Should NATO Be Handling World Security? Peace Action board member Larry Wittner on Huffington Post

So, I was planning to write a post-NATO Summit op-ed (and we may well have more reports, photos, etc. on our terrific work in Chicago soon) but hadn’t gotten around to it. Which is just as well, because Peace Action board member Larry Wittner published this very comprehensive yet concise piece about NATO on Huffington Post. Here it is:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (better known as NATO) is in the news once again thanks to a NATO Summit meeting in Chicago over the weekend of May 19-20 and to large public demonstrations in Chicago against this military pact.

NATO’s website defines the alliance’s mission as “Peace and Security,” and shows two children lying in the grass, accompanied by a bird, a flower and the happy twittering of birds. There is no mention of the fact that NATO is the world’s most powerful military pact, or that NATO nations account for 70 percent of the world’s annual $1.74 trillion in military spending.

The organizers of the demonstrations, put together by peace and social justice groups, assailed NATO for bogging the world down in endless war and for diverting vast resources to militarism.According to a spokesperson for one of the protest groups, Peace Action: “It’s time to retire NATO and form a new alliance to address unemployment, hunger, and climate change.”

NATO was launched in April 1949, at a time when Western leaders feared that the Soviet Union, if left unchecked, would invade Western Europe. The U.S. government played a key role in organizing the alliance, which brought in not only West European nations, but the United States and Canada. Dominated by the United States, NATO had a purely defensive mission — to safeguard its members from military attack, presumably by the Soviet Union.

That attack never occurred, either because it was deterred by NATO’s existence or because the Soviet government had no intention of attacking in the first place. We shall probably never know.

In any case, with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, it seemed that NATO had outlived its usefulness.

But vast military establishments, like other bureaucracies, rarely just fade away. If the original mission no longer exists, new missions can be found. And so NATO’s military might was subsequently employed to bomb Yugoslavia, to conduct counter-insurgency warfare in Afghanistan, and to bomb Libya. Meanwhile, NATO expanded its membership and military facilities to East European nations right along Russia’s border, thus creating renewed tension with that major military power and providing it with an incentive to organize a countervailing military pact, perhaps with China.

None of this seems likely to end soon. In the days preceding the Chicago meeting, NATO’s new, sweeping role was highlighted by Oana Lungescu, a NATO spokesperson, who announced that the Summit would “discuss the Alliance’s overall posture in deterring and defending against the full range of threats in the 21st century, and take stock of NATO’s mix of conventional, nuclear, and missile defense forces.”

In fairness to NATO planners, it should be noted that, when it comes to global matters, they are operating in a relative vacuum. There are real international security problems, and some entity should certainly be addressing them.

But is NATO the proper entity? After all, NATO is a military pact, dominated by the United States and composed of a relatively small group of self-selecting European and North American nations. The vast majority of the world’s countries do not belong to NATO and have no influence upon it. Who appointed NATO as the representative of the world’s people? Why should the public in India, in Brazil, in China, in South Africa, in Argentina, or most other nations identify with the decisions of NATO’s military commanders?

The organization that does represent the nations and people of the world is the United Nations. Designed to save the planet from “the scourge of war,” the United Nations has a Security Council (on which the United States has permanent membership) that is supposed to handle world security issues. Unlike NATO, whose decisions are often controversial and sometimes questionable, the United Nations almost invariably comes forward with decisions that have broad international support and, furthermore, show considerable wisdom and military restraint.

The problem with UN decisions is not that they are bad ones, but that they are difficult to enforce. And the major reason for the difficulty in enforcement is that the Security Council is hamstrung by a veto that can be exercised by any one nation. Thus, much like the filibuster in the U.S. Senate, which is making the United States less and less governable, the Security Council veto has seriously limited what the world organization is able to do in addressing global security issues.

Thus, if the leaders of NATO nations were really serious about providing children with a world in which they could play in peace among the birds and flowers, they would work to strengthen the United Nations and stop devoting vast resources to questionable wars.

Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is “Working for Peace and Justice: Memoirs of an Activist Intellectual” (University of Tennessee Press).

In Chicago for the NATO Free Future Counter-Summit and marching on May 20?

If you are marching on May 20, take our Nonviolence & Media training at 5pm on Wednesday, May 16.

Feel prepared and supported to exercise your right to nonviolent protest and speak to the media about why we must  end the war in Afghanistan and retire NATO.

After an overview of NATO/G8, the National Lawyers Guild and Street Medics will do presentations and answer questions.

You will have the option to do a NVDA training or break out to a media training session led by trainers from Peace Action and AFSC.

RSVP

You will feel ready to go on Sunday, know your rights and counter the NATO summit media spin! Space is limited, please email Mary at mzerkel@afsc.org if you are interested in participating.

March on May 20 with the Network for NATO Free Future contingent for  the IVAW and CANG8 march.

Appeal to the Youth of the World from Nobel Peace Laureates Summit in Chicago

A smart and inspiring appeal from the Nobel Peace Laureates Summit in Chicago, which our National Field Director Judith Le Blanc is attending on behalf of Peace Action and International Peace Bureau, which won the Peace Prize in 1910 (Peace Action is a long-time member of IPB, and we were honored to be asked to send a representative to the Summit by IPB).

The Appeal quotes one of my favorite sayings by Martin Luther King, Jr., a Nobel Peace Laureate, “those who love peace must learn to organize as effectively as those who love war,” still so true today.

The appeal is attached here as a pdf

20120425205653771

Only a Month Away, Won’t You Please Come to Chicago…for Peace, Justice and a NATO-Free Future!

–Executive Director Kevin Martin

In just over a month, peace activists and allies from other social justice movements from around the country and around the world will gather in Chicago (where I lived and worked for ten terrific years) to call for peace, economic justice and the end of NATO when that alliance convenes for its annual meeting. Please plan to join us May 18-20 for what will be an illuminating, action oriented Counter-Summit conference, and a march of veterans of the Afghanistan war returning their medals to U.S. officials to call for an end to our country’s longest war and just treatment for returning veterans and the people of Afghanistan who have suffered immeasurably over the last several decades of nearly endless wars.

More information, including registration and speakers can be found on the NATO-Free Future website (Peace Action is a founding member of the national and international coalitions on this issue). I’ll be there and hope you will join us!

Also, WBEZ-FM, Chicago’s public radio station, hosted a thought-provoking live public town meeting on NATO and the upcoming summit, featuring Kathy Kelly, co-founder of Voices for Creative Non-Violence, a longtime friend and ally and a principle speaker at our conference in May. It’s long, and hour and a half, but worthwhile. Kathy, who has traveled many timed to Afghanistan in solidarity with the people of that war-weary country, is excellent as always on the show, and the audience Q and A session with host Jerome McDonnell (the last 30-45 minutes or so) is very interesting, great questions and comments from the attendees.

Give U.S.-Iran negotiations time to succeed, Op-Ed by Peace Action West’s Rebecca Griffin in the Sacramento Bee

I was in Iran in 2009 when a family invited me into their home for dinner. Over kebabs and rice, I chatted about school and video games with their 6-year-old son. He and his mother sang us a song about flying like a balloon, and I struggled to keep up with his uncle’s many American movie references.

The family lives in Esfahan, a likely target of any Israeli or American military attack. Esfahan is home to part of Iran’s nuclear energy program and less than two hours from another potential target, the Natanz uranium enrichment facility. Whenever I hear talk of war with Iran, I think of these kind people.

On April 13, the United States and its allies will resume negotiations with Iran aimed at resolving the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program. Congress should give diplomacy time to work, rather than pushing the United States closer to a military confrontation nobody wants.

Last month, American officials conducted a classified war simulation that showed that military strikes on Iran could spark a wider regional war and leave hundreds of Americans dead. American officials predict that Iran would retaliate with missile strikes on Israel and attacks on U.S. personnel overseas. As Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former commander of Central Command, said, “If you follow this all the way down, eventually I’m putting boots on the ground somewhere. And like I tell my friends, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you’ll love Iran.”

Politicians love to promote a fantasy of swooping in with fighter jets and rescuing helpless Iranians from a repressive regime, but democracy activists in Iran don’t see it that way. As renowned Iranian journalist Akbar Ganji explained, “Even speaking about the possibility of a military attack on Iran makes things extremely difficult for human rights and pro-democracy activists in Iran.”

Unpopular regimes like Iran’s relish the rally-around-the-flag effect created by a military confrontation, which allows them to marginalize dissidents. The threat of action is damaging enough. The reality would be devastating to all Iranians, especially for those who have been speaking out for justice and democracy.

Many in Congress are undermining prospects for a peaceful solution by pushing to lower the threshold for military action. A resolution sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn.; and Robert Casey, D-Pa.; and Reps. Ilena Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., and Howard Berman, D-Calif., would draw the “red line” for military action against Iran at a nuclear weapons capability, not an actual weapon. However, “nuclear weapons capable” is a dangerously vague term that could also apply to dozens of other countries that, like Iran, have nuclear energy programs. All 16 of America’s intelligence agencies have reported that there is no proof that Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon.

This is more than congressional grandstanding. As the United States and its allies engage in delicate negotiations, lowering the threshold for war could rule out diplomatic alternatives and back the United States into a corner. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff for SecretaryColin Powell, warned, “This resolution reads like the same sheet of music that got us into the Iraq war, and could be the precursor for a war with Iran. … It’s effectively a thinly disguised effort to bless war.”

Disrupting diplomatic efforts on the eve of talks is highly counterproductive, but that’s not stopping politicians on both sides of the aisle who seem ready and willing to ignore the advice of national security professionals like Gen. Zinni and Col. Wilkerson.

The Iranian mother who welcomed me into her home told me that she watches BBC Persian with her son and struggles to answer when he asks her to explain the violence on TV. We should think twice before rushing into another war and bringing that same horror to his doorstep. It’s time to commit to serious diplomacy with Iran, and Congress must give President Obama the space to conduct it.

—

ABOUT THE WRITER

Rebecca Griffin is political director of Peace Action West, 2201 Broadway, Suite 321, Oakland, Calif. 94612; email: rgriffin@peaceactionwest.org; website: www.peaceactionwest.org.

This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/09/4400461/give-us-iran-negotiations-time.html

Don’t go to war with Iran: Cleveland Peace Action’s Norman Robbins published by the Cleveland Plain Dealer

Published: Friday, March 30, 2012, 10:52 AM     Updated: Friday, March 30, 2012, 11:26 AM

 By Plain Dealer guest columnist 

View full sizeMichael Kamber, The New York TimesU.S. soldiers salute as flag bearers exit during a symbolic flag-lowering ceremony marking the end to U.S. military involvement in Iraq, in Baghdad, Dec. 15, 2011.

As the late Barbara Tuchman, the eminent historian, explained in “The March of Folly,” certain types of belief have consistently led to national disasters. These include “not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts,” self-imprisonment in the “we-have-no-alternative argument,” and “underestimation of the opponent.” Are these themes operative with respect to war with Iran, as they were in the run-up to the disastrous Iraq war?

Just prior to the Iraq war, most Americans were convinced by press and government accounts that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that it was ready to use, even though U.N. inspectors were reporting negative findings. Today, most Americans believe Iran is building a nuclear weapon, even though American and Israeli intelligence report that Iran has not yet decided to do so.

Enrichment of uranium (at levels useful only for energy) and development of missiles (necessary for defense) are certainly elements of nuclear “capability,” but most experts believe Iran would need one to two years to make a single effective bomb if and when it decided to go ahead. For what it’s worth, Iran’s supreme religious leader has staked his reputation on a fatwa condemning nuclear weapons.

Bombing Iranian nuclear facilities because, at some time in the future, Iran may decide to build nuclear weapons, is a flagrant violation of international law.

A major difference from the Iraq war run-up is that so many military leaders have spoken out against war. Most former or present Israeli military and intelligence leaders oppose an attack, one or more pointing out that: Iran is not an “existential threat” to Israel; an attack would push Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon; the attack would only delay such development by one to three years; and the repercussions could be disastrous.

Many American military leaders agree, adding that an Israeli attack could drag the United States into a bloody and protracted war with a country three times the size of Iraq that has already united once against a powerful aggressor (Iraq). And polls show that Americans have seen enough death, injury and psychological damage to our troops to be more careful about putting them in harm’s way once more.

Again, unlike the Iraq war run-up, Americans already feel the pain of conflict with Iran in escalating gasoline prices. Neither domestic oil production nor conservation would greatly impact world oil prices. Three-fourths of our gasoline costs are directly related to global oil prices, which respond dramatically to uncertainty. Threats of an attack on Iran, and Iran’s counterthreat to close off Persian Gulf oil shipments, increase this uncertainty. If war breaks out, gasoline prices could easily double, with major damage to our economy.

It is unconscionable that otherwise progressive American politicians, who genuinely care about Americans who are struggling, so dutifully line up to vote against the interests of these Americans when it comes to laws and resolutions that could lead to a draining war with Iran.

Lastly comes the “no-alternative-to-war” argument, which claims that neither sanctions nor diplomacy will work. For sure, they won’t work if we continue to demand that Iran cannot enrich uranium even to the low levels necessary for nuclear power (about 17 times less than necessary for a bomb). Anyone who knows Iran’s sad historical experience with colonial powers will understand why Iran’s insistence on the right to enrich uranium has become a national rallying point. That domestic opinion enables Iran to withstand “crippling” sanctions, and to stall negotiations.

Demanding indefinite cessation of any enrichment, as in current Senate and House resolutions, is an absolute deal-breaker.

If we really want to prevent Iran from building a bomb, a “don’t trust, but verify” approach has a far greater chance of success than military action, which could backfire and do just the opposite. Unfortunately, Americans have seen little coverage of proposals by arms control experts that allow Iran to enrich uranium to low levels for nuclear power and under strict controls, in exchange for more intrusive inspections and transparency.

So why aren’t we pursuing this important diplomatic option instead of our March of Folly? If our best military minds tell us an attack on Iran will solve nothing and make things worse, why isn’t the majority of Congress paying attention? Is their fear of offending powerful interests greater than their commitment to America’s chances for peace and prosperity?

Norman Robbins is an emeritus professor at Case Western Reserve University and Iran consultant to Cleveland Peace Action.

Chicago May 18 & 19 – 99% vs War and Injustice

By Judith LeBlanc
Peace Action and the American Friends Service Committee have initiated a network of peace, faith, economic and racial justice groups to convene a Counter Summit for Peace and Economic Justice in Chicago on May 18 – 19.

While the NATO Summit meets at McCormick Place in Chicago we will gather at the People’s Church on 941 West Lawrence from Friday morning until Saturday afternoon.

While they discuss the Afghanistan war, we will map out campaigns for a future free of wars, occupation and the costs of a militarized foreign policy.

The conference will bring together representatives of the 99% from the US and around the world who oppose the policies which generate wars and impoverish our communities. Register now.

Find out more information on the NATO Free Future website. http://www.natofreefuture.org/

Join the low volume announcement list to get updates on plenary speakers and workshops.

We will raise our voices with an alternative vision to NATO’s wars. One that is premised on diplomacy and international sovereignty. Between now and May 18, you can invite speakers to come to your area and be a part of the dialogue.

In the months leading to the  NATO meeting and the G8 meeting at Camp David, it is an opportunity for popular education about NATO and  the G8 and the impact on our communities.

Check out the speakers bureau. In every region of the country there are experts, historians and organizers who can come and speak at events, or your own local Counter Summit for Peace and Economic Justice.

Join us in Chicago!

More Prolific Peace Actionistas Published on Prospects of War on Iran

Whew! Hard to keep up with all the great articles being published by grassroots leaders in the Peace Action network. Here are two for you today, both on the lunacy of a war with Iran:

National Peace Action Board Co-Chair Jean Athey and Peace Action Montgomery (in Maryland, just outside the nation’s capital) Steering Committee member Alex Welsch had an op-ed in yesterday’s Baltimore Sun titled “Overstated Iranian ”threat’ puts U.S. on path to war”

New Jersey Peace Action Executive Director, on Op-Ed News, asks “Can the U.S. Afford Another War?” (Of course we can’t, but her article is full of facts, figures, links and news you can use!)

Locked in a Cold War Time Machine Try a Little Nuclear Sanity

MARCH 19, 2012

by LAWRENCE S.WITTNER

On February 8, 2012, Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) took to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to introduce the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures Act (H.R. 3974). This SANE Act would cut $100 billion from the U.S. nuclear weapons budget over the next ten years by reducing the current fleet of U.S. nuclear submarines, delaying the purchase of new nuclear submarines, reducing the number of ICBMs, delaying a new bomber program, and ending the nuclear mission of air bombers.

“America’s nuclear weapons budget is locked in a Cold War time machine,” noted Markey, the senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “It doesn’t reflect our twenty-first-century security needs. It makes no sense. It’s insane.” He went on to explain: “It’s insane to spend $10 billion building new plants to make uranium and plutonium for new nuclear bombs when we’re cutting our nuclear arsenal and the plants we have now work just fine.” Furthermore: “It’s insane that we’re going to spend $84 billion for up to fourteen new nuclear submarines when just one sub, with 96 nuclear bombs on board, can blow up every major city in Iran, China and North Korea.” Finally, “it is insane to spend hundreds of billions on new nuclear bombs and delivery systems . . . while . . . seeking to cut Medicare, Medicaid and social programs that millions of Americans depend on.”

Since its introduction, the SANE Act has picked up significant support. Not surprisingly, it is backed by major peace and disarmament organizations, such as Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and the Ploughshares Foundation. But it has also attracted the support of the National Council of Churches, the Project on Government Oversight, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Indeed, the SANE Act now has 45 Congressional co-sponsors.

In light of the vast and very costly nuclear weapons enterprise operated by the U.S. government, cutting the nuclear weapons budget makes a lot of sense. The U.S. government currently possesses over five thousand nuclear weapons and, as the New York Times noted in a caustic editorial late last October (“The Bloated Nuclear Weapons Budget”): “The Obama administration, in an attempt to mollify Congressional Republicans, has also committed to modernizing an already hugely expensive complex of nuclear labs and production facilities. Altogether, these and other nuclear-related programs could cost $600 billion or more over the next decade.”

Of course, if America’s vast nuclear arsenal were absolutely necessary to protect U.S. national security, the case for maintaining it would be strengthened. But, with the exception of Russia, no nuclear-armed nation has more than a few hundred nuclear weapons. It is not even clear what military or deterrent purpose is served by maintaining an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons. As Congressman Markey observed: The “U.S. nuclear arsenal could destroy the world five times over.” The New York Times concluded that the United States “does not need to maintain this large an arsenal,” and “it should not be spending so much to do it, especially when Congress is considering deep cuts in vital domestic programs.”

The real nuclear threat to the United States does not lie in the fact that it does not (or will not) possess enough nuclear weapons to deter a nuclear attack. Rather, it is that there is no guarantee that nuclear deterrence works. That is why the U.S. government is so worried about North Korea possessing a few nuclear weapons or Iran possibly obtaining a few. That is also why the U.S. government squanders billions of dollars every year on a “missile defense” shield that is probably ineffective. The grim reality is that, if governments are reckless or desperate, they will use nuclear weapons or perhaps give them to terrorists to attack their foes. While nuclear weapons exist, there is always a danger that they will be used.

Thus, what has made the United States safer in this dangerous world has not been piling up endless numbers of nuclear weapons but, rather, nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, for example — by trading promises of the nuclear powers to disarm for promises of the non-nuclear powers to forgo nuclear weapons development — has persuaded the vast majority of nations not to develop nuclear weapons. In this fashion, the willingness of the U.S. government to decrease its nuclear arsenal (something it has done, although reluctantly) has made Americans safer from nuclear attack by other nations.

As a result of patient U.S. diplomacy, even the leaders of North Korea, one of the worst-governed countries in the world, seem to have shown glimmers of sanity in recent weeks. In late February, they announced that, thanks to an agreement with the U.S. government, they would suspend nuclear tests and uranium enrichment, as well as allow international inspection of their nuclear facilities.

If even the government of North Korea can manage to display a measure of common sense, then is it too much to ask our own government to do the same? Our leaders in Washington could join Representative Markey and his Congressional allies in cutting back the U.S. government’s vast and expensive nuclear doomsday machine and using the savings to provide for the needs of the American people. Surely it’s time to try a little nuclear sanity.

Lawrence S. Wittner is professor of history emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is “Working for Peace and Justice: Memoirs of an Activist Intellectual” (University of Tennessee Press).

Terrific Boston Subway and Bus Ads on Iran, Organized by Massachusetts Peace Action!

From Massachusetts Peace Action Communications Director Cole Harrison (and his last point is that we can use this for other transit ads around the country!):

Mass Peace Action is posting “Diplomacy, Not War with Iran” ads in Boston area subway cars and buses.   The ad will run starting a week from today for four weeks on the MBTA’s red and orange lines, and buses.   It links to a web site containing the Peace Action petition as well as resource materials.   An image of the ad is at http://masspeaceaction.org/1710.

 

We pulled in 4 other peace groups, including our UJP coalition, as cosponsors, and after lengthy consultations, arrived at a text that our supporters were happy with.  We raised $3200 mostly from online donations.  The MBTA required two changes in the text, which were annoying but left the message basically intact.

 

So, unless something else goes wrong, we should see the ads go up starting March 19.

 

Of course, we would be happy to help you reuse our artwork if you’d like.