People Before Profit blog

Cuba reacts in outrage

Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:09:00 +0000

Our people have reacted with deep outrage to the public denunciation of the shameless and repeated acts of provocation by the Chief of the United States Interests Section in Cuba, acts that have clearly been conceived and carried out as part of the current U.S. administration's hostile and aggressive policy towards Cuba, with the close cooperation and support of the Miami terrorist mob and the extreme right wing in the United States.

The people's outrage has grown even greater in the face of the cowardly and cruel measures of revenge adopted against the five Cubans who have been arbitrarily and spuriously sentenced to unjust, lengthy and in some cases lifelong prison terms, far from their homeland and their families.

The Cuban government strictly complies with the norms and principles that govern diplomatic relations between states. It has tried and will continue to try to act with extreme calm as it provides and will always provide, as it does with all others, full guarantees for the security of the U.S. diplomatic personnel who work in our country. Nevertheless, Cuba finds itself obliged to limit the movements of U.S. diplomatic personnel within Cuban territory, in reciprocity with the measures recently adopted by the United States against our own diplomatic personnel in Washington.

No country, no matter how powerful it may be, has any right to turn its diplomatic representation into the organizer, financier, director and headquarters of activities aimed at destabilizing and subverting the constitutional order, infringing the law, conspiring against social development, boycotting economic relations, threatening the security and destroying the independence of another country.

Using diplomatic facilities, immunities and exemptions to openly carry out such activities is a highly unusual and cynical undertaking. Thus, the norms provided by international law will be applied against this practice.

Obviously, the goal of the enemies of our Revolution is to strike out against and damage the relations and ties of friendship that have patiently and progressively been forged between the peoples of Cuba and the United States, as the truth has gradually come to light, despite the deluge of lies and slander that have rained down on public opinion in the United States and the world regarding our country and its unsurpassable record of justice and humanism, in the midst of an unjust and ruthless blockade. We greatly value these relations with the people of the United States and we will continue to strive for them, regardless the difficulties that may arise.

Faced with the professed and shameless intent to organize from within a mercenary force like the one that invaded us through the Bay of Pigs, following orders from a foreign government, or that organized armed gangs, or killed teachers and literacy workers, assailed boats, kidnapped fishermen, carried out thousands of acts of sabotage and sowed terror and mourning throughout our country, disguised this time as seemingly harmless sheep to support the criminal policy of the government of that same country against our homeland, to slander us and justify the blockade, the economic strangulation and the isolation of our people, there can be absolutely no doubt that the Revolution will apply, with the necessary energy and to the extent that the circumstances demand it, the laws passed to defend it from new and old tactics and strategies against Cuba.

For these reasons, several dozen people directly linked with the conspiratorial activities carried out by Mr. James Cason have been arrested by the corresponding authorities and will stand trial in the courts of justice.

The Revolution has often been generous and tolerant by virtue of its immense political strength and its capacity to withstand all kinds of aggression in all areas. It has demonstrated this throughout 44 years. It demonstrated it from a human perspective with the Bay of Pigs mercenaries, who spent barely a few months in prison; with the hundreds of counterrevolutionaries involved in assassination plots against the leaders of the Revolution; and with the thousands who have perpetrated acts of sabotage and other crimes, all of them at the service of the U.S. government, and have been released before fully serving their prison sentences, and even allowed to travel to and reside in the United States. Adequately severe laws against serious acts carried out in complicity with the enemy that seeks to destroy us have not been applied, although they are fully in force.

This should not lead anyone to believe that acts of treason at the service of a foreign power, which threaten the security and interests of our heroic country will meet with guaranteed impunity. Generosity and tolerance cannot be expected of the Revolution when we are witnesses to such brutal and abhorrent acts as the cruel and inhuman treatment being endured by our five heroic compatriots, who risked their lives to defend their people and even the people of the United States from terrorism and death, while mercenaries with neither scruples nor conscience, the vast majority of them full-time loafers that live off of selling shreds of the homeland for the gold of the empire, expecting impunity.

Those who are familiar with the Cuban Revolution know very well that it is not given to bluffing, and that there is no power in the world that can intimidate it.

March 18, 2003

Cuban Passenger Plane Hijacked And Flown To The United States

Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:03:00 +0000

From: Embassy of Cuba, Friday, March 21, 2003

Wednesday March 19, at 6:51 p.m., a DC-3 Aerotaxi belonging to Empresa Nacional de Servicios Aéreos (registration CUT-1 192, flight number CNI877), took off from Nueva Gerona Airport on the Isla de la Juventud bound for Havana. It carried 31 passengers, a crew of five and an escort. The passengers included 25 Cuban adults, an Italian citizen and five children.

At 7:24 p.m., when the plane was ten miles south of Boyeros airport and ready to land, the captain radioed Air Traffic Control to report that there were 'political problems' on board and that he was heading north.

Four minutes later (7:28 p.m.) Boyeros Air Traffic Control (ATC) and the DAAFAR Command Center announced that the captain of a DC-3 aircraft en route from Nueva Gerona to Havana had reported that his plane was being hijacked and that there were armed individuals on board. Fuel was running low and he had asked for coordinates for the shortest route to Miami.

At 7:29 p.m., the plane's normal identification was changed to Code 7500, which is used in the event of unlawful interference aboard, while Boyeros ATC received a request for an even shorter route, in view of the fuel situation. The plane was rerouted via Key West, the only shorter air route in that direction.

Immediately (7:30 p.m.), Boyeros ATC notified Miami ATC that a DC-3 Aerotaxi with armed hijackers aboard had been diverted to Miami, also advising the direction it was following. The Miami ATC inquired whether Cuban fighter aircraft were escorting the plane, and received a reply in the negative. It then responded that US fighters would escort the plane until landing.

Finally, at 8:10 p.m., Boyeros ATC reported that the plane had landed at Key West three minutes earlier (8:07 p.m.). Total flight time: one hour sixteen minutes.

This act clearly belongs to the category of terrorism, as defined in several international conventions ratified by Cuba and the United States.

At 9:00 a.m. today, Thursday March 20, Cuba's Ministry of Foreign Affairs presented to the US lnterests Section in Havana a Diplomatic Note based on the available data. The same note was presented an hour later in Washington through the Cuban Interests Section. It called on the US authorities to return the hijacked civil aircraft immediately, together with its passengers and the perpetrators of this despicable act, which is specifically classified as an act of terrorism in three current international conventions that are binding on both the Cuban and US governments. These are: the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (Tokyo, September 14, 1963); the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (The Hague, December 16, 1970); and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation (Montreal, September 23, 1971).

The Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs also asked the US authorities -that keep holding the plane, the passengers, the crew and the hijackers - for such details of the incident as are available, including the circumstances in which it took place. It emphasized the threat to human life and air-traffic safety in the region implied by failure to punish such acts. It expressed its deep concern over the complacency and tolerance marking the US authorities' response to previous similar acts of piracy against Cuba. This has included granting exceptional privileges to the perpetrators, which clearly encourages such acts of terrorism. It highlighted the need that, on this occasion, Washington complies with its commitments under the above-mentioned international accords.

Apart from the offences mentioned, our Ministry of Foreign Affairs also pointed out that this act constitutes a flagrant violation of the migration accords entered into in September 1994, under which both nations undertook to 'take effective measures in every way they possibly can to oppose and prevent the use of violence by any persons seeking to reach, or who arrive in, the United States from Cuba by forcible diversions of aircraft and vessel.'| Similarly, according to the same accord as drawn up and signed: 'the United States has discontinued its practice of granting parole to all Cuban migrants who reach U.S. territory in irregular ways'.

The Cuban authorities still lack current information on these events.

Havana, Cuba.

March 20, 2003

Music, money and war: Dixie Chicks vs. Clear Channel

Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:21:00 +0000

Perhaps since the dawn of time, music has been a means of political expression. A recent song, “Traveling Soldier,” by one of country music’s newest and biggest stars, the Dixie Chicks, continues that tradition. The song recounts the fear of a young man sent to fight in Vietnam and the pain of a young woman who remembers him after he is added to “the list of local Vietnam dead.’’

The Dixie Chicks began their career over a decade ago as a trio of bluegrass street performers; their origins and style are as natural as their roots. Their rise to fame, including three recent Grammy awards, hasn’t been like most pop music success stories; corporate connections, advertising campaigns, and perfect figures were not the keys to their record sales. Rather, their own well-written music that expresses their personal takes on the trials, tribulations, and desires of people just like us has taken this group to the top.

Past songs from the Chicks have gone beyond the topic of love, to tackle issues like abuse and independence, and now they have taken on WAR.

But like the rest of us poor and peace-loving people, the Chicks are under attack for their principled honesty. When lead singer Natalie Maines said to a packed and roaring crowd at a London concert, “Just so you know, we’re ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas,” it was fated that the Chicks would be prime targets for a pro-war assault.

Their subsequent clarifications of their anti-war feelings have landed them in even deeper trouble with the mammoth conglomerate Clear Channel, which controls no less than 60 percent of the nation’s rock music airwaves. The Clear Channel director for two Jacksonville stations said in a press release, “Out of respect for our troops, our city, and our listeners, [we] have taken the Dixie Chicks off our playlists.”

Clear Channel, which is also under congressional investigation spearheaded by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) because of its growing monopoly and the strong-arm tactics that took it to the top, is also a large promoter of war fanaticism around the country. Its stations all over the country have been sponsoring large “patriotic rallies.” According to a Feb. 27 press release the “Rallies for America” are the brainchild of Glenn Beck, a nationally syndicated Clear Channel talk show host, who said, “I want them [the troops] to hear from us, whether we agree or disagree with war, we stand behind them . . . These rallies are intended as a venue for reasonable, thoughtful and prayerful people who want the opportunity to express their support for our troops.”

Yes, it is not surprising that the company, which owns the widely syndicated Rush Limbaugh Show, would also use its control of the media to promote war and squash dissent. A recent Chicago Tribune (3/19) story brought to light the conflicts of interest that Clear Channel has in sponsoring what it calls “patriotic rallies” while censoring the music played on its stations.

But before we think that the blacklisting of the Dixie Chicks at some Clear Channel stations nationwide is the exception rather than the rule of business at Clear Channel, a little investigation will put all doubts to rest. Here is just a sample of the most well-known artist who have had at least one song pulled, unofficially, from Clear Channel nationally due to “questionable content”: The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Wings, Jimi Hendrix, John Mellencamp, Billy Joel, Elvis, Elton John, Van Halen, Talking Heads, Herman’s Hermits, Bobby Darin, Buddy Holly, Don McLean, Cat Stevens, Simon and Garfunkel, Santana, Jerry Lee Lewis, Peter Paul and Mary, Frank Sinatra, The Gap Band, Louis Armstrong, Neil Diamond, Lenny Kravitz, Bruce Springsteen, Phil Collins, Ricky Nelson, and James Taylor.

Please call your local Clear Channel station to tell them to stand up to their corporate executives by stopping the censorship.

The author can be reached at bkishner@pww.org

Moore slams war at Oscars

Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:14:00 +0000

Michael Moore put it all out there for the world to see on Oscar night.

Moore, who received a standing ovation from the assembled celebrities, invited the other nominees for best documentary film to join him onstage in solidarity against the war against Iraq. He then slammed the Bush administration in the strongest condemnation of the war at the 75th Academy Awards show Mar. 23.

Speaking for all the documentarians surrounding him on stage, Moore told the crowd, “We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in a time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who’s sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it’s the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts.

“We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you!”

Rob Owen, TV editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, said: “Love him or hate him, Moore woke up the crowd.”

Asked backstage why he made the remarks, Moore answered: “I’m an American.”

“Is that all?” a reporter asked.

“Oh, that’s a lot,” Moore responded.

Moore told reporters: “Don’t report that there was a split decision in the hall because five loud people booed.” He noted that, far from being appalled, many people in the audience stood up to applaud him.

The documentary maker won his first Oscar for Bowling for Columbine, an exploration of gun violence in America. The title refers to the fact that students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold went bowling before they opened fire at Columbine High School in Colorado, killing 12 students and a teacher before turning the guns on themselves.

Moore, who hails from Flint, Mich., also directed the 1989 documentary Roger & Me, in which he pursued former General Motors Corp. boss Roger Smith to confront him about the collapse of the auto industry in Flint.

He’s also the author of the best-selling book Stupid White Men ... And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation, which criticizes American politicians for favoring corporate wealth over public well-being.

“I say tonight I put America in a good light,” he told reporters. “I showed how vital it is to have free speech in our country and all Americans have the right to stand up for what they believe in.”

“We kill each other at an enormous rate, more so than virtually any other country on this planet,” Moore said backstage. “What was the lesson that we taught the children of Columbine this week? This was the lesson, that violence is an acceptable means to resolve a conflict.”

Despite efforts to stifle expression of peace sentiments, including the threat of a blacklist for artists who take an anti-war stance, much of Hollywood spoke out in various ways at the awards ceremony, against the Iraq war while supporting the troops.

Spanish director Pedro Almodovar, who won the best original screenplay award for Talk To Her, dedicated his Oscar to those “raising their voices in respect of peace, democracy and international legality – all of which are essential qualities to live.” Backstage, Almodovar declared, “We are against this war,” calling the Spanish government’s participation in Bush’s “coalition” “the most anti-democratic gesture I’ve ever seen.”

Best actor winner Adrien Brody, who won for his role as a Holocaust survivor in The Pianist, stirred the audience to a standing ovation when he said, “ My experiences of making this film made me very aware of the sadness and the dehumanization of people at times of war ... Whatever you believe in, if it’s God or Allah, may he watch over you and let’s pray for a peaceful and swift resolution.” Brody added, “And I have a friend from Queens who’s a soldier in Kuwait right now, Tommy Zarobinski, and I hope you and your boys make it back real soon.”

After stating that songs are sung in praise and in “protest,” outspoken actress and singer Barbra Streisand, who presented the Oscar for best song, said, “I’m very proud to live in a country that gives its citizens, including artists, the right to say, and sing, what they think.”

Gael Garcia Bernal, the young Mexican actor from Y Tu Mama Tambien, who was one of the night’s presenters, joined the anti-war speeches by referring to Frida Kahlo, subject of the film Frida: “If she was alive, she would be on our side against the war.”

Chris Cooper, who received the supporting-actor prize for Adaptation, ended his speech with a soft-spoken reference to the war. “In light of all the troubles in the world, I wish us all peace.” Backstage, he told reporters, referring to some of the pro-war expressions, “As the war goes on, minds will be changed.”

Many celebrities, including Martin Scorsese, Meryl Streep, Daniel Day-Lewis, Brody and Cooper, wore peace pins. Susan Sarandon, who introduced the obituary segment of the show, flashed a peace V with her fingers while walking onstage.

From presidents and generals quotes on war and peace

Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:14:00 +0000

Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars … This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.

– Pres. Abraham Lincoln

War: a wretched debasement of all the pretenses of civilization.

– Gen. Omar Bradley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.

– Pres. Dwight Eisenhower

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. … I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

– U.S. Marine Major-General Smedley Butler

Songs as weapons in the fight for dignity

Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:23:00 +0000

Throughout history cultural workers in general, and musicians describing themselves as “protest singers” in particular, have been integral components in the people’s various struggles for justice. Though armies have always marched to the throbbing pulse of drums and the fanfare of nationalistic flurries, the offerings of musicians of conscience have a very different scope.

Far pre-dating the rise of Vietnam-era protest songs, one can look to the irony in “Yankee Doodle,” of Revolutionary War vintage. “Yankee Doodle” was a figure the Brits lampooned as a sort of wannabe slick – a bumpkin who aspired to be a dandy. Instead of recoiling at the caricature and its accompanying tune, the colonists chose to turn this barroom ditty into a proud marching song. This was perhaps the earliest example of an oppressed people’s decision to claim and control the epithet hurled their way by their oppressor. It satirized not only the British government’s imperialism and its army’s flagrant wastefulness of resources, but also the fear factor that many colonists experienced during the “time that tried men’s [and women’s!] souls.”

Another of our nation’s anthemic pieces, “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” is a song born of protest, later made official by the powers that be, ultimately evolving back into radicalism. During times of slavery there were many insurrections and revolts; while the enslavement of Africans and African-Americans was deemed a mere economic factor by our government, many individuals, Black and white, saw the practice for the barbarism it was. John Brown, the acclaimed abolitionist who led an armed rebellion seeking to overthrow slavery, was ultimately executed for his efforts. However, his followers remained true to the cause and sang, “John Brown’s body lies moldering in the grave, but his truth goes marching on / Glory, glory, halleluia,” borrowing the melody from a familiar hymn that was easily remembered by all.

Oddly enough, once the U.S. government declared slavery illegal, in opposition to the Confederacy, the tune and the chorus’ lyric was “resurrected” as a “Battle Hymn” for Union Army maneuvers. Ironically, the song, with its language associating military action with God’s will in the fight to end the brutal inhumanity of slavery, later became used as an expression of the manifest destiny philosophy of imperialism. Used this way, it became a soundtrack to wars of aggression, military parades and White House black-tie events.

Radicals, however, reclaimed this song during the raging battles for workers’ rights at the turn of the last century. Ralph Chaplin, International Workers of the World (IWW) organizer and songwriter, in 1911 re-wrote the famed tune as “Solidarity Forever.” The labor movement was then seen as a radical threat, if not illegal. So ironically this song, with “the union makes us strong” at the end of each chorus, was again a song of revolution. Continuing the irony is the civil rights era reclamation of the “Battle Hymn,” with a powerful connection to the unifying power of faith, in this latter-day struggle for freedom and peace. Indeed, union makes us strong.

The author can be reached at Leftmus@aol.com

Mental health: self esteem and the soul

Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:17:00 +0000

Book Review

Rock My Soul: Black People and Self-Esteem, by bell hooks, Atria, N.Y., 2003, 226 pages, $23.00

In her new book, Rock My Soul: Black People and Self-Esteem, bell hooks (she prefers the lower-case lettering) argues that a frontier of struggle which has been neglected and has now reached a crisis level of concern is mental health, especially issues related to self-esteem and the satisfaction of the soul. She says the crisis in self-esteem has reached a level of devastation that is widespread, with a particularly troubling manifestation in the African American community.

While some might argue not enough activity is generated around issues related to economic exploitation, racism, gender inequality, domination, and oppression, hooks says that to exclude mental health from the arena of struggle is a mistake. Even though her method of analysis pivots around Black versus white and female versus male, hooks offers an opinion that merits some consideration.

hooks labels our society a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. Struggle issues have always centered on economics, politics, and social justice concerns. hooks argues that the neglect of mental health as an arena of struggle has resulted in difficulties that can no longer be ignored. This society has produced human beings who have experienced a continual assault on their self-esteem throughout their development, especially African Americans. As a result, human relationships on every level are suffering: men to men, women to women, men to women, adults to children, Black to white, etc. The problem, according to hooks, centers on the willing adoption of a culture and value system devoted to excessive individualistic consumerism, which produces a lifestyle devoid of integrity, purpose, and consciousness. The distortion of human self-esteem has led to addictions of all sorts to mask pain, debilitating insecurity that destroys the quality of collective interaction, and constructions of false self-esteem based on domination and control of others as a way of seeking self-validation.

These false constructions of self-esteem emanate from the embrace of racism, male supremacy, and capitalist values and the failure to confront painful experiences that occurred during the developmental process, especially during childhood. It is not that an assault on self-esteem does not harm adults, it is that those assaults on self-esteem experienced during childhood are especially hurtful, harmful, and long-lasting. Those painful experiences are most often linked to the influence and imposition of racism, male supremacy, and capitalist values on and in one’s life.

According to hooks, the problem of self-esteem became particularly prevalent in the African American community during and after the 1960s. hooks argues that prior to integration and the government-sponsored attack on the Black family (for which Daniel Moynihan was a chief ideologue), Black people maintained a more tight-knit, hyper-vigilant, socially conscious community. As a result of integration Black people abandoned the tried and true mental health anchors that come out of struggling to maintain the well-being of the group for consumerist individualism and capitalist values. Across class lines, the reality of life for African Americans during the last 40 years has generated an unhealthy self-esteem and too much reliance on seeking the esteem of others. Again, the problems are widespread but with a particular severity of expression in the Black community.

hooks reveals that people like Lorraine Hansberry, Martin Luther King, Jr., and others raised concerns about these matters long ago, but nobody listened. Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun captures the battle between values that evolved from the African American experience and promoted healthy self-esteem and the encroachment of alien values based on the individual acquisition of things at the expense of the well-being of the group. hooks indicates that this process signals the abandonment of African American soulfulness for soulessness.

Even though much of what hooks argues is problematic, she speaks to the reality that capitalism is wearing on our concept of self and our sense of soul satisfaction. hooks’ point is that the depth of struggle required to create and maintain relationships that can produce the collective action required for social change requires a conscious rejection of the culture and values of the enemy. We will consciously wage the battle to realize our selves as opposed to those of the enemy, or we will become like the enemy we despise and wallow in self-hatred with empty souls. I think she is right that these questions do merit more attention.

– Dee Myles (pww@pww.org)

Russell Brodine, musician and organizer, 1912-2003

Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:54:00 +0000

ROSLYN, Wash. – Russell Victor Brodine a musician, union organizer, and longtime member of the Communist Party USA died here Feb. 12. He was 90.

Born September 23, 1912, in Spokane, he moved with his family to Seattle in 1924. In the 1930s, he attended Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia. He married Virginia Warner in 1941, the beginning of a dedicated personal and political partnership that lasted until her death in May, 2000.

As a bass player, Russell worked in the Seattle, Los Angeles, Portland, Salt Lake City, and St. Louis Symphony Orchestras. He was a lifetime member of the American Federation of Musicians and was one of the founders of the International Conference of Symphony and Orchestra Musicians (ICSOM).

During World War II, he worked as a welder in the shipyards in Los Angeles. He also worked briefly as a carpenter. He was an expert woodworker – repairing musical instruments, carving wooden utensils, building furniture, and creating small wood sculptures.

Russell and Virginia “retired” to Washington State, settling in Roslyn in 1978. There, they influenced many people through their involvement in important local and statewide elections, struggles, and organizations, including the effort to protect the Roslyn watershed, the Upper Kittitas County Involvement Alliance, RIDGE, AARP, and the Central Washington Peace and Environmental Council.

In 2001, he published his memoirs, Fiddle & Fight, the story of his life making music and making trouble (International Publishers). The book is a primer on union strategy and tactics, illuminated by Russell’s storytelling. A lifelong member of the Communist Party, he used humor to illuminate the process of building unity, engaging in struggle, and creating organization.

Since 1951, all living arrangements (except for the first three years in Roslyn) were in duplexes shared with their dear friends, Walter and Essie Johnson, until their deaths in 1990 and 1999, respectively.

Russell’s last political action was to march in the Roslyn/Cle Elum Peace March on January 18, 2003, against the impending war in Iraq, in keeping with his activism against wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East, and elsewhere.

He is survived by his sister Cecilia Corr of Seattle, his daughter Cynthia Snow of Brookline, Massachusetts, his son Marc and daughter-in-law Janine Shinkoskey Brodine of Seattle, and granddaughters Rosario, Vonetta, and Francesca Mangaoang-Brodine and Jennifer Hughes, and by many loving friends, especially Cordy Cooke and Peg Bryant.

A memorial was held in Roslyn on February 16, attended by 80 people from Roslyn, Cle Elum, and Seattle. A memorial is planned for Seattle.

Alvena Seckar, walking the path of artistic activism

Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:49:00 +0000

“I wish I would have been more active in the movement,” Alvena Seckar said earnestly. My jaw dropped – collectively or, in part, her body of work epitomizes the very meaning of political activism.

For instance, she told me of a painting that she did in 1957 – an oil pipeline, with Arab men marching on top and their blood pouring from a break below. “And it all came true,” she said apologetically, reflecting on the prophetic painting. Meanwhile around the world the chorus of “no blood for oil” swells.

Born in 1915, Alvena Seckar began life much like other coal-miners’ children. Her parents were both recent Slovak immigrants. Of her father, Valentine Seckar, she says only that he was a typical Slovakian man: he was “boss all the time.” He was from the Slovak village of Ruzindol that is famous for the paintings done by its inhabitants. Alvena says little of her mother, but the momentary hesitation in her voice conveys the deepest affection. Her mother, Susan “Zuzi” Vadjdak, was from the area called Orava, renowned for its decorative crafts.

Like the books she would come to write, her childhood was filled with uncertainty, danger, and dreams. Her family moved 22 times. From her work we can see the type of conditions she experienced – unhealthy air, coal fires, hunger and caved-in homes are just a few of the realities. Thankfully her material poverty was in stark contrast to the fantastic cultural life in which she was raised. Traditional Slovak songs, dances, foods, crafts, and stories of the beautiful homeland colored her vision of the world.

Her mother taught her and her younger brother how to read. But it wasn’t until she was a teenager that her family settled long enough for her to attend a formal one-room school. In Allentown, Pa., one teacher saw some of Alvena’s artistic talent. She found Alvena a patron who made it possible for her to go to art school for the next six years. With scholarships and additional sponsors Alvena continued her education and training at the University of Pennsylvania. She transferred to New York University (NYU) where she finished her Bachelors (1939) and Masters (1949).

While at NYU her career began when she “was sent to a book publisher to do illustrations.” Adding decorations to others people’s work was not to be her fate. Her deep convictions got the better of her in 1947, when she attended the first World Youth Conference in Prague.

Upon her return she began to see art as a means of political communication. She wanted to “consider myself a political artist.” In 1952 her book Zuska of the Burning Hills was a New York Herald-Tribune Spring Festival Honoree and was placed on The New York Times list of the Hundred Best Books published for children. Zuska is only one of her fabulous works, the rest of which are equally compelling.

In Zuska a young girl’s father is injured in a mine, the mine closes and the entire community is forced to move. Meanwhile Zuska saves and reforms a more fortunate child.

Through Zuska, Alvena is able to communicate her own profound political principles, the hardships of the industrial world, the realities of class warfare, the infinite capacity of human kindness, how capitalism turns people against each other, the necessity of strong unions, and the injustice of the American dream denied.

But above all Alvena gives the reader hope for the future by showing the ability of communities, individuals, and youth to make positive changes in their world. Her most prevalent theme is that when people work together they can overcome any personal or systemic obstacle. Through her young characters she is able to show that change is not only possible but simply a matter of speaking out and acting on those words.

In Zuska, one of her characters exclaims, “If we had a strong union here, the union would have put a stop to that docking,” during a conversation about coal miners being docked pay unfairly. Later on, the workers do get a stronger union which stops much more than just the docking.

Through the main character, Zuska, readers see the hardships faced and overcome when working class people come together.

Alvena’s works address how greed, capital, and hatred upset healthy social relationships. The interactions of the children of bosses and the children of miners mirror the class warfare that is normally thought of as an adult issue. When the granddaughter of the company store owner offers Zuska a pair of her old shoes, because Zuska’s shoe has a hole, the reader sees both the kindness with which children give and the injustice which gives one child a closet full of clothes while another has only the dress she is wearing. “‘I never wear these – I really have no use for them, so if there’s a pair that fits you, please take them. Now here’s a pair of heavy leather boots that Grandpa thought I’d need for winter here in the Camp, but I never wear them because I have zipper arctics,’” Olga says to Zuska.

Yesterday’s and today’s realities are harsh for working families. Alvena writes, “Zuska felt too tired to play … The lunches of the other pupils were as small as her own,” or “their grocery bill kept on getting larger at the company store. Meals were becoming scanty in the Stebina household,” and “Zuska was hungry too, but she did not say anything.”

Alvena does not protect the reader from the danger of daily life. When a mine caved-in, people were hurt, children were burned by the giant coal-slag fires, and houses suddenly fell because of mine shafts below. By not hiding the real cost of industrial greed, she shows the beauty of a parent’s sacrifice or child’s efforts to pay a family debt, communities share scarcities with each other, and people overcome the greed of the society they live in and work for a better world.

In Alvena’s works we see the small steps of progress that make a socialist society inevitable. Alvena does not let the reader forget about others who are less fortunate. “‘For us it is perfect, dear neighbor. … But for you and all our friends and neighbors, life has to go on in the same old way. It doesn’t seem right.’”

Alvena’s books do have happy endings, a union is strengthened, a family in need finds a new and better home, and a community working together in an emergency is able to save lives. But always she shows that more work is left to the reader to do.

For Alvena, too, there is more work ahead. “I am against the policies of this government,” she declares as soon as President Bush is mentioned. She likens Bush’s current political policies to earlier U.S. efforts in Nicaragua and El Salvador.

Far from protecting the state of Israel, Alvena believes “they (Bush administration) are promoting anti-Semitism;” meanwhile “Bushes are getting even richer off oil.” Alvena also talks about the connection between the health of the environment and the sick capital that exploits it: “the health of our streams and lakes is political too … they [corporations] are so greedy for money” then ignore the price of health.

One of her paintings, in particular, gives testament to the power of sacrifices for social progress. A young Black child sits in the back seat of a car driven by a middle aged white official; the car is surrounded by armed guards, and beyond, a crowd of working class whites, bearing southern Confederate flags. The young girl is not idealized, she is just scared; the crowd is not demonized, they, too, are just scared. That picture hangs in the National Civil Rights Museum in New Orleans, as witness to how far we have come, and a reminder of how far we still have to go.

Alvena was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1964. In her own words, “Now I’m in a wheel-chair and one of my hands is paralyzed, but I’m still painting.” Her paintings are as political as ever. A new edition of Zuska of the Burning Hills is coming soon. It will include for the first time her own illustrations. Contact Bochazy-Carducci Publishers at www.bolchazy.com or (800) 392-6453 for information.

And thank you, Alvena.

The author can be reached at bkishner@pww.org

The Bush Outrage(s) of the Month list

Fri, 07 Mar 2003 08:45:00 +0000

(see related story below)

As part of its campaign to put a four-year limit on George W. Bush’s tenure at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the AFL-CIO has drawn up what might be called the “Outrage of the Month” list of attacks against working people by the Bush administration since taking office in January 2001.

The list begins with the three executive orders issued in February 2001 that ended labor-management partnerships in the federal sector of the economy; barred project labor agreements on federally-funded public works projects; and required federal contractors to post notices advising workers of their right not to join a union.

The timing of these orders, coming only days after Labor Secretary Elaine Chao’s first appearance before the 54-member AFL-CIO Executive Council, was a veiled warning of the bitter events that were to follow. In a statement that accompanied release of the list, the AFL-CIO said although it found the administration’s repeated siding with business interests “disappointing,” they did not consider them “surprising,” given the animus of an administration firmly committed to a “pro-business, anti-regulatory ideology and agenda.”

However, the statement added, “many of the initiatives go well beyond simply favoring business over workers and have specifically targeted unions, unionized employees and the processes of organizing and bargaining in an effort to undermine unions and their capability to represent workers.”

v Although the Bush administration’s attack is many faceted, the Outrage of the Month list begins with the federal budget for fiscal year 2004 that Bush submitted to Congress on Feb. 3. In it are cuts in funding for the Labor Department to levels 6.5 percent below spending for FY 2002. Worker protection and international labor programs are cut significantly while, at the same time, the department seeks an increase to pay for 75 additional full-time staff within the Office of Labor Management Standards and 20 more in the Office of Inspector General to monitor and investigate unions and what it called “labor racketeering.”

v The Labor Department is so sure the additional funding will be forthcoming that it has proposed extensive new financial reporting and disclosure requirements under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act for national and local unions. (The reports, often referred to as LM-2 reports, are mandated by the Landrum Griffin Act of the 1950s.) These revisions are exceedingly complicated, requiring itemized listing of all expenses in excess of $2,500 with compliance costs for unions estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars annually. They also offer new opportunities for the department to find technical violations of the reporting requirements and, possibly violations that carry with them criminal charges.

v Never one to be bothered by the niceties of due process or the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government, George W. Bush has signed a series of executive orders that include attacks on collective bargaining rights on government employees and workers in the airline industry. These are listed in the Outrage of the Month.

v But the most vicious attack was levied against members of the West Coast dockworkers, when, Bush directed the Department of Justice to seek a Taft-Hartley injunction to end the 11-day shutdown of the West Coast docks. The was the first time the Taft-Hartley Act had been invoked since 1978 and the first time ever that a president allowed an employer to lock out workers in an attempt to undermine a union and then reward the employer with a court-ordered governmental intervention. The president’s action, rationalized publicly as necessary to ward off economic damage, was simply the culmination of earlier threats by the administration to intervene in the negotiations between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and the Pacific Maritime Association.

v The Bush administration has regularly sought to undermine collective bargaining for airline employees and has sought to restructure employment relations in the industry to undermine union rights and benefits. It used brutal force when, in December 2001, it set up a Presidential Emergency Board that imposed a 60-day bar on a job action by 15,000 members of the Machinists Union at United Airlines. Earlier, in June 2001 it threatened 23,000 flight attendants at American Airlines with similar action, effectively undercutting that union’s negotiating power.

v The Bush administration has been particularly vindictive when it comes to union rights of federal employees. Barely a month ago it terminated the collective bargaining rights of more than 1,300 workers at the National Imagery and Mapping, invoking the 9/11 terrorist attacks as the reason for curtailing workers rights.

v The new year had barely begun when the administration issued a directive denying collective bargaining rights to the 60,000 newly federalized airline security screeners. And here again, as has become all too typical, the administration resorted to the war against terrorism to rationalize this denial of workplace rights, contending that collective bargaining is incompatible with national security.

v A year earlier, the White House issued an executive order revoking union representation for employees working in certain subdivisions of the Department of Justice. The broad order eliminated collective bargaining protections for all workers in the affected divisions, regardless of whether or not their work had anything to do with national security.

v Nor should we forget that Bush used the threat of a veto to force Congress to deny the protection of a union to more than 170,000 employees of the Department of Homeland Security.

The administration has used other ways to undermine the power and influence of the labor movement, among them in appointments to advisory boards of federal agencies dealing with issues such as occupational safety and health, international trade and ergonomics.

v Last December Bush reversed 30 years of practice when he closed the nomination process for the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health and appointed three new members. Ever since the committee was established under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 197, nominations have been open to the public to insure representation by a wide range of groups – representation that has always included the AFL-CIO health and safety director. However, that changed and the AFL-CIO is no longer on the committee nor are four other former members, including representatives from the Steelworkers Union.

v That same month Bush nominated 32 persons to serve on the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations. Contrary to explicit requirements of the 1974 law creating the panel, President Bush did not include a single representative from labor, environmental or consumer groups among the nominees. Instead, he included major GOP campaign donors, free trade theologians and a few people with close ties to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick. Only after the AFL-CIO sued to enforce the law’s requirements did the administration appoint Teamster President James P. Hoffa to the committee.

v Now, for the first time in the 32-year history of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a workplace safety advisory committee does not contain an equal number of union and management representatives. Two union safety staff members were appointed, compared with seven from management. Many of the corporations tapped to serve on the advisory board opposed creation of a federal ergonomic standard and were instrumental in the law’s repeal when Bush took control of the government.

One of the administration’s first acts after taking control was to secure Congressional repeal of the Department of Labor’s ergonomic standards. Nearly a year later, the White House announced a new ergonomics program based on industry-specific voluntary guidelines. The administration has now entered into or is developing ergonomics partnership agreements with employers, trade associations and professional groups representing a number of industries. Notwithstanding union’s unique role and specialized safety and health expertise, the Labor Department has not included unions in any of these partnerships.

* Then, to add insult to injury, the administration announced formation of a national advisory committee on Dec. 4, 2002. The committee was established to “study” causes and methods to prevent workplace ergonomic injuries that hurt some 1.8 million workers annually – and this after the question had been studied to death before President Clinton issued guidelines dealing with the issue in the waning days of his administration.

Nor does the list end there.

* In early June of this year, Bush issued an executive order stripping the national air traffic control system of its designation as an “inherently governmental” function. The effect of this action is to open the door to privatization, in this way threatening the representation and bargaining rights of 15,000 controllers.

* In February 2002, the administration tried to force Amtrak to agree to contracting out of jobs and modifying its collective bargaining agreements as a condition federal financial assistance. Although that effort failed, the administration will, beyond a doubt “revisit” the question.

* In April 2002 the Department of Labor began posting the LM-2 reports of unions on its website. These reports contain extensive information about union finances as well as salary information for employees of unions.

* In April 2001, the Labor Department rescinded strict reporting requirements imposed on union-busting consultants and attorneys by President Clinton’s Labor Department.

* In March 2001, during debate on campaign finance reform, Bush called for a “paycheck deception” provision to restrict legislative and political activity by unions. He has repeated that demand on many occasions and Congress has so far refused to go along.

* Despite the fact that it had no authority in the matter, Bush’s Office of Management and Budget blocked implementation of a collective bargaining agreement between the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees and the Federal Aviation Administration despite the fact that Rodney Slater, former FAA secretary, had approved the agreement.

As Elaine Chao’s meeting with the AFL-CIO Executive Council on Feb. 26 showed, the Outrage of the Month list is clearly a work-in-progress.

The author can be reached at fgab708@aol.com

* * * * * *

Labor Secretary to AFL-CIO: Was it arrogance or intimidation?Roberta Wood

HOLLYWOOD, Fla. – Was it arrogance or intimidation? As the Bush administration’s Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao packed her briefcase for her courtesy appearance at the annual AFL-CIO Executive Council, here, Feb. 26, it wasn’t Department of Labor (DOL) coffee mugs or ballpoint pens she tucked inside. And it certainly wasn’t certificates of appreciation for the elected leaders of 13 million American workers.

Labor leaders wanted to register with Chao their strong objections to the new, punitive, financial reporting requirements being implemented by the DOL. When Machinist Union president Tom Buffenbarger protested the impossibly complex requirements, he was the first to see what Chao came packing. Sec. Chao whipped out a detailed dossier on every case of alleged malfeasance her investigators could find against the 750,000-member Machinists union. She didn’t mention that most of the cases had been exposed and were being dealt with by the union itself. However, Chao did make it clear that she had a similar file waiting in the bag for every union in the room.

AFL-CIO president John Sweeney characterized the session with Chao as “unbelievable.” He said, “She was angry at points, insulting at points … In all my years, I never saw a Secretary of Labor so anti-labor.”

Bruce Raynor, president of the Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees (UNITE!) said, “It seemed like a clear attempt at intimidation.”

Teachers union President, Sandra Feldman, said, “We’re facing rising health care costs, layoffs, companies going bankrupt, people losing retiree benefits … it’s upsetting that … this huge book … was the main thing she came here with.”

Recent financial practice scandals have involved giant corporations like Enron, not the AFL-CIO. In fact, the labor federation went to court to fight for the Enron workers who lost jobs and pensions. Union leaders noted, however, that the administration displays little enthusiasm for corporate regulation while saddling the unions, at every level from the smallest local on up, with a bookkeeping nightmare that will eat up their resources.

One observer from the Sheet Metal Workers remarked that the Bush administration’s attitude was harkening back to the McCarthy attitudes of 1951. “Our union supports many moderate Republicans and they have played an important role in looking out for our members,” said Vincent Panvini, Director of Governmental Affairs for the SMWIA. “But how can we work with this kind of treatment?”

Whether it’s arrogance or intimidation, intended or not, this administration’s attack dog tactics may be having the unintended effect of building labor’s unity. “It’s strengthening our resolve,” said Sweeney.

And maybe Panvini, who certainly knows his sheet metal, was thinking of the 800-degree treatment given to steel to strengthen it for heavy-duty service when he described a change he sees in the labor movement. “Galvanizing,” Panvini said with a smile, “George Bush is galvanizing the labor movement.”

The author can be reached at rwood@pww.org

PDF version of 'The Bush Outrage(s) of the Month list'

Anti-worker assaults take form

Fri, 07 Mar 2003 08:11:00 +0000

AUSTIN – In Texas and at least 36 other states facing big budget deficits, activists are working to unite their forces and fight back before the state legislature enacts vicious cuts against working families. Organizers have been delayed because they could not anticipate the exact form of the assault. In Texas, the anti-worker proposals are now becoming clear.

The right wing extremists who have taken control of state government look on the looming $10 billion state budget shortfall as an opportunity. They want to cut government services under the guise of making government more efficient and avoiding tax increases. The reality is that the budget cuts that they are proposing will curtail services for the state’s most vulnerable citizens, increase taxes that working people pay, and do great harm to the state’s economy.

The way rightwingers tell the story, the Texas budget is bloated with fat. Texas Comptroller Carole Strayhorn told reporters in January that state legislators in 2001 had a “party,” spent too much, and now it was time to fix their spendthrift ways.

But many services already had long waiting lists because there wasn’t enough money. For example, there are 1,400 seriously ill children and adults without access to health insurance who are on a waiting list for health care services provided by the state. These are children with cerebral palsy, epilepsy, heart conditions and other serious ailments and adults with cystic fibrosis.

There are similar waiting lists for other programs. About 52,000 families struggling to get off welfare are eligible for day care services but are on a waiting list. Another 60,000 elderly Texans in poor health and in need of community care services are also on a waiting list.

The budget cuts that the right wing is proposing create longer waiting lists for services. The Center for Public Policy Priorities estimates that if the right wing’s cuts are enacted:

* 62,000 fewer elderly Texans with chronic health problems will receive community care services.

* 42,000 elderly disabled Texans will lose nursing home care.

* 15,000 elderly, frail Texans will lose adult day care.

* 13,000 pregnant women will not receive prenatal care through Medicaid.

* 11,000 mentally retarded Texans will receive no residential care.

* 40,000 people in need of outpatient mental health services will not get them.

It is not only the frail and vulnerable who will suffer. Texas working families will likely see their local taxes increase. There is talk at the Capitol of reducing state aid to school districts by as much as $2.7 billion. If this cut passes, school districts will have two choices: raise local property taxes, raising the taxes or rent that workers pay for their home, or increase the number of overcrowded classrooms.

The right wing also proposes steep cuts in Medicaid by reducing eligibility. If uninsured Texans are forced off Medicaid, they will seek health care treatment in local public hospitals. Counties will have little choice but to increase property taxes to pay for the increased demand for health care services.

The cuts will also have a serious impact on the state’s economy, which has seen substantial job losses over the last two years. Workers in the Rio Grande Valley on the Mexican border face double digit unemployment and Central Texas, the heart of the state’s cratering high tech industry, has seen its unemployment rise from under 3 percent to nearly 6 percent.

The author can be reached at pww@pww.org

PDF version version 'Anti-worker assaults take form'

Unhappy officials: U.S. spy memo leaked; diplomat resigns

Fri, 07 Mar 2003 06:13:00 +0000

Cracks appear to be growing within governmental structures over the Bush administration’s ruthless, go-it-alone strategy towards Iraq. Tired of the bullying, bruising and bribing of other countries, especially long-time allies, a U.S. diplomat resigned his post as political counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Athens.

And in an unrelated development, an unknown source leaked to the London Observer a secret memo, which directed spying activities towards Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at their UN missions in New York, and even home phone and e-mails of UN leaders These countries, which are sitting on the Security Council, are being refered to as the “Middle Six,” whose votes are key to getting a majority for the pro-war resolution introduced by the U.S., Britain and Spain.

White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer refused to comment on questions about the story published March 2 headlined, “Revealed: U.S. Dirty Tricks to Win Vote on Iraq War.”

The memo was directed at senior National Security Agency (NSA) officials and advised them that the agency is seeking information not only on how delegations on the Security Council will vote on any second resolution on Iraq, but also on “policies,” “negotiating positions,” “alliances” and “dependencies” – the “whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises.”

The memo was sent by Frank Koza, chief of staff in the “Regional Targets” section of the NSA, which spies on countries that are seen as strategically important for United States interests.

Koza specifies that the information will be used for the U.S.’s “QRC” – Quick Response Capability – “against” the key delegations.

One of the authors of the Observer article, Martin Bright, said, “Clearly someone within the NSA or another friendly agency is unhappy. Otherwise, this memo would not have been leaked.”

Another unhappy official is U.S. diplomat John Brady Kiesling who sent his letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell on Feb. 27. Kiesling, a 20-year diplomatic veteran, resigned in protest against the Bush administration policies on Iraq. Kiesling, 45, served in embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

In his letter Kiesling wrote, “until this administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.”

Kiesling assailed the Bush polices, calling them incompatible with the country’s and people’s interests. “The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security,” he wrote.

He called the adminstration’s present course a reckless and destructive foreign policy full of “systematic distortion of intelligence,” and “systematic manipulation of American opinion,” saying there is no evidence between terrorism and Iraq. “We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq.”

Objecting to the bullying and bossing of long-time allies Kiesling asked, “Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has ‘oderint dum metuant’ [Let them hate so long as they fear] really become our motto?”

He concluded his resignation letter, which was given to The New York Times by a friend, with, “I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.”

Asked if his views were widely shared among his diplomatic colleagues, Kiesling told the press: “No one of my colleagues is comfortable with our policy. Everyone is moving ahead with it as good and loyal. The State Department is loaded with people who want to play the team game – we have a very strong premium on loyalty.”

The author can be reached at talbano@pww.org

PDF version of 'Unhappy officials: U.S. spy memo leaked; diplomat resigns'

Women send pink slips to White House in anti-war action

Fri, 07 Mar 2003 06:02:00 +0000

WASHINGTON – Beginning with readings of the classic Greek anti-war comedy, Lysistrata, in 900 cities and ending with a “Code Pink” protest at the White House on International Women’s Day, March 8, thousands of women mobilized this week against George W. Bush’s war on Iraq.

“All the polls indicate that over 50 percent of American women are against war in Iraq and the president and his key advisers are not listening,” said a statement announcing the week of peace actions by a coalition that includes the National Organization for Women, Global Exchange and Women’s Preemptive Strike for Peace.

As a consequence, the statement continued, “Code Pink will deliver pink half-slips and full slips on clotheslines” to Bush, Vice President Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice “to express deep dissatisfaction with the job they are doing to protect the country. Code Pink Women have been knocking on the White House door since Nov. 17, 2002, to share their concerns that a war in Iraq will further destabilize the Middle East, unleash more terrorism in the U.S. and Europe, kill civilians in Iraq ... The door has never been opened.”

Organizers of the project were stunned by the turnout for readings of Aristophanes’s Lysistrata, in which the women of Athens go on strike, refusing to allow their husbands in bed until they laid down their swords and shields. The play was an outcry against the Peloponnesian War that destroyed ancient Greece. A capacity crowd packed the Brooklyn Academy of Music to hear Mercedes Ruehl in the title role with F. Murray Abraham, Kevin Bacon and other stars of the screen and stage.

In Los Angeles, the cast included Julie Christie, Alfre Woodard, Christine Lahti and Jose Zuniga. In London, Richard Wilson and other actors rallied outside the Parliament to protest the war. On a more modern note, youthful fans of Country and Western stars the Dixie Chicks, are cheering their ballad, “Travelin Soldier” about a young girl who learns that her GI lover will “never come home again” from war overseas.

Kristi Laughlin, an organizer with Global Exchange, told the World the women’s week of peace actions, “caught on like wildfire. We launched the women’s peace vigil in front of the White House November 17 and we have held a rolling fast and vigil there every day now for more than three months.” The project, she said, has received an outpouring of solidarity across the nation and around the world with similar “Code Pink” women’s vigils in Los Angeles, Albany, NY, Portland, Ore., and in cities in Florida and Virginia.

When Karl Rove spoke in Salt Lake City he was confronted with pickets holding a banner, “Code Pink Women for Peace,” Laughlin said. Rove complained to reporters, “These Code Pink ladies are everywhere,” she said. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) cast the lone vote against war on Afghanistan. Lee’s courageous stand convinced 133 of her colleagues a year later to vote against war on Iraq.

“We are being vigilant and serving as the conscience of the nation and not letting the warmongers go unchecked,” said Laughlin. “It is a role that is often buried or unnoticed. Mothers’ Day was a protest against the carnage of World War I. And today look at Women in Black. It started with Jewish and Muslim women marching for peace in Jerusalem. There is the Mothers of the Disappeared in Argentina. It is phenomenal the role women are playing in this struggle to stop the war on Iraq. On International Women’s Day this year, there will be thousands of women protesting outside the White House.”

The author can be reached at greenerpastures21212@yahoo.com

PDF version of 'Women send pink slips to White House in anti-war action'

White House demand undermines UN

Fri, 07 Mar 2003 05:57:00 +0000

Commentary

For the past seven months, the United Nations Security Council has been proceeding on the assumption that its sole objective was to disarm the Iraqi regime of weapons of mass destruction, not to overthrow it.

While no one thought the inspections process would go off without a hitch, on the surface it seemed that both the Security Council and the Iraqi government were committed to making the process work, to seeing it through to a peaceful conclusion.

But no sooner had the inspections begun than the unanimity in the Security Council started to fray. The tensions though were not between the Council and Iraq, but rather between the United States and Britain on one side and France, Russia, Germany and China on the other.

The latter countries have been taking a positive approach to the inspections process. They argue that the inspections are working and should be continued until Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction.

In fact, “Old Europe,” Russia and China have been guardedly optimistic that the crisis could be solved along political lines. Force was not absolutely ruled out, but it was considered an option only in the event that every possibility to disarm the Iraqi regime proved fruitless.

By contrast, the Bush administration has said that Iraq is turning the inspections into a farce. The arms inspectors’ reports to the Security Council, according to Colin Powell and others, demonstrate the complete futility of the inspections and provide unassailable evidence that force is necessary to disarm Iraq’s “rogue” regime.

How do we explain this divergence of views in the Security Council?

To find an answer we have to look no further than White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer’s remarks to reporters last week. At a news conference, he said that war could be averted, but only if two conditions were met: complete disarmament of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein.

In insisting on regime change, the Bush administration is now attempting to unilaterally change the mission of the Security Council from disarmament to regime change.

This prioritizing of “regime change” is not because Iraq constitutes an imminent threat to either our country or its neighbors. The 1991 Gulf War, the subsequent decade of harsh economic sanctions, and five years of arms inspections have destroyed Iraq’s nuclear capacity. They have eliminated or significantly degraded its other weapons of mass destruction.

Nor is it because Iraq provides a safe haven for terrorists – the evidence for this is threadbare.

Nor is it because Bush is consumed by an overwhelming desire to breathe democratic life into a region of the world that he considers “pre-modern” and uncivilized.

The singular determination by the Bush administration to remove the Iraqi government by force despite worldwide opposition is traceable to three factors.

First, a military takeover would establish a beachhead from which U.S. imperialism would be able to extend its influence in an unstable region of the world, a region whose strategic economic and political importance will grow in the coming decades.

Second, in contravention of international law and the UN charter, it would establish, de facto if not de jure, the legitimacy of pre-emptive strikes against regimes which possess or are considering the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.

Third, “Shock and Awe” – the name given the plans for the first days of the attack on Iraq with new hi-tech weapons of incredible destructive power and precision – is designed not only to terrorize and crush the Iraqi people’s will, but also to convince a global audience of the futility of resisting U.S. imperial dominance in the 21st century.

If this argument sounds thin, remember that the Truman administration dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to bring World War II to a close, but because U.S. imperialism was willing to murder tens of thousands of innocents and shock the world in order to establish its supremacy in the postwar era – particularly over the Soviet Union.

Given this, it’s easy to understand why White House policy makers have so insistently trashed the inspections process. Their concern was not that the inspections wouldn’t work, but that they would, thereby undermining the White House rationale for regime change and making the possibility of a UN mandate for war less likely. They have acted in the Security Council to actually undermine the inspection process.

Though some countries have been bought or coerced over to the U.S. side, the opposition to war, in the United Nations and in the streets of the world, remains formidable. Despite unrelenting pressure from the White House, the vast majority of states and peoples continues to demand, “No war in Iraq, Let the inspections work.” So far the rush to war of the U.S. military machine has been slowed down. But the coming two weeks are decisive. And once again it will take an outpouring of millions of people and the continued resistance of governments to win peace.

Sam Webb is the national chairman of the Communist Party USA and can be reached at swebb@cpusa.org

PDF version of 'White House demand undermines UN'

Los Angeles opposes war against Iraq

Fri, 07 Mar 2003 04:49:00 +0000

LOS ANGELES – This became the largest city in the nation to officially take a stand in opposition to President Bush’s war against Iraq when the City Council adopted an anti-war resolution Feb. 21. Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn signed the resolution later that day.

The resolution puts the nation’s second largest city in vehement opposition to a unilateral war against Iraq without the backing of a global group such as the United Nations. The council also strongly urged Bush to employ all diplomatic options to deal with the crisis before going to war.

The 9-4 final vote for the motion, which had fallen one vote shy of the eight needed for passage a few days before, received cheers, applause and chants of “thank you, thank you” from hundreds of supporters who overfilled the council chambers with many forced to go into the Board of Public Works chambers down the hall to listen to the meeting.

“People around the world are asking simply to hold off on unilateral war right now with Iraq because people feel that the case has not been made and people feel it affects their lives here where they live,” stated Councilman Eric Garcetti from the 13th District who authored and introduced the resolution.

“We have great needs in our cities, and we should not be spending our federal tax dollars bombing and killing other people in other countries,” Councilman Ed Reyes told the pro-peace hundreds.

A heated two-hour debate around the resolution took place at the council meeting of Feb. 18 when the resolution was first introduced. That debate centered on whether local government should take a stand on global issues.

Councilman Jack Weiss received loud jeers from the audience when, in opposition to the resolution, he said, “We ought to focus on sidewalks, not Saddam. ... This is a place to talk about police reform not the Persian Gulf.”

Garcetti took that on squarely arguing that war in Iraq is a local issue because it would cost the United States government billions of dollars to wage war. Some of those billions could help solve local problems, Garcetti said, including helping schools and fighting crime.

Garcetti also reminded the council that that it had taken positions on international issues before including against apartheid in South Africa and in support of environmental controls in the Kyoto Protocol.

Councilwoman Ruth Galenter backed Garcetti’s point as she supported the resolution. “This City Council has a long history of taking a moral stance, sometimes at cost to our residents, in favor of policies that protect human rights and world order,” she said.

Celebrities and representatives of labor unions, the religious community, and community organizations testified passionately at the council in favor of the resolution. Actors Ed Asner and David Clennon told the council it had a responsibility to stand up to the immoral military action.

“I believe this war, if George Bush starts it, will be a war against humanity,” said Clennon, who stars in the television show “The Agency.” “And I believe that the execution of [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld’s war plan will inevitably implicate our troops in war crimes.”

The momentum for passage of the resolution had been building over the last weeks as constituents ardently lobbied their respective council members with petitions, phone calls, visits and e-mail. Massive demonstrations in the city against the war, including the march of over 100,000 on Feb. 15, also influenced the vote.

The final resolution contained an amendment from Councilwoman Jan Perry seeking more funding for the city’s homeless, 20 percent of whom are estimated to be veterans.

Los Angeles joins over 100 other cities that have already adopted anti-war resolutions including Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and Cleveland.

The author can be reached at evnalarcon@aol.com

PDF version of 'Los Angeles opposes war against Iraq'

AFL-CIO: Let the UN process work

Fri, 07 Mar 2003 04:45:00 +0000

In a sharp break with tradition, the 13- million-member AFL-CIO added its voice to the growing demand that the Bush administration work through the United Nations in resolving the Iraq crisis.

In a unanimous resolution calling for “multilateral resolve” rather than “unilateral action” to bring about Iraqi disarmament, the AFL-CIO Executive Council said George W. Bush “has failed to fulfill his responsibility to make a compelling and coherent explanation to the American people and the world about the need for military action at this time.”

The resolution also criticized Bush for “squandering” much of the good will given the U.S. in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Instead, he has “managed to insult many of our strong allies and divided the world ...”

The council’s action marked a culmination of a grassroots struggle that saw more than 100 union organizations, including city councils, state federations and a half dozen international unions, adopt resolutions opposing the war. The resolution was written by the AFL-CIO’s International Affairs Department, chaired by Morton Bahr, president of the Communications Workers (CWA). “It takes into account that there are differences in our ranks and within the body politic,” Bahr told the World in a brief interview. “We’re saying that war should be an absolutely last resort, and in the strongest terms we’re urging the administration to go through the UN.”

Gene Bruskin, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO Food & Allied Trades Department, welcomed the resolution, saying it “provides ammunition for trade unionists who are searching for ways to involve their unions” in the fight against the Bush drive. He said he hoped it would give a boost to plans by US Labor Against War (USLAW) to conduct coordinated job site actions across the country on Wednesday, March 12. Bruskin, who serves as USLAW national coordinator, said it is too early to judge the scope of these actions. “We were swamped with responses just as soon as it was posted on the web,” he said. (The site is www.uslaboragainstwar.org.)

Tom Balanoff, president of the Illinois State Council of the Service Employees Union, said the resolution was “an important step in the effort to stop the drive to war.

“The rush to war is the wrong idea at the wrong time,” he told the World. “Let the UN process work. As Winston Churchill once said, ‘It’s better to jaw, jaw than to war, war.’” Balanoff agreed with Bruskin that the resolution opened the door for activity in the labor movement. “Perhaps the best example is the fact that the Chicago Federation of Labor adopted the Executive Council’s resolution at the first opportunity.”

Larry Cohen, executive vice president of the 600,000-member CWA, said, “The labor movement is making the connections between Bush’s war policy and the other parts of his foreign policy. This is the same foreign policy that is destroying jobs with its trade agreements – a foreign policy that cares nothing about the jobs and rights of American workers.”

The San Francisco Labor Council was one of the first to adopt a resolution opposing Bush’s drive to war. In a statement adopted on Aug. 26, 2002 the council warned that Bush’s “endless war against terrorism” threatened to become a war against the labor movement and wasted money needed for social programs. Walter Johnson, secretary-treasurer of the San Francisco Council, said he feels better “now that the labor movement is riding the same train. Give the inspectors time. We don’t want any war if that’s possible.” Johnson said President Bush should do two things. “He should listen and swallow – swallow his pride and then change his mind. If Lyndon Johnson had done that earlier, the Vietnam Memorial Wall would not have as many names on it as it has now. If LBJ could send a message to George W. Bush today, I’ll bet he would say, ‘Learn from me, Mr. President.’”

The author can be reached at fgab708@aol.com

PDF version of 'AFL-CIO: Let the UN process work'

In DC: Euro leaders nix warIn DC: Euro leaders nix war

Fri, 07 Mar 2003 04:18:00 +0000

WASHINGTON – A delegation from the European Parliament (EP) here to confer with peace leaders against war on Iraq hailed the vote by Turkey’s Parliament March 1 to reject Bush’s war in which as many as 3,000 misiles will rain on Baghdad within 48 hours.

“It was a surprise,” said Pernille Frahm, a Socialist Party MP from Denmark. “I know Turkey’s economic crisis and its ruinous foreign debt. It shows just how deep the anti-war sentiment is that they voted no.”

The Turkish parliament voted against allowing the Pentagon to deploy 62,000 troops on Turkish soil to attack Iraq from the north despite Bush administration offers of as much as $37 billion in bribes.

More than 100,000 Turks marched against the war in Ankara the day of the vote. Polls show more than 90 percent of the Turkish people are opposed to the war. In a display of arrogance, the Pentagon had already started to unload a fleet of supply ships anchored in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Frahm is one of the leaders of a delegation of 24 members of the EP who returned last month from a mission to Baghdad. They arrived here March 4 for meetings with lawmakers including Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), James McDermott (D-Wash.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) as well as Sens. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and others who oppose the war.

The EP members will also participate in International Women’s Day “Code Pink” protests at the White House March 8. Another massive march is expected to bring hundreds of thousands of protesters to Washington March 15.

“The main reason for coming here is to prevent the war on Iraq,” Frahm said in an exclusive interview with the World. A public school teacher from Copenhagen, Frahm serves as Vice President of the Confederal Group of the European Left/Nordic Green Left. “We represent the majority in the European Parliament and a majority of the people of Europe who oppose this war.”

Denmark is one of a handful of nations that backed Bush, she said. “But we staged the biggest march in Copenhagen in 30 years. People of all political tendencies are saying no to war. The Danish labor movement is mobilizing against the war.”

Bush has now dropped his pretense that the issue is disarming Iraq, she pointed out. “Now the issue is ‘regime change.’ There is no legal basis for the U.S. to impose ‘regime change’ on Iraq. Iraq poses no threat to the United States or the world. The Bush administration has offered no proof linking Iraq to al Qaeda or the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. We feel this is a war for control of Middle East oil.”

France, Germany, Russia and China joined forces to make clear they will block a second Bush UN Security Council resolution authorizing war on Iraq. Despite arm-twisting, Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared short of gaining even the nine votes needed for a simple majority in support of the war resolution. The London Observer revealed that the National Security Agency is engaged in spying on Security Council ambassadors seeking ways to blackmail them to vote for the resolution. Only Bulgaria has succumbed to these strong-arm tactics.

EP member Pedro Marset Campos, of the Spanish Communist Party, United Left, told the World, “We mobilized three-and-a-half million in Madrid Feb. 15 and another one-and-a-half million in Barcelona, half a million in Seville and about half a million in Valencia and in 40 other cities and towns. Spain had the largest peace demonstrations of any country in Europe. It is a crisis for President Jose Aznar. He is losing support not only among the people but also within his own Popular Party because of his support for Bush.”

Spain has local and regional elections this coming May 25 and next year general elections are scheduled. The huge street protests, he said, are the “first step” toward defeating Aznar’s rightwing, pro-Bush regime. “We may come out of this with a government of socialists and the United Left, which is the Communists,” he said. “The people of Spain are suffering cutbacks in every social service, health care, pensions, public education. The IMF austerity rules are now being applied in Spain. They are trying to destroy the trade unions.”

But a general strike last June 20 followed by a labor movement protest march of 500,000 last October, he said, forced President Aznar to withdraw a package of union-busting measures. “We are regaining our class consciousness in Spain,” he said.

Frahm praised the courtesy at the United Nations where the EP delegation met with UN Inspector Hans Blix, and with Secretary General Kofi Annan and with many other UN officials. “The UN is fighting to uphold the UN charter,” she said. “If the world’s biggest superpower decides not to respect world public opinion, runs roughshod over international law and the United Nations in its rush to preemptive war, it is a crisis. But it is not the end of the UN. Something very big has come into being. Once again the people are standing up to tell the political leaders what they think. War is not inevitable.”

The author can be reached at greenerpastures21212@yahoo.com

PDF version of 'In DC: Euro leaders nix war'

Thanks for subscribing to PWW Headlines

Wed, 05 Mar 2003 06:01:00 +0000

You have submitted your email address to PWW headlines, the weekly newsmailing of the People's Weekly World.

PWW headlines is designed to be a quick and easy way to inform you of our lead stories every week.

If you don't already have a subscription to the print edition, click here