democracy Posts

The bullets and bombs have finally found their mark. It is no surprise to learn of yet another assasination attempt against Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. Details are still sketchy and conflicting but the only thing we really need to know is that this attempt was successful and that Bhutto is dead less than two weeks before Parliamentary elections that might well have brought her into power for the third time.

Pakistan is a country who's top government scientist exported atomic bomb-making across the world for decades. It still hosts Osama bin Laden. Afghanistan's Taliban are still more-or-less headquartered in its Western provinces. The standoff with India has spawned war after war over the decade, now nuclear-enabled should either country get so emboldened. Billions of dollars of United States money has left Washington for Islamabad since 9/11 and a popular politician can't even campaign there without deadly assassination attempts. Pakistan is one of the world's hot spots, a nexus of terrorism, nuclear proliferation, religious extremism. It is a very sad day today indeed.

More from the U.S. War of Terror. Two years ago officials of the Central Intelligence Agency purposefully destroyed taped evidence of its torture program.

They were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy, several officials said.

The CIA guys were put in a difficult position: more or less ordered by their President to torture prisoners suspected of belonging to al Qaeda in an moment of history--the tapes were made in 2002--when many Americans were willing to look the other way. But it should go without saying that torture is never okay, never justified. Many studies have proven it generally doesn't provide reliable information as the victim says whatever they think their captor wants to hear just to end the pain. How many court cases against real al Qaeda agents are going to have to be thrown out now that we know the evidence is a product of abuse?

There are times when men and women of honor have to say no to their superiors, no to their President and no to the American people, when they must draw a line in the sand for the sake of decency and humanity. That would have been hard enough in 2002. But to destroy the evidence is 2005 is pure obstruction of justice. The CIA is hiding the acts it performed in our name from us. Everyone involved in the cover-up and destruction belongs in jail. Let's hope for democracy's sake that they end up there.

Fascinating details coming out about the new U.S intelligence estimate on Iran. It was released two days after a major meeting of world powers in Paris, a meeting where sanctions and Iran were discussed. So what's with the timing? Did Condoleeza just not get it back from Kinkos in time? If you're about to release a major report that will reshape half a decade of U.S.-Iranian relations, maybe you whip up a quick power point presentation for the weekend powwow in Paris?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is touting this as a victory for his country: "This is a declaration of victory for the Iranian nation against the world powers over the nuclear issue." I'm not sure it's exactly a victory but it is a confirmation of what he's been claiming for years: Iran is not building a bomb. The victory is in the Bush Administration implicit acknowledgment that it's not always right. Of course Bush is not the kind of guy who can really ever admit he's wrong and he's still throwing snipes out: Condi "told reporters in the Ethiopian capital Wednesday that the U.S. intelligence report's public release showed the Bush administration was committed to transparent democracy while Iran was not."

Now I actually agree that we can't downplay Iran. The country doesn't have the kind of openness and democracy that should be a basic human right. If it could get the bomb, I'm sure it would. What major regional power wouldn't want it? With all the internationally bullying going around it's not a bad thing to have in your back pocket.  President Bush declared a de facto Cold War against Iraq in his 2002 State of Union "Axis of Evil" speech.

But one thing about Iran is that it's Iraq twenty years later. If Iran's civic structure is broken, then the West is largely to blame. The British and Soviets invaded Iran in 1941 to secure oil supplies and it was they who put in power Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as Shah of Iran. When Pahlavi lost power in the early 1950s, the U.S. Central Intelligence agency led a covert operation called Operation Ajax to put him back in power (the project was led by Kermit Roosevelt Jr., Teddy's grandson). In 1969 the so-called Nixon Doctrine formalized the Shah's Iran as a key American ally. The Iranian Revolution changed all this and along with the brutal Iran-Iraq War created the Iran we know today.

It's easy to forget that we've long supported dictators who promised us a steady supply of oil. Saddam Hussein was our buddy until he threatened Kuwaiti oil fields. If the United States had spent the last thirty years working on building strong democracies in the Middle East then both Iraq and Iran would most likely be peaceful, strong nations without any great strong incentive to put in the massive investment needed to develop weapons of mass destruction. Might oil cost a few dollars more a barrel? Sure. But isn't that worth the thousands of American, Iraqi and Iranian lives that have been destroyed in twenty years of near-constant warfare? 

Just a little note to everyone that I've blogged a couple of posts over on Nonviolence.org. They're both based on "peace mom" Cindy Sheeran's "resignation" from the peace movement yesterday.

It's all a bit strange to see this from a long-time peace activist perspective. The movement that Sheehan's talking about and now critiquing is not movement I've worked with for the last fifteen-plus years. The organizations I've known have all been housed in crumbling buildings, with too-old carpets and furniture lifted as often as not from going out of business sales. Money's tight and careers potentially sacrificed to help build a world of sharing, caring and understanding.

The movement Sheehan talks about is fueled by millions of dollars of Democratic Party-related money, with campaigns designed to mesh well with Party goals via the so-called 527 groups and other indirect mechanisms. Big Media likes to crown these organizations as the antiwar movement, but as Sheehan and Amy Goodman discuss in today's Democracy Now interview, corporate media will end up with much of the tens of millions of dollars candidates are now raising. Sheehan makes an impassioned plea for people to support those grassroots campaigns that aren't supported by the "peace movement" but this reinforces the notion that its the moneyed interests that make up the movement. I'm sure she knows better but it's hard to work for so long and to make so many sacrifices and still be so casually dismissed--not just me but thousands of committed activists I've known over the years.

There are a few peace organizations in that happy medium between toadying and poverty (nice carpets, souls still intact) but it mystifies me why there isn't a broader base of support for grassroots activism. I myself decided to leave professional peace work almost a decade ago after the my Nonviolence.org project raised such pitiful sums. At some point I decided to stop whining about this phenomenon and just look for better-paying employment elsewhere but it still fascinates me from a sociological perspective.

There's some interesting follow-up on the Cindy Sheehan "resignation" (see yesterday's post). One fellow I corresponded with years ago gave a donation then sent an email urging us not to fall into despair. It's hard.

Go beyond Democratic Party fronts like MoveOne and you'll find the most of the peace movement is a ridiculously shoestring operation. Nonviolence.org's four month "ChipIn" fundraising campaign raised $50 per month but the sacrifice isn't just short-term--just try applying for a mainstream job with a resume chock full of social change work!

Michael Westmoreland-White over on the Levellers blog talks about keeping going through the despair:

This is a cautionary tale for the rest of us, including myself. Outrage, righteous indignation, anger, public grief, are all valid reactions to war and human rights abuses, but they will get us only so far. They may strain marriages and family life. They may lead to speech and action that is not in the spirit of nonviolence and active peacemaking. And, since imperialist militarism is a system (biblically speaking, a Power), it will resist change for the good. Work for justice and peace over the long haul requires spiritual discipline, requires deep roots in a spirituality of nonviolence, including cultivating the virtue of patience.

Michael's answer is specifically Christian but I think his advice to step back and attend to the roots of our activism is wise despite one's motivations.

Sheehan's retirement didn't stop her from talking with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now this morning. She talks about cash-starved peace activists and contrasts them with the tens of millions presidential candidates are raising, most of which will go to big media TV networks for ads. Sheehan says we need more than just an antiwar movement:

Like, ending the Vietnam War was major, but people left the movement. It was an antiwar movement. They didn’t stay committed to true and lasting peace. And that’s what we really have to do.

More Cindy Sheehan reading across the blogosphere available via Google and Technorati.

And for those looking for a little good news check out the brand new site for the Global Network for Nonviolence. I designed it for them as part of my freelance design work but it's been a joy and a lot of fun to be working more closely with a good group of international activists again. Their nonviolence links page includes sites for some really committed grassroots peacemakers. This long-term peace work may not give us headlines in the New York Times but it's touched millions over the years. If humanity is ever going to grow into the kind of culture of peace Sheehan dreams of then we'll need a lot more wonderful projects like these.

In the New York Times, a glimpse behind the scenes of the Bush Administration's support for war in Lebanon:

Washington’s resistance to an immediate cease-fire and its staunch support of Israel have made it more difficult for [US Secretary of State] Rice to work with other nations, including some American allies, as they search for a formula that will end the violence and produce a durable cease-fire....

Several State Department officials have privately objected to the administration’s emphasis on Israel and have said that Washington is not talking to Syria to try to resolve the crisis. Damascus has long been a supporter of Hezbollah, and previous conflicts between the group and Israel have been resolved through shuttle diplomacy with Syria.

The wars in Lebanon and Iraq are causing irreparable harm to the U.S. image in the Middle East. High-sounding words about democracy ring hollow when we forsake diplomacy.

I'm returning from a working summer sabbatical from Nonviolence.org to find the world situation both completely the same and completely different. It is the best of times and the worst of times, no? My April editorial, Making Friends, Making Enemies and Looking Toward the Future is a call to peace that's as relevant to developments in Israel, Lebanon, Iran and iraq but just as likely to be ignored.

Sometimes it feels that war is inevitable. The terrain of southern Lebanon is once more being chewed up by tanks and rockets. Israel's army and the Hezbollah militia keep one-upping the level of violence. Wars of evident defense can be a great recruitment tool for angry young men and neither military force is in any danger of being overwhelmed or destroyed. That thankless job goes to the civilians caught in the middle. Warfare in the age of terror consists of slaughtering innocents in the name of righteous self-defense. Hostilities never really end, they take a break after enough blood has been spilt to satisfy the powers behind the killing.

The Hezbollah rockets heading south and Israeli tanks going north are symbols of the proxy war that is being run from thousands of miles away. Hezbollah's arms come from Iran, Israel's from the United States. While there might be simmering resentments and isolated acts of violence, there would not be a war without these sponsors. The fighting in Lebanon could be switched off like a light bulb with the slightest nod from either Washington or Tehran.

iraq is the other front of this proxy war. Yesterday General John P. Abizaid, commander of American forces in the Middle East, told the Senate that Iran could slide into civil war. The BBC is reporting that senior British diplomat William Patey informed Tony Blair last week that "the prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of iraq is probably more likely at this state than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy."

Baghdad has more-or-less seen fighting since American troops entered it but the decentralized insurgency is giving way to a kind of sectarian violence that is far more dangerous. If Patey's prophecy comes to pass iraq will be our next Lebanon: a bloody, seemingly-intractable civil war lasting decades, turned on and off by diplomatic whim from abroad, a killing field where innocents die for the false rhetoric of idealism far far away.

Images from Wikipedia articles on the Israel-Lebanon conflict and iraq War