Jim Moore’s blog: Innovation, Strategy, Public Policy

This Howard Zinn essay came today from Joe Costello.  It is as fine a piece on the
Iraq quagmire as I have seen.  I especially like the paragraph
that reads

“We can’t leave a vacuum there.” I think it was John Kerry who said
that. What arrogance to think that when the United States leaves a
place there’s nothing there! The same kind of thinking saw the enormous
expanse of the American West as “empty territory” waiting for us to
occupy it, when hundreds of thousands of Indians lived there already.”

I really believe that John Kerry needs to come to a change of heart on
the issue of Iraq. If not, three things will happen to a man who
otherwise could make a fine president.  First, he will send many
voters to Ralph Nader, who is no the only candidate clearly advocating
leaving Iraq.  Second, he will give those in arms who have become
disaffected with the war no where to go, and they will vote for Bush
out of sympathy on other issyues.  Third, he will fail to rally
his base to do the important work left to win this election over the
next five months.

I note that in the Boston metro area, where I live, there are almost no
Kerry stickers.  Why is this? Because, I believe, while people
expect to vote for him, they do not really feel that their vote will be
a positive statement of the need to renew our country. 

John Kerry needs to give us the reasons he should be president. 
One of those reasons could be to profoundly rethink our relationship
with the world, and the sources of our “security.”  A world where
most of the 6.3 billion people on the planet hate us is simply not
sustainable, when the cost of acquiring real weapons of mass
destruction, such as hijacked airplanes, is going to zero.  
Such a world is not necessary–we can reach out and make common purpose
with those across the world–but to do so, a president  would have
to stand up to a variety of people and organizations who are profiting
from the war-making, neo-imperial status quo.

From: Joe Costello
Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004  3:13:41  PM US/Eastern

Subject: zinn

*What Do We Do Now? *
*by Howard Zinn*

It seems very hard for some
people–especially those in high places, but also those striving for
high places–to grasp a simple truth: The United States does not belong in Iraq. It is
not our country. Our presence is causing death, suffering, destruction,
and so large sections of the population are rising against us. Our
military is then reacting with indiscriminate force, bombing and
shooting and rounding up people simply on “suspicion.”

Amnesty International, a year after
the invasion, reported: “Scores of unarmed people have been killed due
to excessive or unnecessary use of lethal force by coalition forces
during public demonstrations, at checkpoints, and in house raids.
Thousands of people have been detained [estimates range from 8,500 to
15,000], often under harsh conditions, and subjected to prolonged and
often unacknowledged detention. Many have been tortured or ill-treated,
and some have died in custody.”

The recent battles in Fallujah
brought this report from Amnesty International: “Half of at least 600
people who died in the recent fighting between Coalition forces and
insurgents in Fallujah are said to have been civilians, many of them
women and children.”

In light of this, any discussion of
“What do we do now?” must start with the understanding that the present
U.S. military occupation is morally unacceptable.

The suggestion that we simply
withdraw from Iraq is met with laments: “We mustn’t cut and run. . . .
We must stay the course. . . . Our reputation will be ruined. . . .”
That is exactly what we heard when, at the start of the Vietnam
escalation, some of us called for immediate withdrawal. The result of
staying the course was 58,000 Americans and several million Vietnamese
dead.

“We can’t leave a vacuum there.” I
think it was John Kerry who said that. What arrogance to think that
when the United States leaves a place there’s nothing there! The same
kind of thinking saw the enormous expanse of the American West as
“empty territory” waiting for us to occupy it, when hundreds of
thousands of Indians lived there already.

The history of military occupations
of Third World countries is that they bring neither democracy nor
security. The long U.S. occupation of the Philippines, following a
bloody war in which American troops finally subdued the Filipino
independence movement, did not lead to democracy, but rather to a
succession of dictatorships, ending with Fernando
Marcos.

The long U.S. occupations of Haiti
(1915-1934) and the Dominican Republic (1916-1926) led only to military
rule and corruption in both countries.

The only rational argument for
continuing on the present course is that things will be worse if we
leave. There will be chaos, there will be civil war, we are told. In
Vietnam, supporters of the war promised a bloodbath if U.S. troops
withdrew. That did not happen.

There is a history of dire forecasts
for what will happen if we desist from deadly force. If we did not drop
the bomb on Hiroshima, it was said, we would have to invade Japan and
huge casualties would follow. We

know now, and knew then, that was not
true, but to acknowledge that did not fit the government’s political
agenda. The U.S. had broken the Japanese code and had intercepted the
cables from Tokyo to the emissary in Moscow, which made clear that the
Japanese were ready to surrender so long as the position of the Emperor
was secure.

Truth is, no one knows what will
happen if the United States withdraws. We face a choice between the
certainty of mayhem if we stay and the uncertainty of what will follow.

There is a possibility of reducing
that uncertainty by replacing a U.S. military presence with an
international nonmilitary presence. It is conceivable that the United
Nations should arrange, as U.S. forces leave, for a multinational team
of peacekeepers and negotiators, including, importantly, people from
the Arab countries. Such a group might bring together Shiites, Sunnis,
and Kurds, and work out a solution for self-governance, which would
give all three groups a share in political power.

Simultaneously, the U.N. should
arrange for shipments of food and medicine, from the U.S. and other
countries, as well as a corps of engineers to begin the reconstruction
of the country.

In a situation that is obviously bad
and getting worse, some see the solution in enlarging the military
presence. The rightwing columnist David Brooks wrote in mid-April: “I
never thought it would be this bad,”

but he then expressed his joy that
President Bush is “acknowledging the need for more troops.” This fits
the definition of fanaticism: “When you find you’re going in the wrong
direction, you double your speed.”

John Kerry, sadly (for those of us
who hoped for a decisive break from the Bush agenda), echoes that
fanaticism. If he learned any thing from his experience in Vietnam, he
has forgotten it. There, too, repeated failure to win the support of
the Vietnamese people led to sending more and more troops into
Tennyson’s “valley of death.”

In a recent piece in The Washington
Post, Kerry talks about “success” in military terms. “If our military
commanders request more troops we should deploy them.” He seems to
think that if we “internationalize” our disastrous policy, it becomes
less of a disaster. “We also need to renew our effort to attract
international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a
climate of security in Iraq.” Is that what brings security–”boots on
the ground”?

Kerry suggests: “We should urge NATO
to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S.
commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers.”
More troops, more troops. And the U.S. must be in charge–that old
notion that the world can trust our leadership–despite our long record
of moral failure.

To those who worry about what will
happen in Iraq after our troops leave, they should consider the effect
of having foreign troops: continued, escalating bloodshed, continued
insecurity, increased hatred for the United States in the entire Muslim
world of over a billion people, and increased hostility everywhere.

The effect of that will be the exact
opposite of what our political leaders–of both parties–claim they
intend to achieve, a “victory” over terrorism. When you inflame the
anger of an entire population, you have enlarged the breeding ground
for terrorism.

What of the other long-term effects
of continued occupation? I’m thinking of the poisoning of the moral
fiber of our soldiers–being forced to kill, maim, imprison innocent
people, becoming the pawns of an imperial power after they were
deceived into believing they were fighting for freedom, democracy,
against tyranny.

I’m thinking of the irony that those
very things we said our soldiers were dying for–giving their eyes,
their limbs for–are being lost at home by this brutal war. Our freedom
of speech is diminished, our electoral system corrupted, Congressional
and judicial checks on executive power nonexistent.

And the costs of the war–the $400
billion military budget (which Kerry, shockingly, refuses to consider
lowering)–make it inevitable that people in this country will suffer
from lack of health care, a deteriorating school system, dirtier air
and water. Corporate power is unregulated and running wild.

Kerry does not seem to understand
that he is giving away his strongest card against Bush–the growing
disillusion with the war among the American public. He thinks he is
being clever, by saying he will wage the war better than Bush. But by
declaring his continued support for the military occupation, he is
climbing aboard a sinking ship.

We do not need another war President.
We need a peace President. And those of us in this country who feel
this way should make our desire known in the strongest of ways to the
man who may be our next occupant of the White House.

/Howard Zinn, the author of “A
People’s History of the United States

osim/>,” is a columnist for The Progressive. /

Copyright 2004 The Progressive

Ethan Zuckerman
of the Berkman Center is discussing Sudan on his blog, with good links
to breaking news.  He very helpfully points out that AllAfrica.com
is now putting out a special sorted newswire on Sudan
that is available in RSS feed.  This material is very rich and
timely, with lots of sources.  I’m going to add it to the newsfeed
page for Passion of the Present.

Included in the latest feed is this press release, sent out by the US State Department on Friday, requesting a special new session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (excerpt follows):

US Calls for Special Session of U.N. Commission On Human Rights On Sudan

> height= border=”0″>	height= border=”0″>  height= border=”0″>

United States Department of State
(Washington, DC)

PRESS RELEASE
April 23, 2004
Posted to the web April 23, 2004
Geneva

Commission must address “ethnic cleansing” in Sudan, official says

The United States has called for a Special Session of the
Commission on Human Rights on Sudan after the UN human rights body failed to
adopt a strong resolution condemning the on-going ethnic cleansing in the
Darfur region.

“The U.N. Commission on Human Rights dare not fail to act,” Ambassador
Richard Williamson, head of the U.S. delegation said. “It must hold
accountable those responsible for the deplorable acts in Darfur.”

Under the Commission’s rules of procedure, any member of the United
Nations may request the Secretary General to convene a special session to
deal with “urgent and acute human rights situations in the most expeditious
way.”

Special sessions can only be convened with the support of a majority of
States members of the Commission. Previous special sessions were held in
1992 to consider the situation in the former Yugoslavia, in 1994 on Rwanda,
and in 1999 on East Timor.

The question of Sudan had been deferred until the final day of the 60th
Session of the Commission as it became apparent that member states were
having difficulty reaching agreement on how the body should treat the
issue.

Members must “reflect on the 30,000 dead and the 900,000 internally
displaced people now living in intolerable and dangerous conditions,”
Williamson said. “This could become a catastrophe of unimaginable
proportions if we fail to act.”

Many many warm thanks to those of you who have linked to Joanne Cipolla Moore’s Passion of the Present
and/or are helping focus attention on stopping the genocide in Sudan.

Ingrid Jones
There are at least five things we bloggers can do to help:-
[read the five things]
I’ve submitted this news to The World Star Gazette - USA and pinging
here - via Technorati - some of the bloggers that I read regularly and
who I know care about genocide and world politics..[the names of 15
bloggers follow]

Betsy Devine
Mass graves in Bosnia, Rwanda, and elsewhere  may well be monuments to pious treaties nobody wants to live up to. .
..Three cheers for Ambassador Williamson! I haven’t agreed with the
Bush administration on many issues, but they seem to be on the side of
the angels in this one.
and Universal Hub picked up and reprinted much of Betsy’s post..

Steve’s No Direction
A decade ago, we all let down the people of Rwanda and 800,000 died.
Can this be stopped now? It appears the UN is being especially weak
here, and that the Bush Administration is actually not quite so bad
(though “not quite so bad” is a relative term). Passion of the Present
is another good place to start with helpful links you can use to find
your representative’s contact information, phone numbers, places to
donate, etc. If you do nothing else, watch this video to see what the situation is like.

Madeleines

To my friends who support the President…

Here’s the text of an email I just sent off to my friend, Red Sox-fan Dan Nova:

Remember our discussion about Rwanda? Remember how we
discussed how Clinton went into Bosnia to stop the genocide there?
Remember your assertion that, despite the obvious lack of imminent
threat to our national security, the war in Iraq was justified on the
basis of stopping horrible crimes. So why aren’t we at war with Sudan?

Remember too that it was Sudan, and not Iraq, that gave Osama Bin
Laden sanctuary when he was kicked out of Saudi Arabia. And it was
Sudan that, in the name of Islamic Fundamentalism, that is actively
engaged in the genocide of Christians. And it is Sudan that condones
and profits from slavery (Yes. That fact is well documented.)

If Americans boys and girls (let’s face it, that’s who’s doing the dying and getting their limbs blown off) are going to be put in harm’s way, if we’re going to reinstate the draft and threaten the lives of my children as well as yours, shouldn’t they be going after the really, really bad guys?

From the BBC today:

style=”font-style: italic;”>…the United Nations Human Rights Commission adopted a watered down statement on Darfur.

>The United States had pushed for a much harder hitting resolution criticising Sudanese government abuses.

>The more softly-worded compromise expresses concern at
the situation in the Darfur region, welcomes plans to send a high-level
team there to investigate and urges all sides in the conflict to comply
with a ceasefire agreement.

>However, rather than condemning Sudan, it expresses
solidarity with the country in overcoming the presesnt situation. It
was voted against by the US.

>”Ten years from today the only thing that will be
remembered about the 60th Commission on Human Rights is whether we
stand up on the ethnic cleansing going on in Sudan,” US delegation head
Richard Williamson told AFP news agency.

The point here is that the United States is now pressing the UN to
act, or to at least witness strongly.  And the UN Human Rights
commission, made up, sordidly, by some  noted human rights
abusers, is refusing to be aggressive.

This note, by the way, is from a larger story detailing the Human
Rights Watch evidence about Sudanese government orchestration of the
genocide.  The full BBC article is entitled, “”Mass-execution’ in western Sudan”

Dave Winer sent me this piece from
the BBC this morning–he actually scooped my call from Ken Roth of
Human Rights Watch, but I wasn’t reading my email until now. 

Witness is one of the fundamental categories of experience: 
Witness in history. The role of witness in ancient spiritual
communities. Witness and prophets.  Witness in crisis. Witness in
everyday life.

Blogs are about witness.  We witness and we discuss what we
witness.  We point to others who are witnessing to subjects we
think bear wider note.

The complaint that bloggers and citizens have with mainline media is
that it does not witness in a responsible manner. It does not witness
with the care that we think should accompany its influence in society.

How can we better witness? How can we establish improved networks of
witness?  What services and technologies can we create to augment
our witnessing?

I just spoke minutes ago by phone to Ken Roth, director of Human Rights Watch.  HRW has just posted the first documented information showing that government troops are involved in the genocide in Sudan.

This is very important because it will increase the rationale for the
international community, including the United States, to act. 
President Bush has urged the government of Sudan to act to stop the
militias, and has suggested that the Sudanese government is “complicit.“ 
But the depth of that complicity is now being documented by the few
outside observers who have been able to get into Darfur.

I am writing to invite you to join together to witness to and stop a genocide. 
The genocide is happenng right now in Sudan, as we speak, in the area
known as Darfur.  Despite the Sudanese government’s trying to
cover it up–by blocking press and NGO access (e.g. an Al Jazeera
reporter was put in prison last week for trying to report), as well as
using as surrogates “private militias” that are government supplied,
the word is getting out.  But not enough is being done, not enough
world attention is flowing into witness and intervention, and the aid
and human rights organizations in the area need money for supplies and
transportation and communication.

Let’s take this one on as a community.  If we try, I know we can
make a difference.  I am not the best spokesman, but I’d like to
urge each one of you to consider becoming informed on this issue, and
to use your blog for the next two weeks to bring attention and
mobilization to this cause.  You be a spokesperson.

So far in about a year, we have mobilized in the US to block a
war, and we have supported presidential candidates and changed the tone of the campaign–and we
will help elect a new president in the fall.  In Korea we (the “we”
here is the community writ large and globally) elected a president,
turned over the legislature, and will probably overturn an impeachment.

We are not yet even near full strength, but we are becoming more and more
creative, more mobilized, wiser, and–I believe–slowly but
consistently more effective.  And the broadband infrastructure, and data/phone usage, just keeps spreading.

I urge you to join me and come together, in emergent form, to help bring
attention to the situation in the Sudan.  That there is a genocide
is still unbelievable to many of us.  Our news is more filtered
than even we like to admit.  Here are some links that will help
you understand the story:

The Passion of the Present

Here at http://passionofthepresent.com is a website/blog that Joanne Cipolla Moore and a group of friends
put together. Joanne’s circle included family, folks at Berkman,
as well as experts on genocide including Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch and Samantha Power
(who won a Pullitzer prize this year for her studies of genocide and
international policy). Joanne’s site reaches out to Christians who have
attended Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ, and urges them to consider
giving the price of a movie ticket to bring light to the Sudan.

We are in the process of putting together a related blog of folks on the ground in Sudan and neighboring areas.

This site is only one of many that could help–and that could speak
about Sudan to particular audiences with particular skills and
values.  I’m speaking here, on this blog, primarly to highly
technological and communication savvy bloggers.  I think our
community, with our special resources, can help.

Over the weekend at BloggerCon II there was much discussion about the
insularity of the blog world. Not that we want to be–but that out of
habit, we are.  Several of us agreed that we need what Rebecca
McKinnon called “affirmative action” to reach beyond our current
universe.  We started our consideration with facts.  Ethan
Zuckerman showed preliminary analysis that showed that blogs as a group
are more exclusively focused on the United States, Europe and Japan
than even the (reviled) mainstream press.  The exception, of
course, is Iraq–but even with regard to Iraq the coverage tends to be
from a US or European perspective (i.e. “what the war means to us”)
rather than in-depth on the situation on the ground.  A wonderful
counter example, of course, comes from Hoder and the Iranian bloggers,
as well as travels to the field by western bloggers such as Adam Curry.

At BloggerCon Dave Winer suggested linking to US soldiers in
Iraq.  Britt Blaser suggested sister cities based on
blogger-to-blogger networks.  Others suggested that groups of
bloggers take on ignored regions of the world, and establish
relationships.  All excellent, important ideas.

I encourage you to find a way to focus on the people of Sudan in the
next few days.  Write to me, or write to Joanne, or just do
something creative with your friends.  Time is critical. 
Hours matter.  Consider a prominent link to “The Power of the
Present.”  It has news links with pre-set searches for Sudan
news, as well as links to continously updated pages from Human Rights Watch. The site also includes a long excerpt from the devastating NYT op-ed by Nicholas Kristof.

The Web site to link to in order to help stop the genocide in Sudan is

The Passion of the Present

and it can be reached by any of the following URLs

http://passionofthepresent.org/
http://thepassionofthepresent.com/
http://passionofthepresent.com/
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/passionofthepresent/

The site is actually hosted at the last of these, at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School.

Unbelievable as it seems, a true genocide is being carried out in Sudan as you
read this.  The killing is being largely ignored by the world’s
governments, though a few souls are working hard to bring the situation
to light.

“The Passion of the Present“
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/passionofthepresent
is an effort to bring attention to the genocide in Sudan.

The Passion of the Present is the idea of Joanne Cipolla Moore. The site was created in
the past few days by her and a group of friends in order to quickly get the
word out and raise money for organizations working to stop the genocide.

The site provides extensive information on the situation as it is
unfolding, and links to four organizations that are making a difference
by bringing witness to Sudan

Witness is a power that has been shown to reduce genocide. 
Genocide thrives when it can be carried out unseen, on the lost people
of the world.

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Church World Service, and Doctors Without Borders are all witnessing in Sudan.

Next step is a blog on the site, and developing relationships with
people on the ground.  If you know of bloggers in or around
Sudan–or people who might become email bloggers, please let me know.

You can help by spreading the word, linking to the site, and by contributing to organizations working on the ground in Sudan.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/passionofthepresent

Thanks very very much for your help with this,

 Jim

John Kerry has three new video
ads that are running in states that have high concentrations of
Democratic activists and contributors.  This is probably a good
strategy–these ads will rally activists and bring in contributions
worth many times their cost.  Check them out–they are
beautifully produced.  I like this one the best–focused on the environment, but mostly an appeal for you to join the Kerry online campaign. Thanks to Kos for this pointer.