Waging
Peace in the Trump Era:
What are some of the Spirit-led and most effective ways to respond to Trump's
militarism and jingoism?
Workshop with David Hartsough and Anthony Manousos
3:15-4:45 pm: Monday, July 24, at the Plenary
Tent of Pacifc Yearly Meeting, Walker Creek Ranch
Agenda
·
Worship
(5 mins)
·
Intro
(10 mins)
·
David
(15 mins)
·
Anthony
(15 mins)
·
Brainstorming
in small groups (15)
·
What
are we called to do? (20 mins)
·
How
can our peace and justice work be more effective? (10 minutes)
ü Responding to the Nuclear Threat and Ongoing
Wars
Support H.R. 669 and S. 200,
the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017
Washington – January 24, 2017. Congressman Ted W. Lieu (D | Los Angeles
County) and Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Massachusetts) introduced H.R. 669 and S. 200,
the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017.
This legislation would prohibit the President from launching a nuclear first
strike without a declaration of war by Congress. The crucial issue of
nuclear “first use” is more urgent than ever now that President Donald Trump
has the power to launch a nuclear war at a moment’s notice.
Upon
introduction of this legislation, Mr. Lieu issued the following statement:
“It is a frightening reality
that the U.S. now has a Commander-in-Chief who has demonstrated ignorance of
the nuclear triad, stated his desire to be ‘unpredictable’ with nuclear
weapons, and as President-elect was making sweeping statements about U.S.
nuclear policy over Twitter. Congress must act to preserve global stability by
restricting the circumstances under which the U.S. would be the first nation to
use a nuclear weapon. Our Founders created a system of checks and balances, and
it is essential for that standard to be applied to the potentially
civilization-ending threat of nuclear war. I am proud to introduce the
Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017 with Sen. Markey to
realign our nation’s nuclear weapons launch policy with the Constitution and
work towards a safer world.”
Upon
introduction of this legislation, Senator Markey issued the following
statement:
“Nuclear war poses the
gravest risk to human survival. Yet, President Trump has suggested that he
would consider launching nuclear attacks against terrorists. Unfortunately, by
maintaining the option of using nuclear weapons first in a conflict, U.S.
policy provides him with that power. In a crisis with another nuclear-armed
country, this policy drastically increases the risk of unintended nuclear
escalation. Neither President Trump, nor any other president, should be allowed
to use nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack.
By restricting the first use of nuclear weapons, this legislation
enshrines that simple principle into law. I thank Rep. Lieu for his partnership
on this common-sense bill during this critical time in our nation’s history.”
ü Support UN Treaty Calling for Nuclear
Disarmament
A Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty – Rx for Survival
by Robert F. Dodge, M.D.
Nuclear weapons have threatened humanity for 72 years, ultimately
becoming the greatest eminent threat to our survival. This past Friday, July 7,
nuclear weapons at long last joined the ranks of other weapons of mass
destruction including biologic and chemical weapons, landmines and cluster
munitions in being banned and declared illegal under international treaty law.
The U.N. adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Under Article 6 of the Treaty, states are prohibited from developing, testing,
producing, manufacturing, acquiring, possessing, stockpiling, transferring,
deploying, stationing, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons, under any
circumstances. It also makes it illegal to assist, encourage or induce, in
any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a state party under
this treaty, extending the prohibitions to non-state actors as
well.
While nuclear weapons still exist, any nation that violates the
above conditions will now be in breach of international and humanitarian law
and should be considered a pariah state and ultimately on the wrong side of
history. As with other weapons of mass destruction, the weapons are
usually banned and then subsequently eliminated.
This historic effort establishes a new norm and when in force will
be the law of all lands. This Treaty has been years in the making and comes
from the convergence of the failure of the nuclear weapons states to
meet their legally binding obligation for 47 years, under article 6 of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to work in good faith to eliminate
nuclear weapons and recent scientific evidence demonstrating humanitarian
consequences far worse than previously imagined of even a small limited
regional nuclear war. Such a scenario would put much of humanity at risk from
the associated climate change and nuclear famine that would follow,
lasting decades into the future.
The humanitarian case has taken this treaty process forward from
meetings in Oslo, Mexico, Vienna and to the United Nations, whose member
nation-states gave majority approval last December for the treaty to be
negotiated this year. The process has been driven forward by the International
Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) working with civil society.
Representatives of 129 non-nuclear nations including the International Red
Cross and the Holy See have worked together and made clear through this treaty
that they will no longer be held hostage or bullied by the nuclear nations.
While there is not one fewer nuclear weapon on the planet, this
treaty focuses the world’s attention on the nuclear powers and the
international institutions that make the existence of these weapons possible.
It highlights the humanitarian costs to victims, particularly indigenous
peoples, women and girls, the hibakusha as well as the catastrophic effects on
the environment that have long been the silent victims of the testing,
development and use of these weapons.
The treaty adopted by an overwhelming majority of 122 in favor and
1 against, the Netherlands, and 1 abstention Singapore, establishes a new
international norm and does not specifically establish enforcement
mechanisms, which are otherwise left to the court of public opinion and
adherence to international norms. This does not differ from other international
treaties banning weapons of mass destruction such as chemical weapons,
biological weapons, and land mines.
This treaty process has been boycotted by the nuclear weapons
states. In particular, protestations of the United States and Russia--who together
possess approximately 93 percent of the 15,000 weapons in today’s global
arsenals and who have effectively bullied the other nuclear nations with their
rhetorical double speak. Voicing their support for a world without
nuclear weapons, they professed the need to be ‘realistic’ due to the dangers
of these weapons and the need for a strong deterrence, thus precluding their
ability to participate in this treaty process.
They have remained oblivious and hostage themselves to this
mythological deterrence argument that has been the principal driver of the arms
race since its inception, including the current new arms race initiated by the
United States with a proposal to spend $1 trillion in the next three decades to
rebuild and expand our nuclear arsenals. Under these deterrence theories, each
nation must maintain a superiority or generational advantage over its
adversaries, thus fueling the ever accelerating and growing arms race to
oblivion.
The adopted Treaty bans nuclear weapons and establishes a framework
to mount an effective legal, political, economic, and social challenge to the
concept, policies, and practices of nuclear “deterrence” and to the existence
of nuclear weapons themselves in order to eliminate them and all related
programs. The Treaty will be open for signature to all States of the United
Nations on September 19 at the U.N. The Treaty shall enter into force
90 days after the 50th State has ratified, signed or accepted it.
This Treaty represents the resolve of the negotiating states and
civil society and puts us on a path to a nuclear weapon-free world. In the
future when the United States and other nuclear states are asked, what did we
do when our planet was threatened, what will be our response? What will
we say when it is recognized that we were on the wrong side of history and our
very survival was threatened?
Robert F. Dodge, M.D., is a practicing
family physician, writes for PeaceVoice, and serves on the boards of
the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Beyond War,Physicians
for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, and Citizens
for Peaceful Resolutions
ü Speak out and take action against the escalation
of wars in the Middle East and elsewhere
The U.S. State
of War - July 2017
by Nicolas J S Davies
The
US bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria is now the heaviest since the bombing of
Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos in the 1960s-70s, with 84,000 bombs and missiles dropped between 2014
and the end of May 2017 That is nearly triple the 29,200 bombs and missiles dropped
on Iraq in the “Shock and Awe” campaign of 2003.
The
Obama administration escalated the
bombing campaign last October, as the U.S.-Iraqi assault on Mosul began,
dropping 12,290 bombs and missiles between October and the end of January when
President Obama left office. The Trump administration has further
escalated the campaign, dropping another 14,965 bombs and missiles since February 1st. May saw
the heaviest bombing yet, with 4,374 bombs and missiles dropped.
The
U.K.-based Airwars.org monitor
As
the U.S. and its allies closed in on Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria, and
as U.S. forces now occupy eight military bases in
Syria, Islamic State and its allies have struck
back in Manchester and London; occupied Marawi, a city of 200,000 in the
Philippines; and exploded a huge truck bomb inside
the fortifications of the “Green Zone” in Kabul, Afghanistan.
What
began in
2001 as a misdirected use of military force to
punish a group of formerly U.S.-backed jihadis in Afghanistan for the crimes of September 11th has
escalated into a global asymmetric war. Every country destroyed or
destabilized by U.S. military action is now a breeding ground for
terrorism. It would be foolish to believe that this cannot get much, much
worse, as long as both sides continue to justify their own escalations of
violence as responses to the violence of their enemies, instead of trying to
deescalate the now global violence and chaos.
There
are once again 10,000 US troops in
Afghanistan, up from 8,500 in April, with reports that four thousand more may
be deployed soon. Hundreds of thousands of
Afghans have been killed in 15 years of
war, but the Taliban now control more of the country than
at any time since the U.S. invasion in 2001.
The
US is giving vital support to the Saudi-led war
in Yemen, supporting a blockade of Yemeni ports and
providing intelligence and in-air refueling to the Saudi and allied warplanes
that have been bombing Yemen since 2015. UN reports of 10,000 civilians killed are
surely only a fraction of the true numbers killed, and thousands more have died
from disease and hunger.
Now
Yemen is facing a humanitarian crisis and a raging cholera epidemic due
to lack of clean water or medicine caused by the bombing and the blockade. The UN
is warning that millions of Yemenis could die of famine and disease. A Senate bill to
restrict some U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia was defeated by 53 votes (48
Republicans and 5 Democrats) to 47 in June.
Closer
to home, U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) recently hosted a conference with
the presidents of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador in Miami. This
signaled a further militarization of the U.S. war on drugs in Central America
and efforts to limit immigration from those countries, even as a report by State and Justice Department
inspector generals held State Department and Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) agents responsible for the killing of four innocent
civilians (one man, two women and a 14-year-old boy) by machine-gun fire from a
State Department helicopter near Ahuas in Honduras in 2012.
The
inspector generals’ report found
that DEA officials repeatedly lied to Congress about this incident,
pretending the Hondurans were killed in a shoot-out with drug traffickers,
raising serious doubts about accountability for escalating U.S. paramilitary
operations in Central America.
Right
wing opposition protests in Venezuela have turned more violent, with 99 people killed since
April, as the protests have failed to mobilize enough popular support to topple
the leftist government of Nicolas Maduro. The U.S. supports the opposition and
has led diplomatic efforts to force the
government to resign, so there is a danger that this could escalate into a
US-backed civil war.
Meanwhile
in Colombia, right wing death squads are
once again operating in areas where the FARC has disarmed, killing and
threatening people to drive them off land coveted by wealthy landowners.
Looming
over our increasingly war-torn world are renewed U.S. threats of military
action against North Korea and Iran, both of which have more robust defenses
than any that U.S. forces have encountered since the American War in Vietnam. Rising tensions with Russia and
China risk even greater, even existential dangers, as symbolized by the
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' Doomsday Clock, whose hands now stand at 2-1/2 minutes
to midnight.
Although
our post-9/11 wars have probably killed at least 2 million people in
the countries we have attacked, occupied or destabilized, U.S. forces have
suffered historically low numbers of casualties in these operations.
There is a real danger that this has given U.S. political and military leaders,
and to some extent the American public, a false sense of the scale of U.S.
casualties and other serious consequences we should look forward to as our
leaders escalate our current wars, issue new threats against Iran and
North Korea, and stoke rising tensions with Russia and China.
This
is the state of war in the United States in July 2017.
Nicolas
J S Davies, syndicated by PeaceVoice,
is the author of Blood
On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. This
article is adapted from remarks delivered at a “Close Guantanamo” march from
the Trump National Doral Miami resort to U.S. Southern Command Headquarters on
June 25th 2017 to mark the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.
Actions:
Northern California
March for Nuclear Abolition
& Global Survival
No Nukes! No Walls! No Wars! No
Warming!
Wed., August 9, 2017 at 8am
Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, Corner of Vasco & Patterson Pass Rds.
PROGRAM 8 AM –
Daniel Ellsberg (pictured) renowned whistleblower, former Pentagon war
planner, disarmament advocate;
Emma’s Revolution acclaimed singer-songwriting duo of Pat Humphries and
Sandy O;
Christine Hong, North Korea expert, UC Santa Cruz;
Marylia Kelley, nuclear weapons watchdog, Executive Director at
Tri-Valley CAREs;
Barbara Rose Johnson, advisor to the Marshall Islands radiation claims
tribunal, senior research fellow, Santa Cruz;
Jan Kirsch, M.D., M.P.H., medical oncologist, global warming specialist
at SF Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility; Hibakusha speaker invited.
9:15 AM - March begins. Bring enlarged photos of people, animals or
nature for which you care deeply; drummers, singers, guitarists, traditional
Japanese bon dance & symbolic die-in at the Lab’s West Gate; followed by an
opportunity to peaceably risk arrest in the gates
Southern California
Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace and Physicians for
Social Responsibility are planning events in August around the issue of nuclear
disarmament. For more details, contact Anthony Manousos at
interfaithquaker@aol.com
No comments:
Post a Comment