The team of sixteen “civilian grassroots diplomats” have met and conversed with Iranian citizens from all walks of life, and their report so far is an inspiring account of personal communication, education, and common ground. The high-level political talks have relied heavily on the use of threat power: negotiation is contingent upon each side’s predetermined goals and its ability to coerce the other to concede. FOR’s delegation, however, relies on an entirely different force. According to peace scholar Kenneth Boulding, integrative power arises in a situation where one party acts in accordance with their sense of truth, maintaining respect for the other, and this interaction brings the two sides closer together. The team in Iran, through honest and informal discussions with the Iranian people, seeks to establish this kind of connection and create an alternative to the alarming standoff in which the two governments have become embroiled. Their work is a crucial step in replacing the negative force of military threat with a positive power for understanding and reconciliation.

Learn more about FOR and read the delegation’s reports: FOR Iran Initiative

Dear friend,

On Wednesday, May 9th, students and alumni at three UC campuses will go on a hunger strike to demand that the University of California stop designing, engineering and manufacturing nuclear bombs. We are calling on the Regents to pass a resolution at their next meeting — scheduled for May 17th — severing all ties to the nuclear weapons complex. We will sustain our fast at least until that meeting, if not much longer. We are writing to ask for your support of this timely act of civil resistance, and of the just cause for which we sacrifice.

For over six decades, the UC has been the US government’s primary nuclear warhead contractor, having managed the Los Alamos (NM) and Livermore (CA) nuclear weapons compounds since their inceptions. Every nuclear warhead in the US arsenal was designed by a UC employee. These include the B61-11 “bunker busters” currently deployed in the Persian Gulf, with which the US government is threatening Iran . Now, the UC is even building a new hydrogen bomb: officially, the first new US nuclear weapon since the end of the Cold War and setting up one of its labs to actually manufacture nuclear warhead components.

As hunger strikers, our basic position is this: At this critical time in our world, with the survival of our planetary ecosystem hanging in the balance, it is imperative for the UC Regents to stop providing a fig leaf of academic respectability to the creation of the world’s most toxic and deadly weapons, and instead use their position of political leverage to spur the US toward genuine nuclear disarmament, democratization, and demilitarization.

The hunger strike action represents the culmination of over five years of organizing and struggle by UC student nuclear abolitionists, anti-war activists, and anti-imperialists. We have petitioned, written letters, marched, rallied, spoken out at UC Regents meetings, and even physically disrupted some of those same meetings to demand that the UC get out of bed with bombs. Now, we are escalating our tactics. We seek, above all, for our actions to be commensurate with the truly formidable challenges confronting our generation and the earth.

We’d like to highlight five ways that you can support us, in order of those we consider most important:

1. Join us for a short-term (one-day, for example) solidarity fast. Fasting is a remarkable way to cleanse your body, and doing so for a short amount of time entails virtually no physical risk. Even if you can’t fast, come visit us on campus! There will be six Berkeley students doing a 7-day solidarity fast with the hunger strike, and during the day they will be sitting near California Hall with signs and outreach materials. Please come show your support!

2. Attend our “No Nukes In Our Name!” rally at the UC Regents meeting on Thursday, May 17th at 10 a.m. at UC San Francisco ‘s Mission Bay building. Due to the level of local, statewide, and national attention we expect to gain through this action, we anticipate being able to bring a great deal of pressure to bear on the Regents. You can also sign up to speak during the public comment period of the meeting at 8 am – please call the regents secretary. A large mobilization at this action is crucially important! For driving directions, visit www.ucnuclearfree.org or contact youth@napf.org.

3. Call the UC Regents – ask that they vote on our resolution for nuclear weapons lab severance on May 17th. It is crucial for as many supporters as possible issue this demand, whether they be California tax-payers, UC students, or concerned citizens of the world! Please see Regents contact info below.

4. Write a letter to the UC Regents – ask that they vote on our resolution for nuclear weapons lab severance on May 17th. Please see the list of contacts below. An online form letter will be available at www.ucnuclearfree.org beginning on Wednesday, May 9th.

5. Write a letter of solidarity to the hunger strikers. You can send emails to youth@napf.org , and we will forward them on to the other hunger strikers. Your letters will go a long way toward boosting our morale as the hunger strike wears on. We will read many of them at the rallies and public events we hold to garner support throughout the action.

We wouldn’t be writing to you if we didn’t consider your support vitally important to the success of this initiative. We expect that the hunger strike will receive national attention and mark a significant step forward in the struggle for nuclear abolition. It may very well achieve its aim. If it is to do so, it needs to have broad-based support both at UC campuses and far beyond!

There has never been a more critical time for the UC Regents to take a principled stand against the US ‘ nuclear weapons programs. They are in a very powerful position to do so: They can withdraw their management of the Los Alamos and Livermore labs, which are the keystone institutions in the US nuclear weapons complex. They could cast the UC’s enormous political and intellectual weight on the side of international law and morality, and seize this opportunity to work toward nuclear disarmament. To do otherwise is to continue to provide a much-needed veneer of academic legitimacy to the creation and maintenance of weapons that poison communities and endanger the entire world.

We recognize that the world we live in is fundamentally unjust, that it is full of a spate of interconnected problems, and that all of these problems merit being addressed on their own terms and in their own ways. We realize our hunger strike will do little to address most of those problems. But we do believe we have part of the answer to making the world a much better place. We hope that, by performing this hunger strike, we can initiate new connections and relationships that will help us continue to work in solidarity with people engaged in multiple other fronts of political struggle.

Together, we can make the UC nuclear-free! Thank you so much for your time and attention! We look forward to connecting with you!

Yours in the struggle for a world free of war, nuclear weapons, and empire,
Chelsea Collonge
on behalf of
The UC “No More Nukes In Our Name!” Hunger Strikers

Part of the larger West Papua Nonviolence Training Project, the workshop brought together twenty-nine community leaders with a training team experienced in nonviolent activism. Their goals were aimed at the development of a strategy to confront vertical conflict and included:
1. Developing an analysis of the root causes of conflict in West Papua, and the vision, goals, strategy and nonviolent tactics needed to create change
2. Building relationships amongst diverse West Papuan leaders in a safe environment
3. Developing skills for cooperative problem solving, decision making, and communication
4. Creating a supportive space to apply these skills
Additionally the conference set out to document human rights violations and plan for the future of the nonviolent effort in West Papua.

The trainers used experiential learning techniques like group work, exercises and games, which the participants reported to be very effective. There was also a strong effort to take into account the cultural context of their work, and promote West Papuan leadership.

The participants confronted several issues that had impeded the development of a concerted movement in the past. One of these was the problem of factionalism, which was approached in the communication and collaboration of the diverse group at the training. Another obstacle has been the internalization and perpetuation of negative stereotypes surrounding the West Papuan community. These conditions necessitated a focus on enfranchisement and empowerment. The participants also discussed the development of a clear vision and strategy, with the conclusion that the movement must first and foremost address the root causes of violence.

In their evaluation of the workshop the trainers judged it to be largely successful, and in light of their experience the training team has developed a vision of the future for their program in West Papua. Taking the example of the People Power struggle in the Philippines, they aim to bring in more trainers for longer periods of time. Also, they plan to expand their network by reaching out to Papuan organizations including faith communities, youth and student groups, women’s groups and NGOs. They hope to form and strengthen connections between indigenous and non-indigenous communities, as well as between activists from West Papua and Papua New Guinea. Finally, there is the hope internal leaders will gain the skills and tools to build their own movement, and that the need for outside trainers will be eventually phased out.

Founded in 2003 as a women’s civic movement, the group now includes 35,000 members, both women and men. Their mission is to empower women to take control of their lives and take part in their communities, and they deliver that message by engaging in courageous and creative demonstrations across the country. WOZA recognizes Zimbabwean society’s ills, and its members believe that popular nonviolent struggle is the way to bring about a cure.

The situation in Zimbabwe today makes WOZA’s program for social justice an ambitious undertaking. Zimbabwe is experiencing the highest inflation rates in the world, and amid the economic crisis poverty is rampant. Food shortage has resulted in grave malnourishment, and an HIV/AIDS pandemic currently affects 5.5 million. The life expectancy for women currently stands at 34: the lowest in the world. President and former guerilla leader Robert Mugabe’s totalitarian regime stands accused of election fraud and gross violations of human rights.

The members of WOZA seek to confront these issues head on, and in doing so prove that “the power of love can conquer the love of power”. Though members frequently engage in protests and demonstrations, the movement is crucially strengthened by its constructive element. In 2006, WOZA activists traveled the country and collected conversations with almost ten thousand Zimbabweans on their idea of social justice. These voices, long stifled or ignored, were compiled and expressed in a document called the People’s Charter. The charter acknowledges the nation’s current state of crisis, but approaches it in a powerfully optimistic way. It demands a participatory and accountable government, fair distribution of resources, and a new constitution protecting freedom and equality. Characteristic of WOZA’s enthusiastic commitment to the future, the charter closes with a call to action: “Let all those who love Zimbabwe join hands to turn our dream of social justice into a reality”.

Their hard work has not been without its price. On April 23, fifty-six members demonstrating against the lack of affordable and reliable electricity were arrested outside of the Zimbabwe Electric Supply Authority in Harare. During their custody they were physically assaulted and brutally beaten by police, and three were hospitalized for their wounds. This atrocity comes after the recent physical and psychological abuse of an eighteen-year old activist, punished for bringing food to her fellow workers detained at the police station. But despite the government’s repressive measures, the WOZA activists remain undeterred. By protesting in the face of such threat they seek to expose the true nature of the regime, and in doing so give support to their dream of justice and freedom.

WOZA is an example of the power of the positive in even the most disheartening of situations. Their mission is one of hope, and their strategy incorporates the strong and constructive means needed to achieve such a positive end. In the words of the Peoples’ Charter, “we must not be afraid to believe that we have the right to a brighter future and we have the right to contribute to building it”.

Learn more and support WOZA’s campaigns at: Women of Zimbabwe Arise!

CAFTA is an international agreement designed to create a free trade zone in Central America. It is an expansion of NAFTA, passed in 1994, and many believe it is the next step toward Free Trade of the Americas (FTAA). Its provisions are numerous, from the privatization of public services to test data exclusivity. It would require Central American governments to guarantee at least equal treatment for foreign investors, and to eliminate their subsidies. Government purchases would have to be opened to transnational bids, and intellectual property rights would be enforced. It would also involve the significant transfer of authority to supranational organizations like the WTO. CAFTA was signed by Bush in 2005, but for it to take effect it must be ratified by the six member countries. Costa Rica is the only one yet to accept the treaty, and recently-elected President Oscar Arias has pledged to approve it.

But Arias’ enthusiasm is not shared by the people of Costa Rica. After trade liberalization policies in the 1990s increased poverty and income inequality, many are wary of further attempts at privatization. CAFTA would threaten the livelihoods of farmers and fishermen, putting restrictions on what had previously been public resources. It would also make it impossible for the government to nurture nascent industry, forced to favor foreign investors. Test-data exclusivity policies could deprive the poor of life-saving medications, and the liberalization of service markets threatens to raise the price of basic utilities like water out of the reach of the average citizen. Also of crucial importance to Costa Rica, one of the only nations in the world that chooses not to maintain a standing army, CAFTA would make it possible for weapons and weapons parts to be produced within its borders, and open the country to an international Central American armed force, a considered option to combat drug traffic. In short, Costa Rica would be ensnared in a pact with a superpower (and by proxy a host of international corporations) with no mechanisms for accountability or control.

Many Costa Ricans are unwilling to see this transpire. People have taken to the streets in creative protests drawing on cultural traditions like dance and song. An education campaign has been of vital importance, especially given the complex nature of the CAFTA accord. Media coverage has been a problem, as the television and radio stations are almost exclusively funded by corporate supporters of the treaty, but Sandra Ribas, a member of the demilitarization organization A World Without Armies, explains that though mass communication is difficult, taking their message directly to communities and “speaking from the heart” have won them support despite promotional propaganda.

Costa Rica’s second republic was established in 1948 after a forty-day civil war. The result was a wave of socializing reforms, and the dissolution of the Costa Rican army. However, Human Rights attorney Dulce Umanzor fears that they are losing sight of what the liberal revolution intended to build. The country has experienced increasing privatization, and Umanzor feels that these changes have contributed to a sense of personal isolation, and concerning levels of violence. For many, resistance to CAFTA represents a deeper struggle, for the “culture of peace” they believe everyone deserves. Ms. Ribas suggests that it is time for a second revolution in Costa Rica – but this time, “the weapons will be the mind and the heart”.

Learn More at A World Without Armies

“Peacekeeping in the Former Yugoslavia: From the Dayton Accord to Kosovo”
Two day course in July at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia with UN lecturer Dr. Giovanni Ercolani

Free for applicants before February 19

For more information visit Academic Solutions

These men have not been informed of the evidence against them, nor have their lawyers. They have been denied medical care and access to an independent ombudsman to hear their complaints. Though not officially charged, they have been deprived of the basic human rights enjoyed by convicted criminals in the federal justice system. To protest their inhumane treatment, Mahjoub, Jaballah, and Almrei went on hunger strike, and for Jaballah it has been 71 days since he last ate.

In their fast they are drawing on a long tradition of nonviolent protest, used successfully in the past as a last resort of prisoners, deprived of any other public voice. The fast can be a tremendously powerful tool for rehumanization and reconciliation, but it must also be used carefully.

Gandhi, who undertook several fasts during his campaigns, recognized their potential and established a set of guidelines for fasting. First, he specified that an effective fast must be conducted by the “right” person, ideally someone familiar to the public eye and with enough personal clout to command attention. Second, Gandhi described the ideal audience as one of “lovers”, or people with such a relationship to the faster that they are emotionally affected by the actor’s suffering. Third, the demands being made should be reasonable and possible to grant. Fourth, a fast should be used only as a last resort, after other channels of negotiation have been explored. Finally, a fast has incredible nonviolent power, but only when consistent with the life of the person undertaking it.

It is not easy to evaluate the Millhaven prisoners’ fast in terms of these principles. Though they were relatively unknown, their fast has brought them some media attention and public support, at least in the Canadian press. The Canadian government may not quite fit the bill of “lover”, but with enough public pressure it could be convinced to see the prisoners’ plight. The demands for more just treatment seem do-able, and the men have already tried to achieve their goals through negotiation. The most questionable aspect seems to be its consistency with the lives of the actors. A fast by a nonviolent actor can be moving and effective, but one conducted by someone with a history of violence is more likely seen as hypocritical. The charges and evidence against them remain unclear, and all the government has divulged are suspected links to terrorist organizations. However, the detention in such a facility of innocent men would certainly be nothing new.

Ultimately, the outcome of the prisoners’ fast is yet to be seen. Prime Minister Harper has refused to meet with a delegation of their supporters, and maintains that their detention is lawful. But as the prisoners said in their letter to the Canadian public, “Sometimes there is only so much human beings should be required to accept before they raise their voice in peaceful protest”.

Read more about the prisoners’ hunger strike at The National Post

Read the prisoners’ letter to the Canadian public at The Dominion

Posted by the Foundation for Middle East Peace

One of the most frustrating aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the apparent inability of many people on both sides to understand the position of the other, and the unwillingness of some to even try. As a true friend and supporter of both sides, I would like to address frank messages to each.

It is completely right and understandable that Israel and its supporters should seek to ensure its security by persuading Palestinians, and Arabs and Muslims more broadly, to alter their attitude and behavior toward Israel. But they are not likely to succeed unless they themselves grasp and acknowledge the fundamental Palestinian grievance–namely, that the establishment of the State of Israel involved the dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian families, turning them into refugees, and was followed nineteen years later by a military occupation that brought hundreds of thousands more Palestinians under Israeli rule.

Israel is justifiably proud of its democracy and its efforts to build a society based on respect for the rule of law. But Israel’s democracy can thrive only if the occupation over another people ends. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon acknowledged as much. Israel has undergone a major cultural shift since the days of Oslo: all of Israel’s major political parties now acknowledge that Israel needs to end the occupation, for its own sake, and for the sake of its own security.

Yet thousands of Israelis still live in territories occupied in 1967–and more than one thousand more are added every month. As Palestinians watch this activity, they also see a Barrier being built through their land in contravention of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, as well as more than five hundred checkpoints to control their movement, and the heavy presence of the Israeli Defense Forces. Their despair at the occupation only grows, as does their determination to resist it. As a result, some tend to invest much of their trust in those who pursue the armed struggle rather than a peace process that does not seem to yield the coveted goal of an independent state.

I agree with Israel and its supporters that there is a difference–moral as well as legal–between terrorists, who deliberately target civilians, and regular soldiers who, in the course of military operations, unintentionally kill or wound civilians despite efforts to avoid such casualties. But the larger the number of civilian casualties and wounded during these operations, and the more perfunctory the precautions taken to avoid such losses, the more this difference is diminished. The use of military force in densely populated civilian areas is a blunt instrument that only produces more death, destruction, recrimination, and vengeance. And as we have seen, it does little to achieve the desired goal of stopping terrorist attacks. Israelis may reply that they are merely protecting themselves from terrorism, which they have every right to do. But that argument will carry less weight as long as the occupation in the West Bank becomes more burdensome and the settlement expansion continues. Israel will receive more understanding if its actions were clearly designed to help end an occupation rather than to entrench it.

We should all work with Israel to move beyond the unhappy status quo and reach a negotiated end to the occupation based on the principle of land for peace….

It is completely right and understandable to support the Palestinian people, who have suffered so much. But Palestinians and their supporters will never be truly effective if they focus solely on Israel’s transgressions, without conceding any justice or legitimacy to Israel’s own concerns, and without being willing to admit that Israel’s opponents have themselves committed appalling and inexcusable crimes. No resistance to occupation can justify terrorism. We should all be united in our unequivocal rejection of terror as a political instrument….

Some may feel satisfaction at repeatedly passing General Assembly resolutions or holding conferences that condemn Israel’s behavior. But one should also ask whether such steps bring any tangible relief or benefit to the Palestinians. There have been decades of resolutions. There has been a proliferation of special committees, sessions, and Secretariat divisions and units. Has any of this had an effect on Israel’s policies, other than to strengthen the belief in Israel, and among many of its supporters, that this great Organization is too one-sided to be allowed a significant role in the Middle East peace process?

Even worse, some of the rhetoric used in connection with the issue implies a refusal to concede the very legitimacy of Israel’s existence, let alone the validity of its security concerns. We must never forget that Jews have very good historical reasons for taking seriously any threat to Israel’s existence. What was done to Jews and others by the Nazis remains an undeniable tragedy, unique in human history. Today, Israelis are often confronted with words and actions that seem to confirm their fear that the goal of their adversaries is to extinguish their existence as a state, and as a people.

Therefore, those who want to be heard on Palestine should not deny or minimize that history, or the connection many Jews feel for their historic homeland. Rather, they should acknowledge Israel’s security concerns, and make clear that their criticism is rooted not in hatred or intolerance, but in a desire for justice, self-determination, and peaceful coexistence.