a campaign promess worth breaking

The new administration deserves appreciation for some of its initial actions. It is great progress that Obama has decisively declared an end to torture, that he has committed to close Guantanamo and all of the CIA’s secret prisons. Obama’s commitment to opening up the Freedom of information process is also positive. His instruction to the pentagon to draw up plans for removing troops from Iraq is a good first step. I’m even willing to be hopeful about the appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East. All this seems in keeping with campaign promises.

Unfortunately there is one campaign promises Obama seems to be keeping that is a foreign policy boon dog. On the 23rd of January a drone plane flew into Pakistan and killed at least 15 people, possibly an al Qaeda leader, but also at least 3 children. Continuing these attacks was in keeping campaign statements he made. When debating McCain he said, “if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.” In my opinion this position is wrong, and this recent strike was wrong for several reasons: 1) Although governments think they have the right to kill, killing is murder. 2) Collateral damage is another term for killing innocent people, in this case at least 3 children 3) Invading Pakistan like this is not good for building relations with the Pakistani government.4) Extrajudicial assassinations make the kangaroo courts of Guantanamo look like paragons of justice. Finally 5) what this act amounts to is a continuation of the Bush policy of preemptive military action.

The Bush doctrine of preemptive attack undermines the previously prevailing consensus regarding rules of international conflict. If preemptive attacks are justified then any government can claim that their initiation of violence was actually preemptive, an attempt to protect against attack. This was the argument for invading Iraq and has been used in discussions of possible attacks on Iran. Al Qaeda of course is the ultimate boogie man, and it will be argued that since we are in war with al Qaeda we have to strike them wherever they are. But when we strike inside of a country with out that countries approval it is an attack on that country.

This principle of preemptive action can be borrowed and widely spread. I recently read a debate about who first broke the cease fire that led to the recent invasion of Gaza by Israel, but who started it is no longer the question governments have to ask since preemptive actions can be justifiable. This kind of argument makes a difficult situation even worse. As the lone superpower in the world other nations look to the U.S. for the standards of international behavior. Until the Bush doctrine is overturned virtually any military action can be justified.

It is important for those of us working for a less violent world to push Obama to reject the Bush doctrine. This will mean that he will have to go back on that one campaign promise.

Many who want peace are delighted that Obama is in office and the general direction he is moving in. I share that general pleasure. Nonetheless this does not mean that our work is done, rather our work is cut out for us. One of the most refreshing traits of Baraq Obama is that he does listen to people. Now more than anytime that I can recall, our voices do have the potential to be heard. Yes things are better, but here is one area where we need to work for more, we need to demand the braking of a campaign promise.

babble of homophobes

With Days until inauguration I'll share my thoughts on the pick of Rich Warren. Many on the left have been upset by the selection of Rick Warren to dive the invocation at Obama's Inauguration. I think he is a much better choice than many of Obamas actual appointments. All of his major foreign policy and economic advisers are from the right wing of the movement that got him elected.

Obama should at least have one progressive economist on his team, someone not trained by Robert Rubin. The logical choice would be Dean Baker, the only economist I know of who predicted a housing bubble at least a couple years before the burst.

In foreign policy there is no obvious choice because of the institutional set up that rewards macho. the people we would really want would all be rejected, but he could have found someone who had real and outspoken doubts about the war for a position other than administering the VA. Shinseki was described by the media as a repudiation of the Iraq war by Obama, but he isn't in a place to advise on policy. Our best hope for progress would be the development of a department of peace.

But back to the inauguration and Warren, this is an excellent position to offer to someone to is anti abortion, and homophobic. The culture wars have seen these wedge issues used to elect Republicans again and again. The symbolic hand reached out to across the cultural divide does a lot to undermine elections won on wedge issues, and costs nothing in policy. Policy of course is what we care about regarding reproductive choice and gay rights. The real question on this front is not who will give the invocation but who will Obama appoint when there are openings on the supreme court.

A tale of two demos

Last week I attended two demonstrations about the situation in Gaza. The divergence between these two demonstrations reflects the fissures that run through the peace movement in Ann Arbor. This unhealed wound is bleeding what might otherwise be a vibrantly active local peace movement.

The first demonstration was on Saturday afternoon in front of the Federal building, It was attended by about a half a dozen activists who I have known for years. Friends I’ve known since the first gulf war, Some of these activist have held vigil on this street corner for several years now. The crowd maybe maxed at 75 people. It was timely, happening only days after the Israeli bombing started. The chants were loud and militant, many of the signs critiqued Zionism. One chant I could not join in with was “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free.” This chant is a call for the elimination of the state of Israel. I do not agree with the policies of Israel but still essentially acknowledge its right to exist.

The second demonstration was a candlelight vigil on Main st last Thursday. This was sponsored by Interfaith Counsel for Peace and Justice “ICPJ” the local interfaith peace group and Michigan Peaceworks the “big” peace organization in town. I did less of a head count here because my son Zev was with me, but there were about 100 to 150 people attending this vigil. The most common signs at this vigil were calling for a cease fire. Since it was available I held one of these signs, but with Gaza under siege a cease fire is not enough.

Long standing conflicts have existed between many of the activists who were at the first rally and the ICPJ and Michigan Peaceworks organizers. ICPJ and Michigan Peaceworks have been critiqued for failing to take certain positions about Israel and Palestine. There is even a group that calls itself “ICPJ Middle East Task fore in exile.” I don’t know if anyone other than me attended both the first rally and the vigil. Prior to the candle light vigil someone sent an email asking for volunteers to bring large signs so they could stand in front of signs that were deemed unpalatable to the public. I heard that some activists promoted a boycott of the vigil in response to this. Conflict abounds.

I know people on both sides who are deeply dedicated to working for a more just and peaceful world. I think both sides have important things to offer to that struggle. Unfortunately the conflict makes activists on both sides less effective. Those who want peace and a better life for the people in Gaza, when divided, will be conquered.

I would urge my comrades on all sides of this issue to hold out hope for developing a working consensus. Correct ideology alone has never changed anything. Change comes from action and nothing is more powerful than the action of people working together. Consensus does not need to mean agreement on positions or ideology, but consensus suggests that all voices are heard and that the best solution to a problem may be found by working through differences.