Nonviolence is key

A very nice article by Stephen Zunes, posted today on Common Dreams, originally published in the most recent issue of Yes! magazine:


Weapons of Mass Democracy
by Stephen Zunes

On the outskirts of a desert town in the Moroccan-occupied territory of Western Sahara, about a dozen young activists are gathered. They are involved in their country's long struggle for freedom. A group of foreigners-veterans of protracted resistance movements-is conducting a training session in the optimal use of a "weapons system" that is increasingly deployed in struggles for freedom around the world. The workshop leaders pass out Arabic translations of writings on the theory and dynamics of revolutionary struggle and lead the participants in a series of exercises designed to enhance their strategic and tactical thinking.

These trainers are not veterans of guerrilla warfare, however, but of unarmed insurrections against repressive regimes. The materials they hand out are not the words of Che Guevara, but of Gene Sharp, the former Harvard scholar who has pioneered the study of strategic nonviolent action. And the weapons they advocate employing are not guns and bombs, but strikes, boycotts, mass demonstrations, tax refusal, alternative media, and refusal to obey official orders.

Serbs, South Africans, Filipinos, Georgians, and other veterans of successful nonviolent struggles are sharing their knowledge and experience with those still fighting dictators and occupation armies.

The young Western Saharans know how an armed struggle by an older generation of their countrymen failed to dislodge the Moroccans, who first invaded their country back in 1975. They have seen how Morocco's allies on the U.N. Security Council-led by France and the United States-blocked enforcement of U.N. resolutions supporting their right to self-determination. With the failure of both armed struggle and diplomacy to bring them freedom, they have decided to instead employ a force more powerful...

Read the rest of the article here.

Hoodstock: 4 hours of peace & music on August 30th

A commenter to a post on my Austin American-Statesman reader blog said that we "Code Pink ladies need to do more to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Well, I wish we ladies could do that all by ourselves, but of course we need everyone to pitch in.

Here's one way you can help: Attend the upcoming Hoodstock benefit for the Under The Hood Cafe on Sunday, August 30th at Jovita's at 1617 South First St. Or, if you can't attend, you can donate right on the Under The Hood website.

Help keep the doors open to GIs needing a place to think, socialize, speak freely and access resources off-base near Ft. Hood.

Here are the particulars:

Benefit show for Under The Hood Cafe, a GI coffeehouse in Killeen, TX
Sunday, August 30th, 5 to 9 pm
Jovita's, 1617 South First St. in Austin
$10 suggested donation at the door
Featured bands:

Gary Graves
Will T. Massey
Castro's Beard
Shootin' Pains

GI resister, Travis Bishop's stand of conscience

Kudos to the Austin American-Statesman and AAS reporter, Jeremy Schwartz for the fair and accurate front-page story published Saturday about the GI coffee house, Under The Hood Cafe in Killeen.

I joined a group of people who gathered that afternoon for a vigil at the Bell County Correctional Institution (a new facility in the middle of nowhere) to express our support for Victor Agosto and Travis Bishop, who just began serving sentences for refusing to take part in US military operations in Afghanistan. Travis will be transferred to a military brig and Victor will serve out his sentence at the county jail.

Several of the people at the vigil had witnessed both of the recent court-martial proceedings that took place at Fort Hood. Alice Embree of Austin has written good accounts of both, posted on The Rag Blog. Dahr Jamail, who has authored a book about GI resistance, also witnessed Travis Bishop's trial on Friday and has written about it on Truthout. The Truthout posting includes Travis Bishop's full statement to the court, which I am copying below. I think it offers insight into the arbitrariness of the way the US army carries out its regulations regarding the right to conscientious objection. As Travis Bishop argues, if soldiers are not informed of their rights, their rights are abridged. Also disturbing is the description of the jury in Travis Bishop's trial, comprised of officers several ranks above his own. It was certainly not a "jury of his peers."

I am upset by the long sentence imposed on Travis Bishop. A jail sentence is not something I wish on anyone, but especially not on someone who takes a stand AGAINST killing. It's a backward ruling. I'm glad to learn that Bishop's attorney plans to take the case to higher courts.

Here is Travis Bishop's statement, made during his court-martial:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Panel,
The prosecution raised the point that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse for the crime.' And here is proof of that. Case presented, verdict rendered, Sgt. Bishop is guilty. I have been convicted of the crimes that I committed, and I cannot argue that.

All I can say is this: If I had a Soldier that acted on impulse and did something illegal that I, his Sergeant, could have trained him on, there is no doubt in my mind that I would be in the First Sergeant's office the next morning explaining how I 'failed' the Soldier, leaving this Soldier untrained and, ultimately, unprepared.

Since the day I was promoted to this rank that is now in jeopardy, the idea of the Sergeant being responsible for even the individual actions of the Soldier has been drilled into me; especially on the issue of training your Soldier. My rank would be in jeopardy if my Soldier was doing things that I could have, according to my superiors, prevented, as long as I had taken an interest in my Soldier's life, and trained my Soldier as best as I possibly could.

But today, I stand alone. My actions and decisions, based on a seemingly unapproachable command structure, and a lack of training of my rights as a Soldier, remain defended by myself only. I have defense counsel, but the 'buck' stops with me and me alone, and I don't believe that this would be true in any other situation in the Army.

So why is that? Why is there such a stigma around the words? Conscientious Objection. To me, for the longest time, it was only an archaic term from somewhere back in the Vietnam Era; not something that applied to me, the modern Soldier. COs were the butt ends of jokes; they were punch lines. But why?

Maybe it's because since day one of anyone's career in the military, fierceness and bravado are pounded into every potential Soldier, and fear and doubt are viewed as weaknesses. This leaves Soldiers that feel as I feel in quite a predicament.

Does a Soldier who feels as I feel tell someone in their Command? Or a peer? And risk persecution and ridicule? I have never heard the word 'coward' used more than when I say the words conscientious objector around a group of Soldiers.

But what most Soldiers don't realize is that CO is not only a regulation, it's a right. To file for conscientious objector status is an individual right of every Soldier in the Army. This right ensures that Soldiers with the beliefs that I share have the opportunity to request to be discharged due to said beliefs. But, unlike other regulations in the military, this one remains unpublicized.

Ladies and gentlemen of the panel, there are many regulations that offer Soldiers individual rights that without these regulations, they might not ultimately have, even though the average Soldier has no idea these regulations and rights exist. And yet, regardless of knowledge of these regulations, they still fall under these rights given to them by the military.

My key point is this: AR 195-6 covers Army polygraph procedures. If a Soldier doesn't know their rights covered and protected under this regulation, does this give persons giving the polygraph test free reign to ask whatever they want? Just because they don't know the regulation?

If a Soldier doesn't know that, under AR 600-8-22, they are entitled to receive a Good Conduct Medal after 3 years of outstanding service, does that mean that it is ok to not award this Soldier?

If a Soldier doesn't have a clear understanding of AR 600-8-3, Unit Postal Operations, does that mean that the Soldier isn't entitled to receive mail in theaters of combat?

It is my firm belief that the Conscientious Objector regulation is not a regulation only, but an individual right of every Soldier, and that the responsibility to teach this regulation falls on Unit Command Teams. There are plenty of regulations that we do teach Units about, sometimes quarterly even. Why not this one?

In closing, I am not trying to say that I did not commit these crimes. The point I'm trying to convey is that, had I known that the process for applying to be a CO was still alive and well in the Army, I would have applied to be discharged as such a long time ago.

The truth is, as soon as I discovered that the process existed, I acted upon it. I left because I did not feel that I would have a sympathetic, understanding command structure to fully take my problems to, and also to give myself time to prepare for my CO application process, and the legal battle I'm currently fighting.

These are not excuses. These are explanations. My hope is that you truly treat them as such during your sentencing deliberations. Godspeed.


-- Travis Bishop

photo of Travis Bishop at Under The Hood Cafe, photo from www.underthehood.org

Aung San Suu Kyi receives international support

As reported in world news today, Burma's spiritual leader and Nobel Peace Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi was sentenced to another year and a half under house arrest by Myanmar's military regime, most probably in order to keep her out of the country's electoral process.
Political leaders around the world have made statements condemning the ruling. There is pressure now, even from leaders such as Britain's Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and members of the European Parliamentary Caucus, for the UN Security Council to issue a global ban on weapons sales to Myanmar. This will mean convincing Myanmar's trade partners, notably China, Russia and India to concede to such an embargo.

Once again, one can see how the weapons trade influences politics and how certain countries are willing to go only so far in pressing for human rights. Foreign weapons sales still represent the largest export of the US.

President Obama issued a strong statement today in support of Aung San Suu Kyi, calling for her release, but stopped short of expressing approval for an international weapons embargo on the junta in Myanmar. Why?

Portrait of Aung San Suu Kyi by artist, Shepard Fairey, who created the most well-known Obama campaign portrait

Witnessing the court-martial of Victor Agosto

Thanks to Alice Embree, who attended the court-martial proceedings for Victor Agosto and wrote this piece about it, posted on The Rag Blog.

GI resister, Victor Agosto, takes his stand

It was good to see the Austin American-Statesman cover the story of GI resister, Victor Agosto, whose objection to participating in the escalation of US military operations in Afghanistan led to his court-martial at Ft. Hood yesterday. As reported, he will serve a one-month sentence before being discharged with a loss in rank.

Victor's court-martial was also covered in the NY Times and the Miami Herald.

Just an hour or so before his trial, Victor was interviewed via phone by Amy Goodman of the Democracy Now! news program. Victor is a man of few words who answers Goodman's questions with concise and thoughtful candor.

"I have learned that nothing is more frightening to power than a direct and principled challenge to its authority. The truth is on our side, and those who have incarcerated me know it. My only apologies are to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope that someday they can forgive me for my contributions to their distress."

-- from a statement by Victor Agosto to his supporters, as quoted in the Miami Herald

photo of Victor Agosto by Carlos Lowry

Youth speak, organize

I recently returned from Chicago, where I attended the national counter-recruitment conference, "It's our world - change it!" organized by the National Network Opposing the Militarization of Youth and hosted by the Chicago office of the American Friends Service Committee.
The conference was exceptional, partly because of the large contingent of youth participation and leadership in the workshops. I learned a lot. Here is an article about the conference posted by one of the leading scholars on the subject of youth and militarism, Jorge Mariscal, who was a conference panelist.

Another highlight was joining a group of youth and adult allies to hear the Brave New Voices youth slam finals that were coincidentally taking place in Chicago not far from our conference site. The team from Guam performed a poem about their homeland that had us on our feet. I can't find it on you-tube, but here is another poem from a Guam team member that riffs on the same themes of identity and colonialism.