Standing By
Excerpted from FOR Witness

A recent US Fellowship of Reconciliation peacemaking delegation met with leaders and civilians throughout the Middle East . Their role was to listen carefully and empathetically, while showing clearly their commitment to nonviolence.

 The delegation frequently observed distressing effects of violence by all sides in the tense region. In one instance they came upon final phases of an attack which destroyed an Arab street market by some women from a Jewish settlement. As is so often the case, the destruction was to avenge another attack, though not one connected to the shopowners. Soldiers stood by without acting. Scott Kennedy, who led [the] FOR delegation, asked one of the soldiers why he stood by while vigilantes rampaged though two shops. The soldier’s face turned beet red. His commanding officer rushed over and told him to walk away and not talk to the delegation.

Next morning, the Jerusalem Post reported on the incident, saying that the soldiers had tried unsuccessfully to restrain the woman.

Scott Kennedy observed “When you see what devastation war brings and how the fabric of society is so easily rent by forces unleashed, I quake at the nonchalance with which people in the U.S. accept war as a possible, almost preferred option.”

--FOR Witness, Early Winter 2003. Former mayor of Santa Cruz and FOR president Scott Kennedy was 1991 Peace Camp guest speaker.

Fasting for Peace 
By DAN ONORATO 

As Stanislaus Connections goes to press, Dan Onorato, Modesto Peace/Life Center and Modesto Junior College professor, is finishing a fourteen day liquids-only fast to protest president Bush's war plans and to appeal to all concerned to act for peace.

I am deeply troubled by president Bush's threats of imminent war against Iraq. Saddam Hussein may be removed from power, but thousands of innocent Iraqis will most likely also be killed. For the past eleven years the Iraqi people have suffered terribly under U.S.-backed economic sanctions . According to UN estimates, over one million have died, half of them children under five, as a result. To add a devastating war to this massive destruction reaches a ten on the Richter Scale of human suffering. If we remind ourselves the Iraqis are human beings just like us, it is hard to fathom the depth of their grief, anguish, fear, and sorrow.

I cannot and will not refrain from speaking out against a national foreign policy that has inflicted such devastation and misery and may cause far more. I am undergoing this fast to pray more deeply that we avert this war and learn to live together in peace. My short experience with hunger is a small way to identify with the Iraqi people's severe hunger and malnutrition over the last eleven years. I anxiously contemplate the fright and terror Iraqis must feel each day, and I worry and am concerned for the American soldiers sent into danger and for their families and friends. I am deeply saddened we have turned a new millennium of promise into a new form of Cold War. I urge all who share a similar view to act for peace.

I agree with the leaders of the Catholic Church and most of the mainline Protestant churches that president Bush's war fails to meet the minimum requirements for a just war. It is not a last resort and its consequences will cause more harm than the evil it seeks to solve. It is immoral.

I am troubled by the precedent this war will set. The policy of pre-emptive attack will undermine international law and lead to havoc. Nations will justify attacking other nations on the grounds of fear of attack rather than actual or imminent aggression. And they will point to the U.S. attack and invasion of Iraq as support for their action. Most of the rest of the world feels the Bush Administration is acting as a bully, and resentment is growing against the U.S.'s self-appointed role as military policeman of the world.

I am troubled also that an attack against Iraq will enflame further hatred in the Middle East and elsewhere against the U.S., and increase the chances of more terrorist attacks against this country and its allies. In addition, a war will entail a long military occupation involving thousands of American soldiers for many years. Fierce disagreements among exiled Iraqi political leaders, along with friction among Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish peoples in Iraq, are sufficient reason to expect protracted division, instability, and danger. Are most Americans willing to embrace this long and dubious commitment?

I believe a war against Iraq is unnecessary. As long as the UN weapons inspectors continue their work, and world scrutiny pressures Saddam Hussein, Iraq poses little imminent danger to other countries. Colin Powell's assertion that Iraq is working with Al Qaeda was his weakest claim. Heightened international collaboration and diplomacy will offer a far less dangerous and far more satisfactory outcome than war.

Furthermore, to the extent that this is a war over oil, the wisest course for this country is to commit its best talent and its vast resources into developing renewable sources of energy. This administration is spending over one billion dollars a day on the military. If the government were to allocate one-third of this toward a Renewable Fuels Manhattan Project, this country within a decade could reduce its petroleum imports to a fraction and be free of dependence on Middle East oil. Wars over oil would be avoided and the earth's environment would be cleaner and more healthy for all.

I hunger for a world that chooses wisdom and restraint over fear and reprisal. I hunger for a world in which the chasm between rich and poor will become a modest gap; a world in which military budgets and exports shrink and financial and social commitments grow for quality education, affordable housing, job creation, and universal health care for all; a world in which we evolve beyond individual, group, or national preoccupation into caring more generously and compassionately for the common good of the human family and this precious earth.

Please turn your yearning for peace into practical action. Please call or write our senators and congressional representatives. Time is short. Please act now.

As Stanislaus Connections goes to press, Oakdale City Councilmember Phil Rockery has place a resolution against possible military action in Iraq on the city's meeting agenda.

Modestans are working on the following:

A Resolution of the Citizens of the Modesto Peace Community Opposing Military Action Against Iraq by the United States

WHEREAS, a preemptive strike by the U.S. violates our commitments under the United Nation Charter, goes against established international law, sets a dangerous precedent for the world community, and further isolates the U.S. from the rest of the world; and,

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States of America provides that Congress, not the President, has the authority to declare war. The Constitution has no provision by which Congress may delegate its authority to declare war to the President; and a military attack against Iraq would be an undeclared act of war; and

WHEREAS, International diplomatic efforts should be the preferred means to resolve international conflicts; and,

WHEREAS, most California cities and the state of California are suffering fiscal crises where programs are threatened by severe budget cuts. And it has been estimated that a war in Iraq would likely cost the U.S. government $100-$200 billion, an amount that could go a long way to meeting our municipal and education needs; and

WHEREAS, the Citizens of the Modesto Peace Community have the deepest respect for those who are willing to risk their lives to protect the United States. But, we believe further military action against Iraq will risk the deaths of thousands of American and Iraqi citizens without guaranteeing the safety of U.S. military; and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that we, Citizens of the Modesto Peace Community, oppose a U.S. military attack on Iraq unless it is demonstrated that Iraq poses a real and imminent threat to the security and safety of the United States; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we urge the President of the United States, his Administration and the Congress to act in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and International Law in refraining from the use of military force as a means of conflict resolution except as a last resort.

Sponsored by: Modesto Peace/Life Center, Stanislaus County Green Party, Unitarian Universalist Fellowship Social Action Committee

Please contact the Mayor and City Council members, tell them you support the resolution and ask them to put it on the City Agenda ASAP for formal discussion and voting:

Phone: 209.571.5169 FAX: 209.571.5586 

• Mayor Carmen Sabatino - csabatino@modestogov.com 
• Vice Mayor Bruce Frohman - bfrohman@modestogov.com 
• Council Member Janice Keating - jkeating@modestogov.com 
• Council Member Bill Conrad - bconrad@modestogov.com 
• Council Member Will O'Bryant - wobryant@modestogov.com 
• Council Member Tim Fisher - tfisher@modestogov.com 

Council Member Denny Jackman - djackman@modestogov.com

Position on United Nations Support of peace operations urged 
Excerpted from League of Women Voters U.S. National Program statement by Myrtle Osner 

The League of Women Voters supports a strong, effective United Nations and endorses the full and active participation of the United States in the UN system. The League supports UN efforts to: 

• Promote international peace and security 
• Ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. 
• Foster trust and cooperation among nations by encouraging adherence to conventions, treaties, and other international agreements.

The United Nations should be an important component of U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. should work actively and constructively within the UN system, exercising diplomatic leadership in advance of decision-making.

UN peace operations should include such strategies as: 

• increased emphasis on preventive diplomacy and mediation to help resolve disputes. 
• Enhanced capacity to respond rapidly and effectively to contain conflict and establish a just and stable peace.

The United States should support all aspects of the peace operations. The League supports the basic principles of the UN Charter, and supports the veto power in the Security Council.

Position on Military Policy and Defense spending:

The LWVUS believes that the U.S. government should seek to protect its interests at home and abroad through the use of non-military means.

The League believes that military force should be used as a tool of last resort. Unquestionably, defense of the homeland is an appropriate military objective. Any decision to defend another country militarily should be in support of clear foreign policy goals and tailored to specific circumstances.

Direct military involvement of U.S. forces is not an appropriate means to further interests in developing countries.

ACTION: For further details, call LWV of Modesto at 524-1698

OPINION: Dealing with violence
By KEN KOHLER

We can march, and we can be COs, and do civil disobedience, but in the end we must face the fact that we must deal with violence in the world on a personal level. How do we deal with violence in a nonviolent manner when it happens to us? I believe that we first must look for justice, not revenge. It is also helpful to try to understand the reasons behind the act. Was it racially motivated? Was someone seeing us as a have, and seeing himself as a have not? If we begin to understand the motivation and anger of those who do violence then perhaps we can personally and as a society move to address those issues.

Too many parts of the world do not value human life. The power of violence and the threat of violence in places like the Middle East strike fear into the people that live there and give control to those who believe that the end justifies the means. In the final analysis, it is about power — my will vs. your will. Too often the leaders of countries, including our own, are all too ready to put their citizens in harm’s way rather than seek diplomatic solutions to the world’s problems.

I believe that we need to set up a system where if a war breaks out anywhere in the world, a body of soldiers comprised of international peacekeepers is sent to that nation within 72 hours to keep the killing from getting out of hand and forcing the diplomats to settle their differences at the negotiating table rather than the battlefield. This would be much like an antibody responding to an infection in the body. When a nation allows violence to occur on a widespread basis it should forfeit its nationalism to the intervening of a world organization. A truce will eventually be signed, but we must do it sooner rather than latter.

Nationalism, and bigotry have been responsible for all wars since the founding of the first nations. Our world has become very small. What affects the smallest nation also affects the largest. Our ability to kill one another advances through scientific knowledge while we fail to cure deadly diseases, feed the hungry. The list goes on and on. Why is the vision for scientific advancement such as space exploration not utopian, but conquering our violent nature is? I wonder when our leaders will see that putting scientific knowledge to use for the benefit of mankind creates much more power than creating a new and better nuclear weapon?

As long as we continue to be divided into a world where there is ostentatious waste, and horrible hunger and disease, we will have violence. As long as we have shallow values, we will court violence from those who believe the only way to get out of poverty is violence.

It has been scientifically shown that we all came from the same DNA. We are all family. Do we wish to help or harm the members of our family? We must change or face the consequences which are catastrophic in their ramifications.

The key to dealing with violence on an individual basis and on a worldwide basis is not to plant the seeds that breed it in the first place. The choice of the harvest is ours to make. What shall it be? The choice is yours and mine.