NOTE from Jan: my comments further on. Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 09:14:50 -0400 From: Randy Schutt <•••@••.•••> Subject: Posters for Peace Friends, Here are some suggestions for statements of peace: Civilized people bring perpetrators of terror to justice through a court of law. They don't bomb civilians. Barbarians bomb civilians (and aspirin factories). [ <-- this is a reference to the chemical factory in Sudan that the US bombed several years ago saying that it produced chemical weapons and was funded by bin Laden, but was actually just a pharmaceutical factory producing one-third of the medicines in Sudan] Cowards kill civilians. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Death spiral -- rage, terrorism, retaliation, war. There are better ways. This is not a battle between us and them. It is battle between barbarism and civilization, between talking and killing, between lynch mobs and law, between truth and propaganda, between compassion and hatred, between blind rage and goodwill. Which side do we choose? --Randy ------------------------------------------------------------------- Randy Schutt The Vernal Project Working to increase the skills and support of progressive activists <http://www.vernalproject.org> ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear RN list, Once again, we go through a time of war. I remember how I felt in 1991, on the eve of the Gulf War. Fear for sure. Disgust, but still some hope. But this time, I feel more hope, less fear. And yet, probably, from a rational point of view, there is more to fear now. The big difference is that I think I'm changing, so that fear plays a less important role in my life. At times I have felt isolated because I didn't know how to communicate what I knew to others around me. I have felt it some this time too. I know enough now that I would not be at all surprised to learn one day that some people at very high eschelons in the US regime were involved somehow in this attack. And I know I'm not going to convince some people of this. But I also know that anyone of good will can see the truth in those poster ideas that Randy is sharing (above). And so, I do not feel so isolated this time. Prompted and encouraged by local activist friends who are acting as kind of "spiritual guides" to me through these days, I wrote the following letter-to-the-editor. I copy it for you because I hope it will inspire you to find ways to communicate this sense as well. IF we succeed in preventing a retaliatory war, we will have cause for celebration, but we must not expect things to be easy. The path of violence is easy, but it is a dead end. The path of nonviolence is not so easy but it is an open road. Let's go there, eh? all the best, Jan PS As further help along the road, I am also copying below a dialogue on Terrorism & Mass Murderers from Randy Schutt. *************************************************** to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald <•••@••.•••> Dear Editor, I read Peter McKenna's op-ed (Bombing for martyrdom: no defence, no justification - Sept. 14) with interest. I've been part of the peace movement for most of my life because I felt convinced early on that true security does not come from weapons but from building trust and understanding and justice. I cannot agree with with the headline for, while there is no sure-fire defence against this type of violence, there are still things we can do as part of our "defence". Believe it or not, I really feel that what hundreds of Atlantic Canadians did, in opening their hearts and their homes to stranded passengers, is part of the new type of "defence" we are to build up in this decade for the Culture of Peace and Non-violence (as declared by the UN). We must work to globalize love and understanding, instead of greed and self-interest. Sincerely, Jan Slakov, Box 35, Weymouth, NS B0W 3T0 (837-4980) *************************************************************** Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 09:13:44 -0400 From: Randy Schutt <•••@••.•••> Subject: Terrorists and Mass Murderers Friends, I am very concerned about the militarism that is sweeping our country. Sorry for sending so many things to you, but I feel compelled to do something. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A few day ago, I exchanged emails with a friend. I thought you might find this dialog interesting: He wrote saying: "I said to [my wife] that if only our foreign policy were improved we wouldn't have people wanting to attack us. She replied something like "Don't be such a knee jerk liberal. Even if our foreign policy was revamped and 50% of it was dramatically improved, there would still be crazy extremists who would hate and attack the US." There is some truth to what she says. It says something about how we leftists will sometimes bend over backwards to find fault with our government, when there actually exists a very real and greater problem with our government's adversaries (in this case they are mass murderers). And, in another sense it is true because nothing but a nearly complete abandonment of capitalism would remove the economic threat we pose to the third world, so merely improving our foreign policy wouldn't really go far enough to placate those who are angry with the US, as leaders of the capitalist world." I wrote this note back: I agree with [your wife] that improving our foreign policy by 50% would not end the hatred. But I still think it would be a major, worthwhile step. And I think changing it by 100% would be a whole lot better and could actually eliminate hatred, except perhaps by a few lone crazies like Ted Kycyncizki (sp?). When looking at this terrorist attack, I think it is important to note these things: (1) It is important to realize that the terrorists chose targets that appear to be very specific. They seem to have chosen the heart of capital and military power. They killed many people, but they didn't seem to be aiming to kill a whole lot of people -- for that, a stadium filled with 100,000 spectators or the water supply of a major city would have been a better target. The headlines would make you believe that "American is Under Attack", but it looks to me like symbols of oppressive economic and military power and the elite were attacked, not the American people. (2) When we think about mass murderers, the US government is way out ahead of any of the suicide bombers. In World War II, copying the tactics of the the Nazis is terrorizing London, the US military fire-bombed Dresden and Tokyo (acts designed to terrorize the civilian population) and dropped nuclear bombs on Japan (again mostly to terrorize). Through much of the 20th century, the US government supported military juntas in Central America (mostly to protect US banana corporations like Dole). In the 1960s, the US government supported the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. The US also dropped millions of tons of napalm on Vietnam (and Cambodia), killing large numbers of civilians (and the Pentagon papers revealed that this was to protect "our" interests in oil, tin, and rubber). In the 1970s, the US supported the Chilean coup which killed several thousand civilians. In the 1980s, the US supported, trained, and armed the Contras in Central America who killed 30,000 people. The US also supported Indonesia and supplied it with weapons when it invaded East Timor and killed one third of the civilian population there. In the 1990s, the US led attacks on Iraq and Yugoslavia that resulted in killing tens of thousands of civilians. As Christopher Hitchens new book points out, Henry Kissinger is a major war criminal for his role in many of these activities, but he is celebrated in this country, not indicted or jailed. Suicide bombers have killed relatively few people in comparison. Their acts are certainly terrifying, but the actual danger they represent is pretty small. Even if the attack on Tuesday killed 10,000 people, it is still a *relatively* small number compared to the Vietnam war or the massacre in East Timor. (3) Many of the "crazy extremists" that we decry in this country were actually trained and supported by the US. Osama bin Laden and many of his associates were supported by the US to battle the Soviets (see this article in the New Yorker <<http://www.newyorker.com/FROM_THE_ARCHIVE/ARCHIVES/?010917fr_archive07>htt p://www.newyorker.com/FROM_THE_ARCHIVE/ARCHIVES/?010917fr_archive07> and this one in MSNBC: <http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp>). Many of the Contras were trained at the School of the Americas. Dictators Noriega in Panama, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier in Haiti were US allies for many years (as were dictators in many other countries). Even Adolf Hitler was supported by Henry Ford and many other US industrialists because he attacked Jews and Communists. It is true that if we only improved our foreign policy by 50%, it probably wouldn't end the hatred. Our foreign policy would actually have to change dramatically -- focused completely on supporting democracy (not dictators) and supporting common people and labor unions (not exploitive corporations). We would need to stop intervening militarily all around the world -- either not intervene at all or only intervene with a nonviolent army bent on disarming and reconciling people. We would need to support democracy, equality, and protection of the environment and stop supporting unfettered extraction of minerals and oil, exploitation of labor, and corrupt dictatorships. This would be a major reversal. And yes, we would probably have to give up capitalism. Just as our forebears had to give up slavery because it was inhumane, we will have to find a new economic and political system that doesn't rely on oppression, exploitation, and selling weapons all around the world. And even if we made all these changes immediately it would take decades for the hatred to subside -- hatred that has built up over a long time. People who have been tortured, had their relatives raped, their friends killed, and their houses bombed, stay angry for a long, long time. It takes quite a lot to get someone to be a suicide bomber -- they have to have been hurt pretty badly and not have much hope for change. And folks that have been hurt that badly do not heal easily. So it will be a long difficult transition. And, of course, this is not to say that the US government and corporations are only bad and other groups around the world are good. There is lots of evil to go around and lots of good in this country. I am very proud of the traditions of democracy, compassion, and fairness that most Americans hold and many have bravely fought for. (But I wish that the US government and corporations would actually act according to those ideals.) Corporations produce many useful things. And I certainly don't think the Taliban leaders or Saddam Hussein are good. But of course their evil acts do not justify the evil of the US government and corporations, just as the evil acts of the US government and corporations do not justify the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This is the thinking that I went through that convinced me that we need deep, fundamental social change in this country, that it has to be done in a nonviolent, democratic way, and that it has to lead to a nonviolent, democratic, and compassionate society -- a tall order, but absolutely essential. That is why I wrote my book -- to try to figure out how to do that. --Randy ------------------------------------------------------------------- Randy Schutt The Vernal Project Working to increase the skills and support of progressive activists <http://www.vernalproject.org> -------------------------------------------------------------------<
