UPDATE: Journalist Raed Jarrar has posted a draft of the Bush-Maliki agreement on his blog. You can read Raed's comments here...
Read the text of the draft agreement here...
The US and Iraqi governments have announced an agreement for a complete withdrawal of all US forces by the end of 2011. As part of the withdrawal plan, the agreement also calls for US troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities by June of next year.
What does this mean? Has the main goal of the U.S. peace movement, a complete withdrawal from Iraq, been achieved? The response from national peace organizations has been muted. A survey of the websites of national peace organizations found no commentary (so far) on the agreement.
In July, when the outcome of the negotiations was less certain, Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies posted a report on the negotiations in which she called into question the sincerity of Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s demand for withdrawal of U.S. troops. She wrote: “…regardless of whether Maliki used the clearer "timetable" or the ambiguous "time horizon" language, what is clear is that a real, complete withdrawal of U.S. troops would likely mean the end of his power. It is unlikely that is really what he wants.”
But has the balance of power shifted since then? The Iraqi army has been increasingly assertive – and increasingly independent of its US mentors – in recent months, and Maliki may no longer feel the need for US military support to maintain his hold on power. If so, he may now see the U.S. as a source of interference in his own efforts to consolidate power. Recently, for example, the U.S. and Iraqi governments have come into conflict about U.S. support for Iraqi “Awakening Councils”, composed of predominantly Sunni former members of the insurgency. Along with payments from the U.S. of $300 a month, the members of these groups were promised jobs in the Iraqi army. But now, the Iraqi government has been targeting their members for arrest, forcing them to disarm, and barring them from the army.
A newly assertive Iraqi army may not need as many Americans kicking down the doors of Iraqi homes and placing sandbags on the heads of the people they find inside – preferring to do the job themselves – but they will certainly want to maintain access to America’s “shock and awe” airpower. So an agreement for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities will be a positive development in some respects (for example, we might see fewer Iraqi taxicabs run over by tanks just for fun) but it also likely means a huge escalation in the use of aerial bombing. And without U.S. troops on the ground to direct the fire, with the Maliki government able to call in airstrikes – unchecked - whenever it deems necessary, we could see the U.S. Air Force turned into even more of a tool for sectarian warfare.
Then there’s the matter of the timetable. December 2011 is more than twice as long as Obama’s proposed 16 month withdrawal timetable, but Obama is only calling for a partial withdrawal that would leave a “residual force” of US troops in Iraq, while the Iraqi government appear to be calling for a complete withdrawal. In any event, this is a much longer withdrawal timetable than the one demanded by a large majority of the Iraqi people, 70% of whom want all U.S. troops out in a year or less.
Will the Bush-Maliki agreement go forward? An AFP report on the agreement states that “The [Iraqi] parliamentary stamp is a crucial legal requirement,” and quotes Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmud Mashhadani saying “Iraq's lawmakers would never endorse it in its current form.” If the Iraqi parliament refuses to approve a plan that calls for a three-year withdrawal timetable, what happens then? The feverish negotiations between the Bush and Maliki administrations are motivated by the knowledge that U.S. forces remain in Iraq under a year-to-year mandate from the UN Security Council which expires in December and is not likely to be renewed. Failure to come to an agreement by the end of the year means that U.S. troops remain in Iraq without any legal basis for the occupation. Not that international law has ever been an impediment to the U.S. doing what it wants, but this is a complication the U.S. would prefer to avoid, if possible.
Knowing that the clock is ticking on the U.S. occupation, nationalist members of the Iraqi parliament may decide that it’s in their interest to delay ratification until after the U.S. election, to see if they can force a better deal out of the next administration. (As an aside, the same article says that “U.S. lawmakers would not be asked to approve the pact,” showing that while Iraqi lawmakers insist on their right to ratify agreements their government makes with a foreign government, our own Congress doesn’t see a need to act as a similar check on our own imperial President.)
All of this presents a significant challenge to the US peace movement. If the U.S. and Iraqi governments are able to come to an agreement on a complete withdrawal – but not on a timetable to our liking – then our position gets reduced to: “Yes, but.” As in: “Yes, but it’s not happening fast enough.” It may prove to be difficult to motivate people to take to the streets over the difference between a one-year withdrawal plan and a two-year withdrawal plan, especially if U.S. troops have been withdrawn to bases and are experiencing greatly reduced casualty rates.
This recalls President Nixon’s “Vietnamization” plan, which combined a partial withdrawal of U.S. ground troops with a huge escalation in bombing, and massive transfers of weapons to the South Vietnamese military. There’s no denying that this had a dampening effect on domestic opposition to the war. But there’s a major difference this time around: Vietnamization was bound to fail, because the U.S. was propping up a puppet regime that had no ability to stand on its own. Maliki’s government, with its base among Iraq’s majority Shiite population, is no mere puppet of the U.S.
It now seems clear that Iraq won’t end as Vietnam did, with Americans and their collaborators being plucked from the roof of the U.S. embassy by helicopters. Instead, our occupation of Iraq may end without a clear defeat for the US, but with an outcome that could hardly be considered a victory, either. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, the neoconservatives in the Bush administration had dreams of a strong US ally in the Middle East, giant and permanent U.S. military bases, and a privatized “free market” economy that would be a model to other Middle Eastern states. If Maliki gets his way, the U.S. will have failed to achieve all of these goals, and at a cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of (U.S.) lives.
Both Iraq war supporters and opponents of the war will try to put their own spin on the outcome, of course. No amount of positive spin is going to make the American people eager to repeat the Iraq experience, but a key question for the peace movement is the extent to which the millions of Americans who marched against the war will see their own actions as resulting in the end of the war. When U.S. forces finally left Vietnam, millions of Americans, mostly young people, felt that their actions had played a role in ending the war. These young people took that sense of confidence in their own ability to effect change into other struggles for social and environmental justice, and many of them still constitute the core of the peace movement today. If our occupation of Iraq ends with an orderly withdrawal resulting from a signed contract between U.S. and Iraqi elites, will the rank and file of today’s peace movement feel they had any role in the outcome? Future struggles for peace and justice depend on the answer to that question.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Steve Burns: Why do we have war instead of peace?
It's a big question, I know, but I'm inspired to ask big questions but the recent release of a War Resister's League report, “Where to from here?” which attempts to asses the state of the peace movement based on interviews with 90 peace and justice organizers.
One quote in particular caught my eye. Patrick Reinsborough, of the smartMeme Strategy and Training Project said, “...the antiwar movement doesn't have many staffing opportunities. What happens then is nonprofits working on other issues scoop up the best organizers and activists. That is a real consideration for training and leadership development in the antiwar movement. It's different if you're training college activists who have an orientation towards worker's rights. There's a very good chance that the best, high-capacity folks are going to get jobs with labor unions if they want to. It's the same if they have an environmental orientation. That's just not the case with antimilitarism work.”
I think this is an essential point. Why do we have war instead of peace? Because making war is the job of very many people and making peace is the job of very few people. The U.S. has about 1.5 million active-duty military personnel, and another 2.2 million are employed in manufacturing the equipment and weapons needed to fight wars. And, of course, those weapons manufacturers employ thousands of lobbyists to represent their interests. On the peace side of the scale, add up all the half-time and even quarter-time jobs in all the peace organizations in the country, and you'd get... a thousand people, perhaps? United for Peace and Justice, the nation's largest peace coalition, employs about a half-dozen people on staff.
The fundamental source of this imbalance is that the benefits of war-making are direct and easy to identify, while the benefits of peace are diffused among the entire population. The company that makes billions selling helicopter gunships is highly motivated to allocate a few percent of that income to a crew of lobbyists to ensure the contracts keep coming, while the parent whose child isn't killed in the war that doesn't happen never thinks to write a check to a peace movement that prevented the war from happening (assuming for the sake of argument, that a peace movement could actually prevent a war from happening).
None of this is meant to disparage all of the amazing work that's done for no pay at all by the millions of Americans who struggle for peace. But it stands to reason that if peace-making is something we fit in between our other commitments, while war-making is something that millions are allowed to devote their full energies to, then the result is likely to be more war and less peace. And anyone who's ever looked around the room at a peace-movement organizing meeting and seen our characteristic mix of college students and retirees can tell that there's a “missing generation” - people at their peak of ability and energy, off doing what they need to do to raise and support a family.
Must it be always this way? If our society was capable of a rational allocation of resources, certainly not. The Iraq war has been estimated to cost our country at least three trillion dollars before it ends. Could a million paid peace organizers, placed in a million communities in our country, have organized enough opposition to defeat the Congressional vote that sent us into that war? If we paid those million peace organizers a million dollars each for their work, we'd still have saved $2 trillion. That's a bargain, by anyone's standard.
But cost-benefit analysis, however persuasive, won't create peace jobs from thin air. One answer, championed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, is the creation of a Department of Peace. However laudable this may sound, there are some obvious problems with this idea. Since it seems to be the business of our government to go to war, it should be the business of peace activists to stand in opposition to the government. Could we expect government employees to do this? And what about the risk of creating a deadening “peace bureaucracy” that squeezes the vibrant life and grassroots initiative from the peace movement we've got now?
I have a different idea. It's a crazy idea, but I ask you to hear me out. Imagine that 2% of the adults in Anytown USA, a small town of about 10,000 people, decide that they're so fed up with endless war that they're willing to take a radical step. These 100 people agree to donate 1% of their annual income to a common fund, and with this money, they hire a full-time organizer. They're so committed to this idea that they also agree to attend a weekly meeting at which the paid organizer reports on the state of the peace movement and the work of their newly-created peace organization. In fact, they're so committed to peace that they decide that they will even bring their children to these weekly meetings, in order to pass on their desire for peace to the next generation.
What have I just described? Would it help if I added that the weekly meeting of this peace organization takes place on Sunday morning? Yes, this model for creating an army of a million paid peace organizers is so impractical that a million communities in our country make it happen every week. It's your local church, and it provides a powerful antidote to the argument that “we don't have the resources” to create real, family-sustaining jobs in the peace movement. Go into the poorest neighborhood in Milwaukee, for example, and you'll find a storefront church sustained entirely by the donations of its members, working-class folks who are donating much more than the 1% that our imaginary Anytown residents are donating.
No, the peace movemen can't offer you eternal salvation in return for your 1%, but we can offer some benefits in the here-and-now that your local church can't match, like a country with the resources to provide universal health care and a free college education, and thousands of not-dead young people at home instead of in Arlington National Cemetery.
But aren't the Anytown residents taking the easy way out? Aren't they simply fobbing off their peace work on a paid servant? I think the opposite is more likely to happen: with a paid organizer to make the phone calls, reserve the room, arrange the meeting with the Congressman, our Anytown peace activists can leverage their efforts, and would likely become more active. Besides, wouldn't people who had committed a substantial amount of money to a peace organization be willing to do more to ensure that it was successful? Don't church members do more charitable and volunteer work precisely because there's a paid minister who's able to encourage, direct, and focus their efforts?
Often, those of us in the peace movement argue that people need to “step it up” in terms of their willingness to sacrifice for peace. Usually this argument is made by the advocates of direct action, who call on us to step outside our legally-permitted-march comfort zone and risk arrest at a defense plant or Senator's office. But I think of “step it up” in terms of this question: Do we want peace enough to do what your average Methodist or Episcopalian does?
One quote in particular caught my eye. Patrick Reinsborough, of the smartMeme Strategy and Training Project said, “...the antiwar movement doesn't have many staffing opportunities. What happens then is nonprofits working on other issues scoop up the best organizers and activists. That is a real consideration for training and leadership development in the antiwar movement. It's different if you're training college activists who have an orientation towards worker's rights. There's a very good chance that the best, high-capacity folks are going to get jobs with labor unions if they want to. It's the same if they have an environmental orientation. That's just not the case with antimilitarism work.”
I think this is an essential point. Why do we have war instead of peace? Because making war is the job of very many people and making peace is the job of very few people. The U.S. has about 1.5 million active-duty military personnel, and another 2.2 million are employed in manufacturing the equipment and weapons needed to fight wars. And, of course, those weapons manufacturers employ thousands of lobbyists to represent their interests. On the peace side of the scale, add up all the half-time and even quarter-time jobs in all the peace organizations in the country, and you'd get... a thousand people, perhaps? United for Peace and Justice, the nation's largest peace coalition, employs about a half-dozen people on staff.
The fundamental source of this imbalance is that the benefits of war-making are direct and easy to identify, while the benefits of peace are diffused among the entire population. The company that makes billions selling helicopter gunships is highly motivated to allocate a few percent of that income to a crew of lobbyists to ensure the contracts keep coming, while the parent whose child isn't killed in the war that doesn't happen never thinks to write a check to a peace movement that prevented the war from happening (assuming for the sake of argument, that a peace movement could actually prevent a war from happening).
None of this is meant to disparage all of the amazing work that's done for no pay at all by the millions of Americans who struggle for peace. But it stands to reason that if peace-making is something we fit in between our other commitments, while war-making is something that millions are allowed to devote their full energies to, then the result is likely to be more war and less peace. And anyone who's ever looked around the room at a peace-movement organizing meeting and seen our characteristic mix of college students and retirees can tell that there's a “missing generation” - people at their peak of ability and energy, off doing what they need to do to raise and support a family.
Must it be always this way? If our society was capable of a rational allocation of resources, certainly not. The Iraq war has been estimated to cost our country at least three trillion dollars before it ends. Could a million paid peace organizers, placed in a million communities in our country, have organized enough opposition to defeat the Congressional vote that sent us into that war? If we paid those million peace organizers a million dollars each for their work, we'd still have saved $2 trillion. That's a bargain, by anyone's standard.
But cost-benefit analysis, however persuasive, won't create peace jobs from thin air. One answer, championed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, is the creation of a Department of Peace. However laudable this may sound, there are some obvious problems with this idea. Since it seems to be the business of our government to go to war, it should be the business of peace activists to stand in opposition to the government. Could we expect government employees to do this? And what about the risk of creating a deadening “peace bureaucracy” that squeezes the vibrant life and grassroots initiative from the peace movement we've got now?
I have a different idea. It's a crazy idea, but I ask you to hear me out. Imagine that 2% of the adults in Anytown USA, a small town of about 10,000 people, decide that they're so fed up with endless war that they're willing to take a radical step. These 100 people agree to donate 1% of their annual income to a common fund, and with this money, they hire a full-time organizer. They're so committed to this idea that they also agree to attend a weekly meeting at which the paid organizer reports on the state of the peace movement and the work of their newly-created peace organization. In fact, they're so committed to peace that they decide that they will even bring their children to these weekly meetings, in order to pass on their desire for peace to the next generation.
What have I just described? Would it help if I added that the weekly meeting of this peace organization takes place on Sunday morning? Yes, this model for creating an army of a million paid peace organizers is so impractical that a million communities in our country make it happen every week. It's your local church, and it provides a powerful antidote to the argument that “we don't have the resources” to create real, family-sustaining jobs in the peace movement. Go into the poorest neighborhood in Milwaukee, for example, and you'll find a storefront church sustained entirely by the donations of its members, working-class folks who are donating much more than the 1% that our imaginary Anytown residents are donating.
No, the peace movemen can't offer you eternal salvation in return for your 1%, but we can offer some benefits in the here-and-now that your local church can't match, like a country with the resources to provide universal health care and a free college education, and thousands of not-dead young people at home instead of in Arlington National Cemetery.
But aren't the Anytown residents taking the easy way out? Aren't they simply fobbing off their peace work on a paid servant? I think the opposite is more likely to happen: with a paid organizer to make the phone calls, reserve the room, arrange the meeting with the Congressman, our Anytown peace activists can leverage their efforts, and would likely become more active. Besides, wouldn't people who had committed a substantial amount of money to a peace organization be willing to do more to ensure that it was successful? Don't church members do more charitable and volunteer work precisely because there's a paid minister who's able to encourage, direct, and focus their efforts?
Often, those of us in the peace movement argue that people need to “step it up” in terms of their willingness to sacrifice for peace. Usually this argument is made by the advocates of direct action, who call on us to step outside our legally-permitted-march comfort zone and risk arrest at a defense plant or Senator's office. But I think of “step it up” in terms of this question: Do we want peace enough to do what your average Methodist or Episcopalian does?
Monday, August 18, 2008
Carl Sack: Imperialism's Chess Board: War in the Caucasus and the Fall of Pax Americana
I just got back from a week long family vacation, and caught up with about two dozen articles on the Georgia conflict that had collected in my e-mail inbox. It's a much more complex situation than a mere tit-for-tat, with major geopolitical fallout and serious future repercussions. Here are some points I gleaned, in summary form:
Georgia's History
One of the nations in the Russian Tzar's prison house, Georgia was granted autonomy by the early Soviet Union. It had a Menshivik-led government friendly to Britain and Germany until that government was overthrown by a Bolshevik-supported uprising in 1921. Ultimately it was re-subsumed by the Soviet Union. Stalin, himself a Georgian but hostile to Georgian nationalism, attempted to thin out ethnic Ossetians by encouraging Russians to move into the territory.
Georgia regained independence in 1990, a year before the Soviet Union fell, and claimed Ossetia as part of its territory. The Ossetians fought this attempted subjugation, and South Ossetia became semi-autonomous in 1992 after the pro-Western Georgian government fell and Russia stepped in. Russian peacekeepers have been present in the region since then. Many if not most South Ossetians have Russian passports and consider themselves Russian citizens. In a 2006 referendum with 95% voter turnout, 99% of South Ossetians voted for full independence from Georgia.
U.S. Influence and NATO
The U.S. has been courting Georgia as an ally since 2003, when the CIA played a large part in orchestrating the so-called "Rose Revolution" which overthrew the Stalinist government of Edward Shevardnadze. The U.S. backed the election of Saakashvili in 2004. Since then, the Georgian president has been very friendly with Bush. Last summer joint war games were held in Georgia with U.S. troops from the state of Georgia. Georgia has sent 2,500 troops to Iraq, the third-largest contingent behind the U.S. and Britain. When Georgia invaded South Ossetia, the U.S. immediately provided planes to fly the Georgian troops stationed in Iraq home. Additionally, the U.S. has about 1,000 military instructors in Georgia, who directly command 2,500-3,000 mercenaries, according to Russia. Israel has also sent military advisers and material to Georgia.
The U.S. has been grooming Georgia to enter NATO, which fits with their post-Soviet policy of encircling and isolating Russia to prevent its resurgence as a competing superpower. The U.S. tried the NATO trick with the Ukraine two years ago, and almost started a civil war there. Now the policy has thoroughly backfired in Georgia. Russia sees NATO as a direct threat to its interests, and its addition of Georgia would be a major stab by the U.S. into what they consider their sphere of influence (in the same way the U.S. considers Central America its sphere). Russia's overwhelming show of force was at least partly designed to warn any lesser powers in the region away from joining NATO. It has been a catastrophe for U.S. imperialism in the region.
The Invasion
Pursuing an aggressive nationalist policy to reintegrate South Ossetia, Georgia's president Saakashvili launched a surprise invasion of South Ossetia in the middle of the night before the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, when Vladimir Putin was in Beijing. Apparently Saakashvili's brash hope was to catch Russia off guard and draw in U.S./NATO forces to militarily aid Georgia. Georgian missile launchers and warplanes attacked Russian peacekeepers, Ossetian forces and civilians, completely destroying the capital Tskhinvali, a city of 100,000. 2,000 people were killed on August 7-8th, and over 40,000 fled to North Ossetia.
Russia responded with overwhelming force, attacking Georgian military targets in South Ossetia and two Georgian cities, destroying military bases which had been recently upgraded to NATO standards. With his forces quickly routed and substantial U.S. aid failing to materialize (for obvious reasons - the U.S. isn't ready for a full-scale war with Russia), Saakashvili cried uncle. Russia also took the opportunity to sever Georgia's control of Abkahzia, another autonomy-seeking province with its own ethnic identity. Though how these territories will be defined, whether independent pro-Moscow states or a part of Russia, is formally up in the air, Russia holds all the cards in determining that status. They will certainly not go back under Georgian control.
More critical for Russia than the capture of piddly Caucasian territories is that Russia's first full show of military strength since the Soviet disintegration has totally changed the dynamics of the region, smashing U.S. aspirations to control its natural resources and reinstalling Russia as a major imperial force. Other countries in the region will be much more hesitant to court U.S. favor, now that there is once again a second superpower much closer to home.
It wouldn't be a U.S.-backed war without...
Oil. And gas. Lots of it. Russia controls huge reserves of oil and natural gas in central Asia, strategic resources for in the post-Peak Oil world. The only pipeline routes from the Caspian Sea oil fields not under Russia's control run through Georgia to Black Sea ports in Turkey. Another pipeline to Western Europe was in the works to be built by BP and Chevron, but now it is unlikely to go forward because of the "investment risk" from Russia.
Turkey
Turkey is at the shipping end of the BP/Chevron pipeline, and is a key U.S. ally and NATO member in the region. But it's big and diverse, and most of its people do not buy into Western propaganda. In the runup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Turkish parlaiment voted overwhelmingly to prevent the U.S. from using Turkish bases to launch airstrikes on Iraq. Turkey's main military concern right now is preventing the PKK from gaining independence for Kurdistan (northern Iraq and southeast Turkey).
Though not entirely happy with U.S. actions in Iraq, Turkey has played a key part in toeing the line of U.S. imperialism in the region. The country has given large amounts of military aid to Georgia. It has troops in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Lebanon. A political change of climate in the region could pit Turkey against Russia in a major, messy war or series of wars.
Poland: a Nuclear War Flashpoint
U.S. foreign policy strategists are bitter and enraged over losing their chess piece in Georgia, and that doesn't bode well for rational thinking amongst imperialists. The State Department's immediate response to Georgia's routing was to sign a deal with Poland on which it had previously been stalling, to put in place a missile shield by 2012. The deal includes 10 interceptor missiles and a battery of long-range Patriot missiles, operated by 100 U.S. troops. While the State Department claims the measures are to defend against "future adversaries such as Iran," this is a pretty preposterous scenario, given that all the missiles are pointed at Russia.
Russia is obviously not happy, and is firing back with words, and maybe eventually with missiles of its own. The Russian military deputy chief of staff, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said that "by deploying, Poland is exposing itself to a strike - 100%" from Russia. In the form of nuclear warheads. No, this is not the '60s, and yes, Russia is threatening nuclear war, while Poland and the U.S. seem perfectly willing to risk provoking one.
Speaking of Iran
After a week of war games with Britain and France in the Atlantic, the U.S. just dispatched a massive carrier group to the Persian Gulf, to be augmented by a British carrier group and French nuclear sub. This is the largest buildup of naval power in the Gulf since 1991, obvious preparations for the threatened war with Iran. Kuwait is anticipating a war, having activated a state of preparedness for war. I won't reiterate all the reasons an attack on Iran would be stupid, stupid, stupid for the U.S. and its allies. But as I said, enraged imperialists don't always see the likely consequences of their actions.
Some have speculated that the Georgia invasion was a "shot across the bow" to warn Russia off interfering with an attack on Iran. Whether or not this is true, Russia's newfound greater influence over Caspian oil has underlined for U.S. imperial strategists the importance of maintaining control over the Middle East's natural resources.
The End of Pax Americana and World War III
With the dollar falling and the world economy on shaky ground, U.S.capitalism is struggling to hold onto its world empire against competition from the more dynamic burgeoning capitalist powers of Asia. The arrogant and short-sighted maneuvers of the Bush Administration have certainly hastened the strain on the American position (which I think is the reason the ruling class and the media are mainly backing Obama this election--he's smart and might be able
to turn around the recent failures of U.S. imperialism). There is tension building between faltering American economic power on the one hand and the ability of the U.S. to still force the world to play on its terms at the point of a gun--or think that it can--on the other. At some point, the pressure will be too much for the capitalist competitors of the U.S., and there will have to be a major shakeup. The last two such shakeups were world wars, which came as the result of inter-imperialist rivalries of similar complexity and form to what we are seeing today. We may be hearing the first rumbles of the coming storm.
If this storm comes, the victims will be in the untold millions or even billions, possibly life on Earth itself. Ultimately, the only way to avoid the scourge of war is to dump capitalism and transform society to one worldwide democracy with a socialist economic structure. We need a world based on love and human compassion, not greed, competition and unconscionable inequality. We need respect for the vast diversity of cultures and lifestyles, and respect for all humanity as equally valuable. We need socialism, or we will have barbarism.
Carl Sack is a Duluth-area peace activist with WNPJ member group Northland Anti-War Coalition.
Sources
Flounders, Sara. "U.S. Hidden Hand Pushes Ossetia War." Workers World.
August 13, 2008.
Levine, Steve. "Georgia: A Blow to U.S. Energy." Business Week.
August 13, 2008.
Savran, Sungar. "Huge Stakes in War in the Caucuses." MRZine (Monthly
Review online). August 8, 2008.
Schoenfelder, Patrick. "Marching Through Georgia." Progressive Action
e-mail listserv (Duluth, MN). August 12, 2008.
Shanker, Thom and Nicholas Kulish. "Russia Lashes Out on Missile Deal."
New York Times. August 15, 2008.
Sustar, Lee. "How Imperial Rivalries Stoked War in Georgia."
Socialistworker.org. August 12, 2008.
Traynor, Ian, Luke Harding and Helen Womack. "Georgia and Russia
Declare Ceasefire." The Guardian (UK). August 16, 2008.
"U.S. Military Instructors Command Hirelings in Georgia." Kommersant
(Russia). August 11, 2008.
Watson, Paul Joseph. "Largest Naval Deployment Since 1991 Heads For
Persian Gulf." Alex Jones' Prison Planet. August 12, 2001.
Whitney, Mike. "Master Plan or Screw Up? Georgia and U.S. Strategy."
Counterpunch. August 14, 2008.
Georgia's History
One of the nations in the Russian Tzar's prison house, Georgia was granted autonomy by the early Soviet Union. It had a Menshivik-led government friendly to Britain and Germany until that government was overthrown by a Bolshevik-supported uprising in 1921. Ultimately it was re-subsumed by the Soviet Union. Stalin, himself a Georgian but hostile to Georgian nationalism, attempted to thin out ethnic Ossetians by encouraging Russians to move into the territory.
Georgia regained independence in 1990, a year before the Soviet Union fell, and claimed Ossetia as part of its territory. The Ossetians fought this attempted subjugation, and South Ossetia became semi-autonomous in 1992 after the pro-Western Georgian government fell and Russia stepped in. Russian peacekeepers have been present in the region since then. Many if not most South Ossetians have Russian passports and consider themselves Russian citizens. In a 2006 referendum with 95% voter turnout, 99% of South Ossetians voted for full independence from Georgia.
U.S. Influence and NATO
The U.S. has been courting Georgia as an ally since 2003, when the CIA played a large part in orchestrating the so-called "Rose Revolution" which overthrew the Stalinist government of Edward Shevardnadze. The U.S. backed the election of Saakashvili in 2004. Since then, the Georgian president has been very friendly with Bush. Last summer joint war games were held in Georgia with U.S. troops from the state of Georgia. Georgia has sent 2,500 troops to Iraq, the third-largest contingent behind the U.S. and Britain. When Georgia invaded South Ossetia, the U.S. immediately provided planes to fly the Georgian troops stationed in Iraq home. Additionally, the U.S. has about 1,000 military instructors in Georgia, who directly command 2,500-3,000 mercenaries, according to Russia. Israel has also sent military advisers and material to Georgia.
The U.S. has been grooming Georgia to enter NATO, which fits with their post-Soviet policy of encircling and isolating Russia to prevent its resurgence as a competing superpower. The U.S. tried the NATO trick with the Ukraine two years ago, and almost started a civil war there. Now the policy has thoroughly backfired in Georgia. Russia sees NATO as a direct threat to its interests, and its addition of Georgia would be a major stab by the U.S. into what they consider their sphere of influence (in the same way the U.S. considers Central America its sphere). Russia's overwhelming show of force was at least partly designed to warn any lesser powers in the region away from joining NATO. It has been a catastrophe for U.S. imperialism in the region.
The Invasion
Pursuing an aggressive nationalist policy to reintegrate South Ossetia, Georgia's president Saakashvili launched a surprise invasion of South Ossetia in the middle of the night before the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, when Vladimir Putin was in Beijing. Apparently Saakashvili's brash hope was to catch Russia off guard and draw in U.S./NATO forces to militarily aid Georgia. Georgian missile launchers and warplanes attacked Russian peacekeepers, Ossetian forces and civilians, completely destroying the capital Tskhinvali, a city of 100,000. 2,000 people were killed on August 7-8th, and over 40,000 fled to North Ossetia.
Russia responded with overwhelming force, attacking Georgian military targets in South Ossetia and two Georgian cities, destroying military bases which had been recently upgraded to NATO standards. With his forces quickly routed and substantial U.S. aid failing to materialize (for obvious reasons - the U.S. isn't ready for a full-scale war with Russia), Saakashvili cried uncle. Russia also took the opportunity to sever Georgia's control of Abkahzia, another autonomy-seeking province with its own ethnic identity. Though how these territories will be defined, whether independent pro-Moscow states or a part of Russia, is formally up in the air, Russia holds all the cards in determining that status. They will certainly not go back under Georgian control.
More critical for Russia than the capture of piddly Caucasian territories is that Russia's first full show of military strength since the Soviet disintegration has totally changed the dynamics of the region, smashing U.S. aspirations to control its natural resources and reinstalling Russia as a major imperial force. Other countries in the region will be much more hesitant to court U.S. favor, now that there is once again a second superpower much closer to home.
It wouldn't be a U.S.-backed war without...
Oil. And gas. Lots of it. Russia controls huge reserves of oil and natural gas in central Asia, strategic resources for in the post-Peak Oil world. The only pipeline routes from the Caspian Sea oil fields not under Russia's control run through Georgia to Black Sea ports in Turkey. Another pipeline to Western Europe was in the works to be built by BP and Chevron, but now it is unlikely to go forward because of the "investment risk" from Russia.
Turkey
Turkey is at the shipping end of the BP/Chevron pipeline, and is a key U.S. ally and NATO member in the region. But it's big and diverse, and most of its people do not buy into Western propaganda. In the runup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Turkish parlaiment voted overwhelmingly to prevent the U.S. from using Turkish bases to launch airstrikes on Iraq. Turkey's main military concern right now is preventing the PKK from gaining independence for Kurdistan (northern Iraq and southeast Turkey).
Though not entirely happy with U.S. actions in Iraq, Turkey has played a key part in toeing the line of U.S. imperialism in the region. The country has given large amounts of military aid to Georgia. It has troops in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Lebanon. A political change of climate in the region could pit Turkey against Russia in a major, messy war or series of wars.
Poland: a Nuclear War Flashpoint
U.S. foreign policy strategists are bitter and enraged over losing their chess piece in Georgia, and that doesn't bode well for rational thinking amongst imperialists. The State Department's immediate response to Georgia's routing was to sign a deal with Poland on which it had previously been stalling, to put in place a missile shield by 2012. The deal includes 10 interceptor missiles and a battery of long-range Patriot missiles, operated by 100 U.S. troops. While the State Department claims the measures are to defend against "future adversaries such as Iran," this is a pretty preposterous scenario, given that all the missiles are pointed at Russia.
Russia is obviously not happy, and is firing back with words, and maybe eventually with missiles of its own. The Russian military deputy chief of staff, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said that "by deploying, Poland is exposing itself to a strike - 100%" from Russia. In the form of nuclear warheads. No, this is not the '60s, and yes, Russia is threatening nuclear war, while Poland and the U.S. seem perfectly willing to risk provoking one.
Speaking of Iran
After a week of war games with Britain and France in the Atlantic, the U.S. just dispatched a massive carrier group to the Persian Gulf, to be augmented by a British carrier group and French nuclear sub. This is the largest buildup of naval power in the Gulf since 1991, obvious preparations for the threatened war with Iran. Kuwait is anticipating a war, having activated a state of preparedness for war. I won't reiterate all the reasons an attack on Iran would be stupid, stupid, stupid for the U.S. and its allies. But as I said, enraged imperialists don't always see the likely consequences of their actions.
Some have speculated that the Georgia invasion was a "shot across the bow" to warn Russia off interfering with an attack on Iran. Whether or not this is true, Russia's newfound greater influence over Caspian oil has underlined for U.S. imperial strategists the importance of maintaining control over the Middle East's natural resources.
The End of Pax Americana and World War III
With the dollar falling and the world economy on shaky ground, U.S.capitalism is struggling to hold onto its world empire against competition from the more dynamic burgeoning capitalist powers of Asia. The arrogant and short-sighted maneuvers of the Bush Administration have certainly hastened the strain on the American position (which I think is the reason the ruling class and the media are mainly backing Obama this election--he's smart and might be able
to turn around the recent failures of U.S. imperialism). There is tension building between faltering American economic power on the one hand and the ability of the U.S. to still force the world to play on its terms at the point of a gun--or think that it can--on the other. At some point, the pressure will be too much for the capitalist competitors of the U.S., and there will have to be a major shakeup. The last two such shakeups were world wars, which came as the result of inter-imperialist rivalries of similar complexity and form to what we are seeing today. We may be hearing the first rumbles of the coming storm.
If this storm comes, the victims will be in the untold millions or even billions, possibly life on Earth itself. Ultimately, the only way to avoid the scourge of war is to dump capitalism and transform society to one worldwide democracy with a socialist economic structure. We need a world based on love and human compassion, not greed, competition and unconscionable inequality. We need respect for the vast diversity of cultures and lifestyles, and respect for all humanity as equally valuable. We need socialism, or we will have barbarism.
Carl Sack is a Duluth-area peace activist with WNPJ member group Northland Anti-War Coalition.
Sources
Flounders, Sara. "U.S. Hidden Hand Pushes Ossetia War." Workers World.
August 13, 2008.
Levine, Steve. "Georgia: A Blow to U.S. Energy." Business Week.
August 13, 2008.
Savran, Sungar. "Huge Stakes in War in the Caucuses." MRZine (Monthly
Review online). August 8, 2008.
Schoenfelder, Patrick. "Marching Through Georgia." Progressive Action
e-mail listserv (Duluth, MN). August 12, 2008.
Shanker, Thom and Nicholas Kulish. "Russia Lashes Out on Missile Deal."
New York Times. August 15, 2008.
Sustar, Lee. "How Imperial Rivalries Stoked War in Georgia."
Socialistworker.org. August 12, 2008.
Traynor, Ian, Luke Harding and Helen Womack. "Georgia and Russia
Declare Ceasefire." The Guardian (UK). August 16, 2008.
"U.S. Military Instructors Command Hirelings in Georgia." Kommersant
(Russia). August 11, 2008.
Watson, Paul Joseph. "Largest Naval Deployment Since 1991 Heads For
Persian Gulf." Alex Jones' Prison Planet. August 12, 2001.
Whitney, Mike. "Master Plan or Screw Up? Georgia and U.S. Strategy."
Counterpunch. August 14, 2008.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Joy First: Report on Ft. McCoy Peace Action
I was honored and awed joining with other activists in a nonviolent direct action at Fort McCoy near Sparta, WI on Sunday August 10, 2008. The action was organized by Witness Against War, a campaign of Voices for Creative Nonviolence (http://www.vcnv.org ). Witness Against War has about 10 activists walking 450 miles from Chicago, the location of the 1968 Democratic National Campaign, to St. Paul for the start of the 2008 Republican National Campaign. They are interacting with local communities along the way, raising awareness about the role of both political parties in continuing the war and occupation of Iraq, and calling for an immediate end to our government’s illegal and immoral actions in Iraq. They spent two days in Madison at the end of July and I was happy to be able to join up with them again for this action.
A training/planning meeting was planned on Saturday afternoon near Sparta. I was able to get a ride from Erin and Ron, who were driving up from Chicago. As we gathered at a small town hall in a beautiful setting in rural Wisconsin on Saturday for training and action planning, I was humbled to be in the company of this dedicated and inspiring group of people. Looking around at the pastoral lands, it felt like we were truly in the heartland of the country. Also joining in were others from Catholic Workers and Christian Peacekeeping. As I looked around the room with about 45 people present, I realized that I had been arrested with about eight of them in the past. Many of the individuals in the room had spent time in Iraq and surrounding areas and have first-hand knowledge of the carnage going on in the middle-east. They are committed to doing all they can to bring the suffering and devastation to an end.
We spent about four hours in intense training and planning for our action the next day, talking about the goals of the action, logistics, and how the action would be carried out following the principles of nonviolence. Twelve individuals stated that they planned to risk arrest the following day at Fort McCoy.
At 6 pm we went to the farm of Dick and Violet, where we would be spending the night camping out. We had a few working groups who still had to complete tasks that evening, making posters, doing media planning, planning singing for the vigil, and discussing details of the action for those risking arrest. After a delicious dinner provided by Dick and Violet, we spent another couple hours discussing the action for the next day.
When we finished our planning, I had a chance to relax a little and appreciate the beautiful landscape. The sun was going down and it was gorgeous there with the rolling wooded hills and fields. The night sky was beautiful without the light pollution from the city and I was able to see some meteors streaming across the sky from the Perseid meteor shower. This was a very relaxing place to be the night before an action. Unfortunately Alice Cooper was giving a concert about a mile away at Fort McCoy and we could hear the music blasting until almost midnight.
I woke up early the next morning feeling anxious about the action, but stayed in my sleeping bag. At 6 am I heard the revelry playing at the military base and got up. It’s always very stressful putting your safety on the line and risking arrest. We were not certain what would happen during this action, but expected we would be held overnight either being taken to Madison to be arraigned at the federal courthouse or being held overnight in the Monroe County jail. We also always know that it is likely to be very uncomfortable physically, being handcuffed with little or no access to bathrooms, water, or food. However it is a risk that we feel compelled to take as we continue our resistance to our government’s illegal actions. When I am feeling anxious about doing this, I think about the suffering of the people of Iraq and of the US soldiers and their families, and then it feels like a small sacrifice to mak
After breakfast and last-minute details to work out, we were shuttled to Tunnel City where the walk would begin. The plan was to walk on State Highway 21 three miles to the boundary of the base. Then those risking arrest would take the lead and we would walk three more miles to the main gate of Fort McCoy for the action. That morning we were joined by several other people who would be there in solidarity with us and so we had about 50 people walking along the highway to Fort McCoy.
It was an incredible day with a blue sky and about 76 degrees. We couldn’t have asked for a more beautiful day. As we walked the three miles in the military base, it felt like we were walking through a national forest rather than through a military base with the beautiful pines lining the road and ponds with cattails. Breathing in the scent of the pines was grounding and gave me strength as we continued to walk towards our destination.
The beauty of what we saw along the road was really an illusion, hiding what was really happening at the base. In our hosts garage the night before I saw an aerial photo of part of Fort McCoy along the river that runs through the base. It was barren and marked with craters from weapons used during the military exercises that they have there. It was a reminder of the destruction that is being carried out in Iraq in our names.
I usually don’t walk six miles at a stretch and I was getting very tired and sore. I was glad when we saw the military base ahead, but also apprehensive. There was a big electronic sign stating that the main gate was closed and sawhorse type roadblocks across the entrance. The fifty walkers lined up along the highway across from the entrance, holding our signs, some of them saying, “Support the troops. End the war”. We began to sing.
Then the thirteen of us who were going to risk arrest walked across the street continuing to sing. We approached the roadblock and an officer told us that we could not go any further. Jeff Leys, co-coordinator with Voices for Creative Nonviolence, told him why we were there. Jeff said that we came with an open letter to those on the base and we would like to enter and talk to those on the base. He also said that we were calling on the government to end the war, bring all military personnel home, take care of our returning soldiers, and support Iraq in its reconstruction. Jeff said again that we wanted to enter the base to talk to soldiers who may be deployed Iraq soon and let them know their rights. The officer said that we could not enter. Jeff said that some of us are choosing to enter in a peaceful, nonviolent manner in spite of the warning. At that point the 13 of us proceeded across the line. Immediately about twice as many US Army police officers swarmed out of the building and came towards us. They were very polite as they began to handcuff us and lead us into a large garage type area for processing.
Those arrested included: Kathy Kelly, 54, Chicago, IL; Jeff Leys, 44, Watertown, WI; Joy First, 54, Madison, WI; John Bachman, 56, Eau Claire, WI; Brian Terrell, 52, Des Moines, IA; Renee Espeland, 47 Des Moines, IA; Kryss Chupp, 49, Chicago, IL; Ceylon Mooney, 33, Memphis, TN; Eileen Hanson, 34, Winona, MN; Joshua Brollier, 25, Clarkesville, TN; Lauren Cannon, 38, Chicago, IL; Alice Gerard, 51, Grand Island, NY; and Gene Stoltzfus, 68, of Ontario, Canada.
We were kept in handcuffs the whole time we were being processed. They asked us for our personal information, wrote out citations, took our picture, fingerprinted us (the cuffs were temporarily removed, but we were recuffed immediately), and we waited to be transported. We were each given a citation for trespassing and were told that we would be mailed a date for a mandatory court appearance in federal court in Madison.
It must have been about an hour before the first group of 3 or 4 was taken away in a police van and maybe 90 minutes before I was put into a police van, still cuffed. I asked where we were going and the officer told me they were dropping us off on the edge of the base where our friends were waiting for us. I was surprised and thankful to hear that we were being released so quickly.
It was a couple of minutes down the road and I saw the peace bus and all of our friends waiting for us. What a wonderful sight! They welcomed us with hugs, water, and food. We waited for the last group to come and were surprised that Kathy Kelly was not among those released. Lauren Cannon explained that the officers discovered that Kathy had some old outstanding warrants in Wisconsin so she was likely going to be transported to the Monroe County jail.
This was a much easier experience than I was expecting. I didn’t think I would get home until Monday. Stephania was with the group waiting for us, having driven from Madison on Sunday to be there in solidarity with us. She wanted to get on the road and get back to Madison, and she offered me a ride home which I was happy to take. I’m always anxious to get home after an action and it was nice to have the chance to talk to Stephania on the way home and process the experience.
As I continue my resistance to our government’s actions, I constantly question what I am doing and why. I know that what I am doing will not stop the war today or tomorrow. I know that we need many more people to be involved in civil resistance. But for today, I know that I must continue my resistance. I have to continue to do all I can in speaking out against the illegal and immoral actions of our government. I believe that what we do does make a difference.
You can read the open letter to the US government here...
Joy First is a member of Madison Pledge of Resistance and WNPJ.
A training/planning meeting was planned on Saturday afternoon near Sparta. I was able to get a ride from Erin and Ron, who were driving up from Chicago. As we gathered at a small town hall in a beautiful setting in rural Wisconsin on Saturday for training and action planning, I was humbled to be in the company of this dedicated and inspiring group of people. Looking around at the pastoral lands, it felt like we were truly in the heartland of the country. Also joining in were others from Catholic Workers and Christian Peacekeeping. As I looked around the room with about 45 people present, I realized that I had been arrested with about eight of them in the past. Many of the individuals in the room had spent time in Iraq and surrounding areas and have first-hand knowledge of the carnage going on in the middle-east. They are committed to doing all they can to bring the suffering and devastation to an end.
We spent about four hours in intense training and planning for our action the next day, talking about the goals of the action, logistics, and how the action would be carried out following the principles of nonviolence. Twelve individuals stated that they planned to risk arrest the following day at Fort McCoy.
At 6 pm we went to the farm of Dick and Violet, where we would be spending the night camping out. We had a few working groups who still had to complete tasks that evening, making posters, doing media planning, planning singing for the vigil, and discussing details of the action for those risking arrest. After a delicious dinner provided by Dick and Violet, we spent another couple hours discussing the action for the next day.
When we finished our planning, I had a chance to relax a little and appreciate the beautiful landscape. The sun was going down and it was gorgeous there with the rolling wooded hills and fields. The night sky was beautiful without the light pollution from the city and I was able to see some meteors streaming across the sky from the Perseid meteor shower. This was a very relaxing place to be the night before an action. Unfortunately Alice Cooper was giving a concert about a mile away at Fort McCoy and we could hear the music blasting until almost midnight.
I woke up early the next morning feeling anxious about the action, but stayed in my sleeping bag. At 6 am I heard the revelry playing at the military base and got up. It’s always very stressful putting your safety on the line and risking arrest. We were not certain what would happen during this action, but expected we would be held overnight either being taken to Madison to be arraigned at the federal courthouse or being held overnight in the Monroe County jail. We also always know that it is likely to be very uncomfortable physically, being handcuffed with little or no access to bathrooms, water, or food. However it is a risk that we feel compelled to take as we continue our resistance to our government’s illegal actions. When I am feeling anxious about doing this, I think about the suffering of the people of Iraq and of the US soldiers and their families, and then it feels like a small sacrifice to mak
After breakfast and last-minute details to work out, we were shuttled to Tunnel City where the walk would begin. The plan was to walk on State Highway 21 three miles to the boundary of the base. Then those risking arrest would take the lead and we would walk three more miles to the main gate of Fort McCoy for the action. That morning we were joined by several other people who would be there in solidarity with us and so we had about 50 people walking along the highway to Fort McCoy.
It was an incredible day with a blue sky and about 76 degrees. We couldn’t have asked for a more beautiful day. As we walked the three miles in the military base, it felt like we were walking through a national forest rather than through a military base with the beautiful pines lining the road and ponds with cattails. Breathing in the scent of the pines was grounding and gave me strength as we continued to walk towards our destination.
The beauty of what we saw along the road was really an illusion, hiding what was really happening at the base. In our hosts garage the night before I saw an aerial photo of part of Fort McCoy along the river that runs through the base. It was barren and marked with craters from weapons used during the military exercises that they have there. It was a reminder of the destruction that is being carried out in Iraq in our names.
I usually don’t walk six miles at a stretch and I was getting very tired and sore. I was glad when we saw the military base ahead, but also apprehensive. There was a big electronic sign stating that the main gate was closed and sawhorse type roadblocks across the entrance. The fifty walkers lined up along the highway across from the entrance, holding our signs, some of them saying, “Support the troops. End the war”. We began to sing.
Then the thirteen of us who were going to risk arrest walked across the street continuing to sing. We approached the roadblock and an officer told us that we could not go any further. Jeff Leys, co-coordinator with Voices for Creative Nonviolence, told him why we were there. Jeff said that we came with an open letter to those on the base and we would like to enter and talk to those on the base. He also said that we were calling on the government to end the war, bring all military personnel home, take care of our returning soldiers, and support Iraq in its reconstruction. Jeff said again that we wanted to enter the base to talk to soldiers who may be deployed Iraq soon and let them know their rights. The officer said that we could not enter. Jeff said that some of us are choosing to enter in a peaceful, nonviolent manner in spite of the warning. At that point the 13 of us proceeded across the line. Immediately about twice as many US Army police officers swarmed out of the building and came towards us. They were very polite as they began to handcuff us and lead us into a large garage type area for processing.
Those arrested included: Kathy Kelly, 54, Chicago, IL; Jeff Leys, 44, Watertown, WI; Joy First, 54, Madison, WI; John Bachman, 56, Eau Claire, WI; Brian Terrell, 52, Des Moines, IA; Renee Espeland, 47 Des Moines, IA; Kryss Chupp, 49, Chicago, IL; Ceylon Mooney, 33, Memphis, TN; Eileen Hanson, 34, Winona, MN; Joshua Brollier, 25, Clarkesville, TN; Lauren Cannon, 38, Chicago, IL; Alice Gerard, 51, Grand Island, NY; and Gene Stoltzfus, 68, of Ontario, Canada.
We were kept in handcuffs the whole time we were being processed. They asked us for our personal information, wrote out citations, took our picture, fingerprinted us (the cuffs were temporarily removed, but we were recuffed immediately), and we waited to be transported. We were each given a citation for trespassing and were told that we would be mailed a date for a mandatory court appearance in federal court in Madison.
It must have been about an hour before the first group of 3 or 4 was taken away in a police van and maybe 90 minutes before I was put into a police van, still cuffed. I asked where we were going and the officer told me they were dropping us off on the edge of the base where our friends were waiting for us. I was surprised and thankful to hear that we were being released so quickly.
It was a couple of minutes down the road and I saw the peace bus and all of our friends waiting for us. What a wonderful sight! They welcomed us with hugs, water, and food. We waited for the last group to come and were surprised that Kathy Kelly was not among those released. Lauren Cannon explained that the officers discovered that Kathy had some old outstanding warrants in Wisconsin so she was likely going to be transported to the Monroe County jail.
This was a much easier experience than I was expecting. I didn’t think I would get home until Monday. Stephania was with the group waiting for us, having driven from Madison on Sunday to be there in solidarity with us. She wanted to get on the road and get back to Madison, and she offered me a ride home which I was happy to take. I’m always anxious to get home after an action and it was nice to have the chance to talk to Stephania on the way home and process the experience.
As I continue my resistance to our government’s actions, I constantly question what I am doing and why. I know that what I am doing will not stop the war today or tomorrow. I know that we need many more people to be involved in civil resistance. But for today, I know that I must continue my resistance. I have to continue to do all I can in speaking out against the illegal and immoral actions of our government. I believe that what we do does make a difference.
You can read the open letter to the US government here...
Joy First is a member of Madison Pledge of Resistance and WNPJ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
