"Charles was a talker and a doer," says Dan Onorato. Others speaking at Charles Sesser’s memorial service on Father’s Day echoed Dan’s comments on Charles dedication, actions, and convictions based on his interpretation of the Bible, the social gospel.

Charles thought there was really a fifth gospel, Dan suggested. "You’re familiar with the Gospel according to Mark, and the ones according to John, Luke, and Matthew. Well, Charles thought there was also a Gospel according to Charles," brought much appreciative laughter.

Dan remembered that Charles was one of the first draft counselors in this area, even before the Modesto Peace Center opened its doors 30 years ago. During the Viet Nam War counselors trained to discuss options open to young men faced with the draft. Charles was a upfront, in-your-face, "what are YOU doing" to make the world a more just, a more peaceful place challenger whether on the job as a social worker and farmer, at church, and in the many organizations he worked with.

And the memories of family reunions of the 80’s are particular acute for his socially aware, but not necessarily in agreement, siblings and 11 children and step-children, always talk full of Reagan and Nicaragua.

Charles’s marriage to Ruth Raymond brought a 27-year partnership dedicated to peace and justice. He worked with Ruth as she started Interfaith Ministries with its food bank, clothes closet and other services, the Center for Senior Employment, the local chapter of Habitat for Humanity. He delivered not just meals to homebound seniors but also the gift of daily conversation .

In 1983 Ruth and Charles were honored by the Modesto Peace/Life Center as Friends of Peace. A letter from Margaret Barker read in part: "I began working at the Welfare Department in July, 1970 as a receptionist in "Old" Building 4 (previously a car show room). The first time I spoke to Charlie, he brought a client in to be seen by their Eligibility Worker, and was waiting patiently in line with them. I told him that we would process his client early for him, but he said that everyone in the line was as busy as he, he would wait his turn. "He wore then the pendant that stated ‘War is not healthy for children and other living things’. When I expressed my agreement, he seemed pleased, struck up a conversation, and we were buddies from then on. [He wasn’t] shy about offering his opinion - about the day’s headline, the court’s latest ruling, the new appointment, whatever. And…he would actually listen to your opinion, a talent that fewer and fewer people have nowadays.

"I saw many different approaches to providing services for welfare clients in the 1970’s and 80’s. Some workers went strictly by the book, not providing more, or less service than required, and not caring about the outcome. Not Charlie. He was often unconventional, providing a good hardy nudge toward helping the client make the right choice, overlooking a tiny requirement; but any decision he made, any help he provided was always with the client’s best interest in mind, and always within the guidelines of the law’s requiremnts.

Eligibility Workers liked for him to get their referrals, not so much because they would always have solved the problem in the same way as Charlie, but because they knew someone who cared would be involved in seeing that the best that could possibly be done, was done. His goal was to see that each person was treated respectfully, and with justice."

Margaret Barker spoke for many people: "It was an honor to have worked with Charlie."

I stopped on my way out the door to Charles’ service and went back for my Another Mother for Peace pendant. I remember when I was a teenager, Charles was the first man I ever saw wear one.

War is not, and never will be, healthy for children and other living things.

Peace Essay Contest 2000 First Place, Division I (grades 11 and 12)

Correction: The Cara Chittim essay, printed in the April edition of Stanislaus Connections won First Place in Division II (grades 9 and 10). It was incorrectly labeled at the winner of Division I (grades 11 and 12).

Participants in the high school divisions of the Peace Essay Contest 2000 were instructed to develop and explain a plan to achieve a dream the author has for the future that would make their world a better place to live (500 to 1000 words).

Sponsored by the Modesto Peace/Life Center, the 14th annual contest received 734 qualifying entries.

By VALERIE ROZYCKI

Modesto High School

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

— Martin Luther King , Jr.

In the middle of the twentieth century, Martin Luther King, Jr. used these words to touch our world, our nation, our communities and our hearts. Even though this inspirational leader’s dream of racial peace and unity has not been completely realized, it was this dream that started the world on the road to friendship and understanding. Now it is the end of the twentieth century, and today’s children are dreaming of ways to better the world for themselves and their families. As a child of the future, I too dream about the potential that mankind has to unite in peace. I dream that someday children will read about hate crimes in history books instead of in newspapers and not be able to comprehend such wickedness. I dream that as the morning of the future dawns, religious differences will cease to be the roots of war and persecution. And most importantly, I dream that someday the boundaries of race, ethnicity and faith will slowly fade away, leaving behind the beautifully diverse rainbow of the one true race, the human race.

All can recognize the importance of such a dream by turning the pages of recent world history that has been plagued by hatred that stems from man misunderstanding fellow man. Pure American ideals are still stained by the blood of victims of racial supremacists. Images of skinhead teenagers brandishing swastikas forever remind us of history’s most blatant crime against human diversity. Intolerance for homosexuality festers under the glossy skin of society. the evidence of the importance for a dream of peace between proximate and global neighbors is clear. Mankind has only to unlock the doors of the new millennium with a key that directs our attention to the potential that we possess to correct history and prevent repercussions of the past.

To erase the lines that divide mankind, the attitudes of the people in our universal society must change bit by bit. In order to implement these changes and see through distinctions, the people just be guided by a leader with presence that inspires the masses and sincere humility that evokes open minds and hearts willing to change. This leader must have courage and determination to trek steadfastly down a path of resistance and the integrity to sustain the purity of the movement to peace.

With the help of this leader, people can begin to draw their own map to peace. Every man, woman and child must alter a small part of their identity. However unique traditions and cultures are the gems of society and worth preserving. It is these differences that make mankind so brilliantly colorful. The members of our global community will need to think of themselves secondly as part of their race, religion or ethnicity, and primarily as part of the universal human race. Whether Mexican, Japanese or Swedish, Buddhist, Muslim or Christian, first and foremost we are all human beings. A good soldier for peace is one who embraces the liberal idea that we are all brothers and sisters and encourages eliminating our differential boundaries. Recognizing our similarities while celebrating our differences is the key to peace.

The process of changing the state of mind of people starts in the most intimate place, the home. However, a community effort is necessary to implement education and acceptance. Four conditions are necessary in reducing tension and prejudice between different cultures.1

First, "All sides must have equal status and economic standing."

Second, "All sides must believe that they have the moral, legal and economic support of authorities." These conditions can be achieved through legislation that guarantees all the citizens of a country equal access to employment, social services and other means of attaining prosperity. Examples of this type of just legislation are the 15th and I9th amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, which ensured the right to vote to all US citizens, and the Supreme Court rulings in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, which desegregated schools across America.2

The third condition is that "all sides must cooperate, working together for a common goal.

The fourth condition is that "all sides must have the opportunity to work and socialize together, formally and informally." Here lies the vehicle by which individuals may use on the road to peace. Neighboring cultures can help educate each other about their unique traits and differences. Citywide multicultural fairs and special days of recognition in schools could be used to educate adults and children about the individual beauties of the world’s cultures. Once we have an understanding for each other, we can then tackle the third and fourth conditions for eradicating prejudice. Community projects like canned food drives or graffiti clean-up days would bring a myriad of people together working towards a common goal. The needy spared one lonely night of hunger and the proud neighborhoods free from vandalism would directly benefit, in addition to the indirect profit of the creation of respect and friendship between the diverse peoples in the community. The acknowledgment of equal support from the government and other authorities is preparation for the quest for peace in which we will work, grow and learn together.

In the middle of the twentieth century, Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream. Now at the end of the twentieth century, I have a dream. Our dreams are similar in the way that they both call for racial, ethnic and religious peace. However, my dream is a quest for more than living in harmony. I dream that we as a global society will one day be able to respect the beauty and color of our differences while celebrating the one true race, the human race.

1Tavris, Carol and Carole Wadel. Psychology in Perspective. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 1997

By CHAD SOKOLOVSKY

Despite growing international concern about the effects of the UN sanctions on the general population of Iraq, the United Nations seems unwilling to ease up on its embargo. This coming August will mark the ten year anniversary of the implementation of the sanctions. In order to raise local awareness, a delegate from the International Action Center recently spoke at Modesto Junior College about the effects of the sanctions on Iraq.

Richard Becker, Western Coordinator for the International Action Center, recently returned from his second trip to Iraq along with 51 delegates from the IAC.

Becker showed the video Genocide By Sanctions by Gloria La Riva of the IAC which chronicled a 1997 trip to Iraq headed by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. The group was delivering medicine to the impoverished people of Iraq.

According to the video, at least 1.25 million Iraqi's have died since 1990 when the sanctions were implemented. The Iraqi Minster of Health states that most sickness and death affect children under the age of 5. Deaths from diarrhea and dysentery, caused by contaminated drinking water, are traced to the UN sanctions which ban the importation of water purifying chemicals.

Since the sanctions were put in place, medical supplies are virtually non-existent. Becker states that international law according to Article II of the Geneva Convention of 1948 prohibits the starving of children. In spite of this, Iraqi children receive only 40 percent of their daily caloric needs due to food rationing. However, according to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the human costs of sanctions are justified in light of the injustice that Iraq has committed. "What has Iraq done to deserve 9 1/2 years of sanctions that have claimed over 1 million lives?" Becker cites the three reasons given as justification: Iraq invaded Kuwait, human rights violations, and building Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

Becker showed that the economic motive tied to oil production is really the prime motivation for the sanctions. Becker asked, "Who is implementing the sanctions? And is the security of the United States really in danger?" He states that these questions need to be answered in order to understand the UN's justifications.

First, it is claimed that Iraq violated international law by invading Kuwait. Becker showed that both South Africa and Germany have invaded foreign lands and have never had sanctions imposed. The current state of Israel was founded under such circumstances. So how can this be a legitimate justification for the sanctions?

Second, it is claimed that Iraq has violated human rights by its invasion of Kuwait. Becker turned attention to current US foreign policies that clearly violate human rights. Turkey is currently the third largest recipient in U.S. foreign aid. This money is primarily used to supply the military in its fight against the Kurds. (Incidentally, congress just approved sending $1.7 billion to Colombia to support the government and paramilitary groups who are responsible for gross human rights violations.) Becker concludes that it is hypocritical for using so-called human rights violations to starve the children of Iraq.

Lastly, the building of WMD's is cited as the third reason for the sanctions. Is this threat real? Since 1998, all factories in Iraq have had 24-hour camera surveillance. There simply are no large caches of WMD's in Iraq. Becker states that by next year, the US

will have spent $20 trillion on the military since 1940. He says, "This is a crime far worse than a threat from Iraq."

Since 1945, states Becker, the main objective of US foreign policy has been to reorder the world economy so that corporate America will stay on top economically. Control of the world's oil supply is priority number one. Iraq contains 2/3 of the world's oil supply, and by destabilizing their economy, America maintains geo-political dominance over the world.

As long as America has a vested interest in destabilizing the infrastructure if Iraq, the sanctions are likely to continue. According to an article in Foreign Affairs, if the sanctions were lifted, Iraq's oil production could double within 5 to 10 years, creating a challenge to U.S. economies. That same article states that Washington is unprepared to handle the problems of an oil glut. Meanwhile, lives are being lost while the U.S. manipulates the UN to carry out its own interests.

Becker's speech highlights the fact that unnecessary suffering has been inflicted on the population of Iraq who has no political voice or role in the actions of Saddam Hussein. According to Becker, the only way to stop this terrible injustice is to speak out and get involved. The sanctions are in fact genocide, by means of depleting food and medical supplies.

ACTION: To get involved, contact International Action Center, 2489 Mission St., Room 28, San Francisco, Ca 94510 (415) 821-6545. E mail: iacenter@actionsf.org Web: www.actionsf.org, www.iacenter.org

By CHAD SOKOLOVSKY

An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure. This timeless adage has never been more misapplied than by Bill Clinton during his last few months of office as he has tried to sell the country on a new National Missile Defense System (NMD), which is supposed to protect America from incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles from so-called rogue nations such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq.

Anyone committed to peace needs to be aware of the current proposal and the fact that such a system is in no way an apparatus for defense. The proposed system merely threatens international peace, while at the same time, funds defense contractors who have a major stake in the success of the system.

Clinton has just returned from a two-day trip to Russia where he met with Russian president Vladimir Putin, who is opposed to the building of the system. President Clinton tried to convince the Russian parliament of the necessity of a system, which Clinton promises will, "pose no threat to Russia." Clinton was unsuccessful in trying to sway the Russian Duma to accept the proposed system.

The proposed system would cost an initial $21 billion and another $36 billion to maintain and operate through 2026. The system has already failed two tests this last year and is scheduled to undergo a third test this July. The outcome of that test will determine whether Bill Clinton will approve the system for construction.

The new system would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the U.S. and Russia of which Putin says, "The ABM treaty foresees the possibility of changes in the strategic environment that might require it to be updated." The Russian president, although recommending an update of the treaty, opposes such a defense system which would grossly disrupt the balance of power between the U.S. and Russia.

Why is Clinton so intent on approving a system that is opposed by the Union of Concerned Scientists, MIT Professor Theodore Postol (former Pentagon adviser on ballistic missiles), John Deutch (deputy defense secretary and CIA director under Clinton), and Harold Brown (President Carter's defense secretary)?

Ironically, both the Republican congress and the Clinton administration endorse the plan that would enhance the offensive capabilities of the United States military forces. According to The Nation (June 19, 2000), the plan is "unnecessary, unworkable and unaffordable". The same article states, "The mere pursuit of an NMD system could pose the most serious threat to international peace and stability since the height of the cold war."

Clinton's efforts to counteract his bad press with voters and the lobbying power of defense contractors such as Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin are responsible for the unnecessary system. All three corporations receive about 30 percent of their business from the U.S. government, and a project that would exist at least until 2026 would only serve to bail out these companies that have suffered from falling stock prices by using tax-payer funds.

The most serious concern is that the system is being set up to protect America from an imaginary threat. The nations continually mentioned as being "rogue nations" are Iraq, and North Korea. Neither of these nations has an interest in attacking the U.S., even if they had Nuclear capabilities, despite overly used rhetoric about terrorist actions.

Iraq has been suffering from ten years of UN sanctions that have destroyed their infrastructure and have disabled any military apparatus they might have had. Because of 24-hour camera surveillance in all factories in Iraq, the U.S. knows that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As the international campaign to end the UN sanctions highlights, Iraq's primary focus is on feeding its ailing population. Iraq cannot do this without foreign intervention. It is in Iraq's best interests to maintain diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, not nuclear engagement.

North Korea is in desperate need of foreign aid to maintain its crumbling economy. The president of South Korea, Kim Dae Jung, recently embarked on a three-day summit in North Korea to discuss reunification. The summit is seen as an effort by North Korea's president, Kim Jong II, to keep foreign food aid flowing and to rescue his agriculture and industry. According to Kim Byung, a professor of political science at Korea University, "Kim Jong II's economy is in dire condition and he needs to reach out." Kim Jong II has had all other engagements postponed so that he could focus on the South Korean president's visit. The North Korean president has even had old buildings in capital city Pyongyang repainted, and flowers and trees planted along expected travel routes before Kim Dae Jung arrived. According to an article by Doug Struck of the Washington Post, "North Korea is fighting a death grip of famine, economic collapse, power shortages and crop failures... Hundreds of thousands of people are thought to have died from malnutrition in the past five years; others have fled, at great risk, to China." This hardly sounds like a rogue-nation bent on unleashing a nuclear onslaught the U.S.

North Korea is also in dire need of foreign aid simply to feed its starving population. How can there be a nuclear threat from a nation that can barely maintain subsistence levels of living? Currently, according to Brian Becker, International Coordinator of the International Action Center, who recently returned from North Korea, North Korea maintains only short-range medium missiles incapable of even reaching the United States. Any nuclear capabilities have been put on hold for the last two years. And the supposed missile that North Korea fired last year, was only a rocket sending a satellite into space, not a nuclear weapon test.

Ironically, China is never mentioned as a threat by the Clinton administration, despite recent security leaks about sensitive nuclear secrets from Los Alamos laboratories. China's desire to enter the World Trade Organization and open up trade with the U.S. shows that diplomatic relations with the West are needed by China, and not militarized aggression. Besides, Clinton would not mention China as a threat since he has worked so hard to open up U.S. access to their markets. China, as well as North Korea needs trade with the West in order to improve its ailing economy. It makes no sense that a country such as North Korea would try to end 55 years of animosity with South Korea if they were building up a nuclear arsenal to attack the West. Maintaining strong diplomatic relations with South Korea and the West are some of North Korea's top priorities.

So where is this supposed threat coming from that America must invest close to $60 billion over the next 26 years? The fact is that there is no foreign threat to the U.S. in the form of an onslaught of intercontinental ballistic missiles. The goals of the system are to provide tax-payer funds to defense contractors who have incredibly strong lobbying power in Washington, and to resurrect Reagan's Star Wars program in order for America to maintain global military dominance.

The effects of such a system are summed up well by Russian president Vladimir Putin who affirms Russia's position on such a system by saying, "We are against having a cure that is worse than the disease."

The possibility of a system would start a 21st century arms race where Russia would be forced to maintain equivalent levels of nuclear weapons to keep a balance of power. Americans would be living with a false sense of security, and by approving such a proposal would be increasing the chances of nuclear war.

From the point of view of socially conscious people, the billions of dollars spent to build weapons could be better spent on health care, child care, better wages for the poor, and a host of other needs in our society. The proposed missile defense system is a so-called "preventive cure" that is far worse than any foreign nuclear threat. It is irresponsible, short-sided, and will be the greatest threat to international peace since the height of the cold war.