the Pentagon.
True, there were women on the podium, including Cindy Sheehan and Cynthia McKinney. But their speeches did not acknowledge the terrible toll that war has on women’s lives. McKinney spoke of the torture of men. Yet as a recent report by the human rights organization Madre made clear, women have been tortured, raped, falsely imprisoned and assaulted with impunity since the beginning of the war by both Americans and Iraqis. Is their torture not every bit as much a violation of human rights as the torture of men? And what about the rapes and sexual assault within our own military ranks that were recently reported in both the New York Times and Salon, is this not torture too?
Yet the anti-war movement continues in complicit silence to ignore the human rights abuses against women that arise as a result of war. In September of 2002, when the invasion of Iraq began to look certain, members of the Feminist Peace Network (FPN) authored the “Statement of Conscience: A Feminist Vision for Peace” . The Statement was written partially in response to the original Not in Our Name (NION) statement http://www.nion.us/NSOC/original.htm, from which conspicuously, all mention of war’s impact on women was missing. In the cover letter to the Statement, we wrote,
“FPN believes that, in order to effectively address the problems with the current U.S. military policy and the globalization of the so-called war against terror, the global pandemic of violence against women and children must be stopped. It is FPN’s contention that, if we are to truly create peace, we must first recognize the horrific violence endured by the women of this planet every day. And, most importantly, we must vow that ending violence — by definition — includes ending violence that specifically endangers women and children. Until we do that, there will not truly be peace.”
Sadly, the years since the Statement was written have affirmed our concerns. Despite the oxymoronic, self-serving and misogynist rhetoric of the Bush regime about “liberating” women, the situation for women in Iraq has deteriorated markedly and in Afghanistan as well, the human rights of women continue to be under siege.
But as the NION statement did in 2002, the anti-war movement continues to discount the lives of women. It cannot be said enough, until ending war also includes ending the attendant violence against women that results because of militarism, there will be no justice and there will be no peace. If we truly want peace, if we truly want to end the war, then those of us who support the anti-war movement, particularly the women who speak in its name such as Sheehan and McKinney, must insist that ending the war on women is a necessary part of the peace agenda.
Postscript: Not only must the peace movement clearly acknowledge that ending the war involves much more than bringing the troops home, we must begin to articulate a clear vision of what is necessary for lasting peace. In the Statement of Conscience we offered this starting point:
“We defy those who would limit our experience of life to the maintenance of a caste system that supports the pursuit of profit and personal aggrandizement at the expense of meeting basic human needs. We challenge world leaders to put an end to the terrorism of hunger, thirst, sexual servitude, racism, patriarchy, nationalism, joblessness, homelessness, ableism, homophobia, ignorance, child molestation and elder neglect that many of the Earth’s citizens face daily. When every child of this world is adequately nourished, clothed, educated and healthy; when every adult who wishes to work has life-sustaining employment; when women and children are free from abuse then human life on earth will have become so highly valued that terroristic activity will lose its attraction.”
You can read the entire Statement on the Feminist Peace Network website. We offer this as a beginning articulation of a full and inclusive agenda for peacemaking.
–Lucinda Marshall, @ 2006
“Corporate Junk Science” in Capitol Spotlight
PM Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The House Committee on Science and Technology is breaking new ground this afternoon with a hearing titled "Shaping the Message, Distorting the Science: Media Strategies to Influence Science Policy."
The following policy analysts are available for interviews:
SHELDON RAMPTON,
Rampton, research director for the non-profit Center for Media and Democracy, is testifying at today's hearing on Capitol Hill. He has conducted years of research into deliberate industry efforts to manipulate the news media, public opinion and public policy on scientific issues ranging from the effectiveness of drugs to the reality of global warming. Rampton is co-author of several books including "Trust Us We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future."
Rampton's opening remarks are posted online at: <http://www.prwatch.org/node/5899>. In his testimony, he asserts: "The manipulation of science for public relations or political advantage inevitably has a corrupting effect on science itself. It undermines the integrity and objectivity of scientific research. It creates confusion in the minds of policymakers and the general public. What is needed, therefore, is greater public transparency regarding the sponsorship of science and of organizations that speak on scientific matters."
TOM JACKSON, , http://www.worldoutofbalance.org
Jackson is the director and writer of the new documentary film "Out of Balance: ExxonMobil's Impact on Climate Change." He said today: "As long as a significant percentage of the public remains confused about climate change—or worse yet, convinced that it is some kind of hoax—far too little will be done to try to avoid the catastrophic changes that will come about from unchecked carbon emissions.
"ExxonMobil continues to fund and foster confusion over climate change. They were recently exposed for funding the American Enterprise Institute, which offered $10,000 to scientists who would contradict the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's most recent report. ExxonMobil tries to defend its actions by saying it doesn't tell groups like AEI what to do, as if ExxonMobil doesn't know what it will get for its investment!
"ExxonMobil has been the spearhead of a misinformation campaign for about 10 years. It's obviously to their benefit if the public remains confused about the human impact on the climate. As long as significant changes in energy policy and use are avoided, ExxonMobil continues to make record profits. Their latest line is 'let's talk about climate change,' giving the impression that they've become more open-minded. However, keeping the issue confined to 'talk' is what ExxonMobil wants—all talk and no action."
Are we politicians or Citizens? Howard Zinn
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| UnitedforPeace.org is a nonpartisan resource for anti-war and social change activists. The information and events on this site are not necessarily endorsed by members of United for Peace and Justice. Please see our editorial policy for more information. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
April 2 Meeting: View from the Iraq Sky with Kasim Turki
| "View from the Iraqi Sky": Four years after the outbreak of war, a young man from Iraq shares his personal story. Monday, April 2nd 6:30 PM (doors open at 6:00 PM) Bunkyo Kumin Center Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo Map available here (Japanese only): http://www.iraq-hope.net/qasm.pdf Entrance fee: 500 yen On February 22, 2007, bombing from U.S. fighter planes destroyed four homes in Ramadi, a city in western Iraq's Anbar province. 26 people were killed, and many more were injured. For the past four years homes have been destroyed, schools have been occupied, supplies of food and medicine have stopped, and the skies have been filled with fear. Civilian deaths and their bereaved loved ones have continued to multiply during this period�\ as have the numbers of people fighting back in armed resistance. A young man from the war zone of Ramadi, which has become the l argest site in the "war on terror"�\and where media from around the world do not have access�\has traveled to Japan in order to share his personal story. Sponsored by: NPO Peace on Iraq Hope Network Fallujah Reconstruction Project For more information, please contact: NPO Peace On 03-3823-5508 | チラシのｐｄｆはこちら  Speaker Profile: Name: Kasim Turki Age: 30 Birthdate: November 27, 1976 Profession: Aid worker Hometown: Ramadi, Anbar province, Iraq Education: Mechanical Engineering degree from Anbar University Kasim served in the Republican Guard during the Iraq War. After reporting to media in the Baghdad area regarding an assault that took place in Fallujah on April 28, 2003 whereby U.S. forces began shooting at participants of a demonstration, Kasim began working with U.S. television network CNN, as well as freelance Japanese journalists. In June of the same year, Kasim was unjustly arrested by U.S. forces while doing research with a Japanese journalist, and was held for nine days. Following his release, he began chairing the Rebuild Youth Group of Iraq. Projects to date include rebuilding schools and other facilities, opening a medical clinic, and providing emergency support to displaced civilians. Since 2004, Kasim has also served as the local area supervisor for the Fallujah Reconstruction Project, which provides assistance from the private sector in Japan. Last year, a blog written by Kasim in English that describes local conditions in Ramadi drew attention in the U.S., and caused him to once again be detained by the U.S. military. IRAQ MAIL ~THE VOICE FROM RAMADI~ http://iraqmail.blogspot.com/ |
イラクの空には何が見える？ 4月2日（月）午後6時30分（開場6時）
|
緊 急開催！ イラクの空には何が見える？ 「テロとの戦い」の最大拠点と名 指しされた
| サイト内の文章及び写真の著作権は、イラク・ホープ・ネットワークに帰属します。無断での二次利用は固くお断りいたしま す。 English pages.チラシのｐｄｆはこちら ＜プロフィール＞ カーシム・トゥルキ（３０歳） １９７６年１１月２７日生まれ。 エイドワーカー。イラクアンバール州ラマディ在住。アンバール大学機械工学部卒業。 イラク戦争中は共和国防衛隊に所属。 イラク戦争直後４月２８日にファルージャで起きた米兵によるデモ参加者乱射事件をバグダッドのメディアに報せに来たことをきっかけに、フリーのガイド兼通 訳として米テレビCNNや 日本人ジャーナリストに同行。 同年６月、日本人と同行取材中に米軍に不当逮捕され９日間拘束。釈放後、「イラク青年再建グループ」を主宰。 これまでに学校などの修繕工事、診療所開設、避難民への緊急支援などを行っている。２００４年からは日本の民間支援「ファルージャ再建プロジェクト」と協 同し現場の指揮を執っている。 昨年はラマディの様子を英語で記したブログがアメリカを中心に話題となるが、それを理由に再度米軍に拘束された。 |
4月2日（月）午 後6時30分（開場
於：文京区民センター（東京都文京区）
共催：
x
Zinn: If somebody invaded your home & terrorized your children,would you give them a timetable?
ZNet Commentary
Antiwar talk at the Boston Commons March 27, 2007
By Howard Zinn
Howard Zinn, addressing the crowd gathered for the March 24th 2007 antiwar rally at the Boston Commons.
If somebody invaded your home, and smashed things up, and terrorized your children, would we give them a timetable? When I look at this latest Democratic proposal for a timetable, you know, maybe 18 months from now, at the same time funding the war for another 140 billion dollars, you know, it's as if you gave an intruder in your house a timetable for withdraw, and meanwhile, made a nice dinner for him. No, we can't do that, we have to get out. We don't belong in Iraq. The people in Iraq do not want us there, the American people expressed themselves clearly that the American people don't want us there. It seems the only people who want us there are the members of Congress and the Bush administration.
You know what? We shouldn't have anymore non-binding resolutions. This administration feels that everything is non-binding, you know? According to Bush the Ten Commandments are non-binding. You know, "Thou shall not kill" is non-binding. The only kind of resolution that…., there is a resolution that the House of Representatives could pass, which is binding and which is not subject to presidential veto, and that is a resolution for impeachment. It's time to talk about impeachment. We had 4 years of war in Iraq; we've had 4 years of what the Constitution requires as grounds for impeachment that is "high crimes and misdemeanors." We've had high crimes committed by this government: aggressive war. At the end of World War II, at the Nuremberg Trials, the Nazi leaders were hanged for carrying on wars of aggression. And we are carrying on a war of aggression.
I think what we ought to start talking about is not just the war in Iraq, but war in general. Because, and I say this, I join the other veterans who spoke from this microphone, I am a veteran of World War II, I was a bombardier in the Air Force in World War II. And my own experiences, and my own study of history, have persuaded me that war solves no fundamental problems, no matter what excuses are given to us by our so-called leaders. No matter what we are told about fighting for freedom and democracy, fighting for civilization, no matter what we are told, what tyrant is in power, there is no excuse for war, which is the mass indiscriminant killing of huge numbers of people. No excuse for that. War should come to an end, and we should think beyond the war in Iraq, and insist that we will never go to war again for whatever reason is given to us.
You know they talk about terrorism and the war on terrorism, and just think, at the time of 9-11, this country had 10,000 nuclear weapons. We had submarines armed with nuclear weapons, we had airbases in a hundred countries, and yet 9-11 took place. Militarism, war, submarines, nuclear weapons, they solve nothing.
And if we are going to really do something about terrorism, we ought to get rid of war, because war IS terrorism. We need to stop all this pride in being a great military power. I don't want my country to be a great military power. I want my country to be a great humanitarian power. When people were drowning in New Orleans and in Mississippi because of Katrina, I was thinking of the helicopters over Iraq which should have been saving people here in this country, instead of killing people over there. We should be using our enormous wealth to give everybody in this country free healthcare, and I mean everybody. Let's not talk about legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, citizens and non-citizens, every human being deserves free healthcare, every human being deserves an education. Remember those signs of last May, "No Human Being is Illegal," except maybe the people in the White House.
Albert Einstein said after World War I, thinking of the horrors of that war, he said: "War will not stop until men refuse to fight." And we are now seeing men and women refusing to fight in Iraq. We need to support them. And we need to support the family of those who have died in Iraq. And when enough people refuse to fight in Iraq, and when enough of us support them in their refusal, then the war will not be able to continue. So I look forward to that time when not only this war ends, but all war ends, and we can finally live in a country which we can be proud of. Thank you.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Activists Seek Alternative Model to ‘Neo-Liberal’ Trade Pacts (FROM THE NEW STANDARD)
Activists Seek Alternative Model to ‘Neo-Liberal’ Trade Pacts
Mar. 19 – With two controversial trade deals awaiting ratification, Congress is taking stock of the White House’s free-trade agenda, and activists are seizing the moment to call for policies that respond to the social needs of all countries involved.
Sign up to receive NewStandard headlines and extras by e-mail weekday mornings! Your privacy is strictly respected.
- Proposal to Open Central American Markets Spurs Debate Over Free Trade (May 20, 2005)
- Progressives See Bad Policy in Growing Trade Gap (Feb 16, 2007)
Lawmakers are considering trade deals with Colombia and Peru that encapsulate some of the most contentious aspects of so-called "free trade": rules that critics say elevate corporate privilege over human rights, promote exploitation of workers, and destabilize economies.
At the same time, President Bush’s power to broker such deals with minimal congressional oversight comes up for renewal later this year.
Labor, environmental, and humanitarian groups are urging Congress to block the pending agreements and similar accords now under negotiation. And opponents outside government are also working to upend the ideology behind modern trade policies in both parties by articulating an alternative agenda – one that treats global trade as a resource to raise living standards rather than as a vehicle for corporate profits.
"Trade is not any longer the province of government elites and investors," said Gary Hubbard, a spokesperson for the United Steelworkers union. "Everyone should benefit from trade – not just global corporations and governments."
Public outcry over free-trade agreements is nothing new. But with a new Congress, following an election in which job security and trade were hot-button issues, advocates for "fair trade" see an opportunity to finally penetrate the political mainstream.
Groups are challenging free-trade policies that restrict governments from meeting basic social needs.
A first step, they say, is to reform the negotiation process that has long been dominated by the White House and business interests.
The Bush administration’s trade deals have been greased by "fast tracking" – a special authority that enables the executive branch to broker and sign a trade agreement without direct congressional input. The deal then goes to a simple up-or-down vote; Congress cannot make amendments, and debate time is limited. Last renewed in 2002, the president’s fast-track authority will expire on July 1 – unless the Democrat-controlled Congress is persuaded to restore it.
Though the US Trade Representative’s Office, the agency that leads trade talks, does consult with outside "advisory committees," many of these are currently dominated by representatives of corporations like Boeing and Intel.
New Rules
Yvette Pena Lopes, with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said that while union advocates realize that, inevitably, "trade is going to happen," their challenge now is to "begin to lay out what must be, and what cannot be, within trade agreements."
Earlier this month, the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, a coalition of unions that includes the Teamsters, both issued policy statements calling for a more-transparent negotiation process to replace the current fast-track system. To check presidential power, they argued: Congress should design economic and social "readiness criteria" for deciding whether a trade deal with a country would be mutually beneficial. And lawmakers should establish stronger, binding labor and environmental standards that a country must meet before the president could finalize any deal.
Workers' advocates argue that the Colombia deal displays the administration’s indifference to the country’s ongoing human-rights crisis.
The organizations said trade deals should incorporate basic labor standards set by the United Nations’s International Labour Organization (ILO). These include the right to organize unions, prohibitions on child labor, protections against discrimination in employment opportunities, and the elimination of forced labor.
Unions and human-rights groups say the deals now awaiting congressional approval run counter to these goals.
The Peru agreement, for example, contains no explicit mandate to enforce ILO standards. It simply directs the Peruvian government to uphold its "existing labor laws" and discourages, but does not prohibit, the weakening of protections to serve commercial interests. Meanwhile, an investigation of Peru by the US State Department uncovered widespread child labor. And the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions has reported frequent suppression of union organizers by employers – especially multinational companies.
The labor coalitions also join other activist organizations in opposing trade policies that could restrict governments from meeting basic social needs.
Controversial patent rules in the Peru and Colombia deals would expand pharmaceutical companies’ power to monopolize production of essential medicines and block lower-cost generic versions. The Health Ministry of Peru projected in 2005 that the Peru trade agreement would foreclose access to medicine for about 700,000 to 900,000 people annually in the first five years of implementation.
Despite the political buzz, a concrete alternative to the free-trade agenda has not yet materialized on Capitol Hill.
Critics of the trade deals say corporate privilege would be further bolstered by "dispute settlement" measures, which empower companies to sue governments over policies that supposedly impinge on their market access.
Under similar provisions in the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) among the United States, Canada and Mexico, firms have launched legal attacks on anti-toxic-dumping regulations, protections for indigenous sacred sites, and domestic tax policies.
Touting trade liberalization as part of a regional strategy to "build democratic institutions and promote socio-economic development," the US Trade Representative’s Office has contended the pending trade deals would boost jobs and investment opportunities for the United States, while promoting long-term economic growth and combating drug trafficking in Peru and Colombia.
But Jessica Walker Beaumont, a trade and debt specialist with the Quaker activist group American Friends Service Committee, said current trade deals are based on "limiting the government’s ability to make choices for itself" in economic policy – such as establishing public ownership of utilities, or shielding local farms from foreign competition.
In an analysis of the Peru and Colombia trade agreements, the humanitarian group Oxfam International predicted the free-trade rules would displace small-scale farmers with an onslaught of imports of cheap, subsidized US crops. The group cited government data for nine primary crops in Colombia, including cotton and rice, showing that without protective import restrictions, in these sectors, the area of land farmed would shrink by one-fifth and employment would fall by over a third.
Human-rights groups warn that economic destabilization of Colombia’s rural sector would deepen existing strife by driving farmers into lucrative coca production or into the ranks of warring factions.
And workers’ advocates argue that enacting the Colombia deal would display the administration’s indifference to the country’s ongoing human-rights crisis. US and Colombian rights groups point to scores of documented murders of trade unionists in recent years amid a ferocious civil war.
Colombian Senator Gustavo Petro, a member of the opposition party Polo Democrático Alternativo, told The NewStandard the trade deal must be renegotiated to include "new clauses that protect the labor rights of Colombian workers" as well as land-distribution policies that protect smaller farmers.
"Undoubtedly," he said through an interpreter, under the current deal, "the ones who will benefit, at least in the rural places in Colombia, are the narco-traffickers."
Recasting Globalization
Though fair-trade issues may be generating more political buzz, a concrete alternative to the free-trade agenda has not yet materialized on Capitol Hill.
More ambitious ideas have emerged on the grassroots level. One example is a far-ranging blueprint for "sustainable" international trade presented in 2002 by the Hemispheric Social Alliance, a coalition of advocacy groups across the Americas. That model envisioned trade pacts as mutual social contracts that would condition economic exchange on the promotion of global ethical standards.
Rather than focusing on pushing capital across borders, governments under these agreements would commit to policies like public investment in alternative energy sources, equal labor rights for migrants, and agricultural regulations based on securing an adequate regional food supply.
Stephanie Burgos, an advisor for Oxfam on trade policy, said more-comprehensive concepts of fair trade center on respect for the political and social integrity of other nations – allowing economically poorer countries to "decide their own pace and level of market opening."
For now, activists seeking dramatic changes in the global trade system fear congressional Democrats might ultimately continue their general support for prevailing neo-liberal trade priorities.
In a speech earlier this month, Representative Sander Levin (D–Michigan), head of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, urged reforms to current trade policies, stressing protections for US workers and labor rights.
But in recent statements, Ways and Means Committee chair Charles Rangel (D–New York) has called for Congress and the White House to "be partners in promoting trade" and announced he is working with the Trade Representative’s Office on a compromise over labor provisions in the pending agreements.
Sarah Anderson, director of the Global Economy Project at the progressive think tank Institute for Policy Studies, said activists should be wary that Congress "might cut a deal in name of these fair-trade activists but not actually go as far as we would like." In focusing on labor policies in the trade deals, she said, Democratic leaders could be trying to appease unions while glossing over more-nuanced issues involving the environment or expansive powers for investors.
But if broad consensus on how to restructure the global trade system has yet to emerge in Washington, some activists perceive at least a growing sense that the status quo is failing.
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
"We’re at a turning point," said Larry Weiss of the Citizens Trade Campaign, a coalition of labor, environmental and other activist groups. "We are currently demonstrating that the old NAFTA model is dead, that no more NAFTA-style trade deals can get through Congress. But we are not yet at the point of establishing a new model."
American Historical Association Denounces the War in Iraq (March 13, 2007)
Historians Against the War Statement on the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
(September 21, 2003)
As historians, teachers, and scholars, we oppose the expansion of United States empire and the doctrine of pre-emptive war that have led to the occupation of Iraq. We deplore the secrecy, deception, and distortion of history involved in the administration's conduct of a war that violates international law, intensifies attacks on civil liberties, and reaches toward domination of the Middle East and its resources. Believing that both the Iraqi people and the American people have the right to determine their own political and economic futures (with appropriate outside assistance), we call for the restoration of cherished freedoms in the United States and for an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Join HAW by Signing the Above Statement!
As of March 19, 2007, 2297 people had signed this statement and become members of HAW. The signatures are available on this website. This statement supercedes the founding statement.
American Historical Association Denounces the War in Iraq (March 13, 2007)
In an unprecedented step, the nation’s oldest and largest professional association of historians, the American Historical Association (AHA), has ratified a resolution condemning government violations of civil liberties linked to the war in Iraq. The resolution urges members “to do whatever they can to bring the Iraq war to a speedy conclusion.” In electronic balloting whose results were announced on March 12, some three-quarters of those voting supported the resolution, which was originally proposed by members of Historians Against the War (HAW), a national network of over two thousand scholars on more than four hundred campuses. The resolution had gained earlier acceptance from members attending the AHA’s annual meeting in Atlanta on January 6, 2007, and from the AHA Council, which decided to send the resolution out for ratification because of its sensitive nature.
“The outcome indicates the deep disquiet scholars feel about damage done to scholarly inquiry and democratic processes by this misbegotten war,” said Alan Dawley, Professor of History at The College of New Jersey and a former winner of the prestigious Bancroft Prize, who was the initial mover of the resolution.
The American Historical Association was chartered by Congress in 1889. Past Presidents include two United States presidents who were also historians, Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt. President John F. Kennedy was also a member. According to current members, there is no instance in its 118-year history when the AHA has dissented from U.S. foreign policy. Staughton Lynd, a prominent supporter of a defeated 1969 resolution opposing the Vietnam war, comments: “Back then we asked historians not only to oppose the Vietnam war but to protest harassment of the Black Panthers and to call for freeing political prisoners. This resolution focuses on government practices that obstruct the practice of history. It asks the American Historical Association only to encourage its members, as individuals, in finding ways to end the war in Iraq."
In the weeks leading to the vote, many of the nation’s leading historians, such as Eric Foner of Columbia University and John Coatsworth of Harvard, both former AHA Presidents endorsed the resolution.
For more information on the AHA and the resolution, go to www.historians.org. For more information on Historians Against the War, go to www.historiansagainstwar.org
 See more of Josh Brown's Life During Wartime |
DEMOCRATS AND WAR FUNDING
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Democratic Party and War Funding
JOHN STAUBER, SHELDON RAMPTON, , http://www.prwatch.org/node/5865
Stauber and Rampton co-wrote the recent article "Why Won't MoveOn Move Forward?" which states: "MoveOn's organizing around Iraq has become notably ambiguous lately. Although it talks in general terms about bringing the troops home, specific timetables or meaningful steps in that direction are nowhere discussed. Most strikingly, MoveOn has adamantly refused to support the Iraq amendment from Congressional Progressive Caucus leaders Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters, which calls for 'a fully funded, and systematic, withdrawal of U.S. soldiers and military contractors from Iraq' by the end of 2007. ...
"The Pelosi bill merely establishes 'benchmarks' of progress in Iraq, so that all Bush has to do is certify that he is making progress on those goals to keep funding flowing for the war."
Stauber is executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy and is co-author with Rampton of "Weapons of Mass Deception" and "The Best War Ever."
DEBORAH ABRAMSKY, STUART MORRIS, ,
KEVIN ZEESE, , http://democracyrising.us
Abramsky, Morris and Zeese are Maryland residents associated with local peace groups. This afternoon, they are involved in an "occupation" of U.S. Representative Chris Van Hollen's D.C. office in coordination with the national campaign the Occupation Project, a nonviolent effort to defund the Iraq war. http://vcnv.org/the-occupation-project-a-campaign-of-sustained-nonviolent-civil-
Abramsky said today: "Since the Democrats took control of Congress, 214 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq. As each day goes by, close to three U.S. troops die in Iraq. Hundreds are wounded each month. This means during the next year and a half another 1,600 will die and tens of thousands more will be injured. Iraqi casualties will be over one hundred-fold greater than those of the U.S."
Added Morris: "Continuing the U.S. presence in Iraq gains us nothing. The U.S. occupation is the single biggest impediment to an Iraqi-led ceasefire."
Zeese—who is director of DemocracyRising.US—recently wrote a piece titled "The 'Democratic Supplemental' Fails to Deal with Iran and Has Big Loopholes That Will Leave Tens of Thousands or More Troops in Iraq" which states: "The headline that the Democratic leadership would like voters to hear is 'troops out of Iraq by August 2008.' But the headline is more a wolf in sheep's clothing than a reality. ...
"For most in the peace movement an August 2008 deadline for withdrawal is already way too slow. Why the delay? On November 17, 2005, Rep. Jack Murtha called for redeployment within six months. Here we are 16 months later and the Democratic leadership is talking about redeployment in 17 months. Six months has turned into 33 months—and in fact the August [2008] deadline is illusory. ..." http://democracyrising.us/content/view/819/151
DAVID SWANSON, , http://www.davidswanson.org
Swanson has been writing extensively about the positions of various Democrats on the Iraq war and its funding. His piece "Can Congress End the War? Democratic Leaders May Prefer to Claim They Tried But Failed" was publish by the online journal TomDispatch: http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=171335
Swanson is co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition.
For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
PEACE NOT WAR JAPAN
"Culture Is Peace"
Peace Not War Japan (PNWJ) is a Tokyo-based volunteer collective, working to raise awareness of issues relating to peace, war and non-violent solutions to conflict.
Started in 2004 and associated with the UK organisation Peace Not War, PNWJ brings together conscious musicians, artists and other Japanese groups or organisations that work for peace and social justice, and is intended to benefit the grassroots peace movement with networks and donations.
New volunteers are always welcomed (see here for more information).
'Peace Not War Japan' – CD now available
This unique collection is the first compilation of contemporary Japanese peace music and gives Japan its own soundtrack for a place in the new global peace movement. Released in August 2006 on Dynastic Records, the music spans many genres and features well-known acts such as Soul Flower Union, Dry & Heavy, Captain Funk and Ryukyu Underground alongside independent musicians from across the country.
The CD is available online from Amazon.co.jp, TowerRecords.co.jp, and HMV.co.jp, plus many other participating stores (Tower Records, HMV, Tsutaya, Wave, etc – see News page for full list). Sample clips from the collection can be heard here.
Described by Metropolis magazine as ‘a diverse introduction to the contemporary Japanese music scene that simultaneously satisfies your ears and conscience’, the CD also has a charity dimension. Proceeds raised from CD sales will go to Japanese peace groups, with an emphasis on the grassroots and/or underfunded, therefore helping the new Japanese peace movement to grow.
‘…rather than being a rare example (in Japan) of a charity album, this is actually something even more radical – a protest album.’ (Japan Times)
Feed your head and be part of a new wave – ‘Peace Not War Japan’.
PNWJ Partners
PNWJ Friends
PEACE NOW WAR JAPAN
PNWJとは?
The Peace Not War Japan Project (以下 PNWJ)は、現代日本の平和推進/反戦音楽を集め、平和問題に対する関心を高める団体です。
PNWJとは?
The Peace Not War Japan Project (以下 PNWJ)は、現代日本の平和推進/反戦音楽を集め、平和問題に対する関心を高める団体です。
PNWJは、Dynastic Recordsと協力し、平和推進/反戦音楽のコンピレーションCDをリリースする予定です。このCDは、東京、大阪、広島、沖縄など日本全国のアーティストを取り上げ
PNWJは、Dynastic Recordsと協力し、平和推進/反戦音楽のコンピレーションCDをリリースする予定です。このCDは、東京、大阪、広島、沖縄など日本全国のアーティ ストを取り上げ、ジャンルもロック、ヒップホップ、ブレイクビーツ、ダブなど多岐に渡っています。これらのアーティストはみな平和、戦争への恐怖、現代世 界が直面している深刻な問題を訴えるというテーマのもとに集まってくださいました。
PNWJはこれまで１年間以上に渡って精力的に音楽を収集し、さまざまな著名アーティストより楽曲を提供されています。また、これまで世に知られる 機会のなかったミュージシャンたちの新たな楽曲も所有しており、そのミュージシャンの中には実際にプロジェクトに関わっている方もいらっしゃいます。これ らのアーティストについてはこのサイトを構築する中で紹介していく予定です。才能豊かなアーティストの声は心に響くパワーを持っており、彼らが歌う平和推 進／反戦音楽を一つのCDに集約することでそのパワーがさらに強まり、日本において反戦意識が高まるであろうことを私たちは信じています。
私たちは、Peace Not War (UK)に所属してはいますが、それとは別に日本を拠点としたグループであり、日本で活動する他の平和推進/反戦グループと協力体制をとっていきたいと考 えています。Peace Not War (UK) とPNWJ はいずれも、世界平和運動の新たな表現です。また、どちらも平和のための行動を起こすよう若者をインスパイアし、国内の平和団体のために基金を集めるとい う目的は共通しています。
イギリスでのプロジェクトも同様ですが、ミュージシャンたちがクリエイティブな才能を用いて日本に平和と戦争反対を求めるカルチャーを作り出し、これらの問題に対する人々の意識を高めることは、非常に価値ある行為だと考えます。
またこのCDは日本の様々な平和団体への基金を集めるためにも役立てられ、基金は特に財源が不足している機構、草の根団体のために優先的に使われます。
PNWJ Partners
PNWJ Friends
People’s Plan: Militarization, gender equality bashing, Okinawa bases,Women"s Active Museum on War..
"Japonesia Review" is a progressive English-language journal launched in 2006 in Tokyo and published twice a year to convey to the rest of the world alternative voices from the Japanese archipelago.
"Japonesia Review" No. 2 features topics that characterize the beginning of 2007, among others, the ominous implications of the emergence of a far-right government led by Prime Minister Abe Shinzo. Under this administration, Japan is taking a dangerous warlike path that may harm the interests of its own people as well as other peoples.
In the three months following Abe’s assumption of power, Japan’s militarization has progressed at an unexpectedly rapid pace, a buildup largely rationalized by the North Korea nuclear crisis and implementation under the new military arrangement with the United States made during the Koizumi period. This thrust is linked with violent neo-liberal globalization processes that generate serious social injustices. Gender and labor are two of the major areas where open reactionary attacks are rampant.
"Japonesia Review" No. 2, carries in-depth critical analyses of these trends and people’s activism resisting U.S. military base reorganization, the women’s movement against the emperor system and activities for peace and gender justice through vitalization of historical memories. >>>Read more and start your subscription
Japan's Willing Military Annexation by the United States—"Alliance for the Future" and Grassroots Resistance
by Muto Ichiyo
It is hard to believe that it happened but it did. In an 18-month working process begun in February 2005 and completed in June 2006, Japan willingly surrendered command over its military forces to the United States, committing itself unconditionally to the American empire's global strategic imperatives. It is surprising that the Japanese government made this commitment at a time when the U.S. war chariot was sinking into the bog of a "long war" it had unleashed.
If military command is the most essential element of national sovereignty, one could argue that Japan having made its military an integral part of a foreign power can no longer be considered a sovereign state. Has then Japan become a new U.S. colony? Certainly not. Nor is it ruled by the U.S. occupation as it was in the 1940s. What then is taking place? >>>read more
“Revise the Peace Constitution, Restore Glory to Empire!”--Ultra-right Takes Initiative in Changing the Postwar State
by Muto Ichiyo
The Japanese state-remaking project with the reinstatement of the Japanese empire as a major pillar faces a crisis as it is causing serious deterioration of Japan’s relations with its Asian neighbors. As regards China, the problem drastically came into the open as “anti-Japan” demonstrations exploded and spread throughout China in April. The demonstrators were protesting against recent Japanese government actions justifying and glorifying what the Japanese Empire had done to neighboring Asian peoples. About simultaneously, the South Korean government also came out with renewed criticism of the current Japanese political stance in its new Japan policy guidelines. President Roh Moohyun, referring to recent Japanese government actions, said that it was a great tragedy for the whole world to have to live with those who glorify their past – one of aggression and victimization. He rightly pointed out that although Japan had apologized more than once, it recently began to nullify its apologies. (Frankfurter Algemeine, interview, April 9) Given the worst imaginable relations with North Korea and absence of any warmth in Russo-Japanese relations, Japan now risks total isolation from all its neighbors. >>>read more
Bashing Gender Equality: Establishing a System that Skews the Population on All Sides
by TAKENOBU Mieko
Demeaning counter-movements that “bashes” gender equality are spreading quietly but rapidly in Japan. Certain media publish demagogues which undermine gender equality movements. Legislators in both national and municipal assemblies employ such demagogues as leverage to attack gender equality movements. Some municipalities have even appointed known anti-gender-equality speakers to give talks at local “gender equality” teach-ins. Boards of education here and there, typically the Tokyo Metropolitan Board of Education, squeeze out sex education from the sphere of public education. To top it off, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) suggests that a “review” be opened on Article 24 of the Japanese Constitution, the clause that upholds gender equality within households [by stating that marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife]. All of these bashing movements are aiming towards a set of new standards of national integration which will divert public anxieties arising as a result of [the destructive impact of neo-liberal] globalization. I would call this “a new system that skews the population on all sides to adapt to globalization”. This article will report the reality of ongoing attacks on gender equality in Japan, and investigate the underlying aims of the system. >>>read more
The Okinawan Anti-base Movement Regains Momentum
--New U.S. Base Project Off Henoko Beach Met with Effective Non-Violent Resistance on the Sea
by YUI Akiko
After several years of doldrums, the anti-base movement in Okinawa regained its momentum in mid-2004, winning the hearts and minds of many Okinawa people and proving its great power of resilience. In Okinawa island, dominated by an extremely heavy presence of U.S. bases, the anti-base struggle now competently wrestles with the Japanese and U.S. governments (and also the Okinawa Prefectural government) on base issues. The struggle tackles four major issues. The first is about the Futenma Air Station of U.S. Marine Corps, which is located in the midst of Ginowan City in the central part of Okinawa Island. There, citizens’ long-voiced demand for removal of the base has intensified since a U.S. military helicopter belonging to that base crashed on a local university campus in August 2004. This incident not only aroused fierce protests by citizens but also exposed a series of grave issues embedded in the regime of U.S. military domination.
The second and the hottest issue is the confrontation over the construction of a new U.S. base off Henok