|
this page is at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/Salz/2003-03-06.htm Subject: The Tide is Turbulent but Turning. No fig leaf for Bush! Planning Ahead.
Thursday, March 6, 2003 Friends, There hasn’t been any doubt since the mammoth worldwide demonstrations of February 15th that the world’s peoples are almost universally opposed to the threatened U.S. attack on Iraq. But the governments of the world’s nations, all subject to bullying by the Bush cabal and wanting to hedge their bets, had been somewhat less than unanimous. Within the past week, however, it has become manifestly clear that the U.S. government is so hated almost universally by the world’s peoples that even the jockying governments, responding to popular demands, are moving towards opposition to the planned war against Iraq. And now even the corporate media in the United States, which has been beating the drums of war ever since 9-11, are being forced, in order not to totally lose their remaining shreds of credibility in peoples’ eyes, to acknowledge the turning of the tide. By a narrow margin, the Turkish Parliament refused to allow U.S. troops to attack Iraq from its soil, a major blow to the war planners. Except for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, almost every other government that had supported a war against Iraq has now made its support contingent on authorization by the UN Security Council. Before going against the clear opposition of their populations, they want to be able to point to a UN-provided fig-leaf for Bush. The U.S. has been turning up the heat on the Security Council member nations whose votes for authorization are not in the bag, but with notable lack of success. On Monday, “Secretary of State Colin Powell . . . told Bush he has only four of the nine votes needed for approval of a second resolution.” “Powell told Bush . . . Turkey’s refusal to allow U.S. troops to stage at the country’s border with Iraq doomed any chance of consensus at the UN.” Powell’s meeting on Tuesday with Mexico Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez “did not produce results”, said a Powell spokesman. (Mar 4 Capitol Hill Blue, http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1870.shtml) “ . . . In a new blow, Russia's top diplomat said Moscow may use its veto against the measure . . .Even without a veto from Russia, China or France, the United States still doesn't have the nine votes . . .” (Mar 4 Las Vegas Sun, AP, http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2003/mar/04/030404249.html ) “A war policy in collapse . . . In other developments, all highlighting Washington's panicky ineptness, the Philippines rejected the help of arriving US combat forces, North Korea apparently prepared to start up plutonium production, and . . .” (James Carroll, Mar 4 Boston Globe, http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/063/oped/A_war_policy_in_collapseP.shtml) Step I. Despite indications that the U.S. will not prevail in the UN Security Council in the coming days, it seems to me important to again consider sending e-mails to the member delegations urging them to hold fast against U.S. war plans. Once again, here are the addresses of the 14 delegations (other than that of the U.S.):
Step 2. I’m trying to initiate a campaign to prevent the U.S. from unilaterally going to war without UN approval. Two days ago I sent the following note:
CC: Noam Chomsky <chomsky@mit.edu> Tuesday, March 4, 2003 Dear Edward Said, It appears to me that almost the entire world is opposed to the threatened attack on Iraq. I believe that if the Arab League asks the United Nations General Assembly to call for strict international sanctions against the U.S. if it attacks Iraq (or any other nation), such a move would meet with the widest support. Five months ago I called for tough sanctions. The time for action by the international community -- not just the Security Council -- has come. If you think my proposal is worth putting forward, either as is or modified, please use it to help encourage action by the Arab League and the United Nations. I will enclose it here. Thank you deeply for your tireless efforts on behalf not only of the Arab peoples, but all humanity.
We ought to try to make it prohibitively costly to the U.S. to attack any nation. I believe this campaign for tough sanctions, if successful, would be effective either to deter an attack before one occurs, or afterwards, to stop it. The suggested sanctions are at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/Discus/2002-09-30CallToStopUS.htm I think that if world public opinion strongly supports such action by the United Nations General Assembly, it would be likely to consider, and act positively upon the idea. Step 3. We need to shift away from being swallowed up with negative efforts. Massive protesting has been essential, and may continue to be for some time to come. But protesting is a strategy forced on us by our relative weakness -- we do not yet have the power to decide what “our” societies, ruled by governments, do. It is the governments’ hands that hold the levers of power. Armies, police, and so on, unfortunately still for the most part loyal to the rulers, follow orders from “the top.” Our massive, repeated protests consume massive expenditures of effort, material resources, and time. And force us, those of us who are actively protesting, to dance to the tune of the rulers. It has been, and will continue to be an enervating virtual roller coaster ride determined by them as long as the power is in their hands. We must change this. Thus, simultaneously with protesting, we must build our global grassroots infrastructure, even faster than is already happening. Fortunately there are billions of us, and so we, i.e. some of us, can actively protest and others of us can pour our energies and creative imaginations into the positive effort of building the world we want. Indeed, many millions of us are already doing that in different parts of the world. Some thoughts about how to do it are in the essay, “Building the global grassroots infrastructure: A task both local and global,” at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Grass/Infra/index.htm. Building our infrastructure is a form of non-violent resistance. George Lakey, an activist and long-time practicioner of non-violent resistance, has written persuasively on its advantages as compared to violent resistance. His inspiring article, "Strategizing for a Living Revolution," is linked to in pdf, http and rtf formats, at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/Discus/index.htm. Step 4. Although listed after step 3, these two steps can be pursued simultaneously. We urgently need to rid the world of all weapons of mass destruction. The UN Security Council acted unanimously to rid Iraq of all such weapons it might possess (Resolution 1441). Of course the U.S. government would veto a Security Council resolution aimed at disarming the U.S. as thoroughly as 1441, directed at Iraq. Therefore, it is the UN General Assembly (where there is no veto) which should take on the historic responsibility of this bold but essential action. A simple extension of the call for tough international sanctions suggested in Step 2 above, applied to any nation that refuses to disarm to the same extent demanded of Iraq, and to do so under UN supervision, is a possible strategy for world disarmament. I believe it is well worth thinking about and pursuing. George Salzman, March 6, 2003
list considerably (it’s now over 550). If you wish me to remove your name from this "mass" mailing list, just let me know. All comments, corrections, criticisms are welcome. contact: <george.salzman@umb.edu> Return to the opening page of the Salz-mania sub-folder
|