Green Articles on Peace

Greens Demand Inclusion of Afghan Women in Bonn Talks
Green Party Condemns Attack on Constitutional Rights
Green Party USA Calls on German Greens to Support Peace
Corporate Patroitism...by Ralph Nader
Seeking the Truth: Is this a War Against Terrorism or a War for Oil?
Nader Blasts Bush's War at San Francisco Rally (Oct. 12)
Greens Mourn Victims, Pursue International Law Rather than War
Rebuild New York City; Build a Peace Institute
America's War on Terrorism; Some Personal Observations
Greens Call for International Peace Treaty; Discusses the Reality of Terrorism
No More Wars for Oil; Time for Renewable Energy
Explaining War to My Son
The Green Party, the Peace Alternative
Campus Greens Rally for Peace

GREENS DEMAND INCLUSION OF AFGHAN WOMEN IN TALKS ON FUTURE OF AFGHANISTAN

Nov.27, 2001

Outraged at the exclusion of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, Greens call democracy impossible without representation of women

U.S. Green Party officers travel to Europe for meetings with Green members of European parliaments and other Green officials and the European Federation of Green Parties

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Activists and organizers of the Green Party of the United States are demanding that women be represented in international talks on the future of Afghanistan beginning this week in Bonn, Germany. Party members were angered to learn that the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), which has worked to end the suppression of women's rights and abuse of women in Afghanistan by both the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, was not invited to join U.S. officials, United Nations representatives, and five Afghan groups in the talks.

"This shows how women have been continually marginalized in the peace process," said Annie Goeke, chair of the International Committee and a Pennsylvania Green. "It is imperative that RAWA takes part in this meeting as they clearly represent one of the most significant voices of the Afghan society."

"These women have proved to the whole world their right through all the work and risks they have
done in their struggle to bring democracy, freedom, human rights and women's rights to the Afghan society. They have been able to develop a network of human and political relationships with the Western world. And they have an important role in creating the hope in the future Afghanistan by knowing how to manage to spread the knowledge of health and education among the women."

RAWA has issued an urgent request for international action to secure an invitation to the meeting which may otherwise place control of Afghanistan into the hands of two alleged Afghan war criminals, Burhanuddin Rabbani and General Dostrum of the Northern Alliance. Not a single woman was invited to join 1,200 representatives of various Afghan ethnicities, religious groups, and political factions at a peace and unity conference in Peshawar last month.

Resolution 1325, which calls for the involvement of women in all of the implementation mechanisms of conflict resolution, was unanimously adopted by the U.N. Security Council last year. The current exclusion of Afghan women bodes ill for the future of women and women's rights in post-war Afghanistan, regardless of the outcome of the Bonn talks, and calls into question President Bush's respect for women's rights in the U.S.

Greens call upon the Bush Administration to ensure that any new government in Afghanistan provide equal rights to women, including direct representation of women's groups. "The Bush administration must end the terrorism inflicted upon women in Afghanistan and elsewhere on a daily basis," said Mark Dunlea, Vice-Chair of the Green Party of New York State. "The U.S. should not provide financial or political support to any country that does not quarantee full rights to women. It is very troublesome that the Northern Alliance, with its long history of abusing and oppressing women, has been given such a dominant political role as the result of Ameria's military intervention."

"RAWA has struggled for freedom of Afghanistan and they belong to the civil Afghan society, and therefore have the right to represent their country and their gender," added Annie Goeke.

Ms. Goeke and two other officers of the Green Party of the United States are currently in Europe for meetings with international Green organizations. Dean Myerson, the party's Political Coordinator, is in Paris to meet with Les Verts, the French Green Party; Steering Committee member Tom Sevigny is going to Budapest for a meeting of the Council of the European Federation of Green Parties.

Myerson, Sevigny, and Goeke will also attend two days of meetings, beginning Tuesday, November 27, in Brussels with Green members of European parliaments and other Green officials. International action in support of peace and democracy in Afghanistan will be among the major topics at these meetings.

MORE INFORMATION
The Green Party of the United States
http://gpus.org

Revolutionary Association of the Women of
Afghanistan http://www.rawa.org

European Federation of Green Parties
http://www.europeangreens.org

GREEN PARTY CONDEMNS ATTACKS ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN THE NAME OF SECURITY

Bush is sacrificing due process, protections against unwarranted search and seizure, privacy, and the right to dissent, with craven help from Democrats, say Greens

Greens call for release of those held on nonexistent evidence and suspicion based solely on ethnicity or immigration

Nov. 26, 2001

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party sharply criticized recent measures enacted by the Bush Administration and the recent antiterrorism legislation passed by Congress, calling them a severe blow to constitutional rights, protections against violations of privacy, and anti-discrimination guarantees, and unlikely to be effective in keeping Americans safe from acts of terrorism.

"President Bush has established an Office of Homeland Security that is subject neither to congressional nor public oversight," said David Cobb, a Texas Green organizer and Legal Counsel
for the national party. "We're seeing new tools for the suppression of legitimate political dissent. The distinction between domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence is being erased. Ashcroft's terrorism alerts are being used to frighten Americans into accepting these measures and sacrificing their privacy rights. These actions are systematically eroding the freedoms President Bush says we are fighting to protect."

Greens list several measures that violate essential rights and freedoms:

*** The Antiterrorism Act passed by Congress at the President's request in late October guts the Constitution's guarantees of habeas corpus, presumption of innocence, and due process, allowing the the federal government (the Justice Department, CIA, FBI, and INS) to incarcerate or detain nonecitizens on nonexistent or secret evidence, conduct wiretaps and surveillance without evidence of wrong-doing, conduct searches and seizures without warrant, eavesdrop on private conversations between defendants and their lawyers in violation of attorney-client privilege, and investige private citizens without 'probable cause'. The bill also allows the government to wield the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) as a weapon to harass dissident organizations under the guise of fighting terrorism, subjecting them to unconstitutional search and seizure.

"The bill, with the Orwellian nickname USA PATRIOT Act, is being used to target non-citizen Arabs, even though the Constitution's protections apply to all people in the U.S. regardless of citizenship," said Steve Breyman, a member of the Capital District and Rensselaer County (New York) Greens and a professor of environmental policy at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York. "But this legislation abrogates the constitutional rights of all Americans, even as we're being told that opposing it means lack of patriotism."

Greens note that the Antiterrorism Act passed with the support of both Democrats and Republicans -- only Sen. Russell Feingold voted nay in the Senate -- and that conservative Republicans, not Democrats, negotiated expiration dates for some of the bill's more repressive violations of privacy. The expiration dates may prove meaningless if the 'War on Terrorism' is as open-ended as President Bush promises.

"This is the same 'bipartisan' surrender as when Democrats helped confirm Ashcroft and Norton," added Robbie Franklin, a Texas Green and treasurer of the Green Party of the United States. "Constitutional rights are not negotiable, to be compromised in order to investigate crime. It was against such compromises that the Bill of Rights was enacted in the first place."

*** Since September 11, the government has detained nearly 1,200 people, many on immigration
violations; the Justice Department will not say how many have been released. Muhammed Butt, a 55-year-old Pakistani man, died of a heart attack after being locked away for a month on a simple visa violation. Other detainees have been denied the right to see a lawyer or their families. The New York Times reported on November 13 that the Justice Department is profiling students of Arab ancestry.

"We praised President Bush's condemnation of harassment against Muslims and people of Arab ancestry after the September 11 attacks," said Anita Rios, an Ohio Green and member of the party's national steering committee. "But the widespread targeting by the government of many of the same people undermines protections against bias based on ethnicity and religion. We take this personally, as many Green Party members come from Arab and Muslim backgrounds. Our 2000 presidential candidate is Lebanese-American."

Greens demand that those held on nonexistent evidence, baseless suspicion, or irrelevant reasons be released, and that due process be guaranteed for all held on more substantial evidence. The government should adhere to prevailing standards of evidence and to usual legal procedures for those held only on invalid visas, with full respect for the legal rights of immigrants and consideration of amnesty for undocumented workers and their families.

*** President Bush has ordered secret military tribunals, with the power to wield the death penalty, for noncitizens accused of assisting terrorists. Apologists for this order claim that Abraham Lincoln also instituted secret trials during the Civil War, but ignore the Supreme Court's later decision that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, saying that military trials (what the court called "martial rule") must be confined to the location of an actual war, may only be used for a limited duration, and may not be applied in places where the civil courts and government are in full operation.

"The U.S.'s reputation as a free nation governed by laws and whose government is limited by rights will suffer greatly -- especially in the Muslim world, since most of those targeted will be Muslim or Arab, but also among nations -- and among many Americans, including Greens -- who have called for an international court to deal with terrorists and who oppose the death penalty," said Anita Rios.

"There's an inherent conflict of interest here," said David Cobb, noting that the President's order abolishes the constitutional separation of executive and judicial branches. "The fact that military courts are tied to the executive branch means that there will be pressure from the president to try and convict, for public relations reasons, whether the person is guilty or not. Furthermore, the verdicts of military courts are not likely to be accepted overseas, and it may set a terrible precedent for how our own citizens will be treated when detained in other countries."

*** Torture has been discussed as a means of stopping further terrorism, even though torture (whether committed by the U.S. or 'outsourced' to less democratic nations) violates international law, is notoriously unreliable for collecting information, and places the U.S. at the moral level of the Taliban.

*** A national ID card has been proposed, even though such a measure won't stop terrorists and can easily be used to violate privacy by tracking Americans' travel, spending habits, and other personal information.

*** Some Congress members and Bush Administration officials (especially advisor Paul Wolfowitz) want to revise the Posse Comitatus Act in order to allow the U.S. military to be used for civilian law enforcement.

*** President Bush signed an executive order that allows any incumbent president to block release of presidential documents of a predecessor, whether or not the past president wants the records disclosed. Under this order, files that incriminate current and former officials can be hidden from investigation by journalists and historians -- a valuable strategem for the Bush Administration to shield current officials from future accountability.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE
GREEN PARTY OF GERMANY

Green Party USA Urges German Greens to Condemn Bombardment of Afghanistan.
NO Troops!

(Note: this is by the older, but smaller, of the two national green bodies in the U.S.)

Dear Greens,

The Green Party USA expresses its support for the 70% of German Greens opposed to the war against Afghanistan and to the 11 of 16 regional Green Party organizations in Germany critical of sending 4,000 combat troops. The GPUSA urges German Greens to stand strong against this war regardless of the political consequences.

“Most Greens worldwide recognize that this is a war for oil and political domination and will do nothing to protect US citizens or any people from terrorism,” says Nancy Oden, a recent victim of airport harassment in the United States. She adds, “Joschka Fischer and the minority of Greens who are propping up the German government have put power before principle. Their claim that they must participate in the war effort in order to make it more humane is obscene. They seem to be saying that by keeping themselves part of the government they can take “humanitarian” cluster bombs or “cancer-free” depleted uranium casings. This is nonsense. It is time for rank-and-file Greens in Germany, and everywhere, to promote a different kind of leadership, one that will not sacrifice moral and political principles on the altar of electoral expediency.”

The Greens first joined the German government after the 1997 elections. Since then, Green officials have been sharply criticized in Germany as well as throughout the world, for failing to uphold Green values. In 1999, Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer provoked a bitter internal brawl when he supported the US-led bombardment of Yugoslavia. By participating in the war, German Greens rationalized the use of depleted uranium and thereby violated several basic Green principles, including nonviolence, and opposition to nuclear power and weapons.

In 2000, Green Party leaders intensified the hostility by supporting the transportation of radioactive nuclear waste through residentialcommunities, even though an accident could poison the countryside.

Before participating in the Social Democratic led government, German Greens had strongly argued that such transportation bolstered the nuclear industry and must be opposed. Many Greens participated in and provided leadership for militant anti-nuclear protests. All those years of clear political and moral leadership on the leading questions of our day have now been compromised. What is the point of remaining in government if it means selling out one’’s principles on such vital issues?

Germany’s support for the US war on Afghanistan is another such critical issue. We understand that this could result in a major split in the Green Party in Germany as well as the bringing down of the Coalition government. On the other hand, the Coalition government COULD decide, under pressure,to take the antiwar route and WITHDRAW its support for the US war. That would preserve the government coalition as well as heal some of the rift in the German Green Party –– IF today’s proponents of war truly cared about such concerns.

Mitchel Cohen, a representative from New York to the Green National Committee of GPUSA, argues that “should German troops be sent to Afghanistan, it would be the first time since the Hitler era that they are used beyond Europe. This has an ominous ring for many of us. History is, if nothing else, the power of memory against forgetting. Once again we are seeing what theorist Fredy Perlman described as that ‘‘rationally planned extermination of human beings, the central experience of so many people in an age of highly developed science and productive forces,’’ although they are not calling the victims ‘‘Jews’’ this time. The warmakers are much more sophisticated, but just as power-hungry and just as deadly.”

On November 17, Greens parliamentarians supported Chancellor Schroeder inone of Germany’s rare votes of confidence. They kept him in power by the narrow margin of two votes more than the simple majority he needed. Green parliamentarians could have set an antiwar example for the entire world,but failed to do so. This weekend’s meetings present the rank-and-file of the Green Party of Germany with the opportunity to rectify those serious errors, and reclaim the moral high ground. Lisa Thurman, a member of the Coordinating Committee of the GPUSA, emphasizes that her organization does not believe that the current war is aresult of the September 11 attacks, and should be halted.

“We express our deepest condolences for all those who have suffered from the events of September 11,”” notes Thurman, a Green Party candidate for the US Senate in North Carolina. “Greens in New York City joined everyone else in helping to dig people out of the rubble of the World Trade Center. They provided blood, food and supplies, and helped save lives. But we understand that killing innocent people in Afghanistan will not bring anyone back to life. If anything, it will only enrage more hostility against the US. The war is being carried out to ensure control by US companies of oil from the middleeast.”

According to Thurman, ““The Green Party wants to protect all of us from mass violence. We believe that one of the ways to accomplish this is to stop using the US military to protect corporate interests.

Germany must not be complicit in that power-grab. This means immediately ending the US military presence in the Middle East, and a cessation of all arms shipments abroad” On behalf of the Green Party USA, we hope that members of the German Green Party can return to basic Green values and register our opposition to the killing of innocent people to insure the interests (and profits) of the oil companies.

Greens throughout the world have an historic opportunity and responsibility this weekend to SAY NO TO WAR. As novelist Arundhati Roy notes: “When you’’re talking about dropping a bomb that explodes and burns everything in a 1-kilometer radius, it’’s not just human beings that are being killed butthe earth itself.” The future will be what we the people struggle to make it.

Signed,Maris Abelson, Lisa Thurman, and Nancy Oden, Coordinating Committee, The Greens/Green Party

Corporate Patriotism

by Ralph Nader

U. S. corporations aren't even subtle about it. Waving a flag and carrying a big shovel, corporate interests are scooping up government benefits and taxpayer money in an unprecedented fashion while the public is preoccupied with the September 11 attacks and the war in Afghanistan. Shamelessly, the Bush Administration and Congress have taken advantage of the patriotic outpouring to fulfill the wish lists of their most generous corporate campaign donors. Not only is the Treasury being raided, but regulations protecting everything from personal privacy to environmental safeguards are under attack by well-heeled lobbyists who want to stampede Congress to act while the media and citizens are distracted.

Only a handful in the Congress--members like Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and Representatives Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Barbara Lee of California--have shown the courage to question the giveaways and the quick wipeout of civil liberties and other citizen protections. In most cases, such as the $15 billion airline bailout and corporate tax breaks, legislation has been pushed to the forefront with little or no hearings and only fleeting consideration on the floor of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

One of the boldest grabs for cash has been by corporations seeking to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which was enacted during the Reagan Administration to prevent profitable corporations from escaping all tax liability through various loopholes. Not only do the corporations want relief from the current year's AMT taxes, but they are seeking a retroactive refund of all AMT taxes paid since 1986.

This giveaway, as passed by the House of Representatives, would make corporations eligible for $25 billion in tax refunds. Just 14 corporations would receive $6.3 billion of the refund. IBM gets $1.4 billion; General Motors, $833 million; General Electric $671 million; Daimler-Chrysler $600
million; Chevron-Texaco $572 million. The 14 biggest beneficiaries of the minimum tax repeal gave $14,769,785 in "soft money" to the national committees of the Democratic and Republican parties in recent years.

Soon to join the bailout parade is the nation's insurance industry, which is lobbying the Congress to have the federal government pick up the tab for future losses like those stemming from the attack on the World Trade Center. Proposals are on the table for taxpayers to either pick up losses above certain levels or to provide loans or loan guarantees for reinsurance.

The insurance companies want federal bailouts, but they continue to insist on regulation only by underfunded, poorly staffed state insurance departments, most of which are dominated by the industry. Any bailout or loan program involving the insurance companies must include provisions which ensure that insurance companies cannot refuse to write policies and make investments in low, moderate and minority neighborhoods. Allegations about insurance company "redlining" or discrimination against citizens in these areas have been prevalent for many years. It would be a terrible injustice for citizens to be forced to pay taxes to help bail out insurance companies that discriminate against them. Congress needs to address this issue before it even considers public assistance for the industry.

People-concerns have been missing in all the bailouts. When the airline companies walked off with $15 billion plus in bailout money, the thousands of laid-off employees--airline attendants, maintenance crews, baggage handlers and ticket counter employees--received not a dime. Attempts to include health benefits and other help for these employees were shouted down on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Last month, more than 400,000 employees lost their jobs nationwide and the national unemployment rate rose to 5.4 percent, the highest level since 1996. The Bureau of Labor Statistics said roughly a fourth of the lost jobs were the direct result of the terrorist attacks of September 11. Bailouts, benefits or other aid for these victims of the attacks? No, that's reserved just for the corporations under the policies of the Bush Administration and the present Congress.

Yet it is the workers in the low-wage jobs--like those in restaurants, hotels, retailing and transportation--who are bearing the brunt of the layoffs in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center, according to a report from the New York State Department of Labor. Almost 25,000 people told the department that they lost their jobs because of the trade center disaster. An analysis by the department of the first 22,000 of the claims found that 16 percent worked at bars, 14 percent worked at hotels, 5 percent worked in air transportation and 21 percent in a category termed "business services." Only 4 percent worked at Wall Street brokerage firms. While more workers lose jobs, the Administration is pushing for authority to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) under new "fast-track" authority. The Department of Commerce concedes that at least 360,000 jobs have been lost under NAFTA, and private research groups estimate the total may be twice that number. Now, with unemployment rising to alarming levels, the Administration decides to cave to pro-NAFTA corporate demands which will only make the labor picture worse. No bailout for laid off workers, just a hard crack across the knees.

As Bill Moyers, the author and national journalist, commented: "They (the corporations) are counting on your patriotism to distract you from their plunder. They're counting on you to stand at attention with your hand over your heart, pledging allegiance to the flag, while they pick your pocket."

The present crisis cries out for shared sacrifice--not the opportunism so blatantly displayed by the nation's corporate interests. President Bush and the Congress must summon the courage to resist the self-serving demands--the kind of courage and shared sacrifice that guided the brave rescue workers on September 11.

For More Information:
www.citizenworks.org

Seeking Truth in the "War on Terrorism"

Dear Metroland Editor:

Thank you for the excellent article, Casualties of War, by Jeff Jones, in the November 1 edition of Metroland.

One of the first casualties of war is the truth. While the mainstream media beats the drums of war and joins with our government in hiding the facts from the American people, I appreciate Metroland's ongoing commitment to independence and journalistic integrity. America will never find peace or defeat terrorism unless it is willing to find the truth about September 11th.

I urge our government to end the bombing of Afghanistan, and instead seek to prosecute those responsible for September 11 as criminals, while committing to create an international economic political system based on justice for all rather than profits for a few. It is a scandal that our political and corporate leaders have used the horrors of September 11 to unleash a torrent of proposals to dramatically increase corporate welfare, while little is being done for the hundred of thousands of average workers who have been hurt.

In recent decades our government has agreed to expand the political power of corporations worldwide through entities such as the World Trade Organization; instead, we should be expanding the democratic rights of individuals worldwide to create a world the values the sacredness of each life. Congress should establish an independent Truth Commission, with the power to issue subpoenas, including to government representatives, to learn the truth about September 11. We also need a crash investment in energy self-sufficiency, in renewable energy, energy conservation and efficiency, to end this cycle of war for oil.

The bombing of Afghanistan not only increases the threat of terrorism, there is little to no evidence that the people of Afghanistan are responsible for the September 11 attack. The NY Times reported that the CIA believes that the mastermind of the attack was not bin Laden, but rather Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers who was a member of the Egyptian Jihad. Almost all of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Most experts believe that the financing for the attack probably came from individuals in Saudi Arabia. The media reports that the motivation of the hijackers was to provoke a war between the "West and Islam," or at least initiate civil war in Pakistan by forcing that country's rulers to support the U.S's military response. Each day of the bombing increases the possibility of the use of biological or nuclear weapons, and the escalation into a regional or worldwide war.

The NY Times reported that Saudi Arabia's principal response to September 11 was to use a private jet to evacuate members of the bin Laden from the U.S. The U.S. continues to support the rulers of Saudi Arabia, probably the most corrupt and anti-women regime in the world, due to profits from oil. The mixture of politics, military spending and oil has resulted in a growing interconnection between the power elite in the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. For instance, media sources have reported that Bin Laden Sr., one of the wealthiest individuals in Saudi Arabia, has had ongoing financial dealings with George Bush the 41st, most recently through the Carlyle Group, a well-connected Washington merchant bank specializing in buyouts of defense and aerospace companies.

It is true that terrorist training camps have operated in Afghanistan, and it is likely that the hijackers received some training there. But the camps were able to operate there as a direct result of policies and support provided by the American government, not because they are supported by local residents. There are also other parts of the world where governments have collapsed that these terrorist operations can relocate to, and of course many of the terrorists involved in September 11 operated in the U.S. The United States government estimates that there are several dozen countries where terrorists presently operate. How many of these countries are we going to bomb? Will our government continue to make distinctions between "bad" terrorists and "good" terrorists?

The U.S. contributed to the collapse of the government in Afghanistan in its effort to undermine the Soviet Union during the Cold War. There is significant evidence that the U.S. subsequently worked with Pakistan to support the rise to power of the Taliban to replace our once and future allies, the "freedom fighters" and warlords who had carved out competing fiefdoms and were brutalizing local residents, especially women. The U.S. apparently hoped that the Taliban would stabilize the situation, making it possible for American energy companies to construct a pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to extract large energy reserves in the Caspian Sea. The fact that the Taliban would continue to oppress women wasn't considered important.

There are news reports that the U.S. informed Pakistan this summer that we intended to launch a war this October to replace the Taliban; there is speculation that this information was leaked to the Taliban to provoke an attack on the U.S. so that we could retaliate with our war. There are also news reports that several years ago the Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden to the U.S., and that this summer the CIA met with several times with bin Laden while he was in a hospital in Dubai receiving medical treatment.

Truth in foreign policy is always an elusive concept, particularly in matters of war. That is why there is a need for an independent Truth Commission so that the American public knows what is actually going on. Is this a war on terrorism or just another war for oil profits? Why do we keep on going to war with individuals and countries who we militarily supported just a few years previously? Why do we repeatedly use our military might to prop up undemocratic regimes that oppress their own citizens? All of the above information has been reported in newspapers such as the NY Times, Guardian (UK), and Le Figaro (France). The greens have created a website at http://nys.greens.org/peace where some of this information is available.

September 11 has inflicted deep emotional scars on the American people. We feel sorrow, anger, fear, confusion, depression, powerlessness. In a made-for-tv production, foreign terrorists struck at the heart of our country, murdering thousands of innocent civilians. Hundreds of others sacrificed their lives to save others. But our cries of grief should not be manipulated by the Bush administration and the media into a cry for war.

For Americans, September 11 represents the greatest escalation and erosion of the "rules of war" since the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. Unfortunately, terrorism is not a new tactic and many people in South America, the Middle East and Africa have been forced to live - and die - with it for decades. Nor can we expect to end terrorism unless Americans are willing to confront our governments' own support for terrorism, starting with the various wars we have promoted in Central America, such as financing and directing the killing of thirty thousand civilians in Nicaragua by the contras in the 1980s.

There are no easy answers to September 11th or eliminating terrorism. It is understandable that many Americans feel that war - or at least military attacks against terrorists - is at least part of the answer. But not only does violence just beget more violence, America has no realistic, comprehensive plan to deal with terrorism. Bombing one of the poorest countries in the world will primarily create only more innocent victims and will do nothing to safeguard Americans. Americans must resist the pleas by the Bush administration to "go back to shopping" while Congress curtails our civil liberties and instead demand the truth and real solutions from our government.

I also hope that Metroland readers will join the peace rally in Townsend Park this Saturday, Nov. 10 at 1:00 P.M.

In Peace

Mark Dunlea
Capital District Greens

Nader Blasts Bush's War at S.F. Rally
By Jonathan Nack
October 12, 2001

SAN FRANCISCO - Former Green Party Presidential candidate Ralph Nader roundly criticized the Bush Administration's war on terrorism in a speech before an enthusiastic paying audience of approximately 2,500 at the San Francisco Masonic Center last night. Nader called for a democratic debate over the Administration's policies saying, "the mindless bombing of Afghanistan's infrastructure will not end well for Afghanistan and, I fear, it will not end well for us." "We are entitled to ask what this war will cost: what it will cost Afghans, what it will cost our rights and democracy here, and what the huge shift of money into the military and corporate bailouts will cost our domestic programs?"

Nader called for, "sobriety in these moments of impetuousness, restraint, and to move forward under international law to apprehend the criminals." "This is an international crime and we've got to find ways to bring these criminals to justice."

Nader said that, "grief and mourning for the victims must eventually give way to honoring their memory," and quoted a statement by President George W. Bush that the terrorists, "hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom to assemble, our freedom of speech, and our freedom to disagree," in justifying the appropriateness of his own remarks. Nader said that the best way to honor the memories of those lost on September 11th was to exercise and defend our democratic freedoms and to, "make sure our government doesn't slaughter the lives of hundreds of innocent people."

Nader charged that, "thought police in Washington dismiss all critical analysis a as justifying the terrorist attack," calling for a rejection of that notion while describing the terrorists' act as, "criminal
butchery, a massacre more than an attack, and with no justification".

He urged the audience to, "never allow Washington to tell you to shut up, get in line, and waive the flag." "Never let them take your flag away from you." Nader urged the audience to think for themselves, to not inhibit what they have to say, and asked, "how many times have we been told that they were dropping bombs only on military targets?" Nader concluded that there was no such thing as limiting bombing to only military targets and that, "we are not going to be able to bomb our way
to a solution of this problem."

Nader described the Administration's rationale for the bombing as "cheap propaganda", which is, "going to get more rancid and grim." "U.S. attacks on Afghanistan will spread more hatred of our country and our allies." He also worried that 7.5 million Afghans face starvation this winter, which he said was only four weeks away in Afghanistan, while the U.S. has dropped only "135,000 snacks."

Quoting approvingly Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's assertion that, "poverty, disease, and illiteracy are breeding grounds for tolerance of terrorism," Nader proposed a profound reorientation of U.S. foreign policy to support democratic forces and to, "side with the millions and millions of workers and peasants rather than with dictators and oligarches." He proposed a, "balanced approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," and an end to economic sanctions against Iraq which he said was taking the lives of 5,000 Iraqi children a month.

"You do not destabilize a dictator by destroying the lives of innocent children and adults," said Nader.

Nader also called for a renewed defense of civil liberties, opposition to unwarranted curtailment of them, and reform of intelligence agencies, including making them "leaner and more efficient" by reducing their bloated budgets and bureaucracies.

The focus of speech was a major departure from the usual agenda of the longtime consumer activist who usually sticks closely to themes concerning how corporations have gained too much power and are subverting democracy. Nader did draw a connection to those themes, noting that corporations are taking advantage of the tragedy of September 11 for their own greedy purposes. He pointed to corporate lobbying for government bailouts, even by industries in trouble long before the terrorist attacks, for the limiting of regulations, including the opening up of the Alaskan Arctic reserve, and opposing benefits for workers who are losing their jobs.

The event was billed as a "People Have the Power" rally in support of San Francisco ballot initiatives for a Municipal Utility District, which would create public control of power in response to California's failed electricity deregulation. Nader, and numerous speakers before him, called for volunteers for a grassroots campaign which could overwhelm the big money being spent by Pacific Gas & Electric to defeat the initiatives. However, Nader and other speakers clearly felt compelled to address the war. The event was also organized as part of a series of "super rallies" being held around the country by Nader's new Democracy Rising campaign.

For more information on Democracy Rising: http://www.democracyrising.org

Greens Mourn Victims, Support Use of International Law
rather than War, Urge Americans to Examine our Foreign Policy

The Greens wish to express our deep sorrow for the loss of so many lives on September 11, 2001.

We also express our gratitude for the heroic efforts of the firefighters and public safety officials who have sacrificed and risked their own lives to help others, and for the tremendous outpouring of support and assistance from all Americans. We support government efforts to support the victims of such terrorist acts, particularly those with the least resources of their own.

Our cries of grief should not be viewed as a call for war. We cannot create more innocent victims, nor can we scapegoat people from one part of the world for the acts of a few individuals. We believe that these horrific terrorist acts should be treated as a crime against humanity and prosecuted as such. War is exactly what the terrorists want, particularly a war between the "West and Islam." Not only do they want to expel the United States from the Middle East, but they seek to force existing governments in Islamic countries to side with the U.S. so they can foster rebellion among the general population and install new governments that will impose their own brand of "religious fundamentalism." The Taliban for instance oppress the people of Afghanistan, especially women. We cannot bomb them back to the Stone Age; they are already there.

Peace is always harder to achieve than war. A desire for peace does mean holding terrorists responsible for their crimes. But the overwhelming majority of the citizens of our planet want a world free from violence. They want a world that recognizes the sacredness of each human life, that seeks to ensure a decent standard of living for all, while protecting our environment and valuing and tolerating the diversity of culture and religion. We need to be willing to work with other countries to create such a world, to strengthen the rule of international law, to promote true democracy, to create a global collective security that allows us and other countries to divert our military spending to meeting human needs. This will not be easy. But the only way to peace is through peace. We believe that it is time for a World Peace Treaty, to put an end to a century which has seen more human beings killed in war and conflict than at any time in our history.

We urge Americans to help one another educate ourselves about how America relates to other governments and peoples in the world. While there is never any justification for terrorism, such acts occur within a political context. The reality is that President Carter was our last President who made even a limited though flawed effort to consciously shape our foreign policy based on a commitment to human rights and democracy. Our foreign policy is normally driven by economic considerations of the large campaign contributors who dominate our political process. We need to recognize that other countries can share our goals of peace and justice but reflect different cultural values, religions, political institutions, and lifestyles. We need to examine why our military actions seem so often targeted at people of color.

We need to examine why so many of the recent individuals and governments we have gone to war with - the Taliban, bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Noriega in Panama, Iran - were until recently financially and militarily supported by the U.S. as a tool of our foreign policy. The United States not only helped create the Taliban in our effort to drive the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, but even as recently as a few months ago we were their major source our government aid at a time when they were brutalizing much of their own population and blowing up historic religious statutes of Buddha.

We need more democracy in the United States, not less. We must resist the call to curtail the civil liberties which the American people won during our own Revolution. We should continue to adhere to the principle of innocent until proven guilty, including terrorists. We must call for, not suppress, informed and open political debate. We must demand that our political leaders finally enact true campaign finance reform, and that our foreign policy promote democracy and human rights

In Peace

The Rebuilding of New York City

1. Rebuild the Entire City

The September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center has shaken our great city to its very foundations.

Our rebuilding efforts should focus on healing all of the wounds in the City. We need a citywide rebuilding effort that supports all the victims of the attacks, particularly those who gave their lives in the call of duty. We need to ensure that the economic recovery workers assists all those economically harmed by the attacks, from the chambermaids, janitors, secretaries, and taxicab drivers to the Chief Executive Officers of major corporations. We need welfare for all, not just corporate welfare.

We must use the rebuilding as an opportunity to build a City that provides a decent standard of living to all.

This is a national disaster. The role of a national government is to pay for such recovery efforts, not local taxpayers. New York tax dollars have previously been used to help other communties recover from the devastating effects of hurricanes, droughts or earthquakes. New York now needs help. The federal government is responsible for financing the recovery. Of course the federal government should ensure that private insurance carriers pay their legally responsible share.

The funds should be used to help rebuild all of the City, not just the businesses directly damaged by the attacks. Many small businesses and employees throughout the City have been economially hurt by the attacks. The tourism and arts industries have been hurt. Many nonprofits that provide critical services are at risk due to a loss of both public and private financial support.

The City should immediately implement and expand the 10,000 public and non-profit sector jobs that was approved by the City Council last year assist individuals in moving from welfare to work. This should be part of a public works program that will focus on rebuilding infrastructure (including affordable hosing and schools) and working on city beautification (community gardens, parks, public art).

We need to restore the concept of social work back to the Human Resources Administration. We need to increase public support for job training and educational opportunities for all workers, including English as a Second language.

We would establish a central office for individuals, organizations and companies to contact for any assistance in responding to the attacks, from obtaining financial support for repairs to assistance with living costs. We would make it a priority to protect individual workers for lost wages and jobs.

I would hold hearings throughout the city to receive input in the development of a master plan for how to rebuild New York City. It is important that we listen to and respond to all the voices in New York, not just those who have the most political and economic influence. Our redevelopment plan should be comprehensive, including issues such as affordable housing, health care, the environment, and education.

2. Creating a WTC Memorial and Peace Institute.

The area where thousands of our fellow New York City residents were murdered, and hundreds of our public employees sacrificed their lives to help others, is sacred ground. It needs to be memorialized as such.

A memorial needs to be built on the site of the World Trade Center attack. It should include a memorial to all those who have died, with special recognition to the city firemen, police officers, and other rescuers who gave their lives.

A permanent Peace Institute should be founded adjacent to the Memorial. The Institute would help provide moral leadership in the ongoing effort to achieve peace and justice on our planet. This would include helping to guide the redevelopment of New York City, bringing those guilty of terrorists attacks to justice, and guiding governments and peoples worldwide in building a world based on non-violence, justice, and grassroots democracy. The Peace Institute might be the first ten floors of a rebuilt World Trade Center. Permanent funding for the Peace Institute would be provided through a combination of transfer fees on financial transactions or a percentage of rents from the World Trade Center. We would seek individuals of the stature of Nelson Mandela to serve on the Board of the Institute. We envision a Peace Institute that is a powerful and healing force in resolving the issues of violence, war, and injustice on our planet.

The Federal government should fund a Peace Curriculum at specific intervals in the public schools (1, 3, 6, 9, 12). This project would include hiring researchers, teacher trainers, and coordinators. Topics to be included in the curriculum: training in introspection to recognize and understand anger, and examine and evaluate ways of handling it; training in conflict resolution and discussion as distinguished from debate methodology; study of the literature of war and peace; examination of research regarding relation of child-rearing to aggression; study of the economics of war; study of foreign policy and international relations.

We believe that any building that replaces the World Trade Center should seek to blend in with existing buildings rather than dominate it. We need to address the address the threats posed by large building, such as delays in evacuation. We need to reform building codes to incorporate structural protections utilized in most recent large buildings, such as a safe floor every fifteen one.

3. Economic Development

For too long much of the city's economic development efforts were focused on downtown Manhattan. This rebuilding efforts provides us an opportunity to remedy this problem. We must make it a priority to distribute good jobs throughout the five boroughs to strengthen local neighborhoods and decrease the amount of time workers spend commuting to employment.

The proposed $1.1 billion corporate subsidy package to build a new trading floor for the NY Stock Exchange remains a bad deal. It makes sense to include the issue of a new trading floor for the Stock Exchange as part of a comprehensive redevelopment package. A possible site for the new trading floor is the World Trade Center site. Having the Peace Institute at the WTC site would assist in helping Wall Street in general improve their corporate practices and addressing problems raised by economic globilization and development in general.

Small and neighborhood businesses should be given more of a priority in receiving economic development funds. Assistance should be provided to employees trying to develop their own businesses or cooperatives.

There needs to be democratic control of the taxpayer funds used for relief. These funds should not be controlled by the various development authorities which are controlled by corporate and political insiders. Public accountability needs to be built into all expenditures of public funds for recovery efforts; expected job creation and retention goals need to clearly spelled out and monitored. Jobs need to pay a living wage. At a minimum, there needs to be complete public disclosure and oversight of the use of the funds. The recent recommendations by the NYC Independent Budget Office regarding changes to city law to strengthen oversight of the NYC Economic Development Corporation need to be implemented.

We have a public responsibility to assist companies that have been harmed by terrorists in their rebuilding efforts. They have a similar responsibility to stay in New York City and commit to help building a more liveable city.

We should assist companies in locating affordable and quality office space. We should take action against price gouging in commercial office rents.

4. City Finances

New York City businesses and workers have been significantly harmed. This will lead to decreased public revenues at the City and State level.

The New York State Legislature must reinstate the NYC commuter tax, which was sacrificed to partisan politics just a few years ago to help candidates in the special election for State Senate in Rockland County. This would bring hundreds of millions dollars back to the City to assist with rebuilding.

As noted before, the federal government has a responsibility to pay for the recovery costs. In addition, at least for the short term we must reverse the flow of tax dollars from New York City to the state and federal tax coffers.

New York has a very regressive tax system, where low-income individuals pay a much higher percentage of their income for local and state taxes than the wealthy do. Any need for increased tax dollars should be financed by making the wealthy pay a higher and fair share of the tax burden.

5. Environmental Protection

Improving and protecting the quality of our air, water, open space and the environment should be a priority in any rebuilding efforts. We must carefully monitor and document the health risks from the destruction of the World Trade Center, particularly air quality and impact on respiratory illnesses. Funding should be provided for independent air / toxic testing and health services for victims, rescue workers, and residents.

Some environmentalists have expressed the need to expedite the review of rebuilding projects in order to avoid contributing to increased sprawl and deterioration of air quality through increased used of private cars. We oppose any weakening of environmental protection and in fact call for its strengthening. A better solution would be to provide increased public resources to ensure that comprehensive reviews can be done in a more timely fashion while maintaining high environmental standards.

The WTC for instance was the largest polluter of the Hudson River, since it received an exception for the Clean Water Act in the 1970's when the Port Authority threatened to leave the building empty and unfinished unless the city lowered costs. Billions of gallons flowed of untreated sewage flowed into the river every day for decades due to this decision.

Any use of public funds for the construction of buildings should insure that green measures are incorporated to the maximum extent possible, such as the use of energy conservation and energy efficiency, solar power, roof gardens, air quality, etc. The World Trade Center used as much energy for instance as the entire city of Syracuse.

We must also be mindful of the security risks we face from an environmental attack, such as a poisoning of the water system and the spread of air-borne toxics.

6. Subway

Any rebuilding of New York must include a commitment to improving our mass transit system. The subway system suffered major damage in the attacks, with repairs costs in excess of a billion dollars. We need not only to quickly rebuild our subway system to the level of performance before September 11, but to surpass it. We need to ensure that the 2nd Ave line is an integral part of any rebuilding plan, along with east access for LIRR trains, and extending the #7 subway line to the west side. We need to increase public subsidies for mass transit.

We need to decrease the amount of truck traffic into New York City by strengthening our rail freight system.

7. Security

The heroic efforts of our police department in the World Trade Center attach has healed many wounds in the community. There is a sense of unity and bonding between the police and residents that we need to continue and build upon. This would be an excellent opportunity to move forward in resolving issues such as community oversight and relations with the police department.

The City obviously needs to undertake a comprehensive refuse of the various security risks in the City (e.g., public spaces, water, mass transit, bridges, biological weapons, electric grids). However, as the recent terrorist attacks so forcefully highlighted, individuals willing to kill themselves will continue to have plenty of opportunities to cause massive casualties regardless on the tightening of security at events, etc. We must be careful that in response to these horrific attacks that we do not curtail the civil liberties that are an essential guarantee and protector of our democracy.

We must welcome more informed public debate, not less.

America's War on Terrorism; Some Personal Observations

by Mark Dunlea

We don't know yet who actually put the plane into the WTC, other than the people who actually did the hijacking. Most independent accounts that I have read repeatedly make the point that the U.S. has not established a factual basis for holding particular countries or individuals responsible for this particular attack.

I read that the American government believes there are terrorist cells in about 30 countries. Presumably this number would be expanded if we included "pro-US" terrorists. We do know that there are several countries that are active in funding "terrorist" activities. Avoiding value judgements about good or bad terrorists (murderers vs. freedom fighters), that list includes Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, United States, Libya, perhaps Pakistan, maybe others. Saudi Arabia, perhaps the most corrupt government in the world, is certainly one of the major financiers. One would throw in some South American countries. One would add on several African countries if you call murdering your political opponents or tribes terrorists. (I realize that I have left out many governments from this list but you get the idea.)

It is most likely that funding for the attacks on the World Trade Center came from individuals in Saudi Arabia, perhaps siphoned on from funds donated to a group for "charitable" purposes. It is possible if not likely that intelligence information came from a state, perhaps Iraq. It is likely that the terrorist coalition "supported" by bin Laden had some role in providing support or funding to those who attacked the WTC.

Bin Laden, a member of the ruling class of Saudi Arabia, is clearly engaged in terrorist activities. He appears to be financed by Saudi Arabia funds, probably other oil funds, his own funds long since disappeared. He is allowed to operate out of Afghanistan by the Taliban, whom he supports and provides military training to. He appears to have been a rather marginal figure within Mideastern politics and terrorism until Clinton elevated his stature by throwing some cruise missles at him. (You might want to read the 1998 article by Robert Fisk about Bin Laden). My guess is that his strength is more public relations than sophisticated military operations.

The United States however bear much of the responsibility for creating the anarchy that exists in Afghanistan that allows both Bin Laden and the Taliban to survive, and at various times have provided support to the efforts of Bin Laden and the Taliban to exert influence in Afghanistan. Part of the initial motivation of the U.S. was to destabilize the Soviet Union, then to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to avoid Iran.

It is unlikely that the Afghanistan government played any significant role in the recent attacks on the U.S. Certainly the Afghanistan people did not.

In recent decades, the United States has played an active role in supporting the use of terrorism as a military tactic. While the US has perhaps sought to usually limits its support of terrorism to blow up the infrastructure of countries it opposes, it has continued to fund terrorists even when it was clear they were killing civilians and political opponents.

I want to end terrorism. That is going to be very difficult.

The United States does not yet have a realistic plan to end terrorism, not are they being honest about its own role in promoting and causing terrorism. They are presently overthowing the Afghanistan government to impose a new set of rulers who at least in the short term will be more pro-American. One step the greens can take is to at least insist that the oppression of women stop, but I doubt this will be successful other than in a short term.

Overthrowing the Taliban will leave only a few dozen countries or so that are either so non-existent or so anti-American that anti-American terrorists will be able to operate out of. We have at least another half-dozen countries that we would need to overthrow in the next year or two. It appears that Iraq is next.

Terrorism of course is a tactic, it is not a particular country, religion or culture. Killing the people who wage terrorism against US and its allies without banning the use of terrorism as a tactic, starting most importantly with the US and its allies, will do little to eliminate terrorism in the long term.

And as greens we know that the use of violence for whatever reason always produces more violence.

Greens Call for International Peace Treaty;
Discusses the Reality of Terrorism

The New York State Greens are proposing that the greens worldwide coordinate an international green campaign in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The Greens are active in more than 80 countries, and have members in the parliaments of two dozen countries. The Secretary of State of Germanyis a Greens. The Greens seek to use their worldwide influence to use international law to prosecute terrorists, and to create a world build on seeking justice and a decent standard of living for all.

A Petition for A World Peace Treaty

We, the people of this planet, do hereby petition our governments and fellow citizens to negotiate and implement a world peace treaty. It is time to put a halt to the incessant and escalating use of violence and terrorism which has killed millions of our brothers and sisters in conflicts throughout the world. We seek to build a new world based on the rule of international law; the respect for and protection of the sacredness of each human life; and, a commitment to preserve our cultural, social and ecological diversity from the threats posed by globalization.

We call for the redirection of funds from armaments to human security and sustainable development; equal participation by marginalized groups, including women and indigenous people; and, a commitment to collective global security which protects us all from the threat to violence. We support the empowerment of democratic international decision-making, including reorienting international financial institutions to serve human rather than corporate needs.

Why A Green Campaign is Needed

A national and international green campaign is important for a number of reasons. One, the Greens are the "official opposition" party in the U.S., particularly with the Democrats and Republicans developing a united front to head us to war. As a political party we need to articulate a clear alternative to their policies. Second, recent history shows that the peace movement has little chance, particularly in the short term, of impacting on the Bush Administration's decision to go to war. However, the US Greens connections with greens in other countries, particularly those in Europe, provides us with an opportunity to apply pressure on these allies to pressure the United States. Third, if we and other elements of the peace movement (whom we should also obviously work with) are unsuccessful in redirecting the American government away from their traditional use of escalating military force, there is a serious likelihood that the number of casualties both here and abroad could be enormous. Fourth, if we are able to effectively mobilize our resources, we may have an ability to advance our vision of how a "green" world should be structured, not only addressing military issues, but economic, cultural and social ones as well.

As Rabbi Michael Lerner recently stated, "We should pray for the victims and the families of those who have been hurt or murdered in these crazy acts. We should also pray that American does not return to business as usual, but rather returns to a period of reflection, coming back into touch with our common humanity, asking ourselves how our institutions can best embody our highest values. We may need a global day of atonement and repentance dedicated to finding a way to turn the direction of our society at every level, a return to the notion that every human life is sacred, that "the bottom line" should be the creation of a world of loving and caring, and that the best way to prevent these kinds of acts is not to turn ourselves into a police state, but turn ourselves into a society in which social justice, love and compassion as so prevalent that violence becomes only a distant memory".

We believe the greens should support the adoption of an international agreement which pledges all of us the refrain from violence in settling our disputes; which commits all countries, particularly the U.S., to obey the rule of international law; which commits our political, cultural and economic disputes to be settled through a process of negotiations; and, which recognizes the peace will only be possible in a world which is committed to ensure a decent life to all humans, regardless of where they live, the color of the skin, etc. Once such a treaty is adopted, one of its first steps would be to hold accountable those responsible for the recent killings in America. But such a treaty would also hold responsible those accountable for numerous other killings throughout the world, which includes our government.

We need someone like Nelson Mandela, not George Bush, leading the worldwide response to this latest terrorist attack.

Many Americans of course are oblivious to the true role that America plays on the world stage, of America's culpability of so many tragedies and deaths in third world countries. Americans don't respond when half a million humans are killed by genocide in Africa. Americans don't feel responsible when an American corporation runs a sweat shop in a third world country or crushes the efforts of workers to organize, or trains a military squad to kill. A green national campaign would need to strike a balance between expressing our sorrow at the murder of so many Americans while trying to put the tragedy into the context of the broader political and military forces at work.

The world may indeed be at a crossroads between WWWIII and a world built on justice. George Bush and the Republican and Democrat Parties will only continue us on the road to WWWIII. At "best" they will deliver such a massive military response that the capability of their targets to respond will be destroyed for months. But a game of superior force will mean the next attack could kill tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, and that the use of nuclear weapons or biological weapons is possible.

An Overview of the Recent Terrorism

Congress, the media and much of the American public are lining up behind President Bush's declaration of war in response to the horrific terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Voices which urge restraint and a search for peace are ignored or dismissed. At best they are viewed as naive. At worst, they are viewed as opposed to the American people and the values which our country stands for. Not surprisingly, many peace groups such as the Green Party share similar sentiments about those who advocate a forceful military response to the recent terrorist actions.

Peace groups understand the need to punish those who engage in terrorism. However, we also want to put an end to the killings. Bombing the terrorists responsible for the recent attacks will not stop terrorism; it will however likely result in an escalation of the killings. Peace groups believe that the only way to put an end to what has been the bloodiest century of violence and killings in human history is to strengthen the rule of international law to hold responsible those guilty of such violent acts. World War II, the war to end all wars, did not end war.

As a first step, Americans must begin to educate themselves both about the realities of terrorism and how American foreign and economic policy impacts upon other countries and cultures. Terrorist acts, reprehensible as they are, occur within a political context. Contrary to recent media reports, the U.S. government was not taken by surprise by the recent attacks. As a recent government commission headed by former Senator Gary Hart concluded, the question was not whether a major terrorist attack would occur in the United States but when.

We also believe that we need to be resist the rush to repeal civil liberties, which will do little to reduce terrorism but will be used to restrict political dissent and debate. It was the common people of the American Revolution who demanded that the drafters of the Constitution add on the amendments protecting us from government searches and surveillance. We should not sacrifice the very democracy that we are supposed to be protecting against "terrorism".

Probably the most painful challenge for Americans is the need to acknowledge that terrorism has been used by the American government as a tool of its foreign policy. We will never be secure from terrorists' threats unless we require our own government to renounce the use of it and are willing to hold accountable our leaders and our allies who have used it.

Any solution to terrorism must also recognize that with tremendous technological advances in transportation and communication, the world has become a global village. Individual terrorists, not just nations, have the ability to launch attacks that can kill not just thousands but millions.

We must also address the fact the corporations, a relatively new creation less than 200 years old, have been been freed from the control of national governments and increasingly are able to exercise world wide power, most recently through the World Trade Organization. We have failed to equally empower individuals to ensure our collective security and economic well-being. The globalization of a world wide economy dominated by a few multinational corporations threaten many cultures, the environment, and democracy.

Peace groups have no illusion about the difficulty of creating a world that eliminates violence as an instrument of foreign policy. The economic and politic forces that control the American government have little interest in subjecting their actions to public scrutiny and control. However, it is no accident that at a time when America is the dominant force in the world, the U.S. also has the greatest gap in income between the wealthy and the power of all industrial governments.

With respect to the recent attacks, It is always dangerous to make assumptions about such acts without hard evidence, as the initial reactions to the Oklahoma bombing showed. Unfortunately, perhaps the safest assumption is that those guilty of these acts were at some point trained and financed in the art of warfare by the American government. This fact of course has been dutifully downplayed by the America corporate media and political establishment.

Since emerging as the world's dominant power, American has invariably been clumsy in how it plays the chess game of foreign policy. We often pursue short-term strategies that violate our democratic principles, invariably producing even more disasters down the road. Eventually, we usually are forced to try to either buy or blow our way out of the messes we make. The present situation is a good example.

Let us assume for a moment that bin Laden is the leader behind the terrorist acts. Since bin Laden provides much of the military training that allows the Taliban to maintain power in Afghanistan, it is probably safe to assume that the Afghanistan government, to the extent it exists, provides a safe harbor for bin Laden. It is also likely that the level of intelligence information needed to pull off the attack was beyond the capacity of bin Laden or the Taliban. This makes it likely that some foreign government was involved. Iraq would head the short list of potential responsible parties, though Iran and Pakistan would also be included.

Bin Laden, a native of Saudi Arabia, was part of the "freedom fighters" funded, trained and armed by the American government during the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. As part of the Cold War, the United States assisted such terrorists, many of them foreigners, in their effort to weaken the Soviet Union; the debacle in Afghanistan contributed to the collapse of the Soviet empire. The United States, working with Pakistan, helped create the fanatical Taliban which has been able to consolidate control over 90% of the country, oppressing the rest of the citizenry, particularly women, in the name of God. There is little to the U.S. to gain from bombing Afghanistan back to the stone age, since to a large extent they are already there. Much of the local population in Afghanistan would welcome the removal of the Taliban from the power and the expulsion of the foreigners that prop them up. Lobbing missiles at them that kills even more civilians however would also recruit more terrorists for bin Laden.

While the rest of the world shuns the Taliban, the U.S. has been the largest source of government aid for the Taliban. A report in the LA Times stated that the U.S. recently given them more than $40 million as a reward for clamping down on the growing of opium. At the same time, the BBC reported a few days ago the U.S. had decided several months ago, along with Russia, to launch an invasion in Afghanistan in October before the snow fell to eliminate the Taliban and bin Laden. This is just another example of the often contradictory nature of America's foreign policy.

While bin Laden's terrorism is usually portrayed as yet another response to the misguided American policy in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, it is important to remember that bin Laden worked with the US during the 1980's, when the U.S. was even more pro-Israel than it is today. What appears to have turned bin Laden against the U.S. was the establishment of permanent American bases in Saudi Arabia, the holy seat of Islam and Laden's home country, following the war in Kuwait. Bin Laden had worked with the U.S. to expel the Soviet Union from an Islamic country; now he would work to expel the U.S. from Islamic soil.

Bin Laden is of course just the latest example of someone who was initially used as an instrument of the American military and then became our enemy. American invaded Panama to oust Noriega, who we had helped put into power. The worst recent example of course is Saddam Hussein in Iraq, who the U.S. had supported in his decade long war against Iran, after the religious leaders were able to overthrow the military dictator that the U.S. had installed there. What is particularly egregious about Hussein is that even after Bush the 41st led an international military coalition to expel him from Kuwait, killing hundreds of thousands of his undertrained forced recruits, the U.S. decided to spare his elite military units and kept him in power in order to provide a counterweight to other American enemies in the Middle East, starting with Iran. But to show the American people that we were being tough with Hussein, we imposed an embargo that has led to the death of half a million children while strengthening his control over the Iraq.

The sad reality is that terrorism has long been, and continues to be, an instrument of American foreign policy, particularly in South America. Ronald Reagan illegally funded the contras in Nicaragua to kill 30,000 civilians. Many individuals believe that former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger needs to be tried as a terrorist and war criminal, starting with his role in the overthrow of the democratically elected Allende government in Chile, which resulted in decades on terrorism against the Chile people under Pinochet. The "drug war" in Columbia is the latest example of misguided American intervention. Last week following the attack the Senate confirmed the appointment of Negroponte as Ambassador to the United Nations, an individual widely viewed as a culprit in the death squads in Honduras.

The media tells us that America will never be the same. So far we are exactly the same, with the response of the Bush administration be exactly what the terrorists would have predicted - increased military spending and corporate welfare, curtailment of civil liberties, a banging of the drums for war. We need to break out of the trap and do something different.

No More Wars for Oil
Renewable Energy: Now More Than Ever

By Steve Breyman

In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US, citizens have begun to ask "how could this happen?" Among the several complexly twisted roots of the crisis are America and the industrial world's ongoing and worsening energy insecurity.

We did not learn a major lesson of the Gulf War: drastically reduce our dependence on imported petroleum so that America's sons and daughters will never again need to shed their blood for oil. Instead, US daily oil imports rose by nearly 60% since 1991. World crude oil production increased by over ten million barrels per day over the same period. Thirty percent of the world's global daily oil production comes from the Persian Gulf, the home of sixty-five percent of known reserves.

The repressive, anti-feminist Saudi monarchy has been under US protection since FDR met with Ibn Saud in 1945. President Carter pledged to defend the free flow of oil from the Gulf in January 1980. Much of US military strategy and force structure came to revolve around the preservation of the anti-democratic oil sheikdoms.

And the US never left the Persian Gulf following the expulsion of the Iraqi military from Kuwait. The Fifth Fleet patrols the waters of the Gulf. US warplanes have flown more than a quarter million missions firing thousands of missiles against hundreds of targets as part of Operation Southern Watch, enforcing the no fly zone in Iraq. Over 20,000 US military personnel were deployed in the Gulf at the price of many billions of dollars per year, prior to the US-UK bombing of Afghanistan.

The seemingly permanent US military presence in the Gulf is a chronic irritant in American relations with a significant sector of the peoples of the region, and has increased our vulnerability to terrorism. Recall the truck bomb attack against Saudi National Guard headquarters in November 1995 (killing five American servicemen among others). Another truck bomb killed nineteen young US servicemen in Dhahran seven months later. Nearly a year ago a human torpedo killed seventeen sailors aboard the USS Cole in Yemen. Osama bin Laden claims to be driven by an animosity born of the US presence in Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's holiest sites.

How to avoid the recurring tragedies that inevitably accompany the industrial world's oil habit? Part of the answer is simple and straightforward: Kick the habit. Let's make the shift to clean energy now, not later after the polar ice caps melt, and we suffer through further extreme droughts, hurricanes, and fossil fuel conflicts. It's not "giving in to terrorism" to change policies long overdue for reform. The longer we rely on foreign energy sources, the longer we will be vulnerable to supply disruptions, price shocks, and murderous attacks.

Contrary to popular myth, renewable energy technologies-solar, small hydro, wind, biofuels-are proven, reliable and affordable. Wind power is the world's fastest growing energy source, and is currently cheaper than both coal and natural gas. Wind has the added advantage of providing income to family farmers who are able to grow and harvest crops in the same fields used for wind turbines. Global shipments of solar photovoltaic cells grow by over 20% per year. The world market for solar energy was about $600 million in 1997, and is expected to grow quickly in the near future, especially in the developing world. Biodiesel can be made from the used vegetable oil that prepares french fries at fast food restaurants. Hydrogen fuel cells for appliances, homes, and cars appear to be right around the corner.

ARCO/BP executive Michael Bowlin suggests we're now in the "last days of the Age of Oil." Phil Watts, Royal Dutch Shell Chairman, recently proclaimed "the end of the Hydrocarbon Age." Watts committed his firm to investing $500 million-$1 billion over the next five years in new energy businesses, concentrating on solar and wind. Frank Ingriselli, President of Texaco Technology Ventures, claims we're moving "inexorably towards hydrogen energy . . . those who don't pursue it . . . will rue it." This summer Honda opened the first hydrogen production and fueling station outside Los Angeles, where the carmaker manufactures hydrogen using solar power. In a conversation with Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone, Thomas Edison said "I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait till oil and coal run out before we tackle that. I wish I had more years left!"

The claim that the US, even if it shifted to renewables, would still need its armed forces in the Persian Gulf due to its allies' oil dependence is an insult to them. Our allies, far more dependent on Persian Gulf oil than the US, also have the edge in energy conservation. Germans and Japanese on average use energy twice as efficiently as Americans do. The Japanese embarked on a solar roof program that installed photovoltaics on 9,000 rooftops in 1999 alone, and that now generates more than 50 megawatts. Wind provides over 7% of Denmark's electricity. Windmills generate 10-15% of the electricity in some northern German regions. Renewables provide half or more of the energy needs of many of our friends in the developing world. Our oil-guzzling allies, unlike the US, are committed to the Kyoto Protocol, and long-term plans to wean their economies from fossil fuels. To counsel reliance on an energy source vulnerable to terrorism, that requires periodic bloody wars and never-ending military presence in the Gulf, that will further disrupt the global climate, and that-unlike renewables-is by definition finite, is to consign our children and grandchildren to a grim future.

We're not yet ready-a delay of our own making-to meet much of our energy needs through renewable sources. Here in New York, Gov. Pataki ordered the state government to meet 10% of its energy needs through renewable sources by 2005, and 20% by 2010. This is a good start. But New York State does not currently produce enough renewable energy to meet that modest goal, to say nothing of the energy needs of New York's businesses and households.

The answer to our energy woes is neither to commence oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) nor to increase offshore oil drilling. ANWR, called "America's Serengeti," is one of the world's last great wild places, home to extraordinary and rare flora and fauna. Despoiling it for the tiny percentage of our energy needs it can supply is akin to drilling for oil beneath the towering spires of the National Cathedral. The Alaskan oil pipeline was recently shut down for several days following its largest spill ever after a drunk with a gun shot holes in it. The consequences of more determined attacks on the pipeline are truly frightening to contemplate. Offshore oil platforms are giant oil spills waiting to happen. Imagine the damage terrorists with hijacked freighters could inflict on them and their crews. Nor is the answer to our energy troubles construction of more nuclear power plants-themselves potential targets for terrorist attack. Recent reviews of reactor designs found that an airliner crashed into a nuke plant could trigger a catastrophic radiation release. The decentralized, distributed character of renewables makes them unattractive targets for terrorist attack. Only a rapid and far-reaching transition to renewable energy will ensure the US and its allies' energy security and prevent future oil wars.

Our shift to renewables is a question of when, rather than whether. Making the move sooner rather than later will pay off through cleaner air and water, stabilized climate, and improved human and ecosystem health. Switching to green energy is one also of the most important steps we can take to safeguard our long-term national security.

Explaining War to My Son

by Peggy Rockwell

There is no room for dissent in our world today. If you are not with Bush, you are one of “them”. A terrorist? I will not sing God Bless America. I will not hang a flag outside my house, nor in my car. I argue that we should not bomb Afghanistan.

My son points to a colored photo of a man with a turban in the Times Union.“This is war, mom,” he says to me. I am reading the paper outside as we wait for the school bus. “How do you know that it’s war?” I ask, wondering where he gets this idea. Beneath the photo of this Northern Alliance soldier is the term, “Freedom Fighter”. He looks away, either not knowing or not caring.

“Who are the good guys? Are we the good guys?” he asks. Now, I look away, not knowing. But, I try.

“It’s not that easy to explain. There are no good guys or bad guys,” I theorize. I know that the Northern Alliance is suspect in it’s “freedom fighting”. They raged a terror campaign on the Afghani people from 1992 until they were ousted in 1996 by the Taliban. Now, they are the “good guys”.

I am afraid. It is the purpose of the mass media, owned by major corporations, to make me afraid. This way I will embrace the fear and act accordingly. No questioning. There is no discourse, just authoritative knowledge, didacticism and dictation.

The local paper runs a full page informational on what to do in case of “bio” and other terrorists acts. What to do in case of a bombing: Make sure you have fresh water, canned food, and what to do with pets. Listen to the radio and television. They will tell you what to do.

I feel a Twighlight Zone moment in ponderingthis. “How will I know who is telling me the truth?” I wonder. “What if the media becomes controlled by terrorists?”

But, I do not trust the media. I want to see the truth? Where are the videos and photos of Afghanistan since the War? CNN looks like a web site. There are four or five images on the screen at once. I am not multi-tasked, as I suspect my six-year-old son will grow up to be, in this Orwellian World. But, will he be able to crack their code? Decipher? Question? Disseminate? Deconstruct? Will he be a terrorist, by the new definition, or will he just fall in line.

What I do know is that my Microsoft spell-check corrects the names of Multi-nationals, like Raytheon, Unocal, General Dynamics, and Lockheed. These are the Corporations whose stocks gained points just days after September 11th, when the market was crashing. My spell-check doesn’t include words like ecofeminism, marginalized and disenfranchized. I wonder why the disparity? What is the connection? Money? Power?

As I was driving home from the grocery store today, my son sitting in the back seat, I past the home of friends. In front of their home is a white sign covered with child-like script. I know their son crafted this. The sign says, “War is not an Answer.” It made me feel good.

Green Party, The Peace Alternative

By Joe Lombardo

Today, the most necessary and courageous act that Americans can do is opposed our government’s war drive. The killing of innocent people in Afghanistan is as bad as the killing of innocent people in Lower Manhattan. It is necessary to stop the cycle of violence that can only lead to more killing, more fear and more terror. But, there is only one political party that has taken this necessary and courageous stand, that is the Green Party.

As the Democrats line-up behind the illegitimate Bush government to support the bombing of the people of Afghanistan, they also choose to support Bush’s tax cut proposals for the corporations and the rich, his corporate welfare proposals and his attacks on civil liberties. There is no criticism by the political parties, except from the Greens.

Greens believe that all human life is equally valuable, whether a person works in lower Manhattan or lives in the desert outside Kabul. We mourn the lives of those hundreds of innocent civilians murdered by U.S. bombs in Afghanistan, just as we continue to mourn the thousands killed in the Sept. 11th attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. These were criminal acts, as are ALL acts of terror against innocent civilians, whether committed by individuals or by governments (including the United States). Those responsible for acts of terror ––- including “state terror” — should be brought to justice under international law.

The Green party calls upon all people, members of our party and others, to join and build the anti-war movement to stop the terror. The bombing of the people of Afghanistan must end and the foreign policy of the US government that bullies the rest of the world in the interest of corporate profit must end. This is the only way to stop terrorism.

Campus Greens Rally for Peace

by Jessica Wisneski

The day of September 11, 2001 will forever be remembered in the minds of the students at SUNY Albany, just as it will be by the rest of the world. For two days, our campus was shut down. State workers were sent home, students were turned away from classes and sent back to their residence halls. Later that evening, the Universirty sponsored sponsored a candle light vigil in remembrance of the victims and to show support for the victicm’s families, many of which were U Albany students.

Now, over a month has passed, and the students at the University at Albany, want the campus to join together gain. This time, with a call for peace, an end to the cycle of violence we have been witnessing recently, and the violence that has been going on without our knowledge throughout our entire lives.

On Tues. Oct. 30, students from the University at Albany’s Campus Greens, along with other groups on campus, will put on a Peace Festival at 12:20 PM in front of the small fountain at the Campus Center. There, Campus Greens and other peace supporting groups will send a message, that not all Americans, certainly not all students, support the actions of the President and US leaders, sending bombs and missiles onto Afghanistan. We will stand together and declare that violence and vengeance is not the answer to this problem.

We will put into perspective, the history of the conflicts between various groups in the Middle East and the U.S. and what steps are being taken at the present moment to resolve these heated conflicts. We will open the minds of other students by giving alternative solutions to the problems the world faces today, and stress how important it is to see this is as a global problem.

The peace festival will include a collection station for non-perishable foods and clothing, organized by Albany’s Student Red Cross that will be given to national and international relief efforts. There will also be a table set up full of cell phones and donated minutes, for students to call the offices of their state and national representatives. Students can let their representatives know that they are voters and demand alternatives to violence in dealing with the conflicts between the terrorist groups of the Middle East and the US.

For more info, call Jessica Wisneski at 442-8411 or David Lussier at 426-0035.

Return to Green Peace and Justice home page