Over the summer HBO aired Spike Lee’s awaited documentary, “When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts.” The four-Act film, about the devastation dropped on New Orleans in the wake of hurricane Katrina, spanned over two nights in August, airing a total of four and a half hours. Longer than his epic film “Malcolm X” of 1992, Lee is to be applauded for his effort in showing the world (certainly for those of us in the States) what a category 5 hurricane can do to a city, and what a government can do to a people and what it will not do for a people. Clearly, the film exposed a modern day subjugation of a people and a view, perhaps, of what the African slave trade must have been like. Imagine the Superdome surrounded by water with people inside chained by a disaster, “sardined” with no electricity, no running water, no plumbing, no drinking water or available food, sleeping in, or amid, feces, urine, menstrual flow and death. Death in the surrounding water, death on the bridges, death lying unfound in homes. Indeed, every breath, in some instances, was a death breath.
Suddenly, we see a modern day slave ship fulfilling its qualifications and requirements of an African enslavement trade. What we see is a government slow to respond to its “home-land” tragedy and quick to respond to citizens of another place at the expense of its own citizens; its second-class citizens. Five days later when the government did respond, it scattered and sprinkled families like salt and pepper to places that, in many instances, they knew nothing about and knew no one in; separating families, taking children from mothers, brothers from sisters, husbands from wives, expanding and extending the diaspora. Indeed, parents let their children go so the rising waters of Lake Pontchartrain and the Gulf of Mexico wouldn’t ravage their children. Through interviews of the survivors—everyday folk, actors, politicians, doctors, engineers—the piece exhibits and exposes the lack of care given to people of African descent and those that are poor, especially in the St. Bernard Parish, by a government supposedly, “for the people and by the people.”
As I watched the film, I was drawn into thinking of Lee’s nearly three and half hour “Malcolm X,” and I began to think of Malcolm’s speech, “The Ballot or the Bullet” particularly the one delivered in Detroit in 1964 (Malcolm delivered two speeches by the same name in two different locations, the other was delivered in Cleveland) I began to relate some of what he said then, to what we continue to see today, especially in the wake of Katrina and what people were saying in Lee’s film. Malcolm X’s commentary then provided a critical historical view of the now: The past in the present and the past of the present. Not only did it speak to the disaster of response to Katrina but the disaster of the current politics of that time and, this time. Here are some excerpts from his speech:
* “The time when white people can come in our community and get us to vote for them so that they can be our political leaders and tell us what to do and what not to do is long gone. By the same token, the time when that same white man, knowing that your eyes are too far open, can send another negro into the community and get you and me to support him so he can use him to lead us astray -- those days are long gone too.”
* “So we’re trapped, trapped, double-trapped, triple-trapped. Anywhere we go we find that we’re trapped. And every kind of solution that someone comes up with is just another trap.”
* “So as you can see brothers and sisters, today -- this afternoon, it’s not our intention to discuss religion. We’re going to forget religion. If we bring up religion, we’ll be in an argument, and the best way to keep away from arguments and differences, as I said earlier, put your religion at home -- in the closet. Keep it between you and your God.”
* “Whether you are a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Nationalist, we all have the same problem. They don’t hang you because you’re a Baptist; they hang you ‘cause you’re black. They attack all of us for the same reason…We’re all in the same bag, in the same boat. We suffer political oppression, economic exploitation, and social degradation -- all of them from the same enemy.”
* “The government has failed us; you can’t deny that…This government has failed us; the government itself has failed us, and the white liberals who have been posing as our friends have failed us.”
* “You and I have never seen democracy; all we’ve seen is hypocrisy. When we open our eyes today and look around America, we see America not through the eyes of someone who has enjoyed the fruits of Americanism, we see America through the eyes of someone who has been the victim of Americanism. We don’t see any American dream; we’ve experienced only the American nightmare. We haven’t benefited from America’s democracy; we’ve only suffered from America’s hypocrisy.”
The travesty of Katrina is the travesty of our existence in the United States since the critical masses of us were brought now into the 21st century. In a time when we think that we’ve arrived, there is Katrina; when we think that we’re in control, there is Katrina; at a time when we seemingly have more, more money, better jobs, bigger homes, there is Katrina; at a time when we’re more “educated,” there is Katrina; when we think that we’re free and living in a democracy, there is the hypocrisy of Katrina. James Baldwin once said, “History is a nightmare. People are trapped in history and history is trapped in them.” It seems that we continue to be “trapped, trapped, double-trapped, triple-trapped.” “When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts” is not easy viewing, but it is a necessary viewing. I hope it will wake us up, and clean us up, so that we can stand up. •
Najee is a Associate Professor of Cultural Studies in Education here at Ohio University.
Showing posts with label Issue 23 - Oct. 2006. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Issue 23 - Oct. 2006. Show all posts
Feb 23, 2008
Unsustainable agricultural practices in China wreak havoc in the Americas
Proper environmental management as a cornerstone of sustainability is not a new concept; it has been toyed-with throughout the history of mankind by the environmentally conscious and by politicians looking for ways to ensure the infinite success of society. Often times those practicing outside the lines of sustainability and well-planned environmental management do not realize the long term consequences of their actions until it is too late. Years of excessive logging, the over-use of soil and the exploitation of limited water supplies eventually lead to land degradation, rendering once productive agricultural systems useless. Once unable to provide enough food to sustain a population, a country must look outside its borders and obtain food from its neighbors, or risk societal collapse. Today the world faces similar socio-environmental dilemmas; global warming, desertification, water shortages, over-fishing, over-hunting, deforestation, nitrogen buildup and the loss of diversity are all connected and very much consequences of unsustainable living.
China is a prime example of a contemporary society facing the consequences of poor environmental management. Since 1950, the Chinese population has experienced massive growth as a result of major agricultural and mining booms. As the availability choice-farming land dwindled, many farmers moved to lands unsuitable for heavy agriculture, such as the semiarid to arid lands of north China. The cultivation and subsequent irrigation of these lands require a great input of water, which comes from both surface water and deep aquifers, both of which are slow to replenish. Over-taxation of these sources resulted in the evaporation of many inland lakes and the reduction in river flow, and much land unclaimed by humans was rendered unsuitable for vegetative growth as it eventually degraded to desert. The effects of desertification soon reached agricultural lands as water shortages hit the human population, and once lush fields became nothing more than desolate wastelands, comparable to the Great American Dust Bowl. The Chinese government is now feeling the repercussions of its history of environmental abuse and its agricultural sector can no longer produce the food it needs to sustain the population; forcing Chinese authority to look outside of its borders to ameliorate the dilemma.
As a solution to the inevitable food shortage, China turned to Brazil, the largest producer of soya in the world. With China’s demand, major headway has been made in Brazil toward the production of the bean, leading to a remarkable 10,675 percent hike in bean turnout since 1995. This phenomenal growth in the soya sector has both stimulated Brazil’s economy and provided China with the material necessary to feed its populous and agricultural sector.
To make room for soya fields land is necessary. Fortunately for China, Brazil has great agricultural potential in the relatively untouched rainforest of the Amazon River Basin. At first sight it seems the basin hosts an endless amount of fertile soil and plentiful rainfall, and that the land is prime for development. While large amounts of rain are great for agriculture, it also increases soil erosion in lands that are deforested to make way for farming, contributing to a general demise in soil quality and agricultural output when the deforestation is practiced on a wide scale. This type of land clearance strips the soils of many nutrients essential to plant growth and agricultural potential suffers. Wide-scale deforestation will also affect rainfall, as more rainwater will flow back into rivers and flow out of the area instead of being redistributed through transpiration. As a final note, the rampant deforestation that accompanies unsustainable development reduces biodiversity that could lead to great advances in medicine, tasty dietary additions and opportunities for exploration and ecotourism.
The hour is late in the present chapter of the Brazilian/Chinese soya trade. With Brazil eagerly expanding its environmental sector to meet China’s rising demand for soya, more land is stripped of forest, more indigenous peoples are losing their homelands to squatting farmers and more biodiversity is disappearing. The trend is slightly reminiscent of China’s agricultural boom in the last half of the century. Will Brazil implement proper environmental management into their agricultural agenda and ensure the longevity of its land and peoples? The answer lies within the world’s response. We can safeguard our future when we, the human race, look past short-term gains and plan for the prosperity of future generations. •
Nick Stanich is a senior environmental biology major at Ohio University and is President of the Sustainable Living Organization.
China is a prime example of a contemporary society facing the consequences of poor environmental management. Since 1950, the Chinese population has experienced massive growth as a result of major agricultural and mining booms. As the availability choice-farming land dwindled, many farmers moved to lands unsuitable for heavy agriculture, such as the semiarid to arid lands of north China. The cultivation and subsequent irrigation of these lands require a great input of water, which comes from both surface water and deep aquifers, both of which are slow to replenish. Over-taxation of these sources resulted in the evaporation of many inland lakes and the reduction in river flow, and much land unclaimed by humans was rendered unsuitable for vegetative growth as it eventually degraded to desert. The effects of desertification soon reached agricultural lands as water shortages hit the human population, and once lush fields became nothing more than desolate wastelands, comparable to the Great American Dust Bowl. The Chinese government is now feeling the repercussions of its history of environmental abuse and its agricultural sector can no longer produce the food it needs to sustain the population; forcing Chinese authority to look outside of its borders to ameliorate the dilemma.
As a solution to the inevitable food shortage, China turned to Brazil, the largest producer of soya in the world. With China’s demand, major headway has been made in Brazil toward the production of the bean, leading to a remarkable 10,675 percent hike in bean turnout since 1995. This phenomenal growth in the soya sector has both stimulated Brazil’s economy and provided China with the material necessary to feed its populous and agricultural sector.
To make room for soya fields land is necessary. Fortunately for China, Brazil has great agricultural potential in the relatively untouched rainforest of the Amazon River Basin. At first sight it seems the basin hosts an endless amount of fertile soil and plentiful rainfall, and that the land is prime for development. While large amounts of rain are great for agriculture, it also increases soil erosion in lands that are deforested to make way for farming, contributing to a general demise in soil quality and agricultural output when the deforestation is practiced on a wide scale. This type of land clearance strips the soils of many nutrients essential to plant growth and agricultural potential suffers. Wide-scale deforestation will also affect rainfall, as more rainwater will flow back into rivers and flow out of the area instead of being redistributed through transpiration. As a final note, the rampant deforestation that accompanies unsustainable development reduces biodiversity that could lead to great advances in medicine, tasty dietary additions and opportunities for exploration and ecotourism.
The hour is late in the present chapter of the Brazilian/Chinese soya trade. With Brazil eagerly expanding its environmental sector to meet China’s rising demand for soya, more land is stripped of forest, more indigenous peoples are losing their homelands to squatting farmers and more biodiversity is disappearing. The trend is slightly reminiscent of China’s agricultural boom in the last half of the century. Will Brazil implement proper environmental management into their agricultural agenda and ensure the longevity of its land and peoples? The answer lies within the world’s response. We can safeguard our future when we, the human race, look past short-term gains and plan for the prosperity of future generations. •
Nick Stanich is a senior environmental biology major at Ohio University and is President of the Sustainable Living Organization.
America the beautiful - One student’s reflections on our country upon her return from a quarter in London
“O beautiful for spacious skies…”
If I have gained one perspective about my homeland from a quarter abroad in London, it has been the staggering and unparalleled majesty of our purple mountains, amber waves, and sheer vast expanse. After two and a half months of black snot and post-nasal drip, I realized just how much I’d taken for granted the fresh air and clean water of home. Part of this is the reality of living in any city, European or otherwise, but living in London is not living in New York.
When my mom came to visit for a week, I found myself vacillating between embarrassment and admiration as she made eye contact, smiled, and made conversation with people—on the street, on the tube, on the bus—standing out like a sore thumb amidst the detached British politeness. But whenever I was annoyed, a larger part of me always reminded myself, “This is my mother’s humanity. This is someone unafraid to connect with the people around her.” Put any middle American in her place and I think the behavior would be the same. We are loud; we are obtrusive; we are blunt. Perhaps part of having all that space makes us need to project ourselves further; in London the people live on top of each other, so maybe the need to create personal space is justified.
Within the cushy protection of the world’s two largest oceans and the cradle of our eastern and western mountain ranges, we take for granted our geographic enormity the same way we take for granted our influence throughout the world. I’ve come to believe that much of our patriotism, independence, and yes, ignorance is simply because we are so big and so far from the rest of the world. In London, visiting the rest of the Western (or North African, or Middle Eastern) world is as easy as island hopping in the Florida Keys. Foreign policy and its ramifications are not so far away, and global events aren’t quite as easy to ignore when they’re only a short flight from home. We’ve managed to perpetuate, I generalize, the mythical tranquility of peacetime when we are very much at war, actively engaged in economic and political changes throughout the world, and obliviously teetering on the edge of a global energy crisis. We argue about who can marry whom and where to draw the line between religion and science, when we’ve already made a god of capitalism, a god of reckless consumerism, and a god of “democracy.” Perhaps our inability to understand or empathize with the Muslim extremists that continue to terrorize our military is because they attack us for what we refuse to admit to ourselves: We are a polytheistic society; our ignorance is our liturgy.
“America, America,
God shed his grace on thee
‘Til selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!”
I came home from London asking myself, what do we do? How do we become a more enlightened force in the world? I think it begins with honesty.
I believe there is plenty of reason for the average American to be upset. A very large portion of the world is in chaos and we continue to be directly responsible, while our administration hides behind ideological and religious issues like gay marriage, abortion, and teaching evolution, instead of honestly addressing the real and impending problems we face. If it’s too far away to think about the suffering of civilians in the Middle East, what about our own Hurricane Katrina survivors, still living out of trailers or worse, in New Orleans? As we continue to recklessly produce and purchase SUVs, when will the price of gas become unavoidably crippling—before or after we’ve developed alternative fuel sources, before or after global temperatures and ocean levels have risen beyond repair?
As the babies of complete and total media-saturation, dishonesty and corruption are something we inherently understand and expect in a way our parents do not. We question, we discredit, and then we ignore. We understand what’s wrong, to some extent, and we may even have an opinion about it, but we don’t honestly believe anything will change.
“Till nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!”
When America itself is a war-state, when our own idleness or apathy allows our leaders to run unchecked, we must call ourselves to action. It is our job to ring the alarum bell. If all we can offer is a hollow affirmation of the attributes that perpetuate our paralysis, if we continue to watch events unfold from behind our computer and television screens, then we are members of a cowardly, compliant, and dead nation. That is not this country’s legacy.
Our generation not only has the responsibility, but also the privilege of coming of age in an era of revolution. Now is not a time for idealism; now is the time for honesty. •
Manda Martin is the president of Up In Arms.
If I have gained one perspective about my homeland from a quarter abroad in London, it has been the staggering and unparalleled majesty of our purple mountains, amber waves, and sheer vast expanse. After two and a half months of black snot and post-nasal drip, I realized just how much I’d taken for granted the fresh air and clean water of home. Part of this is the reality of living in any city, European or otherwise, but living in London is not living in New York.
When my mom came to visit for a week, I found myself vacillating between embarrassment and admiration as she made eye contact, smiled, and made conversation with people—on the street, on the tube, on the bus—standing out like a sore thumb amidst the detached British politeness. But whenever I was annoyed, a larger part of me always reminded myself, “This is my mother’s humanity. This is someone unafraid to connect with the people around her.” Put any middle American in her place and I think the behavior would be the same. We are loud; we are obtrusive; we are blunt. Perhaps part of having all that space makes us need to project ourselves further; in London the people live on top of each other, so maybe the need to create personal space is justified.
Within the cushy protection of the world’s two largest oceans and the cradle of our eastern and western mountain ranges, we take for granted our geographic enormity the same way we take for granted our influence throughout the world. I’ve come to believe that much of our patriotism, independence, and yes, ignorance is simply because we are so big and so far from the rest of the world. In London, visiting the rest of the Western (or North African, or Middle Eastern) world is as easy as island hopping in the Florida Keys. Foreign policy and its ramifications are not so far away, and global events aren’t quite as easy to ignore when they’re only a short flight from home. We’ve managed to perpetuate, I generalize, the mythical tranquility of peacetime when we are very much at war, actively engaged in economic and political changes throughout the world, and obliviously teetering on the edge of a global energy crisis. We argue about who can marry whom and where to draw the line between religion and science, when we’ve already made a god of capitalism, a god of reckless consumerism, and a god of “democracy.” Perhaps our inability to understand or empathize with the Muslim extremists that continue to terrorize our military is because they attack us for what we refuse to admit to ourselves: We are a polytheistic society; our ignorance is our liturgy.
“America, America,
God shed his grace on thee
‘Til selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!”
I came home from London asking myself, what do we do? How do we become a more enlightened force in the world? I think it begins with honesty.
I believe there is plenty of reason for the average American to be upset. A very large portion of the world is in chaos and we continue to be directly responsible, while our administration hides behind ideological and religious issues like gay marriage, abortion, and teaching evolution, instead of honestly addressing the real and impending problems we face. If it’s too far away to think about the suffering of civilians in the Middle East, what about our own Hurricane Katrina survivors, still living out of trailers or worse, in New Orleans? As we continue to recklessly produce and purchase SUVs, when will the price of gas become unavoidably crippling—before or after we’ve developed alternative fuel sources, before or after global temperatures and ocean levels have risen beyond repair?
As the babies of complete and total media-saturation, dishonesty and corruption are something we inherently understand and expect in a way our parents do not. We question, we discredit, and then we ignore. We understand what’s wrong, to some extent, and we may even have an opinion about it, but we don’t honestly believe anything will change.
“Till nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!”
When America itself is a war-state, when our own idleness or apathy allows our leaders to run unchecked, we must call ourselves to action. It is our job to ring the alarum bell. If all we can offer is a hollow affirmation of the attributes that perpetuate our paralysis, if we continue to watch events unfold from behind our computer and television screens, then we are members of a cowardly, compliant, and dead nation. That is not this country’s legacy.
Our generation not only has the responsibility, but also the privilege of coming of age in an era of revolution. Now is not a time for idealism; now is the time for honesty. •
Manda Martin is the president of Up In Arms.
From the Midwest to the Middle East: Dispatches from the holy land
Before I left Ohio to spend a year studying and volunteering in Israel, I emailed a family friend who had just returned from a semester here, to express my sadness that the result of Jewish suffering has been to inflict suffering onto other peoples. While I take pride in Israel’s successes as a modern society with a high standard of living and a thriving intellectual, literary, and creative culture, the consequences of Israeli militarism often eclipse these brighter points. My correspondence with this friend began amidst Israel’s bombardments of the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon, as news of the rising Palestinian, Lebanese and Israeli death tolls cycled in. It was not a sunny moment.
My comment was a relatively simpleminded observation: After nearly two millennia of virtual pacifism, Jews in Israel have developed a powerful military force with a corresponding impulse to dominate any foe. The lingering humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip is evidence of the stark consequences of this arrangement. After Jewish residents were evacuated from Gaza last summer, the Israeli Defense Forces have continued a fierce military and economic siege that keeps Gaza, the most densely populated patch of land on the planet, in a constant state of crisis regarding food, water, sanitary conditions and electricity. Objectively, it’s a human cage; disagreement is only over the cause.
The response to my email by my friend and our families was interesting. News of my comments spread rapidly and an ideological alarm was sounded: Criticism of Israeli behavior is evidence of a traitorous Jew, a pro-Palestinian backslider. A famous quote by former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was invoked more than once. “Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs learn to love their children more than they hate us.” I had never fully realized the potency of the American Jewish bottom line and the rapidity with which any dissenting opinion should be squelched. As I prepared to depart for Israel, the challenge of developing a conscientious and ethically sound relationship with this country started coming into clear focus.
This personal episode is relevant because it reflects a frequent phenomenon among the American Jewish community at large. While there is a wide political spectrum in Israel with contentious arguments over every policy, especially settlements and major military operations, it is taboo to mimic these arguments in the organized Jewish community. Great organizational energy is instead directed at the narrowly defined concept of “support for Israel,” which entails total approval of everything that goes on here, so as not to fuel the nation’s anti-Semitic enemies.
Defining support for Israel in this manner preserves a binary that paints Israel as the morally pristine peace-seeking party left with no choice when dealing with the hostile, anti-democratic terrorists that surround them. This binary rejects the legitimacy of Arab grievances, making peaceful settlement a categorical impossibility and failing to acknowledge Israel’s role in creating its own enemies.
In a controversial article published in the London Review of Books, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt dissect American support for Israel, emphasizing non-Jewish neoconservative leaders who are equally intolerant of criticism of Israel. Walt and Mearsheimer ridicule the idea that open debate, by threatening the status quo, endangers Israel’s existence, and argue conversely that the status quo is extremely dangerous to both Israel and America. The status quo guarantees decades and decades of additional conflict, and makes the recruitment of radical militant enemies a certainty. It guarantees the intensification of anti-American opinion in the Arab world and underscores America’s arrogance in unilaterally charting the course for this region.
Additionally, the suppression of dissenting opinion is a great loss to Israeli peace organizations’ desperate fight to chart a less bloody future. Without a significant counterpart in American politics, Israeli doves cannot generate the necessary power and momentum to undermine the supremacy of their country’s military establishment and move toward a more sincere and lasting settlement.
American Jews frequently tout their role in the civil rights movement and identify the recent suffering of the Jewish people as a driving force in preventing the suffering of others. Clearly, however, the civilian death toll in Lebanon and the lingering humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip undermine such claims, as the September InterActivist’s interview with Jehan Mullin demonstrates. (To receive a PDF version of September’s edition, email theinteractivist@gmail.com) There are enormous ethical and humanitarian issues relating the state of Israel, and as a young Jew deeply invested in the longevity of his people, I feel a responsibility to work sincerely toward resolving these issues during my lifetime. •
Ben Mendelsohn graduated from Ohio University in August, 2006 with a degree in English literature and film. He is currently living and volunteering in Tel Aviv, Israel.
My comment was a relatively simpleminded observation: After nearly two millennia of virtual pacifism, Jews in Israel have developed a powerful military force with a corresponding impulse to dominate any foe. The lingering humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip is evidence of the stark consequences of this arrangement. After Jewish residents were evacuated from Gaza last summer, the Israeli Defense Forces have continued a fierce military and economic siege that keeps Gaza, the most densely populated patch of land on the planet, in a constant state of crisis regarding food, water, sanitary conditions and electricity. Objectively, it’s a human cage; disagreement is only over the cause.
The response to my email by my friend and our families was interesting. News of my comments spread rapidly and an ideological alarm was sounded: Criticism of Israeli behavior is evidence of a traitorous Jew, a pro-Palestinian backslider. A famous quote by former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was invoked more than once. “Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs learn to love their children more than they hate us.” I had never fully realized the potency of the American Jewish bottom line and the rapidity with which any dissenting opinion should be squelched. As I prepared to depart for Israel, the challenge of developing a conscientious and ethically sound relationship with this country started coming into clear focus.
This personal episode is relevant because it reflects a frequent phenomenon among the American Jewish community at large. While there is a wide political spectrum in Israel with contentious arguments over every policy, especially settlements and major military operations, it is taboo to mimic these arguments in the organized Jewish community. Great organizational energy is instead directed at the narrowly defined concept of “support for Israel,” which entails total approval of everything that goes on here, so as not to fuel the nation’s anti-Semitic enemies.
Defining support for Israel in this manner preserves a binary that paints Israel as the morally pristine peace-seeking party left with no choice when dealing with the hostile, anti-democratic terrorists that surround them. This binary rejects the legitimacy of Arab grievances, making peaceful settlement a categorical impossibility and failing to acknowledge Israel’s role in creating its own enemies.
In a controversial article published in the London Review of Books, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt dissect American support for Israel, emphasizing non-Jewish neoconservative leaders who are equally intolerant of criticism of Israel. Walt and Mearsheimer ridicule the idea that open debate, by threatening the status quo, endangers Israel’s existence, and argue conversely that the status quo is extremely dangerous to both Israel and America. The status quo guarantees decades and decades of additional conflict, and makes the recruitment of radical militant enemies a certainty. It guarantees the intensification of anti-American opinion in the Arab world and underscores America’s arrogance in unilaterally charting the course for this region.
Additionally, the suppression of dissenting opinion is a great loss to Israeli peace organizations’ desperate fight to chart a less bloody future. Without a significant counterpart in American politics, Israeli doves cannot generate the necessary power and momentum to undermine the supremacy of their country’s military establishment and move toward a more sincere and lasting settlement.
American Jews frequently tout their role in the civil rights movement and identify the recent suffering of the Jewish people as a driving force in preventing the suffering of others. Clearly, however, the civilian death toll in Lebanon and the lingering humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip undermine such claims, as the September InterActivist’s interview with Jehan Mullin demonstrates. (To receive a PDF version of September’s edition, email theinteractivist@gmail.com) There are enormous ethical and humanitarian issues relating the state of Israel, and as a young Jew deeply invested in the longevity of his people, I feel a responsibility to work sincerely toward resolving these issues during my lifetime. •
Ben Mendelsohn graduated from Ohio University in August, 2006 with a degree in English literature and film. He is currently living and volunteering in Tel Aviv, Israel.
Advocates for healthcare reform - Group spotlight
I recently had a chance to sit down with LaPortia McElrath and Kristin Kaffen from Ohio University’s Advocates for Healthcare Reform (AHR). AHR is a relatively new group that began last spring and is seeking to educate the people of Southeastern Ohio on the current problems with the healthcare system in America and to gather signatures for a petition supporting the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act.”
InterActivist: Why exactly is healthcare reform needed?
Laportia McElrath and Kristen Kaffen: The healthcare system in America is run by private insurance companies with little to no regulation. Currently about $11.6 billion per year is wasted on this inefficient private insurance system with a 20-30 percent administrative overhead. It’s an extremely expensive proposition to keep people insured; in fact about 46 percent of personal bankruptcies are related to medical expenses. The prices for insurance have become outrageous; it’s about $400 a month to keep a family of four insured. We’ve actually talked to a physician in The Plains who can’t even afford his own personal healthcare insurance. Here in Ohio, things are especially bad. As of now, 1.3 million Ohioans have no health insurance and millions more live with inadequate coverage.
IA: But I thought America had the best healthcare system in the world, right?
LM & KK: Actually, the World Health Organization ranks the US healthcare system 37th in quality as compared to other countries, according to figures from 1997. Many countries already have a universal healthcare system in place. We’re seriously beginning to lag behind the rest of the world in terms of healthcare; even Botswana has its own universal healthcare system. Every year Americans spend nearly twice as much per person on healthcare as any other country, and we get less for it because most of that money is going to private insurance providers.
IA: OK, so private healthcare insurance is obviously not working very well, but what are our other options?
LM & KK: We’re advocating a universal system of healthcare known as the Single-Payer system. Basically, it entails the creation of a non-profit governmental agency, which is responsible for one fund that would make payments for all medical services. We are working in conjunction with SPAN-Ohio (Single-Payer Action Network) to collect petitions to get the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act” put into action in order to create a Single-Payer system here in Ohio.
IA: What are the key points of the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act?”
LM & KK: If it became a law, it would provide coverage for the full range of inpatient and outpatient hospital care, preventive care, mental health, vision, hearing, prescription drugs, dental, and all other necessary medical services as determined by any state licensed, certified, or registered health care practitioner. It would provide coverage regardless of income or employment status. It would even go so far as to reimburse workers at insurance companies, who might lose their jobs as a result of the changes brought about by the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act.”
IA: So what is Advocates for Healthcare Reform doing to help make universal healthcare a reality?
LM & KK: Right now we’re working to educate the community about the great need for a single-payer system. There are a lot of myths associated with universal healthcare; it’s not the same as socialized medicine. Under a universal system people still have a choice as to which doctor they see and when. You can still receive the same amount of care from your own personal doctor. We’re also collecting petitions to try and get the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act” put directly on the ballot, so Ohio voters can vote on whether or not to make it a law.
IA: Is either gubernatorial candidate this year pushing for any kind of similar reform?
LM & KK: Not exactly. Blackwell is pushing for a “universal insurance plan,” which still leaves room for insurance companies to act as the middle man in healthcare. Strickland is trying to push for more federal grants, but he’s basically advocating Medicare under a different name. That’s why it’s so important that we collect enough signatures for a petition to get the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act” put directly on the ballot in the next election.
IA: How can people living in the Athens area help?
LM & KK: We are always looking for volunteers to help us in our campaigns, to create awareness and educate people about the need for healthcare reforms. We are also canvassing Southeast Ohio to collect signatures for the petition. Advocates for Healthcare Reform is responsible for getting signatures from Hocking, Athens, and Vinton counties. Remember, healthcare shouldn’t be a privilege that we pay for. We all have a basic right to healthcare.
It was a pleasure talking to these two women who are very passionate on the subject. It’s important to remember that the need for healthcare affects everyone. For more information, contact AHR at advhealth@ohio.edu or check out their website at www.ohiou.edu/advhealth. AHR also hosts meetings every Monday night at 8 p.m. in Grover Hall Room W113. •
Mike Lottes is the managing editor of The InterActivist.
InterActivist: Why exactly is healthcare reform needed?
Laportia McElrath and Kristen Kaffen: The healthcare system in America is run by private insurance companies with little to no regulation. Currently about $11.6 billion per year is wasted on this inefficient private insurance system with a 20-30 percent administrative overhead. It’s an extremely expensive proposition to keep people insured; in fact about 46 percent of personal bankruptcies are related to medical expenses. The prices for insurance have become outrageous; it’s about $400 a month to keep a family of four insured. We’ve actually talked to a physician in The Plains who can’t even afford his own personal healthcare insurance. Here in Ohio, things are especially bad. As of now, 1.3 million Ohioans have no health insurance and millions more live with inadequate coverage.
IA: But I thought America had the best healthcare system in the world, right?
LM & KK: Actually, the World Health Organization ranks the US healthcare system 37th in quality as compared to other countries, according to figures from 1997. Many countries already have a universal healthcare system in place. We’re seriously beginning to lag behind the rest of the world in terms of healthcare; even Botswana has its own universal healthcare system. Every year Americans spend nearly twice as much per person on healthcare as any other country, and we get less for it because most of that money is going to private insurance providers.
IA: OK, so private healthcare insurance is obviously not working very well, but what are our other options?
LM & KK: We’re advocating a universal system of healthcare known as the Single-Payer system. Basically, it entails the creation of a non-profit governmental agency, which is responsible for one fund that would make payments for all medical services. We are working in conjunction with SPAN-Ohio (Single-Payer Action Network) to collect petitions to get the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act” put into action in order to create a Single-Payer system here in Ohio.
IA: What are the key points of the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act?”
LM & KK: If it became a law, it would provide coverage for the full range of inpatient and outpatient hospital care, preventive care, mental health, vision, hearing, prescription drugs, dental, and all other necessary medical services as determined by any state licensed, certified, or registered health care practitioner. It would provide coverage regardless of income or employment status. It would even go so far as to reimburse workers at insurance companies, who might lose their jobs as a result of the changes brought about by the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act.”
IA: So what is Advocates for Healthcare Reform doing to help make universal healthcare a reality?
LM & KK: Right now we’re working to educate the community about the great need for a single-payer system. There are a lot of myths associated with universal healthcare; it’s not the same as socialized medicine. Under a universal system people still have a choice as to which doctor they see and when. You can still receive the same amount of care from your own personal doctor. We’re also collecting petitions to try and get the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act” put directly on the ballot, so Ohio voters can vote on whether or not to make it a law.
IA: Is either gubernatorial candidate this year pushing for any kind of similar reform?
LM & KK: Not exactly. Blackwell is pushing for a “universal insurance plan,” which still leaves room for insurance companies to act as the middle man in healthcare. Strickland is trying to push for more federal grants, but he’s basically advocating Medicare under a different name. That’s why it’s so important that we collect enough signatures for a petition to get the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act” put directly on the ballot in the next election.
IA: How can people living in the Athens area help?
LM & KK: We are always looking for volunteers to help us in our campaigns, to create awareness and educate people about the need for healthcare reforms. We are also canvassing Southeast Ohio to collect signatures for the petition. Advocates for Healthcare Reform is responsible for getting signatures from Hocking, Athens, and Vinton counties. Remember, healthcare shouldn’t be a privilege that we pay for. We all have a basic right to healthcare.
It was a pleasure talking to these two women who are very passionate on the subject. It’s important to remember that the need for healthcare affects everyone. For more information, contact AHR at advhealth@ohio.edu or check out their website at www.ohiou.edu/advhealth. AHR also hosts meetings every Monday night at 8 p.m. in Grover Hall Room W113. •
Mike Lottes is the managing editor of The InterActivist.
Veteran LGBT rights activist reflects on time at OU - Activist spotlight: Mickey Hart
A tireless activist for peace and justice since coming to Ohio University in the early 1990s, Mickey Hart now runs OU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Center and sits on the board of statewide LGBT rights organization Equality Ohio. Earlier this month, Hart spoke to The InterActivist’s Dana Stewart and Damon Krane about issues facing LGBT people at OU and across the US and how he got his start as an activist.
The InterActivist: What led you to become a social activist?
Mickey Hart: Beyond getting an education, I came to Ohio University to come out of the closet. That was a large reason why I left my hometown of Laurelville, Ohio, a small town in Hocking County about an hour from here. I had opened a restaurant in Laurelville at age 18, and I ran it for its first five years. My mom still owns the restaurant now with my former business partner. But I needed to come out of the closet, and didn’t feel like I could do it there. I knew I could do it in Athens.
So I came to OU in the early 90s, which was a very politically active time here. Before I really focused on coming out, I got my start in social activism protesting the Gulf War. In the process, I got to learn from some of the greats, like Pete Hill and Art Gish. It was a phenomenal experience and one of the only times I’ve seen strong collaboration between student and local activists. We would have meetings with 100 people, and I would co-facilitate some of these consensus-based meetings. I learned lots of activist skills: meeting facilitation, peacekeeping, affinity groups, civil disobedience—just so much, so many great things.
In addition to all of the anti-war activism during this time, there was also a big surge in LGBT activism across the country. It was great to ride that wave. In some ways it’s been kind of a let down since then. Nationally, there’s not quite as much activism now, and some of the groups have become more mainstreamed—still working towards making change and progress, but probably not as bold and in-your-face.
IA: How did you then get involved in LGBT activism at OU?
MH: At the time there was only one student group for LGBT people, Open Doors, which has existed under different names at OU since the 70s. It started out as the Gay Liberation Front, then the Gay People’s Alliance, the Gay and Lesbian Association (GALA), and in 1988 it became Open Doors. But during the early 90s, there was also a takeover of Student Senate by an amazing group of student activists.
As the Minority Affairs Commissioner of this activist Student Senate, one of the first things I did was to push for the creation of an LGBT Commission. At the time, a very wide range of different groups of students affected by very different issues were all lumped together under one Commission of Minority Affairs—including military veterans, LGBT students, and non-traditional students. My proposal to establish a separate LGBT Affairs Commission took some doing to create and get passed, but eventually it was passed with I think only two “no” votes. These came from the more conservative members of Senate, one of whom we all knew at the time was gay. (laughs) He’s since come out… He’s still a Log Cabin Republican, though! And with him, his best girl-friend also voted against the proposal. But they were it, and since then I think the existence of the LGBT Commission has helped open the door to creating additional Commissions to better represent other groups of students.
IA: What are some problems facing the LGBT community at OU?
MH: There have been some reported assaults on LGBT people, but not the kind of violence that’s happened in other communities. Right now most of the negative experiences LGBT students have are things like hateful or threatening messages being written on bulletin boards and on dry erase boards on people’s doors in the Residence Halls. Stuff in the Residence Halls is particularly difficult because it happens in such a personal space. It’s where these students live. Residence Life at OU has been very supportive in dealing with this throughout the years, but because the dorms are such a personal space for students, the students in these situations aren’t always satisfied with the results they get from Residence Life.
Most of the problems we see tend to happen uptown, on Court Street, when people are drunk. It tends to be name-calling and sometimes physical threats and intimidation directed at LGBT students, as opposed to actual physical violence. But to me, the potential for actual physical violence is just below the surface at all times. So I always caution students to always be aware of your surroundings no matter where you are, no matter how safe you feel. I’m not saying walk through your life ready to be victimized or being so on-alert that you’re overwhelmed by it. But don’t get so focused on what you’re doing that you’re not aware of the impact beyond your group or circle of friends.
IA: How have you seen the situation of LGBT students at OU change over time?
MH: Even though Athens is relatively safe for LGBT people, I do think there were times when we were better off here than we are now. OU is a very different place than when I came to school here. Because you need better grades and more money to go here now, we’ve had a class shift here at OU in recent years. I refer to it as the Miami-ization of OU. In an effort to become more recognized, we have become more mainstream, and have declined in some ways by becoming Any Mid-West University. At the same time, the US has become more conservative and probably less open to LGBT issues. Both of these things have happened simultaneously to create a chillier climate than there used to be for LGBT students at OU.
At the same time there is a real base of open-minded people in Athens County. Athens, after all, was the only county in the state to vote against issue #1. So even as there has been this class shift at OU and the country has gotten more conservative, Athens has held its ground. Years ago I wanted to make bumper stickers that said “Athens: We just think we’re liberal,” because even though there is this idea that Athens is some bastion of liberalism, a lot of folks here aren’t really working for social justice. I don’t think I could make those bumper stickers any more, because as the nation has gotten more conservative, I don’t think Athens has. So we probably are liberal now, but not in the way that we would have defined “liberal” ten years ago.
IA: In Ohio and states across the country, gay marriage has been the big LGBT issue on the agenda. What’s your take on this?
MH: It’s not the LGBT community that has pushed to make gay marriage an issue. The Right raised this issue because they knew it would work in their favor as a wedge issue and would turn out more conservatives to vote. It’s no coincidence that marriage amendments were on the ballot in 11 states during the last presidential election. Of all the things that the LGBT political movement could have pushed for, marriage would not have been the first priority. But now that marriage is an issue, it raises some very interesting questions.
A lot of people don’t want LGBT people to be able to marry, but maybe they’ll accept civil unions. Well, we know that separate but equal just doesn’t work. All of the laws recently passed don’t talk about “civil unions,” they talk about “marriage,” So legally, “marriage” really means something. There are over 1000 laws, rights and obligations that come with “marriage”.
Looking even deeper into the issue, we have a separation of church and state in the US, but when clergy pronounce a couple married, they say “by the power vested in me by the State of Ohio...” So we’ve had the church doing the state’s job for years, certifying marriage. Given the idea of separation of church and state, we probably should have always had civil unions for all couples. Beyond that, you want to go to church? Have it witnessed by your family and God? Then you go do that as well. That’s my perspective. But for people who want both legal and religious recognition of their commitment to one another, it’s definitely a troubling issue.
Some more radical folks in the LGBT community really wouldn’t strive for marriage at all, because they think it’s not such a great institution and they’d want something better than marriage. But for other folks, it’s just a real basic idea: I just want to be part of the American dream, with marriage and maybe children and a household and all those kinds of things.
IA: You’re on the board of the statewide LGBT rights group Equality Ohio. (see www.equalityohio.org - ed.) What does the group strive for?
MH: Equality Ohio came about after issue #1, the so-called marriage amendment, passed in Ohio. Initially, there was this sort of kicked-in-the-gut reaction that many LGBT people had, that our neighbors had done this to us. Our neighbors made us feel like second class citizens. They made us not feel at home in our own state.
But we knew we couldn’t just have a reactionary kind of effort. We knew we needed a long-term effort over the next few years aimed at changing the hearts and minds of voters. So a pretty representative group of 60 prominent LGBT activists from throughout the state came together for Equality Ohio’s first meeting and began formulating our plan.
Our mission essentially comes down to creating an Ohio where everybody feels at home, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. And one of the things we’re saying is we’re tired of being the Right’s wedge issue. We’re not going to let them use us that way anymore.
IA: How did you come to be Director of LGBT Programs at OU?
MH: Well, I’m actually not a director. People often think, “Oh, of course there’s a director of LGBT Programs at OU,” and this raises a very important issue.
For years I had the title of LGBT Programs Coordinator, which in hindsight, was a way to have someone doing the work of a Director without paying the person at that level. Currently my title is Assistant Director of Campus Life for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Programs. There is some concern in the LGBT community here about being incorporated into Campus Life as part of recent restructuring at OU. Most recently, though, I’ve been raising the overall question about how the university addresses diversity.
There are five operational areas of Ohio University that focus on diversity: International Student and Faculty Services, Multicultural Programs/Lindley Cultural Center, the Women’s Center that’s going to be opened in the new Student Center, Disability Services through the Office of Institutional Equity and, lastly, LGBT Programs. As a result of recent restructuring, the first four divisions now fall in the domain of he President and the Provost and are each headed by people who have the title of Director and/or are paid at that level. These divisions also have budgets reflecting the higher priority attention they’re receiving. In contrast, LGBT Programs is not within the area of the President and Provost, and it’s not funded at the Director level. LGBT programs also received a budget cut this year, which was to be expected given decreased funding for higher education, but the cut was larger than I expected. So there is a huge discrepancy here that raises a big question about equity among the different components of diversity at OU, and for me personally, the issue of equal pay for equal work.
IA: You’ve worked for change at OU from both outside the bureaucracy as a student activist and within as an administrator. What are the pros and cons of each position?
MH: It is really interested that when you become part of a system or structure, it changes the way you approach things. My approach is as a professional. I try to be really thoughtful about it. I understand both sides of these issues. I understand why LGBT Programs hasn’t been able to grow the way we want to grow. I understand budgets and those kinds of things. But at a certain point the understanding needs to stop, because-- wait a minute, there are some real inequities here. LGBT Programs hasn’t grown the way other areas have grown, and what’s that really all about? In part, I think our growth has not being a priority; it hasn’t really been on the radar of upper level administrators. How do you bring those issues up? It’s different on the inside than it is on the outside.
When students have concerns I try to point them in the right direction. But I’m also cautious, because I think some people have this notion that I’m planting these ideas in order for students to carry out my agenda. More importantly, it’s my job to make OU feel safe for all LGBT people. I strive to create harmony within the community, among those who are politically active and radical and those who are only beginning to come out. The reality is that doing something pretty radical, that makes a lot of noise and gets a lot of attention, can advance a cause or a group. But it can also create a lot of turmoil within the community. Just being LGBT in this society is hard, and a lot of people aren’t looking for more difficulty.
At the same time, I’ve probably been too cautious. I’ve done things to appease students and told them to take a more cautious route to raising concerns. And in recent years my own cautiousness has probably hampered some efforts for change. On a college campus I think change happens very slowly. But over and over again, at OU and other college campuses, it’s when students organize and speak out and call attention to things that more sudden change and progress is made. •
Sidebar:
What’s in a name… err.. label?
“LGBT” is short for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender. As in LGBT people or the LGBtT Community. Some misuse LGBT as a noun. There is not such thing as “The LGBT”
In addition to LGBT you could also add “A” for Ally “Q” for Queer or Questioning , “I” for Intersex, “TS” for Two Spirit, just to list a few.
It’s easy say “LGBT,” but to sensitize people to what those letters really mean, in public and in print, it’s important to say the words “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender.”
The term “queer” is interesting. Some like “queer” because it’s easier to say than the alphabet soup mentioned above. However, others do not like it because it has negative connotations as a hateful, derogatory term. Still others like “queer” as it speaks to their political identity, which has to do with being different, being queer, in a hetero-normative society, where we’re all taught that we’re supposed to be heterosexual.
Some people aren’t happy with any of these terms, and some don’t even want to be labeled anything. So, as much as possible, it is best to let people label themselves to define who they are.
The InterActivist: What led you to become a social activist?
Mickey Hart: Beyond getting an education, I came to Ohio University to come out of the closet. That was a large reason why I left my hometown of Laurelville, Ohio, a small town in Hocking County about an hour from here. I had opened a restaurant in Laurelville at age 18, and I ran it for its first five years. My mom still owns the restaurant now with my former business partner. But I needed to come out of the closet, and didn’t feel like I could do it there. I knew I could do it in Athens.
So I came to OU in the early 90s, which was a very politically active time here. Before I really focused on coming out, I got my start in social activism protesting the Gulf War. In the process, I got to learn from some of the greats, like Pete Hill and Art Gish. It was a phenomenal experience and one of the only times I’ve seen strong collaboration between student and local activists. We would have meetings with 100 people, and I would co-facilitate some of these consensus-based meetings. I learned lots of activist skills: meeting facilitation, peacekeeping, affinity groups, civil disobedience—just so much, so many great things.
In addition to all of the anti-war activism during this time, there was also a big surge in LGBT activism across the country. It was great to ride that wave. In some ways it’s been kind of a let down since then. Nationally, there’s not quite as much activism now, and some of the groups have become more mainstreamed—still working towards making change and progress, but probably not as bold and in-your-face.
IA: How did you then get involved in LGBT activism at OU?
MH: At the time there was only one student group for LGBT people, Open Doors, which has existed under different names at OU since the 70s. It started out as the Gay Liberation Front, then the Gay People’s Alliance, the Gay and Lesbian Association (GALA), and in 1988 it became Open Doors. But during the early 90s, there was also a takeover of Student Senate by an amazing group of student activists.
As the Minority Affairs Commissioner of this activist Student Senate, one of the first things I did was to push for the creation of an LGBT Commission. At the time, a very wide range of different groups of students affected by very different issues were all lumped together under one Commission of Minority Affairs—including military veterans, LGBT students, and non-traditional students. My proposal to establish a separate LGBT Affairs Commission took some doing to create and get passed, but eventually it was passed with I think only two “no” votes. These came from the more conservative members of Senate, one of whom we all knew at the time was gay. (laughs) He’s since come out… He’s still a Log Cabin Republican, though! And with him, his best girl-friend also voted against the proposal. But they were it, and since then I think the existence of the LGBT Commission has helped open the door to creating additional Commissions to better represent other groups of students.
IA: What are some problems facing the LGBT community at OU?
MH: There have been some reported assaults on LGBT people, but not the kind of violence that’s happened in other communities. Right now most of the negative experiences LGBT students have are things like hateful or threatening messages being written on bulletin boards and on dry erase boards on people’s doors in the Residence Halls. Stuff in the Residence Halls is particularly difficult because it happens in such a personal space. It’s where these students live. Residence Life at OU has been very supportive in dealing with this throughout the years, but because the dorms are such a personal space for students, the students in these situations aren’t always satisfied with the results they get from Residence Life.
Most of the problems we see tend to happen uptown, on Court Street, when people are drunk. It tends to be name-calling and sometimes physical threats and intimidation directed at LGBT students, as opposed to actual physical violence. But to me, the potential for actual physical violence is just below the surface at all times. So I always caution students to always be aware of your surroundings no matter where you are, no matter how safe you feel. I’m not saying walk through your life ready to be victimized or being so on-alert that you’re overwhelmed by it. But don’t get so focused on what you’re doing that you’re not aware of the impact beyond your group or circle of friends.
IA: How have you seen the situation of LGBT students at OU change over time?
MH: Even though Athens is relatively safe for LGBT people, I do think there were times when we were better off here than we are now. OU is a very different place than when I came to school here. Because you need better grades and more money to go here now, we’ve had a class shift here at OU in recent years. I refer to it as the Miami-ization of OU. In an effort to become more recognized, we have become more mainstream, and have declined in some ways by becoming Any Mid-West University. At the same time, the US has become more conservative and probably less open to LGBT issues. Both of these things have happened simultaneously to create a chillier climate than there used to be for LGBT students at OU.
At the same time there is a real base of open-minded people in Athens County. Athens, after all, was the only county in the state to vote against issue #1. So even as there has been this class shift at OU and the country has gotten more conservative, Athens has held its ground. Years ago I wanted to make bumper stickers that said “Athens: We just think we’re liberal,” because even though there is this idea that Athens is some bastion of liberalism, a lot of folks here aren’t really working for social justice. I don’t think I could make those bumper stickers any more, because as the nation has gotten more conservative, I don’t think Athens has. So we probably are liberal now, but not in the way that we would have defined “liberal” ten years ago.
IA: In Ohio and states across the country, gay marriage has been the big LGBT issue on the agenda. What’s your take on this?
MH: It’s not the LGBT community that has pushed to make gay marriage an issue. The Right raised this issue because they knew it would work in their favor as a wedge issue and would turn out more conservatives to vote. It’s no coincidence that marriage amendments were on the ballot in 11 states during the last presidential election. Of all the things that the LGBT political movement could have pushed for, marriage would not have been the first priority. But now that marriage is an issue, it raises some very interesting questions.
A lot of people don’t want LGBT people to be able to marry, but maybe they’ll accept civil unions. Well, we know that separate but equal just doesn’t work. All of the laws recently passed don’t talk about “civil unions,” they talk about “marriage,” So legally, “marriage” really means something. There are over 1000 laws, rights and obligations that come with “marriage”.
Looking even deeper into the issue, we have a separation of church and state in the US, but when clergy pronounce a couple married, they say “by the power vested in me by the State of Ohio...” So we’ve had the church doing the state’s job for years, certifying marriage. Given the idea of separation of church and state, we probably should have always had civil unions for all couples. Beyond that, you want to go to church? Have it witnessed by your family and God? Then you go do that as well. That’s my perspective. But for people who want both legal and religious recognition of their commitment to one another, it’s definitely a troubling issue.
Some more radical folks in the LGBT community really wouldn’t strive for marriage at all, because they think it’s not such a great institution and they’d want something better than marriage. But for other folks, it’s just a real basic idea: I just want to be part of the American dream, with marriage and maybe children and a household and all those kinds of things.
IA: You’re on the board of the statewide LGBT rights group Equality Ohio. (see www.equalityohio.org - ed.) What does the group strive for?
MH: Equality Ohio came about after issue #1, the so-called marriage amendment, passed in Ohio. Initially, there was this sort of kicked-in-the-gut reaction that many LGBT people had, that our neighbors had done this to us. Our neighbors made us feel like second class citizens. They made us not feel at home in our own state.
But we knew we couldn’t just have a reactionary kind of effort. We knew we needed a long-term effort over the next few years aimed at changing the hearts and minds of voters. So a pretty representative group of 60 prominent LGBT activists from throughout the state came together for Equality Ohio’s first meeting and began formulating our plan.
Our mission essentially comes down to creating an Ohio where everybody feels at home, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. And one of the things we’re saying is we’re tired of being the Right’s wedge issue. We’re not going to let them use us that way anymore.
IA: How did you come to be Director of LGBT Programs at OU?
MH: Well, I’m actually not a director. People often think, “Oh, of course there’s a director of LGBT Programs at OU,” and this raises a very important issue.
For years I had the title of LGBT Programs Coordinator, which in hindsight, was a way to have someone doing the work of a Director without paying the person at that level. Currently my title is Assistant Director of Campus Life for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Programs. There is some concern in the LGBT community here about being incorporated into Campus Life as part of recent restructuring at OU. Most recently, though, I’ve been raising the overall question about how the university addresses diversity.
There are five operational areas of Ohio University that focus on diversity: International Student and Faculty Services, Multicultural Programs/Lindley Cultural Center, the Women’s Center that’s going to be opened in the new Student Center, Disability Services through the Office of Institutional Equity and, lastly, LGBT Programs. As a result of recent restructuring, the first four divisions now fall in the domain of he President and the Provost and are each headed by people who have the title of Director and/or are paid at that level. These divisions also have budgets reflecting the higher priority attention they’re receiving. In contrast, LGBT Programs is not within the area of the President and Provost, and it’s not funded at the Director level. LGBT programs also received a budget cut this year, which was to be expected given decreased funding for higher education, but the cut was larger than I expected. So there is a huge discrepancy here that raises a big question about equity among the different components of diversity at OU, and for me personally, the issue of equal pay for equal work.
IA: You’ve worked for change at OU from both outside the bureaucracy as a student activist and within as an administrator. What are the pros and cons of each position?
MH: It is really interested that when you become part of a system or structure, it changes the way you approach things. My approach is as a professional. I try to be really thoughtful about it. I understand both sides of these issues. I understand why LGBT Programs hasn’t been able to grow the way we want to grow. I understand budgets and those kinds of things. But at a certain point the understanding needs to stop, because-- wait a minute, there are some real inequities here. LGBT Programs hasn’t grown the way other areas have grown, and what’s that really all about? In part, I think our growth has not being a priority; it hasn’t really been on the radar of upper level administrators. How do you bring those issues up? It’s different on the inside than it is on the outside.
When students have concerns I try to point them in the right direction. But I’m also cautious, because I think some people have this notion that I’m planting these ideas in order for students to carry out my agenda. More importantly, it’s my job to make OU feel safe for all LGBT people. I strive to create harmony within the community, among those who are politically active and radical and those who are only beginning to come out. The reality is that doing something pretty radical, that makes a lot of noise and gets a lot of attention, can advance a cause or a group. But it can also create a lot of turmoil within the community. Just being LGBT in this society is hard, and a lot of people aren’t looking for more difficulty.
At the same time, I’ve probably been too cautious. I’ve done things to appease students and told them to take a more cautious route to raising concerns. And in recent years my own cautiousness has probably hampered some efforts for change. On a college campus I think change happens very slowly. But over and over again, at OU and other college campuses, it’s when students organize and speak out and call attention to things that more sudden change and progress is made. •
Sidebar:
What’s in a name… err.. label?
“LGBT” is short for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender. As in LGBT people or the LGBtT Community. Some misuse LGBT as a noun. There is not such thing as “The LGBT”
In addition to LGBT you could also add “A” for Ally “Q” for Queer or Questioning , “I” for Intersex, “TS” for Two Spirit, just to list a few.
It’s easy say “LGBT,” but to sensitize people to what those letters really mean, in public and in print, it’s important to say the words “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender.”
The term “queer” is interesting. Some like “queer” because it’s easier to say than the alphabet soup mentioned above. However, others do not like it because it has negative connotations as a hateful, derogatory term. Still others like “queer” as it speaks to their political identity, which has to do with being different, being queer, in a hetero-normative society, where we’re all taught that we’re supposed to be heterosexual.
Some people aren’t happy with any of these terms, and some don’t even want to be labeled anything. So, as much as possible, it is best to let people label themselves to define who they are.
Human trafficking and the new slave trade
Everyone knows that slavery ended in 1865 with the Emancipation Proclamation, right?
Well not quite. The proclamation did end visible slavery in the United States, but according to the American Anti-Slavery Group, there are presently more people enslaved worldwide than at any other point in history. The world’s leading expert on contemporary slavery, Dr. Kevin Bales, conservatively estimates that in 2000 there was a total of 27 million people still held in bondage.
Modern Slavery has developed many new forms and ways to entrap the lowest people of our global society into the slave market. People, especially third-world women and children, are often trafficked either by force or by false promises of well-paying jobs and education.
The United Nations estimates that annually two million people worldwide are become enslaved through being illegally trafficked across borders.
Human trafficking and modern slavery affect every continent in the world, except Antarctica. Even in our own nation, “The Home of the Free”, the US government estimates that between 18,000 and 20,000 people are trafficked into America each year.
Today, slavery is the world’s third largest crime and by 2010, it will supposedly become number one, according to the American Anti-Slavery Group. It is currently surpassed only by the illegal selling of drugs and firearms.
So why is this occurring? How can slavery and human trafficking be on the rise in the modern world of 2006?
Well, the enormous increase of world population post-WWII has been one leading factor of the new slave trade, said Dr. Bales. The present rapid social and economic changes and globalization have created circumstances allowing new slavery to exist.
Almost all of the people currently trafficked and enslaved are victims of third world poverty, such as the child carpet slaves of India, the young female sexual brothel slaves of Thailand, the West African diamond mine slaves, the African children abducted into slavery in war-torn areas such as Sudan, the Brazilians living in slums who are trafficked into slavery with promises of good wages and conditions, and the West African and Caribbean children trafficked into Europe and the United States to work as domestic slaves, just to name a few.
If this is such a significant problem stretching across each continent and almost every nation, then why is more not being done to end it?
Well, there are actually many Non-Profit Organizations working to help research, educate and eradicate the modern slave trade and the trafficking of people. However, they are not going to be able to impact the world alone.
That is where we, as citizens of the richest, most capable, most powerful nation in the world can make a difference. The first step to ending these modern atrocities is to simply get informed, get educated, and begin talking about it.
A good place to start would be with Dr. Bales’ book, “Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy,” which discusses the issues surrounding the problem.
“Politicians and leaders of corporations need to take an interest because they have a lot of influence on the subject,” said Merv Schaffeder, co-director of the Canadian anti-slavery group Freedom Quest International.
The American Anti-Slavery Group’s website, www.iabolish.com, and Dr. Bales’ organization, “Free the Slaves” website, www.freetheslaves.org, both provide petitions and letters that can be electronically sent to US government officials to encourage action against trafficking and slavery.
“Right now there is no political action demanded,” said Tommy Calvert of the American Anti-Slavery Group. “Modern slavery needs to become a national presidency concern. If we concentrate on the problem, it can be defeated within our lifetime.”
As free Americans we need to use our position not to continue ignoring the problem, but to help start fighting against it. Get informed and help make other people aware of the problem, so we can come together to make a difference.
The famous abolitionist Frederick Douglas once said, “Man’s greatness consists in his ability to do and the proper application of his powers to things needed to be done.” And according to the 27 million people who are being affected by the present slave trade, things are needed to be done. •
Tracy Fehr is a columnist for the InterActivist.
Well not quite. The proclamation did end visible slavery in the United States, but according to the American Anti-Slavery Group, there are presently more people enslaved worldwide than at any other point in history. The world’s leading expert on contemporary slavery, Dr. Kevin Bales, conservatively estimates that in 2000 there was a total of 27 million people still held in bondage.
Modern Slavery has developed many new forms and ways to entrap the lowest people of our global society into the slave market. People, especially third-world women and children, are often trafficked either by force or by false promises of well-paying jobs and education.
The United Nations estimates that annually two million people worldwide are become enslaved through being illegally trafficked across borders.
Human trafficking and modern slavery affect every continent in the world, except Antarctica. Even in our own nation, “The Home of the Free”, the US government estimates that between 18,000 and 20,000 people are trafficked into America each year.
Today, slavery is the world’s third largest crime and by 2010, it will supposedly become number one, according to the American Anti-Slavery Group. It is currently surpassed only by the illegal selling of drugs and firearms.
So why is this occurring? How can slavery and human trafficking be on the rise in the modern world of 2006?
Well, the enormous increase of world population post-WWII has been one leading factor of the new slave trade, said Dr. Bales. The present rapid social and economic changes and globalization have created circumstances allowing new slavery to exist.
Almost all of the people currently trafficked and enslaved are victims of third world poverty, such as the child carpet slaves of India, the young female sexual brothel slaves of Thailand, the West African diamond mine slaves, the African children abducted into slavery in war-torn areas such as Sudan, the Brazilians living in slums who are trafficked into slavery with promises of good wages and conditions, and the West African and Caribbean children trafficked into Europe and the United States to work as domestic slaves, just to name a few.
If this is such a significant problem stretching across each continent and almost every nation, then why is more not being done to end it?
Well, there are actually many Non-Profit Organizations working to help research, educate and eradicate the modern slave trade and the trafficking of people. However, they are not going to be able to impact the world alone.
That is where we, as citizens of the richest, most capable, most powerful nation in the world can make a difference. The first step to ending these modern atrocities is to simply get informed, get educated, and begin talking about it.
A good place to start would be with Dr. Bales’ book, “Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy,” which discusses the issues surrounding the problem.
“Politicians and leaders of corporations need to take an interest because they have a lot of influence on the subject,” said Merv Schaffeder, co-director of the Canadian anti-slavery group Freedom Quest International.
The American Anti-Slavery Group’s website, www.iabolish.com, and Dr. Bales’ organization, “Free the Slaves” website, www.freetheslaves.org, both provide petitions and letters that can be electronically sent to US government officials to encourage action against trafficking and slavery.
“Right now there is no political action demanded,” said Tommy Calvert of the American Anti-Slavery Group. “Modern slavery needs to become a national presidency concern. If we concentrate on the problem, it can be defeated within our lifetime.”
As free Americans we need to use our position not to continue ignoring the problem, but to help start fighting against it. Get informed and help make other people aware of the problem, so we can come together to make a difference.
The famous abolitionist Frederick Douglas once said, “Man’s greatness consists in his ability to do and the proper application of his powers to things needed to be done.” And according to the 27 million people who are being affected by the present slave trade, things are needed to be done. •
Tracy Fehr is a columnist for the InterActivist.
Internationally acclaimed peace activist to speak in Athens
Medea Benjamin’s 20 years of experience in international activist organizing has made her one of the most recognizable leaders of the anti-war movement (and an “Anti-American” target for right-wingers). Benjamin received an infamous reputation in the mainstream media when she protested the Iraq War by interrupting the speeches of President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and others. Refusing to allow her advocacy for peace to be confined to “free-speech zones,” Benjamin’s direct approach has inspired women from around the world to raise their collective voices in protest.
In 2002, Benjamin and several other co-founders of CODEPINK, a women-initiated grassroots organization, called on “mothers, grandmothers, sisters, and daughters, on workers, students, teachers, healers, artists, writers, singers, poets and every ordinary outraged woman willing to be outrageous for peace.” The group has been an important component of a movement that continues to grow.
Along with countless protests in the states, CODEPINK has organized women internationally. A delegation of 15 women traveled to Iraq to forge relationships and understanding with Iraqi women, whose stories are being shared across the United States. The accomplishments of CODEPINK, including the distribution of over $600,000 in aid to Iraq, continue to initiate peacemaking coalitions in Iran, Italy, Turkey, Great Britain, Thailand, Brazil and Venezuela.
Benjamin recently teamed up with Jodie Evans to edit a book entitled “Stop the Next War Now,” which features essays by a diverse group of women who offer criticism, insight and reflections about international violence and terrorism.
Benjamin’s work for peace has received international recognition. In 2005, Benjamin was nominated alongside 1,000 women from 140 countries to collectively receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
Benjamin is also the Founding Director of the non-governmental organization (NGO) Global Exchange, which aspires to create awareness about the relationship between international injustice and corporate globalization. Campaigns include increasing economic fair-trade and environmental advocacy, ending US occupation of Iraq, and increasing partnership among other NGOs.•
Kelsey is a staff reporter for The InterActivist.
In 2002, Benjamin and several other co-founders of CODEPINK, a women-initiated grassroots organization, called on “mothers, grandmothers, sisters, and daughters, on workers, students, teachers, healers, artists, writers, singers, poets and every ordinary outraged woman willing to be outrageous for peace.” The group has been an important component of a movement that continues to grow.
Along with countless protests in the states, CODEPINK has organized women internationally. A delegation of 15 women traveled to Iraq to forge relationships and understanding with Iraqi women, whose stories are being shared across the United States. The accomplishments of CODEPINK, including the distribution of over $600,000 in aid to Iraq, continue to initiate peacemaking coalitions in Iran, Italy, Turkey, Great Britain, Thailand, Brazil and Venezuela.
Benjamin recently teamed up with Jodie Evans to edit a book entitled “Stop the Next War Now,” which features essays by a diverse group of women who offer criticism, insight and reflections about international violence and terrorism.
Benjamin’s work for peace has received international recognition. In 2005, Benjamin was nominated alongside 1,000 women from 140 countries to collectively receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
Benjamin is also the Founding Director of the non-governmental organization (NGO) Global Exchange, which aspires to create awareness about the relationship between international injustice and corporate globalization. Campaigns include increasing economic fair-trade and environmental advocacy, ending US occupation of Iraq, and increasing partnership among other NGOs.•
Kelsey is a staff reporter for The InterActivist.
Peltier’s struggle - American Indian a “prisoner of conscience”
At the very beginning stages of Amnesty International, the most important cause behind which its members rallied was that of “prisoners of conscience” (POC). This term, coined by AI, refers to anyone imprisoned as a result of their personal beliefs, race, gender, etc. The organization has spread to new territories in its struggle for human rights, but that original cause must not be forgotten.
Now, more than ever, people must keep in mind those who risk their freedom for their beliefs. In this period of the United States, when individual freedoms could easily be trampled, these POCs not only stand for their own freedom, but for the freedom of all people.
Leonard Peltier, a very influential POC, is a Native American activist who has been imprisoned. He is a citizen of the Anishinabe and Lakota Nations. Peltier was convicted for the murder of two FBI agents and sentenced to double life sentences in 1976. AI believes that he is a political prisoner who should be “immediately and unconditionally released.”
Peltier is a member of the American Indian Movement (AIM). AIM began during the 1960s as an organization committed to helping fellow Native Americans who were living in poverty. However, AIM soon grew into a powerful political and social movement. Its members wanted to defend Native Americans against increasing pressure from the government to assimilate and leave their land. AIM wanted to protect the treaty rights of all Native Americans.
The treaties signed by the US government which allotted specific lands to Indian Nations in the 19th century had been infringed upon and simply ignored, when much of the land of the Great Sioux Nation was opened up for homesteading. Originally, the Great Sioux reservation stretched 60 million acres. However, it was subsequently divided into five parts and much of the land was taken from them. The Pine Ridge Reservation is one of these sections, covering 2.8 million acres.
For the people of Pine Ridge, struggles with the government are not part of history. They are continuous and devastating to the Native Americans involved. In his book, “Loud Hawk: the United States versus the American Indian Movement,” Kenneth Stern describes the level of poverty he found in an area of Pine Ridge called Oglala. “Shacks were made of tarpaper and old road signs. Junked cars were dressed with torn curtains…I wondered how they slept, inside, in homes smaller than a garage.” This area has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the western hemisphere. Alcoholism runs rampant and life expectancy is very low. Stern spoke to many locals. He writes in the words of Sam Loud Hawk, “Nothing’s changed here. The GOONs and the FBI keep after us. People are still getting shot every day.”
In 1972, the FBI gave tribal president Dick Wilson’s followers, who called themselves Guardians of the Oglala Nation (GOONs) military assault rifles. These GOONs never really connected to the rest of the Lakota Nation. They had little affection for the traditional native values, and to this day terrorize citizens of the reservation. They are held accountable by Lakota citizens for the murders of over 60 AIM members and sympathizers. According to Paul Wolf, who made a presentation about the FBI’s operations to the U.N., the FBI itself launched a secret operation against the reservations and the threat it saw in AIM members there. He said that it issued a document called “FBI Paramilitary Operations in Indian Country,” which encouraged the use of “neutralization,” defined as “Shooting to kill.” At this time, the area had a higher murder rate (per capita) than any city in the country. One FBI document from 1973 stated that they were worried AIM would soon try to prevent the exploitation of resources (uranium) from the reservation. Wilson was working with the FBI for favors and he became very corrupt.
The incident resulting in the death of two FBI agents (Ronald Williams and Jack Coler) and one AIM member (Joseph Stuntz) occurred on the Jumping Bull ranch at Pine Ridge. Peltier and other members of AIM had been called by chief councils to help protect those on the reservation from GOONs and rogue officers who had been killing locals. The two agents followed a pickup truck in unmarked cars to the ranch. It is unclear who started shooting, but eventually both men were wounded. Then, according to the FBI, a group of AIM members, including Peltier, shot the agents in the head in an execution style. However, Peltier states that he tried to leave in another car, when he saw a group in a pickup truck pull up near the two wounded agents and shoot them in the head.
Once Peltier had been caught, he was charged with the murders, along with Jimmy Eagle, Bob Robideau, and Darrell Butler. They claimed that the agents never identified themselves. The other three defendants were acquitted on the basis of self-defense, but Peltier was tried by a different judge and was found guilty. Much of the evidence used in his trial has since been found unreliable.
According to Jim Messerschmidt, one of Peltier’s attorneys, the FBI had at not originally included an AR-15 rifle with the possible murder weapons, but later claimed that it was. However Messerschmidt said, “This AR-15 did not match with the .223 shell found in Coler’s trunk.” The FBI then changed their story to Peltier having aided the murderer (who is unknown), thereby being guilty himself. On top of much other misleading evidence, many of the witnesses who testified against Peltier have since come forward and said that they had been threatened and pressured into testifying by the FBI.
To this day, there is no conclusive evidence that Peltier murdered the agents or aided in their murder, but he was imprisoned while his comrades walked. According to Paul Wolf, after the incident, the FBI tried to demonize Peltier in the media. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights stated, “It is patently clear that many of the statements released to the media regarding the incident are either false, unsubstantiated, or directly misleading.” Many people, however, have realized the injustice in Peltier’s case and have decided to inform others for help. Among those who have appealed for his release are, The Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Rev. Jesse Jackson, European Parliament, and U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights Rigoberta Menchu.
Peltier is a model inmate who has helped others in issues of drugs and alcohol. He has helped reconcile differences between hostile Indian tribes using non-violent methods. He was even nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, yet, at this moment, he is locked inside Leavenworth Penitentiary.
For more information on Leonard Peltier’s struggle for freedom or to write him a letter, visit freepeltier.org or leonardpeltier.net •
Now, more than ever, people must keep in mind those who risk their freedom for their beliefs. In this period of the United States, when individual freedoms could easily be trampled, these POCs not only stand for their own freedom, but for the freedom of all people.
Leonard Peltier, a very influential POC, is a Native American activist who has been imprisoned. He is a citizen of the Anishinabe and Lakota Nations. Peltier was convicted for the murder of two FBI agents and sentenced to double life sentences in 1976. AI believes that he is a political prisoner who should be “immediately and unconditionally released.”
Peltier is a member of the American Indian Movement (AIM). AIM began during the 1960s as an organization committed to helping fellow Native Americans who were living in poverty. However, AIM soon grew into a powerful political and social movement. Its members wanted to defend Native Americans against increasing pressure from the government to assimilate and leave their land. AIM wanted to protect the treaty rights of all Native Americans.
The treaties signed by the US government which allotted specific lands to Indian Nations in the 19th century had been infringed upon and simply ignored, when much of the land of the Great Sioux Nation was opened up for homesteading. Originally, the Great Sioux reservation stretched 60 million acres. However, it was subsequently divided into five parts and much of the land was taken from them. The Pine Ridge Reservation is one of these sections, covering 2.8 million acres.
For the people of Pine Ridge, struggles with the government are not part of history. They are continuous and devastating to the Native Americans involved. In his book, “Loud Hawk: the United States versus the American Indian Movement,” Kenneth Stern describes the level of poverty he found in an area of Pine Ridge called Oglala. “Shacks were made of tarpaper and old road signs. Junked cars were dressed with torn curtains…I wondered how they slept, inside, in homes smaller than a garage.” This area has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the western hemisphere. Alcoholism runs rampant and life expectancy is very low. Stern spoke to many locals. He writes in the words of Sam Loud Hawk, “Nothing’s changed here. The GOONs and the FBI keep after us. People are still getting shot every day.”
In 1972, the FBI gave tribal president Dick Wilson’s followers, who called themselves Guardians of the Oglala Nation (GOONs) military assault rifles. These GOONs never really connected to the rest of the Lakota Nation. They had little affection for the traditional native values, and to this day terrorize citizens of the reservation. They are held accountable by Lakota citizens for the murders of over 60 AIM members and sympathizers. According to Paul Wolf, who made a presentation about the FBI’s operations to the U.N., the FBI itself launched a secret operation against the reservations and the threat it saw in AIM members there. He said that it issued a document called “FBI Paramilitary Operations in Indian Country,” which encouraged the use of “neutralization,” defined as “Shooting to kill.” At this time, the area had a higher murder rate (per capita) than any city in the country. One FBI document from 1973 stated that they were worried AIM would soon try to prevent the exploitation of resources (uranium) from the reservation. Wilson was working with the FBI for favors and he became very corrupt.
The incident resulting in the death of two FBI agents (Ronald Williams and Jack Coler) and one AIM member (Joseph Stuntz) occurred on the Jumping Bull ranch at Pine Ridge. Peltier and other members of AIM had been called by chief councils to help protect those on the reservation from GOONs and rogue officers who had been killing locals. The two agents followed a pickup truck in unmarked cars to the ranch. It is unclear who started shooting, but eventually both men were wounded. Then, according to the FBI, a group of AIM members, including Peltier, shot the agents in the head in an execution style. However, Peltier states that he tried to leave in another car, when he saw a group in a pickup truck pull up near the two wounded agents and shoot them in the head.
Once Peltier had been caught, he was charged with the murders, along with Jimmy Eagle, Bob Robideau, and Darrell Butler. They claimed that the agents never identified themselves. The other three defendants were acquitted on the basis of self-defense, but Peltier was tried by a different judge and was found guilty. Much of the evidence used in his trial has since been found unreliable.
According to Jim Messerschmidt, one of Peltier’s attorneys, the FBI had at not originally included an AR-15 rifle with the possible murder weapons, but later claimed that it was. However Messerschmidt said, “This AR-15 did not match with the .223 shell found in Coler’s trunk.” The FBI then changed their story to Peltier having aided the murderer (who is unknown), thereby being guilty himself. On top of much other misleading evidence, many of the witnesses who testified against Peltier have since come forward and said that they had been threatened and pressured into testifying by the FBI.
To this day, there is no conclusive evidence that Peltier murdered the agents or aided in their murder, but he was imprisoned while his comrades walked. According to Paul Wolf, after the incident, the FBI tried to demonize Peltier in the media. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights stated, “It is patently clear that many of the statements released to the media regarding the incident are either false, unsubstantiated, or directly misleading.” Many people, however, have realized the injustice in Peltier’s case and have decided to inform others for help. Among those who have appealed for his release are, The Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Rev. Jesse Jackson, European Parliament, and U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights Rigoberta Menchu.
Peltier is a model inmate who has helped others in issues of drugs and alcohol. He has helped reconcile differences between hostile Indian tribes using non-violent methods. He was even nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, yet, at this moment, he is locked inside Leavenworth Penitentiary.
For more information on Leonard Peltier’s struggle for freedom or to write him a letter, visit freepeltier.org or leonardpeltier.net •
ReUse Industries Turns Trash into Treasure
ReUse Industries is a community-based, non-profit organization dedicated to channeling reusable items out of landfills. Their mission is to protect the environment by reducing waste, boost the local economy by creating jobs, and provide an affordable shopping option for area residents. These days, ReUse has expanded the scope of that mission to include the creation of junk art.
With the help of local artist Joey Boyle, ReUse workers have manufactured a bed of “bike flowers” at their Albany location on Route 50. The flowers blossomed out of salvaged bicycle parts, and now serve to welcome patrons and encourage the transformation of trash into treasure.
“To me, the flowers show that trash can be more than just useful; it can also make the landscape a little prettier. The artistic side of things takes skill and patience, but it’s worth it if it inspires people to be more creative with their resources,” Max Felsher, an AmeriCorps VISTA working with ReUse Industries, said. “The hope is that the bike flowers will attract more people to our ultimate recycling center and encourage both students and residents to donate unwanted reusable items instead of throwing them away.”
Boyle’s famous flowers can also be seen in the East State Street median across from Bob Evan’s. “There’s a real demand for salvage art right now,” Boyle said. He continues to receive more and more orders for his unique creations.
In addition to the bike flowers, ReUse Industries also displays a 15-foot junk statue entitled “Rusty Salvage,” spawned from an old mattress frame and salvaged machinery components. “Aside from their aesthetic quality, the function of ‘Rusty Salvage,’ the bike flowers, and any future salvaged art, is to draw attention to ReUse Industries and the mission of the organization,” Executive Director of ReUse Industries Cathy Wilson said.
Visit any one of ReUse’s three locations: In Athens, 100 Columbus Road; in Albany, 74815 Route 50; or in Wellston, 102 South Ohio Ave. They also offer free-pick-ups of reusable items in Athens, The Plains, Albany, McArthur, Hamden, Wellston, and Jackson. Call (740) 698-8200 to schedule a pick-up. Make a difference and ReUse!
Leo DeLuca is an AmeriCorps VISTA at ReUse Industries, a community-based, non-profit organization. He is a graduate of Ohio University and a close confidant of Father Time.
With the help of local artist Joey Boyle, ReUse workers have manufactured a bed of “bike flowers” at their Albany location on Route 50. The flowers blossomed out of salvaged bicycle parts, and now serve to welcome patrons and encourage the transformation of trash into treasure.
“To me, the flowers show that trash can be more than just useful; it can also make the landscape a little prettier. The artistic side of things takes skill and patience, but it’s worth it if it inspires people to be more creative with their resources,” Max Felsher, an AmeriCorps VISTA working with ReUse Industries, said. “The hope is that the bike flowers will attract more people to our ultimate recycling center and encourage both students and residents to donate unwanted reusable items instead of throwing them away.”
Boyle’s famous flowers can also be seen in the East State Street median across from Bob Evan’s. “There’s a real demand for salvage art right now,” Boyle said. He continues to receive more and more orders for his unique creations.
In addition to the bike flowers, ReUse Industries also displays a 15-foot junk statue entitled “Rusty Salvage,” spawned from an old mattress frame and salvaged machinery components. “Aside from their aesthetic quality, the function of ‘Rusty Salvage,’ the bike flowers, and any future salvaged art, is to draw attention to ReUse Industries and the mission of the organization,” Executive Director of ReUse Industries Cathy Wilson said.
Visit any one of ReUse’s three locations: In Athens, 100 Columbus Road; in Albany, 74815 Route 50; or in Wellston, 102 South Ohio Ave. They also offer free-pick-ups of reusable items in Athens, The Plains, Albany, McArthur, Hamden, Wellston, and Jackson. Call (740) 698-8200 to schedule a pick-up. Make a difference and ReUse!
Leo DeLuca is an AmeriCorps VISTA at ReUse Industries, a community-based, non-profit organization. He is a graduate of Ohio University and a close confidant of Father Time.
Iran and the nuclear issue: a critical view
The Bush administration has not ruled out a military intervention against Iran. It is opposed to Iran’s development of a capacity to enrich uranium as one major step toward creating a nuclear power industry. The administration fears that, once Iran has this capacity, it will have the potential means for building nuclear weapons. And, because it has defined Iran as a “terrorist state” that cannot be trusted to have nuclear weapons, the administration insists Iran must be stopped now. I am not convinced that Iran is a terrorist, or rogue, state. And I am opposed to any US military intervention against Iran. My reading has led me to believe that it would be foolhardy and very costly to the US economically and militarily, would provide momentum for the further consolidation of an imperial presidency and the stifling of democracy here in the US, would have devastating consequences for Iran, would likely generate more conflict across the Middle East, and would likely strengthen the position of Islamic fundamentalists in Iran and across the Middle East.
At the same time, the administration’s position does not seem unreasonable when it is considered out of context. Indeed, most of us do not want to see a further proliferation of states with nuclear weapons. The chances of nuclear war, by design or accident, and the chances that terrorist groups will acquire the materials for building a nuclear bomb, increase as more countries have the bomb. There is already a massive amount of nuclear material that is unaccounted for and possibly accessible to terrorist groups. It would not take very many nuclear bombs to generate a “nuclear winter” and end civilization as we know it. Along with global warming, it is one of the great threats to our very survival as a species.
Even though Iran has a right to develop nuclear power for civilian and/or peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), I personally am opposed to nuclear power to generate electricity, because of the dangers of accidents at nuclear plants, the accumulation of highly radioactive waste at these plants, the lack of effective means to dispose of nuclear waste, the contamination of soil and water sources around nuclear plants, the lack of options for what to do with highly contaminated nuclear plants when they are too old to go on operating, the vulnerability of nuclear facilities to terrorist attacks, and the increased chance that terrorists will be able to obtain materials for the construction of nuclear weapons. In her new book, Nuclear Power is Not the Answer, Helen Calicott discusses these problems in some detail, and also adds, “Nuclear power is not ‘clean and green,’ as the industry claims, because large amounts of traditional fossil fuels are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run nuclear power reactors, to construct the massive concrete reactor buildings, and to transport and store the toxic radioactive waste created by the nuclear process.”
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
This treaty provides the basic legal framework of issues regarding both nuclear power generation for electricity and the development of the capacity to build nuclear weapons. While the International Atomic Energy Agency is given the authority to monitor the nuclear facilities of signatories, the NPT has no enforcement provision, although violations may be referred to the UN Security Council for action if there is concern that there is an imminent threat to other countries. In the present Iranian case, European countries outside of the UN framework have been attempting to persuade Iran not to go ahead with its development of nuclear power. The matter has been brought to the UN’s Security Council, and Iran has been given a deadline for giving up this project. The United States is on record of wanting to impose sanctions on Iraq if it fails to comply with the deadline and of keeping “all options on the table,” including military intervention.
There are at least four nuclear powers that have not signed the NPT – Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. The United States has diplomatic relations and other relations with three of the four illegal nuclear powers. Even though India is a nuclear renegade, the Bush administration has recently entered into an agreement with the Indian government to provide it with nuclear components for its nuclear power plants. India has the capacity to enrich uranium for both peaceful and military purposes. There is no way to keep India from using nuclear components for military purposes, even when an agreement prohibits this.
The United States itself also violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the NPT in another way. Article VI of the treaty, the disarmament provision, requires countries with nuclear weapons to eliminate these weapons. The Bush administration has done little to comply with this provision. It has over 10,000 nuclear bombs, some ready for launching and some deactivated but not dismantled. It is developing new types of nuclear bombs. It is modernizing its nuclear arsenal, which may require testing. It has failed to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It is going ahead with the development of missile systems that will enhance the ability of the United States to launch or intercept nuclear bombs and to militarize space
Helping frame the issue
Many experts believe that Iran is five to ten years away from being able to build nuclear weapons. The Iranians are obviously making technological progress and are now able, for the first time, to enrich small quantities of uranium, which moves them closer to the point of being able to produce energy for peaceful purposes. They are still a long way from being able to enrich weapon grade uranium. Within the present NPT framework, Iran does have the right to develop a nuclear power capacity under Article IV.
Iran has consistently claimed that it will not divert materials from its non-military nuclear facilities for the development of nuclear weapons. Can we believe them? Diversion is possible at some point in 5-10 years to come. The United States says, if Iran has the opportunity, it will divert. The IAEA says it doesn’t know. How do United States officials know? They don’t. There is no hard evidence at present that Iran is in violation of the NPT itself. All of its current activities with respect to nuclear research and uranium enrichment conform to what is permitted under the treaty.
Whatever Iran’s goals for the future, there are understandable reasons why Iran would want to develop a nuclear-weapons capacity at some point in their future. Here are just four examples of the relevant evidence from the Monthly Review (April, 2006). First, Iran “is surrounded by countries with weapons of mass destruction: including Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan, all of which have nuclear weapons (as well as chemical and probably biological weapons capabilities), Syria and Egypt, both of which have chemical weapons, and Turkey, with its NATO-based nuclear weapons and massive military capacities.” Also noteworthy is the fact that “there are now 200,000 US and allied troops in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. The United States has military bases almost completely ringing Iran in Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgzstan.” Meanwhile “…US nuclear weapons deployment in and around the Persian Gulf, especially through the presence of the US Fifth Fleet in the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, represent a constant threat to Iran.” And of course, we cannot forget the “State of the Union” address where Bush stated that “The US declared Iran a member of the ‘Axis of Evil’ in 2002 and claimed it has a right to ‘preventive war’ against such ‘evil’ states. This threat was subsequently carried out in the case of Iran’s neighbor Iraq.”
One of the Bush administration’s central contentions is that Iran is especially dangerous – a rogue state – “and will use nuclear weapons against Israel once it has them” and/or give them to terrorists to use against the United States itself. Randal Mark disagrees with this view and offers the following reasons (source: Randal Mark, “Nonproliferation: From Noble Lie to Pretext for War,” www.antiwar.com March 21, 2006):
• “…the modern Iranian regime has never invaded any other country”
• “Such support as it has given to Hezbollah and other resistance groups fighting Israel should be compared with US support for the Contras in Nicaragua” – such activities have been focused and will be evaluated variously depending on one’s perspective.
Does the United States have a “hidden agenda?” There is no definitive answer to this question. Nonetheless, my sources refer, for example, to how the Bush administration wants to eliminate a state that is defined as unfriendly and prevent it from consolidating its control of a major source of oil, limit Iran’s agreements with China to develop some of the Iranian oil fields, and divert the public’s attention away from the debacle in Iraq.
The Bush administration is not opposed to the on-going negotiations involving the IAEA and some European countries with Iran. However, it has not been willing itself to become directly involved in negotiations with Iran, so it hasn’t put the diplomatic option to a real test. A number of sources maintain that the United States has to drop its preconditions for negotiations and drop its regime change ambitions.
At the same time, the administration has never given up the military option, which the President believes is a decision he can make independently of the US Congress. The Bush administration has not ruled out a preventive-strike against Iran. That said, the United States is prepared to launch an air attack against selected targets in Iran. Some think the United States might even use nuclear bombs in an invasion of Iran. There is contingency planning in the DOD regarding the use of nuclear weapons in an attack on Iran.
In the event that the United States does decide to invade Iran, there are many potential costs. First is the probable further loss of US credibility. The Editors of Monthly Review point out, “There is every reason to believe that opposition to a US ‘preventive war’ against the people of Iran is almost universal outside the US, while tens of millions of people inside the US itself oppose such an expansion of the Middle East Conflict” (April 2006). Second, it is important no note that threatening or attacking Iran would violate international law. An attack on Iran would likely be unconstitutional, without the support of Congress.
Iran is in much better position than Iraq was to respond to a US attack (consider the following two points). First, Iran has the means to launch a devastating retaliation with conventional weapons, including its Shahab-3 missiles, which can reach targets in Israel with reasonable accuracy. And Iran has other military options, including intervention on the Shiite side in Iraq, which could turn the disastrous US occupation there into a worse nightmare, with skyrocketing casualties. Iran could also vastly increase its support to Islamist resistance forces in the Palestinian territories and to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Second, an Israeli or US attack on Iran would almost certainly strengthen Islamist tendencies throughout the region as well as put intense pressure on Arab governments to react much more strongly against the United States and Israel. And heightened threats against Iran would only strengthen the hard-liners there. By all accounts, Iranians--even those who detest the mullahs--overwhelmingly support their country's nuclear ambitions. A US attack on Iran would be costly and destabilizing and lead to a protracted war in the region. This would of course lead to skyrocketing oil prices. The US military is already over-stretched and is not prepared for another extended conflict. It also important to note that a US attack on Iran would strengthen China’s growing influence in the region.
It’s better to live with an Iran that seems determined to develop a nuclear capacity than to intervene militarily against Iran. We must bear in mind that Iran is some years away from having the capability to build nuclear bombs.
What effect would Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons have on the proliferation of such weapons? (a) Saudi Arabia and Syria might want them but neither country has the resources – and they would likely be pressured to give up the idea; (b) Turkey might feel pressure to match Iran and acquire its own nuclear weapons – “but EU pressure would almost certainly prevent any movement in that direction”; (c) It might make the US less reckless in its use of military force in the Middle East; (d) It might force Israel to the negotiating table for real. Iran has demonstrated moderation and pragmatism in its foreign policy of recent years, as national interests and strategic calculations have taken precedence over ideology.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives
Many of us in the peace movement or who are critics of the Bush administration’s Middle East policies don’t want Iran or any other non-nuclear country to build or retain nuclear bombs. We also don’t want the United States to invade or bomb Iran. What then do we want? It may be useful to clarify what we think are reasonable goals that would redirect US policy way from the sanctions and military options, and that would pave the way for the reversal of nuclear proliferation.
The United States must take the lead and set an example by reducing its nuclear stockpile, ceasing development of new nuclear weapons, and opening itself up to independent international inspections. In the meantime, the United States should support initiatives for genuine diplomacy with Iran, rather than sanctions or military intervention. On this point, Michael Klare recommends that genuine negotiations on the US side “means accepting Iran as a legitimate negotiating partner and approaching the issues in a professional manner. Negotiating with Tehran doesn't mean endorsing the clerical regime; it simply means being prepared to reach a compromise that's in everyone's best interest. It requires shunning all talk of "regime change" and any inclination to use force” (“Defusing the Iran Crisis,” www.tompaine.com, March 3, 2006).
Support legislation that forces the Bush administration to consult with the US Congress before ever launching a military attack on Iran. For example, Congressman Peter DeFazio’s H.Con.Res.391 expresses “the sense of the Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran with respect to its nuclear program without first obtaining authorization from Congress.”
The only solution at this stage is to impose a worldwide moratorium on the production of weapons-grade fissionable materials, and those materials already produced should be placed under strict international control in all countries including our own. This would mean revising the NPT or replacing it with a stronger treaty. We must also support the proposal for an International Sustainable Energy Agency. According to Richard Falk and David Krieger in The Non-Profileration Treaty is Failing: What Now? “…an international sustainable energy agency should immediately be established and generously funded to extend aid to poorer countries to develop various types of sustainable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal). Such a step would both ease the prospects of a global energy crunch, and would contribute to environmental protection.”
Bob Sheak is a professor emeritus in sociology from Ohio University. He moved to Athens in the summer of 1971, taught until 2005, and has engaged in periodic peace and politically-oriented work over these years.
At the same time, the administration’s position does not seem unreasonable when it is considered out of context. Indeed, most of us do not want to see a further proliferation of states with nuclear weapons. The chances of nuclear war, by design or accident, and the chances that terrorist groups will acquire the materials for building a nuclear bomb, increase as more countries have the bomb. There is already a massive amount of nuclear material that is unaccounted for and possibly accessible to terrorist groups. It would not take very many nuclear bombs to generate a “nuclear winter” and end civilization as we know it. Along with global warming, it is one of the great threats to our very survival as a species.
Even though Iran has a right to develop nuclear power for civilian and/or peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), I personally am opposed to nuclear power to generate electricity, because of the dangers of accidents at nuclear plants, the accumulation of highly radioactive waste at these plants, the lack of effective means to dispose of nuclear waste, the contamination of soil and water sources around nuclear plants, the lack of options for what to do with highly contaminated nuclear plants when they are too old to go on operating, the vulnerability of nuclear facilities to terrorist attacks, and the increased chance that terrorists will be able to obtain materials for the construction of nuclear weapons. In her new book, Nuclear Power is Not the Answer, Helen Calicott discusses these problems in some detail, and also adds, “Nuclear power is not ‘clean and green,’ as the industry claims, because large amounts of traditional fossil fuels are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run nuclear power reactors, to construct the massive concrete reactor buildings, and to transport and store the toxic radioactive waste created by the nuclear process.”
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
This treaty provides the basic legal framework of issues regarding both nuclear power generation for electricity and the development of the capacity to build nuclear weapons. While the International Atomic Energy Agency is given the authority to monitor the nuclear facilities of signatories, the NPT has no enforcement provision, although violations may be referred to the UN Security Council for action if there is concern that there is an imminent threat to other countries. In the present Iranian case, European countries outside of the UN framework have been attempting to persuade Iran not to go ahead with its development of nuclear power. The matter has been brought to the UN’s Security Council, and Iran has been given a deadline for giving up this project. The United States is on record of wanting to impose sanctions on Iraq if it fails to comply with the deadline and of keeping “all options on the table,” including military intervention.
There are at least four nuclear powers that have not signed the NPT – Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. The United States has diplomatic relations and other relations with three of the four illegal nuclear powers. Even though India is a nuclear renegade, the Bush administration has recently entered into an agreement with the Indian government to provide it with nuclear components for its nuclear power plants. India has the capacity to enrich uranium for both peaceful and military purposes. There is no way to keep India from using nuclear components for military purposes, even when an agreement prohibits this.
The United States itself also violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the NPT in another way. Article VI of the treaty, the disarmament provision, requires countries with nuclear weapons to eliminate these weapons. The Bush administration has done little to comply with this provision. It has over 10,000 nuclear bombs, some ready for launching and some deactivated but not dismantled. It is developing new types of nuclear bombs. It is modernizing its nuclear arsenal, which may require testing. It has failed to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It is going ahead with the development of missile systems that will enhance the ability of the United States to launch or intercept nuclear bombs and to militarize space
Helping frame the issue
Many experts believe that Iran is five to ten years away from being able to build nuclear weapons. The Iranians are obviously making technological progress and are now able, for the first time, to enrich small quantities of uranium, which moves them closer to the point of being able to produce energy for peaceful purposes. They are still a long way from being able to enrich weapon grade uranium. Within the present NPT framework, Iran does have the right to develop a nuclear power capacity under Article IV.
Iran has consistently claimed that it will not divert materials from its non-military nuclear facilities for the development of nuclear weapons. Can we believe them? Diversion is possible at some point in 5-10 years to come. The United States says, if Iran has the opportunity, it will divert. The IAEA says it doesn’t know. How do United States officials know? They don’t. There is no hard evidence at present that Iran is in violation of the NPT itself. All of its current activities with respect to nuclear research and uranium enrichment conform to what is permitted under the treaty.
Whatever Iran’s goals for the future, there are understandable reasons why Iran would want to develop a nuclear-weapons capacity at some point in their future. Here are just four examples of the relevant evidence from the Monthly Review (April, 2006). First, Iran “is surrounded by countries with weapons of mass destruction: including Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan, all of which have nuclear weapons (as well as chemical and probably biological weapons capabilities), Syria and Egypt, both of which have chemical weapons, and Turkey, with its NATO-based nuclear weapons and massive military capacities.” Also noteworthy is the fact that “there are now 200,000 US and allied troops in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. The United States has military bases almost completely ringing Iran in Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgzstan.” Meanwhile “…US nuclear weapons deployment in and around the Persian Gulf, especially through the presence of the US Fifth Fleet in the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, represent a constant threat to Iran.” And of course, we cannot forget the “State of the Union” address where Bush stated that “The US declared Iran a member of the ‘Axis of Evil’ in 2002 and claimed it has a right to ‘preventive war’ against such ‘evil’ states. This threat was subsequently carried out in the case of Iran’s neighbor Iraq.”
One of the Bush administration’s central contentions is that Iran is especially dangerous – a rogue state – “and will use nuclear weapons against Israel once it has them” and/or give them to terrorists to use against the United States itself. Randal Mark disagrees with this view and offers the following reasons (source: Randal Mark, “Nonproliferation: From Noble Lie to Pretext for War,” www.antiwar.com March 21, 2006):
• “…the modern Iranian regime has never invaded any other country”
• “Such support as it has given to Hezbollah and other resistance groups fighting Israel should be compared with US support for the Contras in Nicaragua” – such activities have been focused and will be evaluated variously depending on one’s perspective.
Does the United States have a “hidden agenda?” There is no definitive answer to this question. Nonetheless, my sources refer, for example, to how the Bush administration wants to eliminate a state that is defined as unfriendly and prevent it from consolidating its control of a major source of oil, limit Iran’s agreements with China to develop some of the Iranian oil fields, and divert the public’s attention away from the debacle in Iraq.
The Bush administration is not opposed to the on-going negotiations involving the IAEA and some European countries with Iran. However, it has not been willing itself to become directly involved in negotiations with Iran, so it hasn’t put the diplomatic option to a real test. A number of sources maintain that the United States has to drop its preconditions for negotiations and drop its regime change ambitions.
At the same time, the administration has never given up the military option, which the President believes is a decision he can make independently of the US Congress. The Bush administration has not ruled out a preventive-strike against Iran. That said, the United States is prepared to launch an air attack against selected targets in Iran. Some think the United States might even use nuclear bombs in an invasion of Iran. There is contingency planning in the DOD regarding the use of nuclear weapons in an attack on Iran.
In the event that the United States does decide to invade Iran, there are many potential costs. First is the probable further loss of US credibility. The Editors of Monthly Review point out, “There is every reason to believe that opposition to a US ‘preventive war’ against the people of Iran is almost universal outside the US, while tens of millions of people inside the US itself oppose such an expansion of the Middle East Conflict” (April 2006). Second, it is important no note that threatening or attacking Iran would violate international law. An attack on Iran would likely be unconstitutional, without the support of Congress.
Iran is in much better position than Iraq was to respond to a US attack (consider the following two points). First, Iran has the means to launch a devastating retaliation with conventional weapons, including its Shahab-3 missiles, which can reach targets in Israel with reasonable accuracy. And Iran has other military options, including intervention on the Shiite side in Iraq, which could turn the disastrous US occupation there into a worse nightmare, with skyrocketing casualties. Iran could also vastly increase its support to Islamist resistance forces in the Palestinian territories and to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Second, an Israeli or US attack on Iran would almost certainly strengthen Islamist tendencies throughout the region as well as put intense pressure on Arab governments to react much more strongly against the United States and Israel. And heightened threats against Iran would only strengthen the hard-liners there. By all accounts, Iranians--even those who detest the mullahs--overwhelmingly support their country's nuclear ambitions. A US attack on Iran would be costly and destabilizing and lead to a protracted war in the region. This would of course lead to skyrocketing oil prices. The US military is already over-stretched and is not prepared for another extended conflict. It also important to note that a US attack on Iran would strengthen China’s growing influence in the region.
It’s better to live with an Iran that seems determined to develop a nuclear capacity than to intervene militarily against Iran. We must bear in mind that Iran is some years away from having the capability to build nuclear bombs.
What effect would Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons have on the proliferation of such weapons? (a) Saudi Arabia and Syria might want them but neither country has the resources – and they would likely be pressured to give up the idea; (b) Turkey might feel pressure to match Iran and acquire its own nuclear weapons – “but EU pressure would almost certainly prevent any movement in that direction”; (c) It might make the US less reckless in its use of military force in the Middle East; (d) It might force Israel to the negotiating table for real. Iran has demonstrated moderation and pragmatism in its foreign policy of recent years, as national interests and strategic calculations have taken precedence over ideology.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives
Many of us in the peace movement or who are critics of the Bush administration’s Middle East policies don’t want Iran or any other non-nuclear country to build or retain nuclear bombs. We also don’t want the United States to invade or bomb Iran. What then do we want? It may be useful to clarify what we think are reasonable goals that would redirect US policy way from the sanctions and military options, and that would pave the way for the reversal of nuclear proliferation.
The United States must take the lead and set an example by reducing its nuclear stockpile, ceasing development of new nuclear weapons, and opening itself up to independent international inspections. In the meantime, the United States should support initiatives for genuine diplomacy with Iran, rather than sanctions or military intervention. On this point, Michael Klare recommends that genuine negotiations on the US side “means accepting Iran as a legitimate negotiating partner and approaching the issues in a professional manner. Negotiating with Tehran doesn't mean endorsing the clerical regime; it simply means being prepared to reach a compromise that's in everyone's best interest. It requires shunning all talk of "regime change" and any inclination to use force” (“Defusing the Iran Crisis,” www.tompaine.com, March 3, 2006).
Support legislation that forces the Bush administration to consult with the US Congress before ever launching a military attack on Iran. For example, Congressman Peter DeFazio’s H.Con.Res.391 expresses “the sense of the Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran with respect to its nuclear program without first obtaining authorization from Congress.”
The only solution at this stage is to impose a worldwide moratorium on the production of weapons-grade fissionable materials, and those materials already produced should be placed under strict international control in all countries including our own. This would mean revising the NPT or replacing it with a stronger treaty. We must also support the proposal for an International Sustainable Energy Agency. According to Richard Falk and David Krieger in The Non-Profileration Treaty is Failing: What Now? “…an international sustainable energy agency should immediately be established and generously funded to extend aid to poorer countries to develop various types of sustainable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal). Such a step would both ease the prospects of a global energy crunch, and would contribute to environmental protection.”
Bob Sheak is a professor emeritus in sociology from Ohio University. He moved to Athens in the summer of 1971, taught until 2005, and has engaged in periodic peace and politically-oriented work over these years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)