Call on Congress: Support Diplomacy with Iran!!!

Feb 15, 2012
Reps. Keith Ellison (MN) and Walter Jones (NC) have introduced the following bi-partisan sign-on letter, urging the Obama administration to "utilize all available tools of diplomacy to resolve the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program and prevent another costly war in the Middle East." 

Click here to get contact information for your senators and representative and then ask them to add their names to this critical sign-on letter.

****

Dear Colleague,

Now that the international community has enacted the strongest sanctions against Iran to date, we must redouble our diplomatic efforts to achieve the transparency measures that will ensure Iran’s nuclear program remains a civilian one.

Without a corresponding diplomatic undertaking, pressure alone could lead to unintended and potentially devastating consequences, including war. Top U.S. national security officials have said that a military strike against Iran could lead to a regional war in the Middle East and attacks against U.S. interests.

While we acknowledge that progress will be difficult, we believe that keeping diplomatic channels open is the best way to avoid a new war and ensure that Iran does not gain a nuclear weapon. Please join us in sending this message to President Obama.

Sincerely,

Keith Ellison and Walter Jones

****
Dear President Obama:

As tension with Iran continues to escalate, we urge your Administration to utilize all available tools of diplomacy to resolve the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program and prevent another costly war in the Middle East.

We have supported your Administration's efforts to unite the international community to bring about the strongest sanctions on Iran to date. Now, we must redouble our diplomatic efforts to achieve robust transparency measures that can verify Iran’s nuclear program is strictly a civilian one. Without a corresponding diplomatic undertaking, we are concerned that a lack of communication with Iran could lead to a dangerous escalation with potentially devastating consequences.

We hold no illusions about the abuses of the Iranian regime and are well aware that it rejected your previous diplomatic overtures. At the same time, we agree with most Americans that the United States should not enter a new war, just as we are finally ending two others. A military strike against Iran could lead to a regional war in the Middle East and attacks against U.S. interests. Even worse, such a strike would likely compel Iran to abandon the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, eject international inspectors, and rapidly pursue a nuclear deterrent.

Top military and civilian leaders have repeatedly issued warnings about the consequences of a military strike on Iran. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta cautioned that the United States “could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, sinking our ships, striking our military bases,” and that “would not only involve many lives, but I think could consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret.”

Former Israeli Mossad chief Meir Dagan made a similar prediction when he said that attacking Iran “would mean regional war, and in that case you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program.”

Retired General Anthony Zinni said, “If you follow this all the way down, eventually I’m putting boots on the ground somewhere. And, like I tell my friends, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you’ll love Iran.”

To avoid war, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, called for the United States to utilize “any channel that’s open” for engagement with Iran, noting, “Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, we had links to the Soviet Union.”

We strongly encourage your Administration to pursue bilateral and multilateral engagement with Iran. While we acknowledge that progress will be difficult, we believe that robust, sustained diplomacy is the best option to resolve our serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program, and to prevent a costly war that would be devastating for the United States and our allies in the region.

Sincerely,

Members of Congress

[Source: http://fcnl.org/issues/iran/ellison-jones_letter_to_support_iran_diplomacy/]

Editor's Note:  How to prevent war with Iran, by Joshua Pollack, published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on January 27th, focuses on the need for DIPLOMACY and PATIENCE>

Afghanistan: Everything's Coming Up Poppies

Friends,

If you heard President Obama's speech yesterday, you may have had to ingest a massive quantity of antidepressants (as I might have had they been available).  I cannot even begin, nor would I bother, to address the endless rhetoric of that speech.  At any rate, I woke up this morning and realized that nothing had changed overnight, or over the past 8, or should I say nearly 48 years (since Eisenhower's farewell speech warning us of the dangers of the military-industrial complex.  In the struggle between militarism and peace, militarism has bulldozed any hopes for a peacful solution to the intractable situation the U.S. has created in Afghanistan.

It would seem that the massive war machine has, like the creatures in some zombie movie, taken over the President's mind, and destroyed any ability to understand the folly of his actions.  Aljazeera sums it up for us: 

Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, a former prime minister of Afghanistan, expressed disappointment with Obama's speech and his strategy.  "Sending more troops is not the solution to the Afghan crisis," he said.  "I was expecting Obama to announce the withdrawal of 30,000 troops within two months but unfortunately, he did the opposite which will increase killings of both Americans and Afghans."  And reacting to Obama's announcement by email, a Taliban spokesman told Al Jazeera that they were pleased with the decision to send more US soldiers.  "More troops just means a larger target for us to hit ... by increasing its forces in Afghanistan, Obama is just giving more power to the Mujahideen to recruit and receive the support of the civilian population." (Afghans react to Obama troop plan, Aljazeera, December 2, 2009)

But hey, the President has it all figured out, so don't worry.  In honor of his speech, let's take a brief intermission and listen to his new theme song, Everything's Coming Up Roses (perhaps it can be re-written: Everything's Coming Up Poppies) by the legendary Rosemary Clooney.

Listen to Everything's Coming Up Roses

O.K. - Now we can get back to business, and the business of the day is putting a stop to this madness called escalation.  It isn't over yet; Congress still has to approve the President's request.  Of course many in Congress are ready to shout "AYE!!!" when it comes to a vote, but we the people still have a say in the matter (even if we don't have huge funding behind us like the defense industry lobby), and I hope we will all shout "NAY!!!" at the top of our collective lungs.  Let's push this to the top of Congress' agenda and pressure them to debate the issue and put it to a vote.

CLICK HERE to learn more and email your representative at Just Foreign Policy.  And then ask your family, friends and people on the street to do the same. 

Just one tiny comment on the President's speech.  Here is what he said towards the end: "But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last."  As the underpinnings of the U.S. economy continue to unravel, prosperity becomes a pipe dream.  Even as over 50% of our tax dollars are spent on the military, that does not come close to the actual costs, and we drive ourselves (and future generations) deeper into debt.  One of the experts on Public Radio this morning was asked about funding the escalation, and as he spoke of how we will just have to find the money, he also said that we will "have to cut some luxuries."  I didn't know there were any luxuries left.  Perhaps he was referring to "luxuries" like education, health care, diplomacy and the environment.

We will NEVER "rebuild our [economic or moral] strength here at home" until the day that we spend more on true diplomacy and foreign assistance (as well as programs of social uplift here in the U.S.) than we spend on the military.

Peace, 

Leonard

Readings for Perspective:

Afghans react to Obama troop plan, Aljazeera, December 2, 2009

Face down the militarists and get out of Afghanistan. No strings attached, Guardian.co.uk, November 17, 2009 (opinion piece from a British point of view)

Talisman Saber - Anything but Charming

Friends,

While most of the world has been focused on Iraq, Afghanistan, Honduras... (and the list goes on), the U.S. and Australians have been getting some exercise of the military kind. Actually, they engaged in a huge joint training exercise in Central Queensland, Australia, called Combined Exercise Talisman Saber '09. Beginning on July 6 and ending July 25, the exercise involved over 24,000 military personnel, and cost an estimated $250 million in taxpayer dollars.

Why do adults need to play such expensive war games? According to Brigadier Bob Brown, "This exercise aims to improve Australian and U.S. combat readiness and interoperability across the full spectrum of operations - from humanitarian operations and peacekeeping to counterinsurgency and conventional war." So there you have it; I suspect that when translated from militaryspeak, it means, "this exercise allows us to play with every possible toy at our disposal in every possible scenario." I guess when the military is working so hard in places like Iraq and Afghanistan they need to let off a little steam and have some fun down under.

You might think that $250 million could (and should) be better spent in improving foreign relations (through foreign assistance) and conflict resolution and other vital services that are provided not by the military, but by foreign service personnel. In the U.S. we have so consistently and drastically underfunded civilian foreign policy for so many years that the foreign service is now grossly understaffed and without a mission (although some would have their mission dovetail with the mission of the U.S. military).

A few brave Australians of conscience (many of them Catholic Workers) decided to resist the militaristic machinations in Central Queensland, and (after announcing their intentions) covertly entered the restricted area where the exercise was being held. Three of them were subsequently captured, but the other four were able to avoid capture, even after searches using all the technology (and search dogs) available to the military. They evidently evaded capture for at least a week. Well done!!! You can read more and see photos of the crafty anti-war activists by clicking here.

By now you are wondering just what is the point of my rambling. The point is that if your only tool is a hammer, or in this case, bullets, bombs and missiles, that is what you are going to use. Besides the deadly violence inherent in military action, it just doesn't work (in the long run). And lest we forget, 90 percent of those who die in today's wars are civilians! The solution is civilian-based foreign policy based upon respect and applying proven methodologies of foreign assistance and nonviolent conflict resolution.

Sadly, the creative resistance of the Australian anti-war activists will go unnoticed by most of the world thanks to the news media's lack of interest. If you are interested in changing the balance of U.S. foreign engagement from military to alternative (peaceful) methods that include civilian foreign engagement (diplomacy) and assistance, check out Just Foreign Policy. These folks believe in "a more multilateral approach to foreign relations—one that relies less on raw U.S. military and economic power and more on international law and treaties, co-operation, and diplomacy." Now there is a novel concept!!!

And don't forget the Friends Committee on National Legislation's (FCNL) Peaceful Prevention of Violent Conflict program. Their Responsibility to Prevent report lays out a solid plan to build strong U.S. civilian agencies to better prevent wars.

And while you are on the diplomatic trail, send an email telling your Senators to increase the staffing and programs at the Department of State "and give our diplomats a clear new mission: to prevent, mitigate, and resolve armed conflict."

Peace,

Leonard

Note: The catchy artwork comes courtesy of the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases, otherwise known as No-Bases.org. Check em out!

Iran - Promoting Nonviolence and Peace

Friends,

With all the rhetoric and concerns being voiced by world leaders about the situation in Iran, it is refreshing and reassuring to read the letter to the Iranian leadership signed by 35 U.S. national organizations. It is a direct, yet humble plea to use nonviolent methods in dealing with the conflict that has arisen surrounding the recent elections.

You can read the full text of the letter at Pax Christi USA.

I would have added one more thing to the letter - a poem by Abū Muṣliḥ bin Abdallāh Shīrāzī, also known as Saadi, a prominent Persian poet of the medieval period. This particular poem (which can be found at the entrance to the General Assembly Hall at the United Nations) is said to be an exact translation of one of the prophet Mohammed's Hadiths - a Hadith is a saying of Mohammed or a report of something he did - from Arabic to Farsi.

"Human beings are members of a whole,
In creation of one essence and soul.
If one member is afflicted with pain,
Other members uneasy will remain.
If you have no sympathy for human pain,
The name of human you cannot retain."

Compassion and nonviolence are found at the heart of the worlds religious traditions if we are able to cut through the false layers of hatred that we have created over the centuries. May we bear witness to that which connects us in our humanity in a time of such violence and hatred.

You can still sign the petition at Just Foreign Policy urging President Obama to continue a cautious approach with Iran and to continue efforts to engage Iran diplomatically. We must pursue peaceful resolutions to conflict at every step.

Peace,

Leonard

Photo by Leslie Angeline and Martha Hubert. Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/codepinkalert/2924454809/

There Are NO Military Options!!!

Friends,

One of the scariest phrases that I have heard spoken by various voices in just about every recent administration has been, "All options are on the table." It may, in fact, be one of the most overused (or should I say misused) phrases in public statements regarding U.S. relations (or lack thereof in many cases) with other nations.

Despite President George W. Bush's ridiculous claim that his first choice in dealing with Iran's nuclear program was diplomacy, he made it clear (in 2008) that "all options are on the table." We saw the futility of the Bush approach to "diplomacy" with Iran.

During her run for president, Hillary Clinton (in 2007) said that she would not rule out a military strike against Iran to take out its nuclear weapons production capabilities. While she spoke of "reaching out" to U.S. allies to work together, she said (regarding Iran) that "all options must remain on the table."

Recently the Pentagon updated its plans for using military force against Iran at President Obama's request. When asked about the possibility of use of military force against Iran in relation to its alleged nuclear weapons activities, Defense Secretary Robert recently Gates said, "...as a result of our dialogue with the president, we've refreshed our plans and all options are on the table." Ooh, isn't that refreshing???

The United States should, after decades of interventions (both covert and overt) around the world (and, of course, Iran), understand the futility of intervening in the affairs of other sovereign nations. In Iran's case, we have been eating the bitter fruit of our meddling that goes back to 1953 with the U.S. organized coup that deposed the democratically elected Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadeq. But we (in the U.S.) are poor students of history, and our collective amnesia now has people in this country screaming for freedom for the Iranians.

Ironically, as Chris Hedges reminds us in a very recent article, "Iranians do not need or want us to teach them about liberty and representative government." The title of Hedge's article, Iran Had a Democracy Before We Took It Away, sums things up, and the article provides us with a context with which to evaluate our [U.S.] hypocrisy in foreign policy. Essentially, our foreign policy has far too often been conveyed through the barrel of a gun, and if you didn't like it - TOO BAD!

The U.S. government will not change its methods of dealing with other nations on its own; the needs of the all-consuming National Security State far outweigh any desire of a president or other politicians to change direction. It will require pressure from every possible progressive organization and support from large masses of the populace. The question is, do we have the nerve to take it on. I sincerely hope so.

So let us remember that as much as the people of Iran want some form of democracy, they also do not want any foreign intervention; they remember Mossadeq. Right now we can send a clear message to Washington that the U.S. must stay out of Iran's internal affairs. CLICK HERE to sign the petition at Just Foreign Policy urging President Obama to continue a cautious approach with Iran and to continue efforts to engage Iran diplomatically.

We must remember that there are NO viable military options if we are to build a peaceful world. No matter whether we are dealing with elections or nukes, the only options are those of diplomacy and goodwill. Anything else is a disaster in waiting.

Peace,

Leonard

Good Communists/Bad Communists, or Let's End the Cuba Travel Embargo!

Friends,

Have you ever wondered how the United States government is capable of demonizing one "communist" government such as Cuba while embracing another with open arms, as has been the case with China (for many years). Of course, China is an open and shut case; there is big trade and REALLY BIG money involved. In the case of Cuba, there is a long and dirty history. Oh yes, there WAS money involved way back when companies like U.S. Sugar and United Fruit had a firm footing in Cuba. And, it is a long and ugly story of failed (and deeply flawed) United States foreign policy.

All we tend to hear these days from the corporate media is about Fidel Castro's illness of the month, or whether his brother Raoul will be more friendly to the United States. And for many years, going back to the 60's we have heard about the Cuban exiles who yearn to return to their country (sans Castro). But why are those "exiles" here in the first place, and why did Castro come to power, and why the heck DON'T we allow travel to and trade with Cuba. Well, here's the wacky, abbreviated (one minute) history.

Spain rules Cuba (too close, geographically, for America's comfort). Cubans rebel against Spanish rule in 1895. U.S. holds back at getting involved (at first). Sinking of the U.S. warship Maine creates national clamor. U.S. declares war against Spain; Spanish-American War is over in three months. America companies begin moving in to Cuba - United Fruit, American Tobacco, Bethlehem Steel. U.S. ensures that the Platt Amendment (passed by the U.S. Congress), which allows the U.S. "the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence", is included in the new Cuban Constitution. Essentially, the U.S. controls Cuba without the historic colonial model!

Skip to 1959 - Fidel Castro, leading a rebel force, overthrows the U.S.-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista on New Years Day (Many well heeled revelers immediately flee the country). Castro confiscates land from American companies in Cuba (which, by the way, control 80-100 percent of utilities, mines, cattle ranches and oil refineries, 40 percent of sugar industry, and 50 percent of public railways). U.S. is NOT HAPPY; pulls the economic plug. Where's a country to go??? The Soviet Union. That's all folks. (Thanks to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States: 1492 -Present, C2003 for the real story on Cuba.)

Skip to the present. The U.S. has imposed travel restrictions (on U.S. citizens) to Cuba for decades. Currently, tourist travel is banned, and non-tourist travel is extremely restricted. Attempting to read the U.S. State Department explanation of the restrictions is enough to give one a severe headache. And, did you know that Cuba is a totalitarian police state which relies on repressive methods to maintain control??? Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! That quote from the State Department Website could describe any number of countries (that the U.S. DOES allow travel to and trade with, including China.

O.K., Fidel is no saint; but as "totalitarian" states go, he has done some good things for his people (and others too) including instituting a health care system that has resulted in better statistics for a number of important indicators of health than the United States (particularly when one looks at it in terms of per capita expenditures). So just what damage would be done by opening up the gates and allowing free travel to and from Cuba, and then perhaps opening up trade? Might that actually allow the people of our nations to learn more about each other? Might it bring positive change to Cuba over time? And just perhaps it would show the rest of Latin America that the United States is serious about reconciliation with all of our neighbors to the South?

You can learn more about ending the Cuba travel ban at the Latin American Working Group and the Center for Constitutional Rights. And if you think it's time to end this backwards (and unconstitutional) foreign policy, contact your Representative and Senators and ask them to co-sponsor H.R.874 and S.428.

to (and work for) a foreign policy based on a deep understanding of history and what is necessary to build relationships that foster peace.

Peace,

Leonard

P.S. - Fun Fact: Did you know that the U.S. is the only country that restricts travel to Cuba?

You Can't Shake Hands With a Clenched Fist

President Dwight Eisenhower once said, "I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that the people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it." It would seem that the United States government has recently done little (if anything of substance) to promote real, lasting peace in the world. It seems that the people we elect (and the people they appoint) just don't understand what real peace is (let alone how to get there).

Fortunately there are people outside our government who do understand the word PEACE and the difficult but necessary path we must walk to get there. They understand that one cannot make peace at the point of a gun or clenched fist. As the poet Carl Sandburg put it:

Choose.
The single clenched fist lifted and ready,
Or the open hand held out and waiting.
Choose.
For we meet by one or the other.

Two days before the presidential debate (in which the candidates argued whether and under what circumstances they might meet with Iran's leadership) the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR) facilitated a two-day meeting of U.S. peace and religious leaders with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Based on the initial feedback from participants and constituents, Leila Zand (who directs FOR’s Iran program) said, "While I am still disappointed about his [Ahmadinejad's] comments on several topics, I believe there has been progress and that this shows the importance of increased communication between our countries.”

The delegation at last week's meeting presented President Ahmadinejad with a gift, a framed work of calligraphy with a verse from the Koran written in classical Kufi script. The FOR Website said that, A paraphrase of the Sura might be understood to remind us that “it is good to begin each day with a reflection on how we will personally advance the cause of peace and justice in our lives and work." Perhaps President Ahmadinejad will look at his gift on occasion and reflect on that verse.

The meeting with Iran's president was not a breakthrough event, but a step along the way of building bridges rather than burning them. Genuine peace will be (to quote President John F. Kennedy) "the sum of many acts", and this was one such act. The only dissapointment for me is that it was not our government (that should represent the people) initiating the dialogue. But then, perhaps Eisenhower's statement was prophetic; the people need to rise to the challenge of peace.

FOR, an organization that began with a pledge "to find a way of working for peace even though their countries were at war" (quote from FOR Website), has (for nearly a century) been a constant voice for peace in a world constantly at war. It is even more important to listen to such voices at times such as these, and therein lies the rub; we need to really listen or the voices of peace are drowned out by the all the noise.

GET INVOLVED: If you are not already an FOR member, consider it. Check out their Website at forusa.org; you will be amazed at all they do and have done. And when you get up each day, don't forget to (and I paraphrase) reflect on how you will personally advance the cause of peace and justice in your life and work.

Peace,

Leonard

Author's Note: The photo of the presentation of the gift to President Ahmadinejad is from the Fellowship of Reconciliation Website.