http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/22230-study-confirms-tar-sands-mining-is-destroying-local-ecosystems
Germanos reports: "The study by Environment Canada shows that tailings ponds, open 'lakes' that hold toxic bi-products from tar sands mining, are leaching into groundwater and contaminating Alberta's Athabasa River."
A scarecrow at a tailings pond in Alberta in 2010. (photo: NWFblogs/Flickr)
Study Confirms Tar Sands Mining Is Destroying Local Ecosystems
By Andrea Germanos, Common Dreams
23 February 14
Canadian study shows tailings ponds are leaching into ground water
A new study puts the spotlight on tar sands' threat to one of the planet's precious and increasingly scarce resources—water.
The study by Environment Canada shows that tailings ponds, open 'lakes' that hold toxic bi-products from tar sands mining, are leaching into groundwater and contaminating Alberta's Athabasa River.
The federal research was published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.
The researchers used new technology to differentiate chemicals from naturally occurring bitumen deposits in soil around the developments from those released by the tar sands industry.
"It looks like what they’ve seen is that in fact the tailings ponds are leaking," CBC News quotes Bill Donahue, an environmental scientist with the governmental tar sands advisory committee, as saying.
"They found also not only are those tailings ponds leaking, but it looks like it is flowing pretty much from those tailings ponds, through the ground and into the Athabasca River," Donahue continued. "So, there goes … that message we’ve been hearing about. 'These tailings ponds are safe, they don’t leak' and so on."
"While the study confirms what we already know to a certain extent," Andrea Harden-Donahue, Energy and Climate Justice Campaigner with the Ottawa-based organization Council of Canadians, told Common Dreams, "it's sad to see the federal government so far behind."
First Nations communities have been talking for years about this water contamination, Harden-Donahue explained. They've been "linking it to illnesses, talking about deformed fish, how it's entering their food system, and for years they have been calling for the problem to be examined," concerns Canadian rocker Neil Young sought to elevate with his recent "Honour the Treaties" tour.
These downstream communities continue to be "on the front lines," Harden-Donahue said, both in terms of the impacts of the dirty industry and of leading opposition. "First Nations communities are our best and brightest hope for stopping the expansion of the tar sands," she said.
While "we talk a lot about climate change" impacts from tar sands, what also needs to be considered is how "the use, consumption and contamination of water" as a result of the mining and transporting of this bitumen affect essential watersheds, Harden-Donahue explained, and cited the notorious spill in Michigan's Kalamazoo River.
Contributing to the problem is that what little regulation that does exist, both at the federal and provincial level, she said, doesn't get enforced, as it's a case of the fox guarding the hen house because much of the regulation is industry-led. Looking at last year, "of the more than 4000 infractions [by the tar sands industry] that were reported, less than 1 percent were penalized," she noted.
Yet as the Harper government is dragging in terms of regulating tar sands, and is repealing environmental protections, there is mounting pressure fighting back, Harden-Donahue said.
"It's an uphill battle," she said, but "we're going to win."
© 2014 Reader Supported News
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
Monday, February 24, 2014
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Why AT&T's Surveillance Report Omits 80 Million NSA Targets
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/421-national-security/22203-why-atats-surveillance-report-omits-80-million-nsa-targets
Kravets reports: "An accurate transparency report should include a line indicating that AT&T has turned over information on each and every one of its more than 80 million-plus customers. It doesn't."
(image: Nashville Scene)
Why AT&T's Surveillance Report Omits 80 Million NSA Targets
By David Kravets, Wired
22 February 14
AT&T this week released for the first time in the phone company's 140-year history a rough accounting of how often the U.S. government secretly demands records on telephone customers. But to those who've been following the National Security Agency leaks, Ma Bell's numbers come up short by more than 80 million spied-upon Americans.
AT&T's transparency report counts 301,816 total requests for information - spread between subpoenas, court orders and search warrants - in 2013. That includes between 2,000 and 4,000 under the category "national security demands," which collectively gathered information on about 39,000 to 42,000 different accounts.
There was a time when that number would have seemed high. Today, it's suspiciously low, given the disclosures by whistleblower Edward Snowden about the NSA's bulk metadata program. We now know that the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is ordering the major telecoms to provide the NSA a firehose of metadata covering every phone call that crosses their networks.
An accurate transparency report should include a line indicating that AT&T has turned over information on each and every one of its more than 80 million-plus customers. It doesn't.
That's particularly ironic, given that it was Snowden's revelations about this so-called "Section 215″ metadata spying that paved the way for the transparency report. In Snowden's wake, technology companies pushed President Barack Obama to craft new rules allowing them to be more transparent about how much customer data they're forced to provide the NSA and other agencies. In a Jan. 17 globally televised speech, Obama finally agreed.
But when the new transparency guidelines came out on Jan. 27, the language left it unclear whether discussing bulk collection was allowed, says Alex Abdo, an American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney. AT&T on Monday became the first phone company to release a transparency report under the new rules, and the results seem to confirm that the metadata collection is still meant to stay secret.
"This transparency report confirmed our fear that the DOJ's apparent concession was carefully crafted to prevent real transparency," Abdo says. "If they want real transparency, they would allow the disclosure of the bulk telephone metadata program."
WIRED asked AT&T about the omission of the metadata spying.
The response, which arrived by email from AT&T spokeswoman Claudia Jones: "Please see footnote #1."
Legal experts, though, say that the footnote has nothing to do with with whether bulk collection activities carried out in the past could be disclosed. It merely notes that plans are in place to reform the metadata collection program in the future.
"That's mealy-mouthed. Footnote 1 is talking about future reporting, not reporting about already received orders," says Nate Cardozo, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
(AT&T's Jones did not return repeated calls seeking more comment on the company's report. The Department of Justice neither returned e-mails nor telephone calls seeking comment.)
But Cardozo believes that AT&T is correct that it is barred from disclosing the metadata numbers, because of the Obama administration's careful choice of language in the section relating to orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The guidelines allow for the disclosure, in chunks of 1,000, of "the number of customer selectors [phone numbers] targeted under FISA non-content orders." Since the bulk metadata collection doesn't "target" any "selectors" it is, by definition, not subject to disclosure.
This loophole is no accident of phrasing. In other sections of the guidelines covering National Security Letters - a type of subpoena that doesn't require a judge's signature - Obama allows disclosure of the "number of customer accounts affected." If the guidelines used that same language for the FISA disclosures, AT&T's transparency report would presumably disclose that more than 80 million customers - that would be all of AT&T's customers - had been spied upon.
The end result, observes Kevin Bankston, the policy director of the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute, is that Obama's so-called reform has spawned a misleading report that provides false comfort to AT&T customers - and all Americans.
"Not only is this a complete failure when it comes to providing transparency around bulk data being handed over," Bankston says, "it is affirmatively misleading to the average reader of the transparency report who would conclude that no bulk data handover ever happened."
© 2014 Reader Supported News
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
Kravets reports: "An accurate transparency report should include a line indicating that AT&T has turned over information on each and every one of its more than 80 million-plus customers. It doesn't."
(image: Nashville Scene)
Why AT&T's Surveillance Report Omits 80 Million NSA Targets
By David Kravets, Wired
22 February 14
AT&T this week released for the first time in the phone company's 140-year history a rough accounting of how often the U.S. government secretly demands records on telephone customers. But to those who've been following the National Security Agency leaks, Ma Bell's numbers come up short by more than 80 million spied-upon Americans.
AT&T's transparency report counts 301,816 total requests for information - spread between subpoenas, court orders and search warrants - in 2013. That includes between 2,000 and 4,000 under the category "national security demands," which collectively gathered information on about 39,000 to 42,000 different accounts.
There was a time when that number would have seemed high. Today, it's suspiciously low, given the disclosures by whistleblower Edward Snowden about the NSA's bulk metadata program. We now know that the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is ordering the major telecoms to provide the NSA a firehose of metadata covering every phone call that crosses their networks.
An accurate transparency report should include a line indicating that AT&T has turned over information on each and every one of its more than 80 million-plus customers. It doesn't.
That's particularly ironic, given that it was Snowden's revelations about this so-called "Section 215″ metadata spying that paved the way for the transparency report. In Snowden's wake, technology companies pushed President Barack Obama to craft new rules allowing them to be more transparent about how much customer data they're forced to provide the NSA and other agencies. In a Jan. 17 globally televised speech, Obama finally agreed.
But when the new transparency guidelines came out on Jan. 27, the language left it unclear whether discussing bulk collection was allowed, says Alex Abdo, an American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney. AT&T on Monday became the first phone company to release a transparency report under the new rules, and the results seem to confirm that the metadata collection is still meant to stay secret.
"This transparency report confirmed our fear that the DOJ's apparent concession was carefully crafted to prevent real transparency," Abdo says. "If they want real transparency, they would allow the disclosure of the bulk telephone metadata program."
WIRED asked AT&T about the omission of the metadata spying.
The response, which arrived by email from AT&T spokeswoman Claudia Jones: "Please see footnote #1."
Legal experts, though, say that the footnote has nothing to do with with whether bulk collection activities carried out in the past could be disclosed. It merely notes that plans are in place to reform the metadata collection program in the future.
"That's mealy-mouthed. Footnote 1 is talking about future reporting, not reporting about already received orders," says Nate Cardozo, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
(AT&T's Jones did not return repeated calls seeking more comment on the company's report. The Department of Justice neither returned e-mails nor telephone calls seeking comment.)
But Cardozo believes that AT&T is correct that it is barred from disclosing the metadata numbers, because of the Obama administration's careful choice of language in the section relating to orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The guidelines allow for the disclosure, in chunks of 1,000, of "the number of customer selectors [phone numbers] targeted under FISA non-content orders." Since the bulk metadata collection doesn't "target" any "selectors" it is, by definition, not subject to disclosure.
This loophole is no accident of phrasing. In other sections of the guidelines covering National Security Letters - a type of subpoena that doesn't require a judge's signature - Obama allows disclosure of the "number of customer accounts affected." If the guidelines used that same language for the FISA disclosures, AT&T's transparency report would presumably disclose that more than 80 million customers - that would be all of AT&T's customers - had been spied upon.
The end result, observes Kevin Bankston, the policy director of the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute, is that Obama's so-called reform has spawned a misleading report that provides false comfort to AT&T customers - and all Americans.
"Not only is this a complete failure when it comes to providing transparency around bulk data being handed over," Bankston says, "it is affirmatively misleading to the average reader of the transparency report who would conclude that no bulk data handover ever happened."
© 2014 Reader Supported News
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
US support for regime change in Venezuela is a mistake
US support for regime change in Venezuela is a mistake
The US push to topple the Venezuelan government of Nicolas Maduro once again pits Washington against South America
Mark Weisbrot
theguardian.com, Tuesday 18 February 2014 07.30 EST
A student takes part in a protest against Nicolas Maduro's government in Caracas, Venezuela on 4 February 2014. Photograph: Jorge Silva/Reuters
When is it considered legitimate to try and overthrow a democratically-elected government? In Washington, the answer has always been simple: when the US government says it is. Not surprisingly, that's not the way Latin American governments generally see it.
On Sunday, the Mercosur governments (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Venezuela) released a statement on the past week's demonstrations in Venezuela. They described "the recent violent acts" in Venezuela as "attempts to destabilize the democratic order". They made it abundantly clear where they stood.
The governments stated:
their firm commitment to the full observance of democratic institutions and, in this context, [they] reject the criminal actions of violent groups that want to spread intolerance and hatred in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as a political tool.
We may recall that when much larger demonstrations rocked Brazil last year, there were no statements from Mercosur or neighboring governments. That's not because they didn't love President Dilma Rousseff; it's because these demonstrations did not seek to topple Brazil's democratically-elected government.
The Obama administration was a bit more subtle, but also made it clear where it stood. When Secretary of State John Kerry states that "We are particularly alarmed by reports that the Venezuelan government has arrested or detained scores of anti-government protestors," he is taking a political position. Because there were many protestors who committed crimes: they attacked and injured police with chunks of concrete and Molotov cocktails; they burned cars, trashed and sometimes set fire to government buildings; and committed other acts of violence and vandalism.
An anonymous State Department spokesman was even clearer last week, when he responded to the protests by expressing concern about the government's "weakening of democratic institutions in Venezuela", and said that there was an obligation for "government institutions [to] respond effectively to the legitimate economic and social needs of its citizens". He was joining the opposition's efforts to de-legitimize the government, a vital part of any "regime change" strategy.
Of course we all know who the US government supports in Venezuela. They don't really try to hide it: there's $5m in the 2014 US federal budget for funding opposition activities inside Venezuela, and this is almost certainly the tip of the iceberg – adding to the hundreds of millions of dollars of overt support over the past 15 years.
But what makes these current US statements important, and angers governments in the region, is that they are telling the Venezuelan opposition that Washington is once again backing regime change. Kerry did the same thing in April of last year when Maduro was elected president and opposition presidential candidate Henrique Capriles claimed that the election was stolen. Kerry refused to recognize the election results. Kerry's aggressive, anti-democratic posture brought such a strong rebuke from South American governments that he was forced to reverse course and tacitly recognize the Maduro government. (For those who did not follow these events, there was no doubt about the election results.)
Kerry's recognition of the election results put an end to the opposition's attempt to de-legitimize the elected government. After Maduro's party won municipal elections by a wide margin in December, the opposition was pretty well defeated. Inflation was running at 56% and there were widespread shortages of consumer goods, yet a solid majority had still voted for the government. Their choice could not be attributed to the personal charisma of Hugo Chávez, who died nearly a year ago; nor was it irrational. Although the past year or so has been rough, the past 11 years – since the government got control over the oil industry – have brought large gains in living standards to the majority of Venezuelans who were previously marginalized and excluded.
There were plenty of complaints about the government and the economy, but the rich, right-wing politicians who led the opposition did not reflect their values nor inspire their trust.
Opposition leader Leopoldo López – competing with Capriles for leadership –has portrayed the current demonstrations as something that could force Maduro from office. It was obvious that there was, and remains, no peaceful way that this could happen. As University of Georgia professor David Smilde has argued, the government has everything to lose from violence in the demonstrations, and the opposition has something to gain.
By the past weekend Capriles, who was initially wary of a potentially violent "regime change" strategy – was apparently down with program. According to Bloomberg News, he accused the government of "infiltrating the peaceful protests "to convert them into centers of violence and suppression".
Meanwhile, López is taunting Maduro on Twitter after the government made the mistake of threatening to arrest him: "Don't you have the guts to arrest me?" he tweeted on 14 February:
Hopefully the government will not take the bait. US support for regime change undoubtedly inflames the situation, since Washington has so much influence within the opposition and, of course, in the hemispheric media.
It took a long time for the opposition to accept the results of democratic elections in Venezuela. They tried a military coup, backed by the US in 2002; when that failed they tried to topple the government with an oil strike. They lost an attempt to recall the president in 2004 and cried foul; then they boycotted National Assembly elections for no reason the following year. The failed attempt to de-legitimize last April's presidential election was a return to this dark but not-so-distant past. It remains to be seen how far they will go this time to win by other means what they have not been able to win at the ballot box, and how long they will have Washington's support for regime change in Venezuela.
© 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
The US push to topple the Venezuelan government of Nicolas Maduro once again pits Washington against South America
Mark Weisbrot
theguardian.com, Tuesday 18 February 2014 07.30 EST
A student takes part in a protest against Nicolas Maduro's government in Caracas, Venezuela on 4 February 2014. Photograph: Jorge Silva/Reuters
When is it considered legitimate to try and overthrow a democratically-elected government? In Washington, the answer has always been simple: when the US government says it is. Not surprisingly, that's not the way Latin American governments generally see it.
On Sunday, the Mercosur governments (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Venezuela) released a statement on the past week's demonstrations in Venezuela. They described "the recent violent acts" in Venezuela as "attempts to destabilize the democratic order". They made it abundantly clear where they stood.
The governments stated:
their firm commitment to the full observance of democratic institutions and, in this context, [they] reject the criminal actions of violent groups that want to spread intolerance and hatred in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as a political tool.
We may recall that when much larger demonstrations rocked Brazil last year, there were no statements from Mercosur or neighboring governments. That's not because they didn't love President Dilma Rousseff; it's because these demonstrations did not seek to topple Brazil's democratically-elected government.
The Obama administration was a bit more subtle, but also made it clear where it stood. When Secretary of State John Kerry states that "We are particularly alarmed by reports that the Venezuelan government has arrested or detained scores of anti-government protestors," he is taking a political position. Because there were many protestors who committed crimes: they attacked and injured police with chunks of concrete and Molotov cocktails; they burned cars, trashed and sometimes set fire to government buildings; and committed other acts of violence and vandalism.
An anonymous State Department spokesman was even clearer last week, when he responded to the protests by expressing concern about the government's "weakening of democratic institutions in Venezuela", and said that there was an obligation for "government institutions [to] respond effectively to the legitimate economic and social needs of its citizens". He was joining the opposition's efforts to de-legitimize the government, a vital part of any "regime change" strategy.
Of course we all know who the US government supports in Venezuela. They don't really try to hide it: there's $5m in the 2014 US federal budget for funding opposition activities inside Venezuela, and this is almost certainly the tip of the iceberg – adding to the hundreds of millions of dollars of overt support over the past 15 years.
But what makes these current US statements important, and angers governments in the region, is that they are telling the Venezuelan opposition that Washington is once again backing regime change. Kerry did the same thing in April of last year when Maduro was elected president and opposition presidential candidate Henrique Capriles claimed that the election was stolen. Kerry refused to recognize the election results. Kerry's aggressive, anti-democratic posture brought such a strong rebuke from South American governments that he was forced to reverse course and tacitly recognize the Maduro government. (For those who did not follow these events, there was no doubt about the election results.)
Kerry's recognition of the election results put an end to the opposition's attempt to de-legitimize the elected government. After Maduro's party won municipal elections by a wide margin in December, the opposition was pretty well defeated. Inflation was running at 56% and there were widespread shortages of consumer goods, yet a solid majority had still voted for the government. Their choice could not be attributed to the personal charisma of Hugo Chávez, who died nearly a year ago; nor was it irrational. Although the past year or so has been rough, the past 11 years – since the government got control over the oil industry – have brought large gains in living standards to the majority of Venezuelans who were previously marginalized and excluded.
There were plenty of complaints about the government and the economy, but the rich, right-wing politicians who led the opposition did not reflect their values nor inspire their trust.
Opposition leader Leopoldo López – competing with Capriles for leadership –has portrayed the current demonstrations as something that could force Maduro from office. It was obvious that there was, and remains, no peaceful way that this could happen. As University of Georgia professor David Smilde has argued, the government has everything to lose from violence in the demonstrations, and the opposition has something to gain.
By the past weekend Capriles, who was initially wary of a potentially violent "regime change" strategy – was apparently down with program. According to Bloomberg News, he accused the government of "infiltrating the peaceful protests "to convert them into centers of violence and suppression".
Meanwhile, López is taunting Maduro on Twitter after the government made the mistake of threatening to arrest him: "Don't you have the guts to arrest me?" he tweeted on 14 February:
Hopefully the government will not take the bait. US support for regime change undoubtedly inflames the situation, since Washington has so much influence within the opposition and, of course, in the hemispheric media.
It took a long time for the opposition to accept the results of democratic elections in Venezuela. They tried a military coup, backed by the US in 2002; when that failed they tried to topple the government with an oil strike. They lost an attempt to recall the president in 2004 and cried foul; then they boycotted National Assembly elections for no reason the following year. The failed attempt to de-legitimize last April's presidential election was a return to this dark but not-so-distant past. It remains to be seen how far they will go this time to win by other means what they have not been able to win at the ballot box, and how long they will have Washington's support for regime change in Venezuela.
© 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
Exxon CEO Joins Anti-Fracking Lawsuit After Drilling Threatens His Property Value
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Salon.com / By Lindsay Abrams [1]
Exxon CEO Joins Anti-Fracking Lawsuit After Drilling Threatens His Property Value
February 22, 2014 |
Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson is involved in a legal battle over fracking. The weird part is, he’s on the side that’s against it.
Don’t worry, Tillerson hasn’t changed his “Drill, baby, drill” mentality or had a change of heart about the evils of regulatory oversight in general. He’s just worried about the effect that drilling is going to have where he lives. Specifically, he wants to block the construction of a 160-foot water tower next to his home in Bartonville, Texas, which would provide water for nearby fracking operations. In order to do so, The Wall Street Journal reports [2], he’s signed onto a lawsuit that details the many unsavory consequences of fracking:
[
Tillerson] and his neighbors had filed suit to block the tower, saying it is illegal and would create “a noise nuisance and traffic hazards,” in part because it would provide water for use in hydraulic fracturing. Fracking, which requires heavy trucks to haul and pump massive amounts of water, unlocks oil and gas from dense rock and has helped touch off a surge in U.S. energy output.
…While the lawsuit [3]Mr. Tillerson joined cites the side effects of fracking, a lawyer representing the Exxon CEO said he hadn’t complained about such disturbances. “I have other clients who were concerned about the potential for noise and traffic problems, but he’s never expressed that to me or anyone else,” said Michael Whitten, who runs a small law practice in Denton, Texas. Mr. Whitten said Mr. Tillerson’s primary concern is that his property value would be harmed.
An Exxon spokesman said Mr. Tillerson declined to comment. The company “has no involvement in the legal matter” and its directors weren’t told of Mr. Tillerson’s participation, the spokesman said.
When he’s wearing his CEO of a Major Oil Company hat, Climate Progress points out [4], Tillerson’s views on fracking have been quite different. “This type of dysfunctional regulation is holding back the American economic recovery, growth, and global competitiveness,” he said in 2012 [5] of attempts to increase oversight of drilling operations.
“There are important questions about the things that people worry about, and we have an obligation to address them, and we devote a tremendous amount of effort in addressing those,” he’s also said [6] of public concerns about drilling. But “as long as we as an industry follow good engineering practices and standards, these risks are entirely manageable.” It’s all just a matter of perspective.
See more stories tagged with:
fracking [7],
anti-fracking [8],
rex tillerson [9],
exxon mobil [10],
drilling [11],
GAS AND OIL [12]
________________________________________
Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/environment/exxon-ceo-joins-anti-fracking-lawsuit-after-drilling-threatens-his-property-value
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/lindsay-abrams
[2] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304899704579391181466603804?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304899704579391181466603804.html
[3] http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/water20140220.pdf
[4] http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/21/3316881/exxon-ceo-protests-fracking/
[5] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/09/us-ceraweek-exxon-tillerson-idUSBRE82810B20120309
[6] http://grist.org/climate-energy/stand-back-im-going-to-try-science-inside-the-brain-of-exxonmobils-ceo/
[7] http://www.alternet.org/tags/fracking-0
[8] http://www.alternet.org/tags/anti-fracking
[9] http://www.alternet.org/tags/rex-tillerson
[10] http://www.alternet.org/tags/exxon-mobil-0
[11] http://www.alternet.org/tags/drilling-0
[12] http://www.alternet.org/tags/gas-and-oil
[13] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
Salon.com / By Lindsay Abrams [1]
Exxon CEO Joins Anti-Fracking Lawsuit After Drilling Threatens His Property Value
February 22, 2014 |
Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson is involved in a legal battle over fracking. The weird part is, he’s on the side that’s against it.
Don’t worry, Tillerson hasn’t changed his “Drill, baby, drill” mentality or had a change of heart about the evils of regulatory oversight in general. He’s just worried about the effect that drilling is going to have where he lives. Specifically, he wants to block the construction of a 160-foot water tower next to his home in Bartonville, Texas, which would provide water for nearby fracking operations. In order to do so, The Wall Street Journal reports [2], he’s signed onto a lawsuit that details the many unsavory consequences of fracking:
[
Tillerson] and his neighbors had filed suit to block the tower, saying it is illegal and would create “a noise nuisance and traffic hazards,” in part because it would provide water for use in hydraulic fracturing. Fracking, which requires heavy trucks to haul and pump massive amounts of water, unlocks oil and gas from dense rock and has helped touch off a surge in U.S. energy output.
…While the lawsuit [3]Mr. Tillerson joined cites the side effects of fracking, a lawyer representing the Exxon CEO said he hadn’t complained about such disturbances. “I have other clients who were concerned about the potential for noise and traffic problems, but he’s never expressed that to me or anyone else,” said Michael Whitten, who runs a small law practice in Denton, Texas. Mr. Whitten said Mr. Tillerson’s primary concern is that his property value would be harmed.
An Exxon spokesman said Mr. Tillerson declined to comment. The company “has no involvement in the legal matter” and its directors weren’t told of Mr. Tillerson’s participation, the spokesman said.
When he’s wearing his CEO of a Major Oil Company hat, Climate Progress points out [4], Tillerson’s views on fracking have been quite different. “This type of dysfunctional regulation is holding back the American economic recovery, growth, and global competitiveness,” he said in 2012 [5] of attempts to increase oversight of drilling operations.
“There are important questions about the things that people worry about, and we have an obligation to address them, and we devote a tremendous amount of effort in addressing those,” he’s also said [6] of public concerns about drilling. But “as long as we as an industry follow good engineering practices and standards, these risks are entirely manageable.” It’s all just a matter of perspective.
See more stories tagged with:
fracking [7],
anti-fracking [8],
rex tillerson [9],
exxon mobil [10],
drilling [11],
GAS AND OIL [12]
________________________________________
Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/environment/exxon-ceo-joins-anti-fracking-lawsuit-after-drilling-threatens-his-property-value
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/lindsay-abrams
[2] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304899704579391181466603804?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304899704579391181466603804.html
[3] http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/water20140220.pdf
[4] http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/21/3316881/exxon-ceo-protests-fracking/
[5] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/09/us-ceraweek-exxon-tillerson-idUSBRE82810B20120309
[6] http://grist.org/climate-energy/stand-back-im-going-to-try-science-inside-the-brain-of-exxonmobils-ceo/
[7] http://www.alternet.org/tags/fracking-0
[8] http://www.alternet.org/tags/anti-fracking
[9] http://www.alternet.org/tags/rex-tillerson
[10] http://www.alternet.org/tags/exxon-mobil-0
[11] http://www.alternet.org/tags/drilling-0
[12] http://www.alternet.org/tags/gas-and-oil
[13] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
Baltimore Activist Alert - Feb. 24-25, 2014
Baltimore Activist Alert Feb. 24 – Mar. 2, 2014
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours.
The initiative to stop it must be ours." - Martin Luther King Jr.
Friends, this list and other email documents which I send out are done under the auspices of the Baltimore Nonviolence Center. Go to www.baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com. If you appreciate this information and would like to make a donation, send contributions to BNC, 325 East 25th Street, Baltimore, MD 21218. Max Obuszewski can be reached at 410-366-1637 or mobuszewski [at] verizon.net.
Tune into the Maryland Progressive Blog at http://mdprogblog.org.
1] Books, buttons & stickers
2] Web site for info on federal legislation
3] Join Nonviolent Resistance lists
4] Buy coffee through HoCoFoLa
5] Marc Steiner on WEAA – Feb. 24 – Feb. 28
6] Understanding Islamic Law – Feb. 24 - 26
7] CEO-Worker Pay Ratios – Feb. 24
8] End Gun Violence – Feb. 24
9] Progressive Summit – Feb. 24
10] Israeli Apartheid Week – Feb. 24 – Mar. 2
11] Film ARISE – Feb. 24
12] Africa & the Struggle Against Imperialism – Feb. 24
13] “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” – Feb. 24
14] Shale Gas Drilling Safety Review Act – Feb. 25 & 28
15] Philadelphia Peace Vigil – Feb. 25
16] Protest JHU’s drone research – Feb. 25
17] Film THE WAY BACK – Feb. 25
18] "Mighty Times: The Children's March" – Feb. 25
19] Film THE SQUARE – Feb. 25
20] Film “Salt of this Sea” – Feb. 25
-----
1] – Buttons, bumperstickers and books are available. “God Bless the Whole World, No Exceptions” stickers are in stock. Donate your books to Max. Call him at 410-366-1637.
2] – To obtain information how your federal legislators voted on particular bills, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/. Congressional toll-free numbers are 888-818-6641, 888-355-3588 or 800-426-8073. The White House Comment Email is accessible at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/.
3] – THE ORGANIZING LIST will be the primary decision-making mechanism of the National Campaign of Nonviolent Resistance [NCNR]. It will be augmented by conference calls and possibly in-person meetings as needed. It will consist of 1 or 2 representatives from each local, regional, or national organization (not coalitions) that wishes to actively work to carry out the NCNR campaign of facilitating and organizing nonviolent resistance to the war in Iraq. To join the ORGANIZING List, please send your name, group affiliation, city and email address to mobuszewski at Verizon dot net. Different local chapters of a national organization are encouraged to subscribe.
THE NOTICES LIST will include only notices of NCNR actions and related information and is open to any interested person to subscribe. It will be moderated to maintain focus & will include periodic notices about getting involved in NCNR national organizing. To join the NOTICES List, send an email message to mobuszewski at Verizon dot net.
4] – You can help safeguard human rights and fragile ecosystems through your purchase of HOCOFOLA Café Quetzal. Bags of ground coffee or whole beans can be ordered by mailing in an order form. Also note organic cocoa and sugar are for sale. For more details and to download the order form, go to http://friendsoflatinamerica.typepad.com/hocofola/2010/02/hocofola-cafe-quetzal-order-form-2010.html. The coffee comes in one-pound bags.
Fill out the form and mail it with a check made out to HOCOFOLA on or before the second week of the month. Be sure you indicate ground or beans for each type of coffee ordered. Send it to Adela Hirsch, 5358 Eliots Oak Rd., Columbia, MD 21044. Be sure you indicate ground (G) or bean (B) for each type of coffee ordered. The coffee will arrive some time the following week and you will be notified where to pick it up. Contact Adela at 410-997-5662 or via e-mail at adela4peace@verizon.net.
5] – The Marc Steiner Show airs Monday through Friday from 9 to 11 AM on WEAA 88.9 FM, The Voice of the Community, or online at www.weaa.org. The call-in number is 410-319-8888, and comments can also be sent by email to steinershow@gmail.com. All shows are also available as podcasts at www.steinershow.org.
6] – The latest USIP Academy course is Understanding Islamic Law from Mon., Feb. 24 at 9 AM through Wed., Feb. 26 at 5 PM at the United States Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Ave. Though often maligned and misunderstood, Islamic law is one of the longest enduring and most widely subscribed systems of law in the world. Participants will also gain an in-depth understanding of selected aspects of Islamic constitutionalism, Islamic criminal law, and how classical and contemporary Islamic law comports with international human rights law. Go to http://www.usip.org/events/understanding-islamic-law.
7] – Get over to CEO-Worker Pay Ratios: Cutting-Edge Campaigns on a Critical Inequality Battleground on Mon., Feb. 24 from 10 to 11:30 AM at the Institute for Policy Studies Conference Room, 1112 16th St. NW, Suite 600. This is a discussion on the widening pay gaps on the global political stage and how promising initiatives can be built to narrow this economic divide. See http://www.ips-dc.org/events/ceo-worker_pay_ratios_the_next_executive_compensation_battleground.
8] – On Mon., Feb. 24 from 4 to 5 PM, End Gun Violence! Join the Washington Chapter of Heeding God’s Call at their second and fourth Monday of the month vigil at REALCO Guns, 6108 Marlboro Pike, District Heights, MD 20747. This is an effort to convince the gun shop owner to sign the 10-Point Code for responsible gun dealers based on the one signed with Wal-Mart by Mayors against Illegal Guns. According to the Post, Realco Guns in District Heights sold 86 guns linked to homicides within the last twenty years with 300 guns sold there being linked to non-fatal shootings, as of 2010. In that article Major Andy Ellis of the Prince George’s (MD) Police Department is quoted as saying, “I can only imagine how much lower our violent-crime rate would be if Realco sold shoes instead of guns.” See http://www.heedinggodscall.org/.
9] – You're cordially invited to the Progressive Summit in Annapolis with Maryland PDA and other progressive activists on Mon. Feb. 24 from 5 to 7 PM. Discuss legislation with state senators and delegates at the 4th Annual Progressive Summit. Go to the Maryland House of Delegates Office Building, Ways and Means Hearing Room, 6 Bladen St., Annapolis 21401. You can pay to park at the Navy Stadium, Rowe & Taylor, (Gate 5). Pay to park there, and then take the $2 shuttle. Many of the most important decisions for our families and communities are made at the state level. Discuss ways we can support pending legislation to raise the minimum wage, protect our rights and environment, invest in jobs creation and much more. Go to http://www.pdamerica.org. Join FOC, MoveOn, PDA and many other organizations discussing legislation with Maryland State Senators and Delegates. You MUST bring a photo ID to gain access to the House of Delegates Office building. Please RSVP on the PDA website:
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/1987/p/salsa/event/common/public/?event_KEY=76020.
10] – Be at the Israeli Apartheid Week from Mon., Feb. 24 at 6 PM through Sun., Mar. 2 at 11:45 PM at American University, 4400 Massachusetts Ave. NW. The events are hosted by the AU Students for Justice in Palestine. On Feb. 24 at 6 PM, hear a talk on Gaza with Eva Bartlett in Ward 104. On Feb. 25 see a screening of "Salt of This Sea" at 7:30 PM in Ward 1. On the 26th, catch the discussion on the Academic Boycott with an AU American Studies Association member at 5:30 PM in Ward 1. On the 27th, there is a- panel discussion on South Africa, Apartheid Israel, and the BDS Movement at 8 PM in Ward 1. On the 28th, enjoy a poetry performance and Q & A with Remi Kanazi. The time and location are to be announced. Finally, on Mar. 2, boycott the AIPAC 2014 conviction at 2 PM. See https://www.facebook.com/events/436693696459844/). Also check out https://www.facebook.com/events/653416314724047/654110544654624/.
11] – Beyond the Classroom presents ARISE on Mon., Feb. 24 at 7 PM at Calvert Hall, 1102 South Campus Commons, Building 1, University of Maryland, College Park 20742. This documentary captures the portraits and stories of extraordinary women around the world who are coming together to heal the injustices against the earth, weaves together poetry, music, art and stunning scenery to create a hopeful and collective story that inspires us to work for the earth. Narrated by actress and environmental activist Daryl Hannah, it is an ethnographic study of women from around the world who share a profound intellectual and spiritual understanding of what it takes to live in harmony with the environment. See http://www.beyondtheclassroom.umd.edu/.
12] – Africa & the Struggle Against Imperialism will be discussed on Mon., Feb. 24 at 7 PM at 2011 North Charles St., 1st Floor, Baltimore. From Libya to South Africa, to Egypt, South Sudan and beyond, endless imperialist exploitation and militarization is occurring in Africa. What is the role of the U.S. and other western countries across Africa? What is the political balance of forces? Why is self-determination crucial for people across Africa? How does one help these struggles to defeat imperialism from within the U.S.? Join Baltimore Workers World Party for the discussion. Call 443.221.3775.
13] – On Mon., Feb. 24 at 7:30 at the Washington National Cathedral, 3101 Wisconsin Ave. NW, WDC 20016 (Cathedral Nave), there will be a panel discussion - the Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” – with civil rights leader Julian Bond, Yale law professor Stephen L. Carter, Washington National Cathedral Dean Gary Hall, and U.S. Poet Laureate Natasha Trethewey. The discussion will be moderated by Aspen Institute President and CEO Walter Isaacson. Tickets are $5 to $15. RSVP at http://www.nationalcathedral.org/events/Aspen20140224.shtml?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Aspen%202014%20-%20General%20(1)&utm_content=#.Uvj8kUJdU00.
14] – The Shale Gas Drilling Safety Review Act of 2014 [SB0745] will be heard in the Education, Health, & Environmental Affairs Committee on Tues., Feb. 25 at 1 PM. Senators Young, Pinsky, and Montgomery are co-sponsors and on the committee. The chair is Joan Carter Conway from District 43 – Baltimore. The Shale Gas Drilling Safety Review Act of 2014 [HB1122] will be heard in the Environmental Matters Committee on February 28 at 1 PM. Heather Mizeur is one of the main sponsors, but is not on this committee. Eleven of the co-sponsors are on the committee (out of 24) and Maggie McIntosh, a strong supporter of environmental issues, is the chair (from Dist 43-Baltimore).
The legislation will temporarily prevent state agencies from issuing fracking permits in Maryland until studies required by Executive Order are completed to assess human and environmental risk, that 18 months must have passed since the completion of the studies during which time drilling companies may not begin baseline testing, and the Dept. of Environment must have adopted fracking regulations that are protective of public health and the environment.
15] – Each Tuesday from 4:30 - 5:30 PM, the Catholic Peace Fellowship-Philadelphia for peace in Afghanistan and Iraq gathers at the Suburban Station, 16th Street & JFK Blvd., at the entrance to Tracks 3 and 4 on the mezzanine. The next vigil is Feb. 25. Call 215-426-0364.
16] – Vigil to say "No Drone Research at JHU" each Tuesday at 34th & North Charles Sts. Join this ongoing vigil. The next vigil is Feb. 25 from 5:30 to 6:30 PM. Call Max at 410-366-1637.
17] – See the film “The Way Back” on Tues., Feb. 25 from 6 to 8 PM at Ward Building Room 2, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Ave. NW. Afterwards, there will be a discussion/Q&A with Polish Siberian deportation survivor who will share her remarkable story of survival and escape. Polish Refreshments will be served. Email psoeboard@gmail.com.
18] –There is a documentary screening & discussion of "Mighty Times: The Children's March" on Tues., Feb. 25 from 6:30 to 8:45 PM at the Mt. Pleasant Library, 3160 16th St. NW. For more than 50 years, the youth of this country have always stepped up for civil rights. The WIN Women of Color Network invite you to a look back and discussion about youth movements going forward. The film tells the story of young people in Birmingham who marched and helped turn the tide for civil rights in 1963. After the screening, our panel discussion will attempt to link the crusade in 1963 to current youth movements. Go to https://www.eventbrite.com/e/within-your-power-a-documentary-screening-discussion-of-the-childrens-march-tickets-9448951067.
19] – Don’t miss the documentary THE SQUARE on Tues., Feb. 25 from 7 to 9:30 at the Peace House, 1233 12th St. NW. The Egyptian Revolution has been an ongoing roller coaster over the past two and a half years. Through the news, we only get a glimpse of the bloodiest battle, an election, or a million man march. The film is an immersive experience, transporting the viewer deeply into the intense emotional drama and personal stories behind the news. It is the inspirational story of young people claiming their rights, struggling through multiple forces, in the fight to create a society of conscience. Go to https://www.facebook.com/events/481639301946640/.
20] – View the film “Salt of this Sea” on Tues., Feb. 25 at 7:30 PM at American University, Ward Building, Room 1, 4400 Massachusetts Ave. NW. Directed by Annemarie Jacir, this is an independent film which depicts Soraya, a working class Palestinian-American woman, and her troubling experiences when she goes to Israel. This screening is free of charge. View https://www.facebook.com/events/682581528472619/.
To be continued.
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/.
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
Reflections on the Defeat Suffered by the TN workers in Volkswagen
Published on Portside (https://portside.org)
Reflections on the Defeat Suffered by the TN Workers in Volkswagen
http://billfletcherjr.com/2014/reflections-defeat-suffered-tn-workers-volkswagen/
Bill Fletcher, Jr.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Bill FletcherJr.com
The election loss at the Chattanooga plant of VW was, first and foremost, a loss suffered by the workers. Secondarily it was a loss suffered by the United Auto Workers. The workers at that facility lost the chance to bargain collectively and to obtain a voice in their workplace. This was a loss that was mainly the result of the all-out right-wing offensive that took place in TN against the workers and their - the workers' - decision to seek representation. And, as is the case for all workers who lack collective bargaining (or the even rarer personal contract), they remain in a free-fire zone where they can be removed from their job for any reason or no reason as long as the reason does not violate statute. I am sorry; i just needed to cut to the chase.
Yet, we cannot stop there with our reflections on what transpired. This was a situation where the company - VW - agreed to be neutral and, in many ways, seemed to welcome the union. Nevertheless, by a relatively slim majority, the proponents of workers' rights did not prevail. This reality emphasizes the point that employer neutrality, while important, is insufficient. There are larger factors at stake when workers must make a decision on union representation, particularly in a period where labor unions have been under such vicious assault. The decision, in this case, of the Republican Party and others on the political Right to draw a line in the sand and go all out to intimidate the workforce is a case-in-point. The workers, their families and friends had to decide whether the threats coming from the political Right were genuine or just rhetoric. Given the history of anti-worker repression in the South, along with the on-going racist efforts to secure a `white bloc' against progress, the messages of the political Right came through loud and clear.
At the same time there was another factor that i found particularly striking. It was mentioned in an article on the election in the Washington Post yesterday (Monday). They indicated that within the anti-union vote there were those who were angered by the UAW's willingness to keep the wages and benefits of VW workers in TN `competitive.' This was particularly interesting because herein lay a critique of the UAW that may have surprised many people. The workers were saying that they did not want to guarantee to VW that their wages would stay below those of Chrysler, Ford or GM workers.
The UAW finds itself in a bind. For more than thirty years it has engaged in concessionary bargaining with employers under the banner of "jointness." Only a few years ago it approved a two-tier agreement by which the wage and benefit package for incoming workers would differ from veteran workers. Two-tier systems are by their very nature demoralizing and undermine any real sense of solidarity. They are also a poison pill that can kill the patient over time as the newer workers come to resent the benefits that they do not have, but which are held by the veteran workers. Jointness, two tier concessions and a failure - until relatively recently - to develop innovative approaches toward organizing auto "transplants" and auto parts manufacturers in the South have come back to bite the UAW, and to bite with fangs of steel.
The defeat in TN will lead some commentators to suggest that organizing in the South, or in any hostile environment, is pointless short of changes in labor law. Such conclusions, which we hear periodically, are ahistoric and defeatest. Yet there are sobering conclusions, or at least suggestions that must be considered. With all due respect, let me propose a few.
One, the UAW needs to build a local union in that TN plant. The fact that the election was lost should not mean that the union disappears. Rather, there is the notion that has become increasingly popular over the last 20 years of what are called "non-majority unions," that is, unions that are organized in a situation where they have not won majority status and, therefore, cannot bargain collectively, but where they can organize the workers and build alternative forms of representation. The UAW needs to make that commitment and flip the script.
Two, as is being attempted by the UAW in Mississippi, organizing must look very differently than in the past. The battle is not simply, only and some cases, mainly between the workers and the employer. In the case of Chattanooga, VW was not opposed to the union, for example. Yet in organizing a labor union we must be clear that this is and always has been about power - who has it and who does not. Thus, organizing a union really must be a community affair. It must be a matter that involves and engages not only the directly affected workers but also their families, friends and neighbors. The community must see in unionization an economic development strategy that makes sense. They must also see in unionization a strategy to fight back against the gross injustices that workers feel every day.
Three, grass roots political education and political action is key. The political Right mobilized its various forces against this unionization effort. Workers and their unions cannot sit back and await a Democratic Party response to such a travesty. Workers need locally-based political associations and organizations that can mobilize in order to both advance a progressive project but to also move against the political Right. Champions of workers rights must create a bit of mischief thereby destabilizing our opponents. That ranges from an active presence in the media to legislative initiatives that advance workers' rights to electoral campaigns against the demons who wish to keep the workers in bondage.
Four, and this is a difficult one, the UAW will need to look at itself. The UAW is not by itself in this challenge, i might add. Today's unions were constructed in a very different environment. In many cases they are led - at the national and local levels - by very sincere individuals who continue to fight the `last war.' In the case of the UAW, the leaders and members probably need to seize this time to reflect on the strategy of jointness; on two-tier systems; on their failure to take an aggressive approach to organizing the auto parts industry; and why it has taken so long to make a serious and on-going effort to unionize the South. Such a discussion will be complicated and painful, but in the absence of such an examination, the UAW will continue to die the death of a thousand cuts. And, more importantly, workers in this country who so desperately need unionization, will continue to feel the boot of corporate America and their right-wing allies on our collective necks.
Source URL: https://portside.org/2014-02-22/reflections-defeat-suffered-tn-workers-volkswagen
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
Reflections on the Defeat Suffered by the TN Workers in Volkswagen
http://billfletcherjr.com/2014/reflections-defeat-suffered-tn-workers-volkswagen/
Bill Fletcher, Jr.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Bill FletcherJr.com
The election loss at the Chattanooga plant of VW was, first and foremost, a loss suffered by the workers. Secondarily it was a loss suffered by the United Auto Workers. The workers at that facility lost the chance to bargain collectively and to obtain a voice in their workplace. This was a loss that was mainly the result of the all-out right-wing offensive that took place in TN against the workers and their - the workers' - decision to seek representation. And, as is the case for all workers who lack collective bargaining (or the even rarer personal contract), they remain in a free-fire zone where they can be removed from their job for any reason or no reason as long as the reason does not violate statute. I am sorry; i just needed to cut to the chase.
Yet, we cannot stop there with our reflections on what transpired. This was a situation where the company - VW - agreed to be neutral and, in many ways, seemed to welcome the union. Nevertheless, by a relatively slim majority, the proponents of workers' rights did not prevail. This reality emphasizes the point that employer neutrality, while important, is insufficient. There are larger factors at stake when workers must make a decision on union representation, particularly in a period where labor unions have been under such vicious assault. The decision, in this case, of the Republican Party and others on the political Right to draw a line in the sand and go all out to intimidate the workforce is a case-in-point. The workers, their families and friends had to decide whether the threats coming from the political Right were genuine or just rhetoric. Given the history of anti-worker repression in the South, along with the on-going racist efforts to secure a `white bloc' against progress, the messages of the political Right came through loud and clear.
At the same time there was another factor that i found particularly striking. It was mentioned in an article on the election in the Washington Post yesterday (Monday). They indicated that within the anti-union vote there were those who were angered by the UAW's willingness to keep the wages and benefits of VW workers in TN `competitive.' This was particularly interesting because herein lay a critique of the UAW that may have surprised many people. The workers were saying that they did not want to guarantee to VW that their wages would stay below those of Chrysler, Ford or GM workers.
The UAW finds itself in a bind. For more than thirty years it has engaged in concessionary bargaining with employers under the banner of "jointness." Only a few years ago it approved a two-tier agreement by which the wage and benefit package for incoming workers would differ from veteran workers. Two-tier systems are by their very nature demoralizing and undermine any real sense of solidarity. They are also a poison pill that can kill the patient over time as the newer workers come to resent the benefits that they do not have, but which are held by the veteran workers. Jointness, two tier concessions and a failure - until relatively recently - to develop innovative approaches toward organizing auto "transplants" and auto parts manufacturers in the South have come back to bite the UAW, and to bite with fangs of steel.
The defeat in TN will lead some commentators to suggest that organizing in the South, or in any hostile environment, is pointless short of changes in labor law. Such conclusions, which we hear periodically, are ahistoric and defeatest. Yet there are sobering conclusions, or at least suggestions that must be considered. With all due respect, let me propose a few.
One, the UAW needs to build a local union in that TN plant. The fact that the election was lost should not mean that the union disappears. Rather, there is the notion that has become increasingly popular over the last 20 years of what are called "non-majority unions," that is, unions that are organized in a situation where they have not won majority status and, therefore, cannot bargain collectively, but where they can organize the workers and build alternative forms of representation. The UAW needs to make that commitment and flip the script.
Two, as is being attempted by the UAW in Mississippi, organizing must look very differently than in the past. The battle is not simply, only and some cases, mainly between the workers and the employer. In the case of Chattanooga, VW was not opposed to the union, for example. Yet in organizing a labor union we must be clear that this is and always has been about power - who has it and who does not. Thus, organizing a union really must be a community affair. It must be a matter that involves and engages not only the directly affected workers but also their families, friends and neighbors. The community must see in unionization an economic development strategy that makes sense. They must also see in unionization a strategy to fight back against the gross injustices that workers feel every day.
Three, grass roots political education and political action is key. The political Right mobilized its various forces against this unionization effort. Workers and their unions cannot sit back and await a Democratic Party response to such a travesty. Workers need locally-based political associations and organizations that can mobilize in order to both advance a progressive project but to also move against the political Right. Champions of workers rights must create a bit of mischief thereby destabilizing our opponents. That ranges from an active presence in the media to legislative initiatives that advance workers' rights to electoral campaigns against the demons who wish to keep the workers in bondage.
Four, and this is a difficult one, the UAW will need to look at itself. The UAW is not by itself in this challenge, i might add. Today's unions were constructed in a very different environment. In many cases they are led - at the national and local levels - by very sincere individuals who continue to fight the `last war.' In the case of the UAW, the leaders and members probably need to seize this time to reflect on the strategy of jointness; on two-tier systems; on their failure to take an aggressive approach to organizing the auto parts industry; and why it has taken so long to make a serious and on-going effort to unionize the South. Such a discussion will be complicated and painful, but in the absence of such an examination, the UAW will continue to die the death of a thousand cuts. And, more importantly, workers in this country who so desperately need unionization, will continue to feel the boot of corporate America and their right-wing allies on our collective necks.
Source URL: https://portside.org/2014-02-22/reflections-defeat-suffered-tn-workers-volkswagen
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Baltimore Activist Alert - Feb. 23-24, 2014
51] Vietnam Photograph Exhibit – through Feb. 23
52] Interfaith Council ‘s Interfaith Visitation Series – Feb. 23
53] Human Cost of Climate Change – Feb. 23
54] Why Animals Matter – Feb. 23
55] Peace and Pancakes – Feb. 23
56] Coffee Talk – Feb. 23
57] Baltimore Green Forum -- Feb. 23
58] Soul Kitchen Dinner Program -- Feb. 23
59] Let's Talk About Poland – Feb. 23
60] Film “The Trails of Muhammad Ali” – Feb. 23
61] Gaza Speaking Tour with Eva Bartlett -- Feb. 23
62] Pentagon Vigil – Feb. 24
63] Max is seeking a place to live
64] Ronda Cooperstein on social media
65] Sign up with Washington Peace Center
66] Join Fund Our Communities
67] Donate books, videos, DVDs and records
68] Do you need any book shelves or file cabinets?
69] Join Global Zero campaign
70] War Is Not the Answer signs for sale
71] Join Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil
-----
51] – An-My Lê's photographs come to the Baltimore Museum of Art's Front Room. 21 Black-and-white and color photographs explore the roles of the military and war, showing tensions between nature and human influence and machinery. The exhibit runs through Feb. 23 at the Baltimore Museum of Art, 10 Art Museum Drive. Call 443- 573-1700. Go to http://artbma.org.
52] – On Sun., Feb. 23 from 9 AM to noon, the Montgomery County Interfaith Council ‘s Interfaith Visitation Series will be at the Adelphi Friends Meeting House (Quakers), 2303 Metzerott Rd., Adelphi 20783--near New Hampshire Ave. and the 495 Capitol Beltway. To register, send an email to mcicmd@gmail.com.
53] – On Sun., Feb. 23 at 10:10 AM watch the live webcast of the Washington National Cathedral Sunday Forum. The conversation on the Human Cost of Climate Change continues with climate experts Robin Bronen and Alice Thomas. Go to http://www.nationalcathedral.org/events/20140222congoCC.shtml.
54] – Usually, the Baltimore Ethical Society, 306 W. Franklin St., Suite 102, Baltimore 21201-4661, meets on Sundays, and generally there is a speaker and discussion from 10:30 to noon. On Sun., Feb. 23, the platform address is “Why Animals Matter” with Hugh Taft-Morales. In honor of the birthday of Charles Darwin, Taft-Morales will explore the use and abuse of animals by homo sapiens. Non-human creatures serve as pets, are served on plates, and are strapped down for product testing. As guinea pigs and companions they are fundamental to our lives, but we rarely consider them independent of their value relative to human projects. Have they inherent worth? Hugh will discuss some recent studies in animal cognition that may surprise us and affect how we see our fellow inhabitants of planet earth. He joined the Baltimore Ethical Society as its professional leader in 2010, the same year he was certified by the American Ethical Union as an Ethical Culture Leader. Go to http://bmorethical.org/ or Twitter: @bmorethical or Facebook: http://fb.com/bmorethical/or email ask@bmorethical.org. Call 410-581-2322.
55] – Join the Kadampa Meditation Center for Peace and Pancakes on Sundays at 10:30 AM at KMC Maryland, 2937 North Charles St. All are invited to participate in guided meditation and chant praying for world peace. There will be a talk based on Buddhist thought followed by brunch. Call 410- 243-3837. Brunch is $5.
56] – Attend Coffee Talk with Casey McKeel on Sun., Feb. 23 at 1 PM at Red Emma's, 30 West North Ave., Baltimore 21201. Colombia is known around the world for its coffee production. Yet what most folks don't know is that very little of the coffee is sold within the country, and the farmers and producers who export the coffee receive only a fraction of what it sells for in the Global North. Thread Coffee co-founder McKeel spent the month of March visiting coffee farms in Colombia, researching coffee trade and its impacts on communities, and establishing a relationship with Fondo Paez, where Thread currently buys their Colombian coffee. Casey will share a photo report back and interviews with farmers, looking at the dynamics of coffee trade on the ground in Colombia. The presentation will be accompanied by a cupping of Thread's Colombian coffee. Call 410-230-0450 or email info@redemmas.org.
57] – The Baltimore Green Forum is meeting on Sun., Feb. 23 from 4 to 5:30 PM. This monthly environmental education and discussion forum also includes an optional affinity group meeting from 5:30 to 6:30 PM at the Maryland Presbyterian Church, 1105 Providence Road, Towson 21286. See http://www.mpchurch.org/About.htm. The topic is Haven't You Heard that "You Are What You Breathe?" The Importance of Indoor Air Quality Told from an Environmental Perspective will be addressed by Aisha Dorn, founder and CEO, Lifeline Environmental, LLC. All of her life, she has been breathing in all Baltimore City has to offer. After graduating from Northwestern High School she attended Baltimore City Community College where she studied Environmental Science. She then participated in The Baltimore Center for Green Careers. In 2012 she and her now husband, Marc Dorn, started Lifeline Environmental, LLC with a mission to put the customer’s needs first by creating sound solutions to environmental plights that interfere with the health, well-being, and productivity of their everyday life by using our business model of environmental stewardship.
The Purpose of the Baltimore Green Forum is to seek to improve the quality of all life in the greater Baltimore area. The contribution to this goal will be to gather monthly in order to discern the progress towards regional sustainability that has already been achieved. Discover the connections amidst the chaos of the movement and build a community of like-minded individuals. Donations to the Maryland Presbyterian Church are greatly appreciated. Go to www.baltimoregreenforum.org or email baltimoregreenforum@gmail.com or phone 410-554-0006.
The Baltimore Green Forum is co-sponsored by Simplicity Matters Earth Institute ~ Chesapeake Climate Action Network ~ Baltimore Green Currency Assn. - MD League of Conservation Voters Education Fund ~ Greater Baltimore Group of the Sierra Club - Heathcote Community ~ Retrofit Baltimore ~ Creation Care Group of the Presbytery of Baltimore and Interfaith Power and Light.
58] – The Soul Kitchen Dinner Program takes place on the fourth Sunday at 5 PM. Gimmie Shelter Productions, in conjunction with the Govans Presbyterian Church, is offering a catered dinner for the homeless and those in need at the church, 5828 York Road. Musicians and singers are needed to provide entertainment, and helping hands are needed to set up, serve, clean up, and perhaps give other volunteers a ride home. Call 410-435-9188.
59] – On Sun., Feb. 23 at 5 PM, hear Let's Talk About Poland - The Third Conversation, with Judith Kelly, FR. JERZY POPIELUSZKO AND HIS AMERICAN TRAVELS, at the Kosciusko Foundation, 2025 O St., NW, WDC 20036. Call 202-785-2320. Popiełuszko (September 14, 1947 - October 19, 1984) was a Roman Catholic priest from Poland associated with the Solidarity Union. He was murdered by three agents of the Polish Secret Police who were shortly thereafter tried and convicted of the murder. He has been recognized as a martyr by the Catholic Church and was beatified on June 6, 2010. This is a free event. An informal reception follows. Call 202-785-2320.
60] – See the film “The Trails of Muhammad Ali” on Sun., Feb. 23 from 5 to 7 PM at Busboys & Poets, 2021 14th St. NW. ITVS Community Cinema (DC) presents this documentary, which explores the extraordinary and complex life of the legendary athlete outside the boxing ring. Outspoken and passionate in his beliefs, Ali found himself in the crosshairs of conflicts concerning race, religion, and wartime dissent. Directed by Academy Award-nominated director Bill Siegel, the film examines how one of the most celebrated sports champions of the 20th century risked fame and fortune to follow his faith and conscience. The film will be followed by a Q&A with David Zirin, sports writer for The Nation and author of Game Over: How Politics Has Turned the Sports World Upside Down. Go to http://www.busboysandpoets.com/events/event/itvs-community-cinema-dc-presents-the-trials-of-muhammad-ali-a-film-by-bill.
61] – The Gaza Speaking Tour with Eva Bartlett is happening on Sun., Feb. 23 from 7 to 10 PM at the Peace House, 1233 12th St. NW. Having been active in Canada for a number of years in the pursuit of justice and peace for the Palestinian people, Eva will talk about Israeli brutality and the indiscriminate infliction of suffering on the people of Gaza. Her absolute solidarity, her desire to speak the truth of the human rights atrocities and widespread destruction of property perpetrated by the Israeli army all along the Gaza Strip, done with the silent complicity and financial support of the Canadian and U.S. governments and leaders, is an essential message that ordinary people need to hear and see in order that sufficient public moral outrage can be built and eventually become transformative, as it became in South Africa, we’re remembering in recent weeks with the death of Nelson Mandela, to overcome that apartheid regime. And it’s so hard to get in and out of Gaza that most activists have concentrated on the settlements and other policies related to the occupation in the West Bank, thus making her witness about Gaza even more important. Visit https://www.facebook.com/events/645207092209651/.
62] – There is a weekly Pentagon Peace Vigil from 7 to 8 AM on Mondays, since 1987, outside the Pentagon Metro stop. The next vigil is Mon., Feb. 24, and it is sponsored by the Dorothy Day Catholic Worker. Email artlaffin@hotmail.com or call 202-882-9649.
The vigil will be outside the Pentagon's south Metro entrance and in the designated "protest zone" behind bicycle fences across from the entrance to the Metro. By Metro, take Yellow Line and get out at the "Pentagon" stop. Do not go to the Pentagon City stop! Go up south escalators and turn left and walk across to protest area.
By car from D.C. area, take 395 South and get off at Exit 8A-Pentagon South Parking. Take slight right onto S. Rotary Rd. at end of ramp and right on S. Fern St. Then take left onto Army Navy Dr. You can "pay to park" on Army Navy Dr., and there is meter parking one block on right on Eads St. Payment for both of these spots begin at 8 AM. No cameras are allowed on Pentagon grounds. Restrooms are located inside Marriott Residence Inn on corner of S. Fern and Army Navy Dr. Email artlaffin@hotmail.com.
63] – Max is seeking a place to live. Let him know of any possibilities. He can be reached at 410-366-1637 or mobuszewski at verizon.dot net.
64] – Ronda Cooperstein has taken to social media, and is recording her opinion pieces on You Tube. Check out her Hollywood essay at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lzB6eRhces.
65] – The Washington Peace Center has a progressive calendar & activist alert! Consider signing up to receive its weekly email: info@washingtonpeacecenter.org.
66] – Fund Our Communities campaign is a grass roots movement to get support from local organizations and communities to work together with their local and state elected officials to pressure Congresspersons and senators to join with Congresspersons Barney Frank and Ron Paul, who have endorsed a 25% cut to the federal military budget. Bring home the savings to state and county governments to meet the local needs which are under tremendous budget pressures. Go to www.OurFunds.org.
67] – If you would like to get rid of books, videos, DVDs or records, contact Max at 410-366-1637 or mobuszewski at verizon.net.
68] – Can you use any book shelves? Can you use any file cabinets? Contact Max at 410-366-1637 or mobuszewski at verizon.net.
69] – Join an extraordinary global campaign for the elimination of nuclear weapons: http://www.globalzero.org/sign-declaration. A growing group of leaders around the world is calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons and a majority of the global public agrees. This is an historic window of opportunity. With momentum already building in favor of Zero, a major show of support from people around the world could tip the balance. When it comes to nuclear weapons, one is one too many.
70] – WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER signs from Friends Committee on National Legislation are again for sale at $5. To purchase a sign, call Max at 410-366-1637.
71] – Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil takes place every day in Lafayette Park, 1601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 24 hours a day, since June 3, 1981. Go to http://prop1.org; call 202-682-4282.
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/.
"One is called to live nonviolently, even if the change one works for seems impossible. It may or may not be possible to turn the US around through nonviolent revolution. But one thing favors such an attempt: the total inability of violence to change anything for the better" - Daniel Berrigan
52] Interfaith Council ‘s Interfaith Visitation Series – Feb. 23
53] Human Cost of Climate Change – Feb. 23
54] Why Animals Matter – Feb. 23
55] Peace and Pancakes – Feb. 23
56] Coffee Talk – Feb. 23
57] Baltimore Green Forum -- Feb. 23
58] Soul Kitchen Dinner Program -- Feb. 23
59] Let's Talk About Poland – Feb. 23
60] Film “The Trails of Muhammad Ali” – Feb. 23
61] Gaza Speaking Tour with Eva Bartlett -- Feb. 23
62] Pentagon Vigil – Feb. 24
63] Max is seeking a place to live
64] Ronda Cooperstein on social media
65] Sign up with Washington Peace Center
66] Join Fund Our Communities
67] Donate books, videos, DVDs and records
68] Do you need any book shelves or file cabinets?
69] Join Global Zero campaign
70] War Is Not the Answer signs for sale
71] Join Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil
-----
51] – An-My Lê's photographs come to the Baltimore Museum of Art's Front Room. 21 Black-and-white and color photographs explore the roles of the military and war, showing tensions between nature and human influence and machinery. The exhibit runs through Feb. 23 at the Baltimore Museum of Art, 10 Art Museum Drive. Call 443- 573-1700. Go to http://artbma.org.
52] – On Sun., Feb. 23 from 9 AM to noon, the Montgomery County Interfaith Council ‘s Interfaith Visitation Series will be at the Adelphi Friends Meeting House (Quakers), 2303 Metzerott Rd., Adelphi 20783--near New Hampshire Ave. and the 495 Capitol Beltway. To register, send an email to mcicmd@gmail.com.
53] – On Sun., Feb. 23 at 10:10 AM watch the live webcast of the Washington National Cathedral Sunday Forum. The conversation on the Human Cost of Climate Change continues with climate experts Robin Bronen and Alice Thomas. Go to http://www.nationalcathedral.org/events/20140222congoCC.shtml.
54] – Usually, the Baltimore Ethical Society, 306 W. Franklin St., Suite 102, Baltimore 21201-4661, meets on Sundays, and generally there is a speaker and discussion from 10:30 to noon. On Sun., Feb. 23, the platform address is “Why Animals Matter” with Hugh Taft-Morales. In honor of the birthday of Charles Darwin, Taft-Morales will explore the use and abuse of animals by homo sapiens. Non-human creatures serve as pets, are served on plates, and are strapped down for product testing. As guinea pigs and companions they are fundamental to our lives, but we rarely consider them independent of their value relative to human projects. Have they inherent worth? Hugh will discuss some recent studies in animal cognition that may surprise us and affect how we see our fellow inhabitants of planet earth. He joined the Baltimore Ethical Society as its professional leader in 2010, the same year he was certified by the American Ethical Union as an Ethical Culture Leader. Go to http://bmorethical.org/ or Twitter: @bmorethical or Facebook: http://fb.com/bmorethical/or email ask@bmorethical.org. Call 410-581-2322.
55] – Join the Kadampa Meditation Center for Peace and Pancakes on Sundays at 10:30 AM at KMC Maryland, 2937 North Charles St. All are invited to participate in guided meditation and chant praying for world peace. There will be a talk based on Buddhist thought followed by brunch. Call 410- 243-3837. Brunch is $5.
56] – Attend Coffee Talk with Casey McKeel on Sun., Feb. 23 at 1 PM at Red Emma's, 30 West North Ave., Baltimore 21201. Colombia is known around the world for its coffee production. Yet what most folks don't know is that very little of the coffee is sold within the country, and the farmers and producers who export the coffee receive only a fraction of what it sells for in the Global North. Thread Coffee co-founder McKeel spent the month of March visiting coffee farms in Colombia, researching coffee trade and its impacts on communities, and establishing a relationship with Fondo Paez, where Thread currently buys their Colombian coffee. Casey will share a photo report back and interviews with farmers, looking at the dynamics of coffee trade on the ground in Colombia. The presentation will be accompanied by a cupping of Thread's Colombian coffee. Call 410-230-0450 or email info@redemmas.org.
57] – The Baltimore Green Forum is meeting on Sun., Feb. 23 from 4 to 5:30 PM. This monthly environmental education and discussion forum also includes an optional affinity group meeting from 5:30 to 6:30 PM at the Maryland Presbyterian Church, 1105 Providence Road, Towson 21286. See http://www.mpchurch.org/About.htm. The topic is Haven't You Heard that "You Are What You Breathe?" The Importance of Indoor Air Quality Told from an Environmental Perspective will be addressed by Aisha Dorn, founder and CEO, Lifeline Environmental, LLC. All of her life, she has been breathing in all Baltimore City has to offer. After graduating from Northwestern High School she attended Baltimore City Community College where she studied Environmental Science. She then participated in The Baltimore Center for Green Careers. In 2012 she and her now husband, Marc Dorn, started Lifeline Environmental, LLC with a mission to put the customer’s needs first by creating sound solutions to environmental plights that interfere with the health, well-being, and productivity of their everyday life by using our business model of environmental stewardship.
The Purpose of the Baltimore Green Forum is to seek to improve the quality of all life in the greater Baltimore area. The contribution to this goal will be to gather monthly in order to discern the progress towards regional sustainability that has already been achieved. Discover the connections amidst the chaos of the movement and build a community of like-minded individuals. Donations to the Maryland Presbyterian Church are greatly appreciated. Go to www.baltimoregreenforum.org or email baltimoregreenforum@gmail.com or phone 410-554-0006.
The Baltimore Green Forum is co-sponsored by Simplicity Matters Earth Institute ~ Chesapeake Climate Action Network ~ Baltimore Green Currency Assn. - MD League of Conservation Voters Education Fund ~ Greater Baltimore Group of the Sierra Club - Heathcote Community ~ Retrofit Baltimore ~ Creation Care Group of the Presbytery of Baltimore and Interfaith Power and Light.
58] – The Soul Kitchen Dinner Program takes place on the fourth Sunday at 5 PM. Gimmie Shelter Productions, in conjunction with the Govans Presbyterian Church, is offering a catered dinner for the homeless and those in need at the church, 5828 York Road. Musicians and singers are needed to provide entertainment, and helping hands are needed to set up, serve, clean up, and perhaps give other volunteers a ride home. Call 410-435-9188.
59] – On Sun., Feb. 23 at 5 PM, hear Let's Talk About Poland - The Third Conversation, with Judith Kelly, FR. JERZY POPIELUSZKO AND HIS AMERICAN TRAVELS, at the Kosciusko Foundation, 2025 O St., NW, WDC 20036. Call 202-785-2320. Popiełuszko (September 14, 1947 - October 19, 1984) was a Roman Catholic priest from Poland associated with the Solidarity Union. He was murdered by three agents of the Polish Secret Police who were shortly thereafter tried and convicted of the murder. He has been recognized as a martyr by the Catholic Church and was beatified on June 6, 2010. This is a free event. An informal reception follows. Call 202-785-2320.
60] – See the film “The Trails of Muhammad Ali” on Sun., Feb. 23 from 5 to 7 PM at Busboys & Poets, 2021 14th St. NW. ITVS Community Cinema (DC) presents this documentary, which explores the extraordinary and complex life of the legendary athlete outside the boxing ring. Outspoken and passionate in his beliefs, Ali found himself in the crosshairs of conflicts concerning race, religion, and wartime dissent. Directed by Academy Award-nominated director Bill Siegel, the film examines how one of the most celebrated sports champions of the 20th century risked fame and fortune to follow his faith and conscience. The film will be followed by a Q&A with David Zirin, sports writer for The Nation and author of Game Over: How Politics Has Turned the Sports World Upside Down. Go to http://www.busboysandpoets.com/events/event/itvs-community-cinema-dc-presents-the-trials-of-muhammad-ali-a-film-by-bill.
61] – The Gaza Speaking Tour with Eva Bartlett is happening on Sun., Feb. 23 from 7 to 10 PM at the Peace House, 1233 12th St. NW. Having been active in Canada for a number of years in the pursuit of justice and peace for the Palestinian people, Eva will talk about Israeli brutality and the indiscriminate infliction of suffering on the people of Gaza. Her absolute solidarity, her desire to speak the truth of the human rights atrocities and widespread destruction of property perpetrated by the Israeli army all along the Gaza Strip, done with the silent complicity and financial support of the Canadian and U.S. governments and leaders, is an essential message that ordinary people need to hear and see in order that sufficient public moral outrage can be built and eventually become transformative, as it became in South Africa, we’re remembering in recent weeks with the death of Nelson Mandela, to overcome that apartheid regime. And it’s so hard to get in and out of Gaza that most activists have concentrated on the settlements and other policies related to the occupation in the West Bank, thus making her witness about Gaza even more important. Visit https://www.facebook.com/events/645207092209651/.
62] – There is a weekly Pentagon Peace Vigil from 7 to 8 AM on Mondays, since 1987, outside the Pentagon Metro stop. The next vigil is Mon., Feb. 24, and it is sponsored by the Dorothy Day Catholic Worker. Email artlaffin@hotmail.com or call 202-882-9649.
The vigil will be outside the Pentagon's south Metro entrance and in the designated "protest zone" behind bicycle fences across from the entrance to the Metro. By Metro, take Yellow Line and get out at the "Pentagon" stop. Do not go to the Pentagon City stop! Go up south escalators and turn left and walk across to protest area.
By car from D.C. area, take 395 South and get off at Exit 8A-Pentagon South Parking. Take slight right onto S. Rotary Rd. at end of ramp and right on S. Fern St. Then take left onto Army Navy Dr. You can "pay to park" on Army Navy Dr., and there is meter parking one block on right on Eads St. Payment for both of these spots begin at 8 AM. No cameras are allowed on Pentagon grounds. Restrooms are located inside Marriott Residence Inn on corner of S. Fern and Army Navy Dr. Email artlaffin@hotmail.com.
63] – Max is seeking a place to live. Let him know of any possibilities. He can be reached at 410-366-1637 or mobuszewski at verizon.dot net.
64] – Ronda Cooperstein has taken to social media, and is recording her opinion pieces on You Tube. Check out her Hollywood essay at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lzB6eRhces.
65] – The Washington Peace Center has a progressive calendar & activist alert! Consider signing up to receive its weekly email: info@washingtonpeacecenter.org.
66] – Fund Our Communities campaign is a grass roots movement to get support from local organizations and communities to work together with their local and state elected officials to pressure Congresspersons and senators to join with Congresspersons Barney Frank and Ron Paul, who have endorsed a 25% cut to the federal military budget. Bring home the savings to state and county governments to meet the local needs which are under tremendous budget pressures. Go to www.OurFunds.org.
67] – If you would like to get rid of books, videos, DVDs or records, contact Max at 410-366-1637 or mobuszewski at verizon.net.
68] – Can you use any book shelves? Can you use any file cabinets? Contact Max at 410-366-1637 or mobuszewski at verizon.net.
69] – Join an extraordinary global campaign for the elimination of nuclear weapons: http://www.globalzero.org/sign-declaration. A growing group of leaders around the world is calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons and a majority of the global public agrees. This is an historic window of opportunity. With momentum already building in favor of Zero, a major show of support from people around the world could tip the balance. When it comes to nuclear weapons, one is one too many.
70] – WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER signs from Friends Committee on National Legislation are again for sale at $5. To purchase a sign, call Max at 410-366-1637.
71] – Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil takes place every day in Lafayette Park, 1601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 24 hours a day, since June 3, 1981. Go to http://prop1.org; call 202-682-4282.
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/.
"One is called to live nonviolently, even if the change one works for seems impossible. It may or may not be possible to turn the US around through nonviolent revolution. But one thing favors such an attempt: the total inability of violence to change anything for the better" - Daniel Berrigan
Can Ukraine be Saved?
Can Ukraine be Saved?
By Yevhen Bystrytsky
Acrid black smoke hangs in the air and stings the eye in much of central Kyiv, where state repression is dampening hope of resolving Ukraine’s political crisis. With a truce between the government and the opposition shattered only hours after it came into effect, and with dozens of people reported killed in recent days, any hope for an end to the country’s deepening civil disorder appears to be fading fast.
Yes, a tentative settlement has been reached, following mediation by European Union foreign ministers, with a promise of early elections. But such settlements have been proposed before, and no agreement is likely to gain broad acceptance unless it includes the immediate departure of President Viktor Yanukovich.
In fact, Yanukovich’s government seems prepared to use any and all measures to remain in power. Taking a page from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s playbook, tax police are prosecuting civil-society organizations in the hope of cowing them into silence and irrelevance. Yet, despite such intimidation, Ukrainians from all walks of life have been protesting for three months in cities across the country.
Follow Project Syndicate on Facebook or Twitter. For more from Yevhen Bystrytsky, click here.
At its heart, this is a struggle between Ukraine’s European-oriented West and its Russian-fixated East for the country’s geopolitical soul. Will Ukraine move closer to the European Union or instead join the Russian-dominated Eurasian Union?
Despite the mounting violence, Ukraine is not on the verge of civil war – at least not yet. But make no mistake: the risk of the country – and its military – splintering is very real, as Yanukovich’s decision to sack Volodymyr Zamana, the head of the armed forces, attests. The conflict needs to be stopped now.
To achieve that, Ukraine needs a transitional government of experts and a new constitution that returns the country to the system that prevailed until a decade ago, with power divided between Parliament and the president. Moreover, a presidential election should be held within three months, with a new parliament voted in soon after.
But Yanukovich has shown that he does not want a negotiated solution. Until the recent surge in violence, it seemed that dialogue might defuse tensions. An amnesty for detained protesters was offered, and protesters agreed to withdraw from government buildings. But when demonstrators fulfilled their promise and evacuated occupied buildings, Yanukovich resorted to force in an effort to end the protests altogether.
Indeed, the police began firing into crowds of demonstrators, and have reportedly killed at least 70 and injured hundreds more. Hospitals are overflowing, and many people are avoiding state clinics, because they are afraid of being detained – or worse. The activist Yuri Verbitsky, a mathematical physicist, was abducted by five men in late January from a Kyiv hospital, where he had gone to seek treatment after being injured by a stun grenade at a demonstration. Verbitsky’s battered body was found the next day in a forest outside the city.
Any prospect for resolving the crisis ultimately depends on regaining citizens’ trust in their police and security forces, which are now viewed by many as an occupying force. To reestablish the public’s confidence, there can be no impunity for those who fired bullets or gave the orders to fire. Officials’ excessive use of force, and the government’s reliance on semi-criminal thugs (known as titushki) to attack protesters, must be thoroughly investigated.
But, even as the ongoing violence makes such an investigation all the more urgent, Ukraine’s prosecutor and courts refuse to act. That is why it is crucial that a high-level international mission – comprising civil-society leaders, the Council of Europe, and the European Union – launch a comprehensive inquiry and pressure Ukraine’s government to cooperate.
The EU and the United States have introduced diplomatic sanctions since the latest round of murderous violence began. This should include a travel ban not only on all officials who ordered, oversaw, or implemented the crackdown, but also on Yanukovich’s political enablers: the oligarchs who are now sitting on the sidelines while spiriting large sums of money out of the country.
Sanctions should be lifted only when a credible investigation into the last three months of violence is permitted and a technocratic government is in place (at which point the EU and its member states should offer concrete economic assistance). Prime Minister Mykola Azarov resigned last month, ostensibly to make way for such a solution. But Yanukovich has refused to take the next step, or to commit to constitutional reforms, which largely explains the protesters’ growing frustration – and their determination to press ahead in the face of brutal repression.
There is a perception in the West that all of Ukraine’s political forces are weak, divided, and corrupt. And there are growing concerns, often fueled by sensationalist media coverage, that far-right forces are gaining the upper hand within the opposition camp. But, though such forces do exist, the vast majority of demonstrators on the Maidans across the country are ordinary people angry about abuse of power, state violence, official impunity, and corruption.
For the venal and vicious elites who have taken control of Ukraine, the real threat is these demonstrators’ perseverance, not the provocations of a radical fringe. Indeed, while I refuse to believe that Ukraine’s march to civil war is unstoppable, I also know that our citizens will never be silenced again.
This article was published at NationofChange at: http://www.nationofchange.org/can-ukraine-be-saved-1393083480. All rights are reserved.
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
Court Convicts 8 in 2012 Protest Against Putin
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/world/europe/moscow-court-convicts-8-for-protest-in-2012.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20140222&_r=0
Court Convicts 8 in 2012 Protest Against Putin
By STEVEN LEE MYERSFEB. 21, 2014
Riot police officers detained protesters outside a Moscow court on Friday. Mikhail Listopadov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
MOSCOW — Eight people were convicted on Friday of taking part in a violent protest before the inauguration of President Vladimir V. Putin in 2012, after a prolonged trial that became a symbol of the Kremlin’s renewed stifling of political dissent.
Even before the judge read the verdicts, the police began detaining dozens of people who had gathered outside the courthouse in central Moscow, mindful that the convictions could provoke new outrage and protests against Mr. Putin’s tenure.
The verdicts came amid the political upheaval in Ukraine, which Mr. Putin’s critics here have watched with a mixture of surprise and envy, even as Russian officials have denounced it as an attempted coup by radicals.
After announcing the verdicts, the judge, Natalya Nikishina, suspended the rest of the hearing, postponing the sentencing until at least Monday. That means the sentences will be read after the closing ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Sochi, which officials here have gone to great lengths to portray as a symbol of a new, modern Russia.
The defendants were convicted of taking part in a violent protest before the inauguration of President Putin. Alexander Zemlianichenko/Associated Press
By the end of the day, at least 213 people had been detained by the police and loaded into buses, according to OVD-Info, a website that documents cases against political prisoners. A police spokesman told the news agency Interfax that those detained had violated the public order, but other protesters said the police had seemed to single out mostly young men for arrest. Most were detained for several hours and then released.
The arrests and the suspension of the hearing appeared to be an effort to head off a mass protest that had been planned for Friday night in the square abutting the Kremlin — one that could, as in Ukraine, overshadow the remaining days of the Olympics. Although Mr. Putin and his aides maintain that they exert no control over the judiciary, it is widely believed here that prosecutions are manipulated for political ends.
“I really hope that the sentence that is to be read will be a sentence for these defendants and not for the Maidan,” said Sergei Panchenko, a lawyer for one of those convicted, Stepan Zimin, referring to Independence Square in Kiev, which has been the center of the protests in Ukraine.
“I really hope that the people — or the person, who we all know, the one person who makes decisions for us — will have sense to issue a punishment having not been guided by his conceptions about what’s happening in a different country,” Mr. Panchenko added.
The eight convicted on Friday, seven men and one woman, went on trial last June and were charged with massing riot or assaulting police officers during a protest on May 6, 2012, the night before Mr. Putin’s return to the presidency for a third term after four years as prime minister. Hundreds were arrested, but a group of 29 faced the most serious charges for throwing rocks or chunks of asphalt, though lawyers and human rights advocates argued that the evidence remained murky.
Another of those convicted, Yaroslav G. Belousov, was shown in a video throwing a lemon, but it was not clear if it struck anyone.
The prosecution became known as the Bolotnaya case, after the name of the square across the Moscow River from the Kremlin where the protest took place. Along with the prosecution of members of the punk protest group Pussy Riot and of Aleksei A. Navalny, an anticorruption blogger who was convicted last year and given a suspended sentence, the Bolotnaya case reflected a hardening of Mr. Putin’s policies since returning to the presidency.
Some of the original 29 await trial, and some received amnesty in December as part of what many saw as an effort by the Kremlin to deflect criticism before the Olympics.
To the dismay of Mr. Putin’s critics, the Kremlin’s tactics, alternating between crackdown and selective leniency, have largely muted the groundswell of popular unrest that followed parliamentary elections in December 2011 and Mr. Putin’s re-election in March 2012.
“The Bolotnaya case is a stark example of political manipulation of justice in Russia,” Tanya Lokshina, the program director in Russia for Human Rights Watch, said on Friday in a statement that criticized the prosecution, the trial and the verdicts. “This disproportionate prosecution appears to be aimed at discouraging people from participating in public protests.”
Even so, several hundred people gathered outside the courthouse on Friday to await the verdict. They included opposition party leaders, Mr. Navalny and two members of Pussy Riot, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina. The two were released in December after spending two years in prison on hooliganism charges for performing a protest song in a Moscow cathedral, and they have since continued a campaign against Mr. Putin’s tenure.
Those gathered outside held or hung banners calling for the release of the eight defendants. Their chants of “freedom” and “shame” when the police moved to make arrests could be heard inside the courthouse as the verdicts were read. Ekaterina Barabanova, whose husband, Andrei Barabanov, was one of the defendants, was detained by the police but was released minutes later after a lawyer for her husband intervened.
“I wanted him to be home — that all of the guys would be home,” she said after the verdicts were announced. She lamented the delay in the sentencing, saying it appeared that the entire case had been dragged out. “But after today, it’s become ever less comprehensible.”
Patrick Reevell contributed reporting.
A version of this article appears in print on February 22, 2014, on page A4 of the New York edition with the headline: Moscow Court Convicts 8 in ’12 Protest Against Putin.
© 2014 The New York Times Company
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
Court Convicts 8 in 2012 Protest Against Putin
By STEVEN LEE MYERSFEB. 21, 2014
Riot police officers detained protesters outside a Moscow court on Friday. Mikhail Listopadov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
MOSCOW — Eight people were convicted on Friday of taking part in a violent protest before the inauguration of President Vladimir V. Putin in 2012, after a prolonged trial that became a symbol of the Kremlin’s renewed stifling of political dissent.
Even before the judge read the verdicts, the police began detaining dozens of people who had gathered outside the courthouse in central Moscow, mindful that the convictions could provoke new outrage and protests against Mr. Putin’s tenure.
The verdicts came amid the political upheaval in Ukraine, which Mr. Putin’s critics here have watched with a mixture of surprise and envy, even as Russian officials have denounced it as an attempted coup by radicals.
After announcing the verdicts, the judge, Natalya Nikishina, suspended the rest of the hearing, postponing the sentencing until at least Monday. That means the sentences will be read after the closing ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Sochi, which officials here have gone to great lengths to portray as a symbol of a new, modern Russia.
The defendants were convicted of taking part in a violent protest before the inauguration of President Putin. Alexander Zemlianichenko/Associated Press
By the end of the day, at least 213 people had been detained by the police and loaded into buses, according to OVD-Info, a website that documents cases against political prisoners. A police spokesman told the news agency Interfax that those detained had violated the public order, but other protesters said the police had seemed to single out mostly young men for arrest. Most were detained for several hours and then released.
The arrests and the suspension of the hearing appeared to be an effort to head off a mass protest that had been planned for Friday night in the square abutting the Kremlin — one that could, as in Ukraine, overshadow the remaining days of the Olympics. Although Mr. Putin and his aides maintain that they exert no control over the judiciary, it is widely believed here that prosecutions are manipulated for political ends.
“I really hope that the sentence that is to be read will be a sentence for these defendants and not for the Maidan,” said Sergei Panchenko, a lawyer for one of those convicted, Stepan Zimin, referring to Independence Square in Kiev, which has been the center of the protests in Ukraine.
“I really hope that the people — or the person, who we all know, the one person who makes decisions for us — will have sense to issue a punishment having not been guided by his conceptions about what’s happening in a different country,” Mr. Panchenko added.
The eight convicted on Friday, seven men and one woman, went on trial last June and were charged with massing riot or assaulting police officers during a protest on May 6, 2012, the night before Mr. Putin’s return to the presidency for a third term after four years as prime minister. Hundreds were arrested, but a group of 29 faced the most serious charges for throwing rocks or chunks of asphalt, though lawyers and human rights advocates argued that the evidence remained murky.
Another of those convicted, Yaroslav G. Belousov, was shown in a video throwing a lemon, but it was not clear if it struck anyone.
The prosecution became known as the Bolotnaya case, after the name of the square across the Moscow River from the Kremlin where the protest took place. Along with the prosecution of members of the punk protest group Pussy Riot and of Aleksei A. Navalny, an anticorruption blogger who was convicted last year and given a suspended sentence, the Bolotnaya case reflected a hardening of Mr. Putin’s policies since returning to the presidency.
Some of the original 29 await trial, and some received amnesty in December as part of what many saw as an effort by the Kremlin to deflect criticism before the Olympics.
To the dismay of Mr. Putin’s critics, the Kremlin’s tactics, alternating between crackdown and selective leniency, have largely muted the groundswell of popular unrest that followed parliamentary elections in December 2011 and Mr. Putin’s re-election in March 2012.
“The Bolotnaya case is a stark example of political manipulation of justice in Russia,” Tanya Lokshina, the program director in Russia for Human Rights Watch, said on Friday in a statement that criticized the prosecution, the trial and the verdicts. “This disproportionate prosecution appears to be aimed at discouraging people from participating in public protests.”
Even so, several hundred people gathered outside the courthouse on Friday to await the verdict. They included opposition party leaders, Mr. Navalny and two members of Pussy Riot, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina. The two were released in December after spending two years in prison on hooliganism charges for performing a protest song in a Moscow cathedral, and they have since continued a campaign against Mr. Putin’s tenure.
Those gathered outside held or hung banners calling for the release of the eight defendants. Their chants of “freedom” and “shame” when the police moved to make arrests could be heard inside the courthouse as the verdicts were read. Ekaterina Barabanova, whose husband, Andrei Barabanov, was one of the defendants, was detained by the police but was released minutes later after a lawyer for her husband intervened.
“I wanted him to be home — that all of the guys would be home,” she said after the verdicts were announced. She lamented the delay in the sentencing, saying it appeared that the entire case had been dragged out. “But after today, it’s become ever less comprehensible.”
Patrick Reevell contributed reporting.
A version of this article appears in print on February 22, 2014, on page A4 of the New York edition with the headline: Moscow Court Convicts 8 in ’12 Protest Against Putin.
© 2014 The New York Times Company
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
Did Nonviolence Fail in Egypt?
Published on Portside (https://portside.org)
Did Nonviolence Fail in Egypt?
http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/nonviolence-fail-egypt/
Mark Engler and Paul Engler
Friday, February 21, 2014
Waging Nonviolence
Three years ago this month, the 82-year-old president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, stepped down amid historic protests against his dictatorial rule. News of his resignation on Feb. 11, 2011 marked the climax of an uprising that was quickly recognized as one of the most sudden and significant upheavals of the 21st century.
As the New York Times reported, “The announcement, which comes after an 18-day revolt led by the young people of Egypt, shatters three decades of political stasis and overturns the established order of the Arab world.” Activists in Egypt, along with sympathizers throughout the world, rejoiced.
“We had tried before. But nothing was like this,” said Ahmed Salah, a veteran youth organizer who had worked for years to drum up resistance to the regime. For months, he had been promoting the audacious and improbable idea of a revolution without arms. “I had hopes, but I never really thought that I’d see it,” he explained. “Tahrir brought tears to my eyes.”
Today, the euphoria of those times is gone. The military, now under the command of General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, is back in charge, having ousted the elected, Muslim Brotherhood-led government of Mohamed Morsi last July. Prominent political scientist Amr Hamzawy describes his nation as “a country in fear” that is now experiencing a “fast recovery of authoritarianism.”
Amnesty International concurs. In a recent report the human rights group argued, “Three years on, the demands of the ‘25 January Revolution’ for dignity and human rights seem further away than ever. Several of its architects are behind bars and repression and impunity are the order of the day.” The report further contends, “The Egyptian authorities are using every resource at their disposal to quash dissent and trample on human rights.”
These troubling developments raise some critical questions: Did nonviolence fail in Egypt? And, if so, what can be learned from the country’s experience?
Egypt is often held up as a success story of civil resistance — a fresh and exciting example of how a nonviolent mass mobilization can prevail over a force with far greater military might. However, as the country has slid back into a repressive and undemocratic state, this success has been called into question. Some regard the situation in Egypt as worse than ever, and the most cynical contend that it would have been better if the revolution had never happened at all.
In fact, the Egyptian revolution should been seen neither as an uncomplicated success nor a mere staging ground for pessimism. For it is far more valuable when recognized as something different: a perfect case study both of what can be accomplished by mass mobilizations that harness the power of disruptive protest — and of the limits of these mobilizations.
Beyond ‘a tightly knit and hierarchical structure’
To understand how the political situation in Egypt has unfolded, it is useful to first ask a more basic question: How did a small, loosely organized group of Egyptian young people end up setting the terms for their country’s revolution?
If anyone should have spearheaded a successful revolt against Mubarak’s rule, it was the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded more than 80 years ago, the group was banned in Egypt in 1954 and operated underground for decades. As a result, estimates of its membership have been imprecise, but the count reaches into the hundreds of thousands and may be as high as a million. Moreover, the organization’s influence extends beyond its membership rolls. The Muslim Brotherhood established a strong reputation as a social service provider, operating a nationwide network of schools, food banks, hospitals and programs for orphans and widows.
While the Mubarak regime worked at turns to repress or contain the Brotherhood’s political activities. It tolerated these charity efforts — recognizing them as an essential supplement to the state’s fraying social safety net. As public health researcher Nadine Farag reported in 2011, an Egyptian woman, regardless of politics or religion, could pay the equivalent of $175 to give birth in a well-staffed and well-equipped hospital run by the Brotherhood, or she could pay $875 in a private hospital. Farag further notes that, when a devastating earthquake hit Cairo in 1992, the Brotherhood quickly provided tents, food, tea, blankets and makeshift medical clinics, solidifying its reputation among the Egyptian public.
While still officially banned, the Brotherhood gained a foothold in parliament in 2005 with its candidates running as independents. Although not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood himself, Salah, one of the youth leaders during the Tahrir uprising, nevertheless described that organization as “by far the largest and best-organized opposition group in Egypt,” a formidable social and political institution with members “organized into a tightly knit and hierarchical structure.”
Although it may seem strange, the same factors that made the Brotherhood powerful — the strengths of its organizing model — also made its leaders hesitant to risk all they had built in a mass confrontation with Mubarak. After all, they had something to lose. Because the Brothers had clearly identified leadership and hierarchical membership, they were easily targeted for repression by the state. Because they had created strong structures through which they could patiently amass power, they felt less urgency to force a public crisis for the regime. And because they were experts in person-to-person networking among their Islamist base, they were less adept at advocating for widely popular political demands that would be supported by other segments of society.
This pattern is not unusual. From the U.S. civil rights movement, to the “color revolutions” in the former Soviet bloc, to the Occupy movement, one can see a similar scenario play out: the most established, well-structured organizations on a given political landscape are taken by surprise by little-known upstarts who launch nonviolent rebellions that capture the public imagination. These new groups have far fewer resources and much weaker institutional structures than conventional labor unions, community-based organizations or political parties. But they use these traits to their advantage by organizing outside of the structure of any traditional dissident group. They specialize in a different type of social movement activity: momentum-driven mass mobilization.
This type of protest activity goes by different names. Sociologist Frances Fox Piven calls it the exercise of “disruptive power,” distinguishing it from the typical practices of membership organizations. Historian Charles Payne, identifying two different strains within the U.S. civil rights movement, calls it the community mobilizing tradition — a lineage “focused on large-scale, relatively short-term public events” such as the famous campaigns in Birmingham and Selma — which he contrasts with the patient community organizing and local leadership development carried out by the likes of Ella Baker. A relatively new academic field devoted to the study of “civil resistance” has begun exploring in depth the dynamics of mass, unarmed uprisings — building upon Gene Sharp’s pioneering studies into strategic nonviolent action. In each case, the groups on the disruptive side of the equation look a lot less like the Muslim Brotherhood and a lot more like Egypt’s scrappy April 6 Youth Movement.
‘It spread like fire’
Social media-savvy organizations such as April 6 and the followers of popular activist Facebook pages had little in common with the tight-knit cadres of the Brotherhood. While these recently formed groups had tens of thousands of online “members” — sometimes amassed in a matter of weeks after a high-publicity event — organizers often knew little more about a given follower than an Internet username. Rather than mastering the arts of long-term leadership development, they focused on confrontation and public spectacle. Their strength was telling stories — publicizing pictures of police abuse and rallying outrage.
The regime gave them plenty to work with. The organizers posted videos of people being beaten by police and showed the wounds of those who had been tortured in custody, the congealed blood from electrocution leaving pink stains underneath the victims’ skin. As one example, the “We Are All Khalid Said” Facebook page was named after a 28-year-old man who, in June 2010, was savagely beaten by authorities after posting a video of police misconduct. As journalist David Wolman recounts, two detectives confronted him at a cybercafe and “slammed his head on a table before the owner told them to take the fighting outside. They pulled Said out to a building entryway where they kicked him and smashed his head against an iron gate until his body went limp.”
When a picture of his dead body was circulated online, it became a viral catalyst for indignation. “Maybe it was because he was a well-known and educated guy with many friends,” one student told Wolman. “And the picture. I mean, he was so completely disfigured. I don’t know what it was exactly, but it spread like fire.”
When it came time to mobilize citizens for the January 25 demonstrations, the youth organizers’ approach was more akin to concert promotion than the building of neighborhood organizations. They created buzz and generated enthusiasm. Another viral phenomenon was a video blog by 26-year-old Asmaa Mahfouz, a co-founder of the April 6 Youth Movement. Rather than conceal her identity, Mahfouz positioned herself directly in front of her computer’s camera and announced that she would attend to the protests planned for January 25. She brazenly implored others to join her: “As long as you say there is no hope, then there will be no hope,” Mahfouz argued [1]. “But if you go down and take a stance, then there will be hope.”
Her testimonial had an unusual impact, inspiring many others to circulate videos of their own. As the New York Times reported [2], Mahfouz’s post “departed from the convenient, familiar anonymity of online activism. More than that, it was a woman who dared put a face to the message, unfazed by the possibility of arrest for her defiance. ‘Do not be afraid,’ she said.”
In contrast to the type of incremental proposals for policy change that might typically be advanced by a political party trying to flex its institutional muscle, the young organizers put forward symbolically loaded demands designed to engender the broadest possible sympathy. Ultimately, they adopted a slogan that had already been made famous in nearby Tunisia: “The people demand the fall of the regime.”
‘We’ve been waiting for you!’
Instead of turning to established membership lists and mobilizing an already identified rank-and-file — going deep with a small number of pre-recruited adherents — the youth organizers went wide. Most of the people that turned out were taking part in demonstrations for the first time. Because of this, organizers’ predictions for who would show up were vague at best. Although they had scores of confirmations online and had done extensive word-of-mouth outreach, they could not be certain that more than a handful of people would actually come through.
The experience of January 25 turned out to be a marvel. “This was my neighborhood, my home, and during my 10 years as an activist I had met hundreds of people in and around the activist community,” wrote [3]Salah, another of the April 6 Youth Movement’s founding members, of the feeder march that formed in his neighborhood to head toward Tahrir Square. “Yet the streets were filled with men and women I had never seen. And they were leading chants! As I lifted my voice to join them, I thought to myself: My God! Where have you been? We’ve been waiting for you!“
For a time, the Egyptian media branded all youth organizing as the work of April 6. This reflected the group’s success in creating a type of mobilization that was less a concrete institution than an open movement, one with which people across the country could identify. According to Salah, the group had only a few dozen physical members as of early 2011, and yet a wide range of autonomous activity was popularly associated with the organization’s efforts. “It became the brand name,” Salah said. “We were successful in making it the icon of change.”
Not only did the youth propel several early demonstrations that filled city squares in Cairo and beyond, they exerted lasting influence as the protests grew. When, several days in, groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and National Association for Change — led by the Nobel Laureate and former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei — finally decided to amplify a political eruption that was too large to ignore, these experienced actors showed deference to the methods and the messages that the young people had established from the outset.
Foreign policy analyst Robert Dreyfuss explained [4], “When the Egyptian uprising began in January, the Muslim Brotherhood was not among the leaders. At the forefront of the movement were young Egyptians… joined by a panoply of secular, socialist, Nasserite, and pro-democracy groups, and eventually by Mohamed El Baradei.” The new groups that signed on overwhelmingly adopted the slogans and framing of existing revolt.
As the revolution commenced, the reliance on momentum-driven organizing was not a limitation. Rather, April 6 and other youth groups were able to spark a contagious uprising precisely because they were not based on rigid structures. They did not have organizational assets that could be seized by the regime. They did not have established political turf to defend or sectarian interests that would make them be seen as a self-interested, partisan effort. They did not have structures that could be easily infiltrated. And so they could take on a broad-scale, symbolically loaded campaign, geared toward maximum support and maximum disruption.
Certainly, on February 11, 2011, when authorities announced Mubarak’s resignation and the activists cried with joy in the square, storm clouds already loomed on the horizon. Over the next three years, the nonviolent insurgents would face a mountain of challenges, a resurgence in repression and the specter of counter-revolution. But for the moment, they accomplished something that few in the world could have predicted and something the best-organized group in the country could not: They unseated the tyrant who had ruled for longer than many of them were alive.
They overthrew Mubarak.
‘We don’t know how to compromise’
Rallying mass public sympathy, bringing people onto the streets in staggering numbers by “breaking the fear barrier” — as a popular expression [1]among Egyptian activists puts it [2] — and ousting an entrenched regime are all remarkable accomplishments. They should be recognized as such by future movements, and their dynamics should be studied and the strategies mined. Yet, just as the momentum-driven organizing model of April 6 and other youth groups gave them disproportionate influence in shaping the uprising, the well-engineered structures of the Muslim Brotherhood proved critical in defining what would come next.
The challenge after any mass uprising is to institutionalize the gains of disruptive power once a peak moment passes. Here the habits of structure-based organizing become very useful again. One such habit relates to how a movement presents its objectives. Momentum-driven groups thrive on broad, transformative demands that have symbolic resonance and can inspire support from the general public: “The people demand the fall of the regime.” In Egypt, this sweeping call to action created a crisis of legitimacy for Mubarak. But it was not nearly as effective in ensuring the rise of new leaders or new systems of governance.
In contrast, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood specialize in pursuing transactional demands — narrower, more incremental gains that play to their base and allow them to leverage the institutional power they have accrued. The conventional route to winning such demands entails horse-trading, insider access and compromise. It’s a famously messy process. Not surprisingly, the skills of political butchery and legislative charcuterie are not strengths for decentralized networks whose passion is energizing people who would have never before seen themselves joining a demonstration.
Wael Ghonim, the administer of the “We Are All Khalid Said” Facebook page and author of the book Revolution 2.0, took it as a point of pride that the site did not sink into the muck of party politics but instead focused on “universal” issues such as freedom and human rights.
In the Oscar-nominated documentary The Square — released in late January to coincide with the third anniversary of the revolution — two youth leaders discuss how this became a problem after the fall of Mubarak: “Politics is not the same as a revolution. If you want to play politics, you have to compromise. And we’re not good at this… at all,” said Khalid Abdalla, a British-Egyptian activist and actor known for his role in The Kite Runner. “We don’t know how to compromise.”
“We’re terrible at it,” agreed Ramy Essam, a musician who performed regularly before rallies in Tahrir, earning renown as the “singer of the revolution.”
This was not the case for the Muslim Brotherhood. For its leaders, negotiating for institutional advancement in a post-revolutionary climate came naturally. With the framework for a political party already in place and an organized bloc of voters at the ready, the Brotherhood moved to the fore. While young liberals generally favored allowing time for the drafting of a constitution and the formation of new parties, the Brotherhood pushed for quick elections.
Abdul-Fatah Madi, an Egyptian analyst writing for Al Jazeera, explained that prior to Mubarak’s defeat the youth-led factions “preoccupied themselves with acquiring knowledge on how to topple tyrannical regimes as well as spreading information about human rights violations.” But as the post-revolutionary transition began, they failed to “familiarize themselves with the intricacies of state-building and political projects that would serve as an alternative to the authoritarian regime.” The young people, Madi argued, showed an aversion to haggling over long-standing partisan demands, a disinterest stemming “from not wanting to participate in the decision-making process, which was dominated by old parties and the long-standing elite.”
In the absence of a structured challenge by the secular revolutionaries, the Muslim Brotherhood dropped any pretense of a movement coalition. Six months after the revolution, it ordered its members out for mass rallies. The disciplined crowds chanted, “Islamic rule, Islamic rule,” and, “The Qur’an is our constitution.”
The youth, the champions of momentum, had been outmaneuvered.
‘A new revolution all over again’
While Egypt’s predicament has some distinctive characteristics, it is not unique among recent upheavals that have unseated undemocratic governments. These include the “color revolutions” in the former Soviet bloc and the movement that forced Slobodan Milošević from power in Serbia in 2000. As in Egypt, students played a critical role in leading quickly swelling mobilizations. But in all these cases, the youth were unprepared for later events. Matthew Collin, author of The Time of the Rebels, a study of these uprisings, writes that there “seemed to be no blueprint for what, if anything, these youth movements could achieve after their revolutions.”
The leaders of some groups joined government agencies, some attempted to become political parties, and others tried to remain intact as outside watchdogs. But given that it is impossible to maintain high levels of mass mobilization forever, Collin explained, “In all cases, most of the rank-and-file activists simply drifted away. They could help to change their countries, but they found it harder to ensure that the politicians who came to power afterwards remained true to the principles they had espoused at the moment of revolution.”
The momentum-driven efforts achieved some lasting changes — such as the establishment of regular elections in Serbia — but older elites were able to use their institutional strength to bore back inside the walls of power.
Ideally, when structure-based organizing and momentum-driven movements are aligned, the two models can complement one another. Established groups that share the goals of a mass uprising can benefit from a burst of increased energy and interest in a shared cause. In turn, the more established organizations can lend their prestige and resources to outbreaks of resistance when they arise. This happened in Egypt when the Muslim Brotherhood decided to back the Tahrir revolt — bringing microphones to the square, turning out its members, arranging garbage collection — and when it joined the push for a coalition government. But when the constituencies split, when the secular revolutionaries were at odds with the Islamists, the army became the main beneficiary.
The armed forces, which refused to crack down on behalf of Mubarak to wipe out the January 2011 uprising, were perceived as heroes after the revolution. The military thus emerged as the force that would control the structures of the old regime, and it would compete with the Muslim Brotherhood for dominance. Over the next year and a half, when the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces attempted to hold on to power, reinvigorated protests — brandishing the slogan, “A new revolution all over again” — forced them to cede to civilian rule. This allowed the Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi to take office as the country’s first democratically elected president in the summer of 2012.
However, during his year in office, Morsi would grant himself ever-more-expansive powers, prompting a public backlash. Having already dethroned Mubarak and the Supreme Council, Egyptians took to the streets to rally against a third ruling power. Graffiti artists changed their stencils: those who once marked red Xs over spray-painted images of Mubarak began using cutouts of Morsi instead.
In the summer of 2013, amid anti-government protests even larger than those that started the revolution, the military stepped in and forced the Muslim Brotherhood from power. At first, liberals were hesitant to call it a coup. But hopes for more open and pluralistic governance were once again thwarted. In following months, the army escalated repression, cracking down on both its Islamist and secular opponents. By the revolution’s third anniversary, when Amnesty warned of authorities “using every resource… to quash dissent,” things looked bleak indeed.
‘The revolution’s biggest victory’
Should we conclude from today’s vantage point that nonviolence has failed in Egypt?
The challenges of establishing a more free and just social order after a revolution are hardly unique to nonviolent movements. They afflict all turbulent changes of state power. Studies have found that, in the past several decades, when a regime has been toppled, the post-transition states have been far more likely to become democratic when the transition was led by coalitions employing tactics of unarmed civil resistance — strikes, mass boycotts and large-scale demonstrations. In the case of a guerrilla uprising against an undemocratic state, the chances of open and participatory government are far slimmer. Here, revolutionaries still have to fill the vacuum left by the old regime. But since the armed force that instigated the overthrow is usually the best-organized institution of the resistance, its hierarchical structures are primed to take over. The result, as in many post-colonial African states, is often a new military government.
Since Morsi’s ouster, militant Islamist groups have carried out shootings and other attacks against government security forces — including two high-profile bombings of the police headquarters in Cairo. Although the Muslim Brotherhood has issued statements condemning the attacks, the army has used the violence as occasion for a brutal crackdown on dissidents. In December, it declared the Brotherhood a “terrorist organization,” outlawed all participation in its protests, and froze the assets of at least 1,055 affiliated charities. Unfortunately, the pretext of a “war on terror” has allowed the military to retain considerable popular support.
Some of those who took to the streets on January 25, 2011 may have been morally opposed to violence. But, as a whole, the people of Egypt opted for unarmed mass demonstrations over joining a guerrilla struggle for one simple reason: They believed strategic nonviolence was the more practical and effective means of ousting the heavily militarized Mubarak regime and achieving a more free and participatory society. The results of attacks by insurgents in the past six months, which have hardly served to weaken the army’s hand, suggest that the tactical judgment of nonviolent revolutionaries carried considerable wisdom.
Despite current difficulties, the strategy of unarmed mobilization also contains hope for the future. Given the developments of the past three years, one might think that the revolution has been discredited in Egypt, that the Tahrir uprising might be denigrated or forgotten in the popular imagination. That is not the case. Instead, the revolution stands as a celebrated cultural touchstone. Rather than attacking it, each of the groups vying for power in the country tries to claim credit for ousting Mubarak and presents itself as the force that is carrying forward the true spirit of the revolution. This is true of the army, which, one reporter writes “wrapped its takeover not only in the flag, but also the original 2011 uprising.” When jailing secular revolutionaries or members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the military paints them as traitors to the popular cause. Emergency police state measures to combat terrorism, the generals contend, is the only way to preserve what they call the “glorious” revolution.
Those who led momentum-driven mass mobilizations in Egypt have yet to solve the problem of institutionalization. Developing structures that can absorb the gains won by disruptive outbreaks will take time. Youth organizers now recognize this: In 2012, leaders of the April 6 Youth movement vowed [5]to embark on a five-year plan to develop alternative institutions. At the same time, they also recognize that their uprising has unleashed a spirit of communal self-determination that cannot be easily subdued.
“Our revolution’s weapon is our voice,” activist Ahmed Hassan explained to the filmmakers of The Square. “If you ask me, ‘What is the revolution’s biggest victory?’ It’s that today kids play a game called ‘Protest,’ where some kids are playing the revolutionaries and others play the police or army or Muslim Brothers.
For his part, April 6 co-founder Ahmed Salah is now living in exile and dealing with the trauma of repression. “I feel that this is the worst time,” he said. “Most people have been brainwashed into thinking that the only way to save Egypt is through military rule.”
And yet he reports that his pessimism is balanced by another impulse. “I also feel confidence,” Salah said. “Each group that has been in the leading position in the country has tried to retain power. Yet we Egyptians were able to bring down three regimes: Mubarak, the Supreme Council and the Muslim Brotherhood.”
“What we did before,” he concluded, “we can do again.”
Source URL: https://portside.org/2014-02-22/did-nonviolence-fail-egypt
Links:
[1] http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/02/2011217134411934738.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/world/middleeast/02iht-letter02.html
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-salah/egypt-january-25-revolution_b_3671877.html
[4] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/what-is-the-muslim-brotherhood
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/world/middleeast/egyptian-revolts-leaders-count-their-mistakes.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
Did Nonviolence Fail in Egypt?
http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/nonviolence-fail-egypt/
Mark Engler and Paul Engler
Friday, February 21, 2014
Waging Nonviolence
Three years ago this month, the 82-year-old president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, stepped down amid historic protests against his dictatorial rule. News of his resignation on Feb. 11, 2011 marked the climax of an uprising that was quickly recognized as one of the most sudden and significant upheavals of the 21st century.
As the New York Times reported, “The announcement, which comes after an 18-day revolt led by the young people of Egypt, shatters three decades of political stasis and overturns the established order of the Arab world.” Activists in Egypt, along with sympathizers throughout the world, rejoiced.
“We had tried before. But nothing was like this,” said Ahmed Salah, a veteran youth organizer who had worked for years to drum up resistance to the regime. For months, he had been promoting the audacious and improbable idea of a revolution without arms. “I had hopes, but I never really thought that I’d see it,” he explained. “Tahrir brought tears to my eyes.”
Today, the euphoria of those times is gone. The military, now under the command of General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, is back in charge, having ousted the elected, Muslim Brotherhood-led government of Mohamed Morsi last July. Prominent political scientist Amr Hamzawy describes his nation as “a country in fear” that is now experiencing a “fast recovery of authoritarianism.”
Amnesty International concurs. In a recent report the human rights group argued, “Three years on, the demands of the ‘25 January Revolution’ for dignity and human rights seem further away than ever. Several of its architects are behind bars and repression and impunity are the order of the day.” The report further contends, “The Egyptian authorities are using every resource at their disposal to quash dissent and trample on human rights.”
These troubling developments raise some critical questions: Did nonviolence fail in Egypt? And, if so, what can be learned from the country’s experience?
Egypt is often held up as a success story of civil resistance — a fresh and exciting example of how a nonviolent mass mobilization can prevail over a force with far greater military might. However, as the country has slid back into a repressive and undemocratic state, this success has been called into question. Some regard the situation in Egypt as worse than ever, and the most cynical contend that it would have been better if the revolution had never happened at all.
In fact, the Egyptian revolution should been seen neither as an uncomplicated success nor a mere staging ground for pessimism. For it is far more valuable when recognized as something different: a perfect case study both of what can be accomplished by mass mobilizations that harness the power of disruptive protest — and of the limits of these mobilizations.
Beyond ‘a tightly knit and hierarchical structure’
To understand how the political situation in Egypt has unfolded, it is useful to first ask a more basic question: How did a small, loosely organized group of Egyptian young people end up setting the terms for their country’s revolution?
If anyone should have spearheaded a successful revolt against Mubarak’s rule, it was the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded more than 80 years ago, the group was banned in Egypt in 1954 and operated underground for decades. As a result, estimates of its membership have been imprecise, but the count reaches into the hundreds of thousands and may be as high as a million. Moreover, the organization’s influence extends beyond its membership rolls. The Muslim Brotherhood established a strong reputation as a social service provider, operating a nationwide network of schools, food banks, hospitals and programs for orphans and widows.
While the Mubarak regime worked at turns to repress or contain the Brotherhood’s political activities. It tolerated these charity efforts — recognizing them as an essential supplement to the state’s fraying social safety net. As public health researcher Nadine Farag reported in 2011, an Egyptian woman, regardless of politics or religion, could pay the equivalent of $175 to give birth in a well-staffed and well-equipped hospital run by the Brotherhood, or she could pay $875 in a private hospital. Farag further notes that, when a devastating earthquake hit Cairo in 1992, the Brotherhood quickly provided tents, food, tea, blankets and makeshift medical clinics, solidifying its reputation among the Egyptian public.
While still officially banned, the Brotherhood gained a foothold in parliament in 2005 with its candidates running as independents. Although not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood himself, Salah, one of the youth leaders during the Tahrir uprising, nevertheless described that organization as “by far the largest and best-organized opposition group in Egypt,” a formidable social and political institution with members “organized into a tightly knit and hierarchical structure.”
Although it may seem strange, the same factors that made the Brotherhood powerful — the strengths of its organizing model — also made its leaders hesitant to risk all they had built in a mass confrontation with Mubarak. After all, they had something to lose. Because the Brothers had clearly identified leadership and hierarchical membership, they were easily targeted for repression by the state. Because they had created strong structures through which they could patiently amass power, they felt less urgency to force a public crisis for the regime. And because they were experts in person-to-person networking among their Islamist base, they were less adept at advocating for widely popular political demands that would be supported by other segments of society.
This pattern is not unusual. From the U.S. civil rights movement, to the “color revolutions” in the former Soviet bloc, to the Occupy movement, one can see a similar scenario play out: the most established, well-structured organizations on a given political landscape are taken by surprise by little-known upstarts who launch nonviolent rebellions that capture the public imagination. These new groups have far fewer resources and much weaker institutional structures than conventional labor unions, community-based organizations or political parties. But they use these traits to their advantage by organizing outside of the structure of any traditional dissident group. They specialize in a different type of social movement activity: momentum-driven mass mobilization.
This type of protest activity goes by different names. Sociologist Frances Fox Piven calls it the exercise of “disruptive power,” distinguishing it from the typical practices of membership organizations. Historian Charles Payne, identifying two different strains within the U.S. civil rights movement, calls it the community mobilizing tradition — a lineage “focused on large-scale, relatively short-term public events” such as the famous campaigns in Birmingham and Selma — which he contrasts with the patient community organizing and local leadership development carried out by the likes of Ella Baker. A relatively new academic field devoted to the study of “civil resistance” has begun exploring in depth the dynamics of mass, unarmed uprisings — building upon Gene Sharp’s pioneering studies into strategic nonviolent action. In each case, the groups on the disruptive side of the equation look a lot less like the Muslim Brotherhood and a lot more like Egypt’s scrappy April 6 Youth Movement.
‘It spread like fire’
Social media-savvy organizations such as April 6 and the followers of popular activist Facebook pages had little in common with the tight-knit cadres of the Brotherhood. While these recently formed groups had tens of thousands of online “members” — sometimes amassed in a matter of weeks after a high-publicity event — organizers often knew little more about a given follower than an Internet username. Rather than mastering the arts of long-term leadership development, they focused on confrontation and public spectacle. Their strength was telling stories — publicizing pictures of police abuse and rallying outrage.
The regime gave them plenty to work with. The organizers posted videos of people being beaten by police and showed the wounds of those who had been tortured in custody, the congealed blood from electrocution leaving pink stains underneath the victims’ skin. As one example, the “We Are All Khalid Said” Facebook page was named after a 28-year-old man who, in June 2010, was savagely beaten by authorities after posting a video of police misconduct. As journalist David Wolman recounts, two detectives confronted him at a cybercafe and “slammed his head on a table before the owner told them to take the fighting outside. They pulled Said out to a building entryway where they kicked him and smashed his head against an iron gate until his body went limp.”
When a picture of his dead body was circulated online, it became a viral catalyst for indignation. “Maybe it was because he was a well-known and educated guy with many friends,” one student told Wolman. “And the picture. I mean, he was so completely disfigured. I don’t know what it was exactly, but it spread like fire.”
When it came time to mobilize citizens for the January 25 demonstrations, the youth organizers’ approach was more akin to concert promotion than the building of neighborhood organizations. They created buzz and generated enthusiasm. Another viral phenomenon was a video blog by 26-year-old Asmaa Mahfouz, a co-founder of the April 6 Youth Movement. Rather than conceal her identity, Mahfouz positioned herself directly in front of her computer’s camera and announced that she would attend to the protests planned for January 25. She brazenly implored others to join her: “As long as you say there is no hope, then there will be no hope,” Mahfouz argued [1]. “But if you go down and take a stance, then there will be hope.”
Her testimonial had an unusual impact, inspiring many others to circulate videos of their own. As the New York Times reported [2], Mahfouz’s post “departed from the convenient, familiar anonymity of online activism. More than that, it was a woman who dared put a face to the message, unfazed by the possibility of arrest for her defiance. ‘Do not be afraid,’ she said.”
In contrast to the type of incremental proposals for policy change that might typically be advanced by a political party trying to flex its institutional muscle, the young organizers put forward symbolically loaded demands designed to engender the broadest possible sympathy. Ultimately, they adopted a slogan that had already been made famous in nearby Tunisia: “The people demand the fall of the regime.”
‘We’ve been waiting for you!’
Instead of turning to established membership lists and mobilizing an already identified rank-and-file — going deep with a small number of pre-recruited adherents — the youth organizers went wide. Most of the people that turned out were taking part in demonstrations for the first time. Because of this, organizers’ predictions for who would show up were vague at best. Although they had scores of confirmations online and had done extensive word-of-mouth outreach, they could not be certain that more than a handful of people would actually come through.
The experience of January 25 turned out to be a marvel. “This was my neighborhood, my home, and during my 10 years as an activist I had met hundreds of people in and around the activist community,” wrote [3]Salah, another of the April 6 Youth Movement’s founding members, of the feeder march that formed in his neighborhood to head toward Tahrir Square. “Yet the streets were filled with men and women I had never seen. And they were leading chants! As I lifted my voice to join them, I thought to myself: My God! Where have you been? We’ve been waiting for you!“
For a time, the Egyptian media branded all youth organizing as the work of April 6. This reflected the group’s success in creating a type of mobilization that was less a concrete institution than an open movement, one with which people across the country could identify. According to Salah, the group had only a few dozen physical members as of early 2011, and yet a wide range of autonomous activity was popularly associated with the organization’s efforts. “It became the brand name,” Salah said. “We were successful in making it the icon of change.”
Not only did the youth propel several early demonstrations that filled city squares in Cairo and beyond, they exerted lasting influence as the protests grew. When, several days in, groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and National Association for Change — led by the Nobel Laureate and former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei — finally decided to amplify a political eruption that was too large to ignore, these experienced actors showed deference to the methods and the messages that the young people had established from the outset.
Foreign policy analyst Robert Dreyfuss explained [4], “When the Egyptian uprising began in January, the Muslim Brotherhood was not among the leaders. At the forefront of the movement were young Egyptians… joined by a panoply of secular, socialist, Nasserite, and pro-democracy groups, and eventually by Mohamed El Baradei.” The new groups that signed on overwhelmingly adopted the slogans and framing of existing revolt.
As the revolution commenced, the reliance on momentum-driven organizing was not a limitation. Rather, April 6 and other youth groups were able to spark a contagious uprising precisely because they were not based on rigid structures. They did not have organizational assets that could be seized by the regime. They did not have established political turf to defend or sectarian interests that would make them be seen as a self-interested, partisan effort. They did not have structures that could be easily infiltrated. And so they could take on a broad-scale, symbolically loaded campaign, geared toward maximum support and maximum disruption.
Certainly, on February 11, 2011, when authorities announced Mubarak’s resignation and the activists cried with joy in the square, storm clouds already loomed on the horizon. Over the next three years, the nonviolent insurgents would face a mountain of challenges, a resurgence in repression and the specter of counter-revolution. But for the moment, they accomplished something that few in the world could have predicted and something the best-organized group in the country could not: They unseated the tyrant who had ruled for longer than many of them were alive.
They overthrew Mubarak.
‘We don’t know how to compromise’
Rallying mass public sympathy, bringing people onto the streets in staggering numbers by “breaking the fear barrier” — as a popular expression [1]among Egyptian activists puts it [2] — and ousting an entrenched regime are all remarkable accomplishments. They should be recognized as such by future movements, and their dynamics should be studied and the strategies mined. Yet, just as the momentum-driven organizing model of April 6 and other youth groups gave them disproportionate influence in shaping the uprising, the well-engineered structures of the Muslim Brotherhood proved critical in defining what would come next.
The challenge after any mass uprising is to institutionalize the gains of disruptive power once a peak moment passes. Here the habits of structure-based organizing become very useful again. One such habit relates to how a movement presents its objectives. Momentum-driven groups thrive on broad, transformative demands that have symbolic resonance and can inspire support from the general public: “The people demand the fall of the regime.” In Egypt, this sweeping call to action created a crisis of legitimacy for Mubarak. But it was not nearly as effective in ensuring the rise of new leaders or new systems of governance.
In contrast, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood specialize in pursuing transactional demands — narrower, more incremental gains that play to their base and allow them to leverage the institutional power they have accrued. The conventional route to winning such demands entails horse-trading, insider access and compromise. It’s a famously messy process. Not surprisingly, the skills of political butchery and legislative charcuterie are not strengths for decentralized networks whose passion is energizing people who would have never before seen themselves joining a demonstration.
Wael Ghonim, the administer of the “We Are All Khalid Said” Facebook page and author of the book Revolution 2.0, took it as a point of pride that the site did not sink into the muck of party politics but instead focused on “universal” issues such as freedom and human rights.
In the Oscar-nominated documentary The Square — released in late January to coincide with the third anniversary of the revolution — two youth leaders discuss how this became a problem after the fall of Mubarak: “Politics is not the same as a revolution. If you want to play politics, you have to compromise. And we’re not good at this… at all,” said Khalid Abdalla, a British-Egyptian activist and actor known for his role in The Kite Runner. “We don’t know how to compromise.”
“We’re terrible at it,” agreed Ramy Essam, a musician who performed regularly before rallies in Tahrir, earning renown as the “singer of the revolution.”
This was not the case for the Muslim Brotherhood. For its leaders, negotiating for institutional advancement in a post-revolutionary climate came naturally. With the framework for a political party already in place and an organized bloc of voters at the ready, the Brotherhood moved to the fore. While young liberals generally favored allowing time for the drafting of a constitution and the formation of new parties, the Brotherhood pushed for quick elections.
Abdul-Fatah Madi, an Egyptian analyst writing for Al Jazeera, explained that prior to Mubarak’s defeat the youth-led factions “preoccupied themselves with acquiring knowledge on how to topple tyrannical regimes as well as spreading information about human rights violations.” But as the post-revolutionary transition began, they failed to “familiarize themselves with the intricacies of state-building and political projects that would serve as an alternative to the authoritarian regime.” The young people, Madi argued, showed an aversion to haggling over long-standing partisan demands, a disinterest stemming “from not wanting to participate in the decision-making process, which was dominated by old parties and the long-standing elite.”
In the absence of a structured challenge by the secular revolutionaries, the Muslim Brotherhood dropped any pretense of a movement coalition. Six months after the revolution, it ordered its members out for mass rallies. The disciplined crowds chanted, “Islamic rule, Islamic rule,” and, “The Qur’an is our constitution.”
The youth, the champions of momentum, had been outmaneuvered.
‘A new revolution all over again’
While Egypt’s predicament has some distinctive characteristics, it is not unique among recent upheavals that have unseated undemocratic governments. These include the “color revolutions” in the former Soviet bloc and the movement that forced Slobodan Milošević from power in Serbia in 2000. As in Egypt, students played a critical role in leading quickly swelling mobilizations. But in all these cases, the youth were unprepared for later events. Matthew Collin, author of The Time of the Rebels, a study of these uprisings, writes that there “seemed to be no blueprint for what, if anything, these youth movements could achieve after their revolutions.”
The leaders of some groups joined government agencies, some attempted to become political parties, and others tried to remain intact as outside watchdogs. But given that it is impossible to maintain high levels of mass mobilization forever, Collin explained, “In all cases, most of the rank-and-file activists simply drifted away. They could help to change their countries, but they found it harder to ensure that the politicians who came to power afterwards remained true to the principles they had espoused at the moment of revolution.”
The momentum-driven efforts achieved some lasting changes — such as the establishment of regular elections in Serbia — but older elites were able to use their institutional strength to bore back inside the walls of power.
Ideally, when structure-based organizing and momentum-driven movements are aligned, the two models can complement one another. Established groups that share the goals of a mass uprising can benefit from a burst of increased energy and interest in a shared cause. In turn, the more established organizations can lend their prestige and resources to outbreaks of resistance when they arise. This happened in Egypt when the Muslim Brotherhood decided to back the Tahrir revolt — bringing microphones to the square, turning out its members, arranging garbage collection — and when it joined the push for a coalition government. But when the constituencies split, when the secular revolutionaries were at odds with the Islamists, the army became the main beneficiary.
The armed forces, which refused to crack down on behalf of Mubarak to wipe out the January 2011 uprising, were perceived as heroes after the revolution. The military thus emerged as the force that would control the structures of the old regime, and it would compete with the Muslim Brotherhood for dominance. Over the next year and a half, when the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces attempted to hold on to power, reinvigorated protests — brandishing the slogan, “A new revolution all over again” — forced them to cede to civilian rule. This allowed the Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi to take office as the country’s first democratically elected president in the summer of 2012.
However, during his year in office, Morsi would grant himself ever-more-expansive powers, prompting a public backlash. Having already dethroned Mubarak and the Supreme Council, Egyptians took to the streets to rally against a third ruling power. Graffiti artists changed their stencils: those who once marked red Xs over spray-painted images of Mubarak began using cutouts of Morsi instead.
In the summer of 2013, amid anti-government protests even larger than those that started the revolution, the military stepped in and forced the Muslim Brotherhood from power. At first, liberals were hesitant to call it a coup. But hopes for more open and pluralistic governance were once again thwarted. In following months, the army escalated repression, cracking down on both its Islamist and secular opponents. By the revolution’s third anniversary, when Amnesty warned of authorities “using every resource… to quash dissent,” things looked bleak indeed.
‘The revolution’s biggest victory’
Should we conclude from today’s vantage point that nonviolence has failed in Egypt?
The challenges of establishing a more free and just social order after a revolution are hardly unique to nonviolent movements. They afflict all turbulent changes of state power. Studies have found that, in the past several decades, when a regime has been toppled, the post-transition states have been far more likely to become democratic when the transition was led by coalitions employing tactics of unarmed civil resistance — strikes, mass boycotts and large-scale demonstrations. In the case of a guerrilla uprising against an undemocratic state, the chances of open and participatory government are far slimmer. Here, revolutionaries still have to fill the vacuum left by the old regime. But since the armed force that instigated the overthrow is usually the best-organized institution of the resistance, its hierarchical structures are primed to take over. The result, as in many post-colonial African states, is often a new military government.
Since Morsi’s ouster, militant Islamist groups have carried out shootings and other attacks against government security forces — including two high-profile bombings of the police headquarters in Cairo. Although the Muslim Brotherhood has issued statements condemning the attacks, the army has used the violence as occasion for a brutal crackdown on dissidents. In December, it declared the Brotherhood a “terrorist organization,” outlawed all participation in its protests, and froze the assets of at least 1,055 affiliated charities. Unfortunately, the pretext of a “war on terror” has allowed the military to retain considerable popular support.
Some of those who took to the streets on January 25, 2011 may have been morally opposed to violence. But, as a whole, the people of Egypt opted for unarmed mass demonstrations over joining a guerrilla struggle for one simple reason: They believed strategic nonviolence was the more practical and effective means of ousting the heavily militarized Mubarak regime and achieving a more free and participatory society. The results of attacks by insurgents in the past six months, which have hardly served to weaken the army’s hand, suggest that the tactical judgment of nonviolent revolutionaries carried considerable wisdom.
Despite current difficulties, the strategy of unarmed mobilization also contains hope for the future. Given the developments of the past three years, one might think that the revolution has been discredited in Egypt, that the Tahrir uprising might be denigrated or forgotten in the popular imagination. That is not the case. Instead, the revolution stands as a celebrated cultural touchstone. Rather than attacking it, each of the groups vying for power in the country tries to claim credit for ousting Mubarak and presents itself as the force that is carrying forward the true spirit of the revolution. This is true of the army, which, one reporter writes “wrapped its takeover not only in the flag, but also the original 2011 uprising.” When jailing secular revolutionaries or members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the military paints them as traitors to the popular cause. Emergency police state measures to combat terrorism, the generals contend, is the only way to preserve what they call the “glorious” revolution.
Those who led momentum-driven mass mobilizations in Egypt have yet to solve the problem of institutionalization. Developing structures that can absorb the gains won by disruptive outbreaks will take time. Youth organizers now recognize this: In 2012, leaders of the April 6 Youth movement vowed [5]to embark on a five-year plan to develop alternative institutions. At the same time, they also recognize that their uprising has unleashed a spirit of communal self-determination that cannot be easily subdued.
“Our revolution’s weapon is our voice,” activist Ahmed Hassan explained to the filmmakers of The Square. “If you ask me, ‘What is the revolution’s biggest victory?’ It’s that today kids play a game called ‘Protest,’ where some kids are playing the revolutionaries and others play the police or army or Muslim Brothers.
For his part, April 6 co-founder Ahmed Salah is now living in exile and dealing with the trauma of repression. “I feel that this is the worst time,” he said. “Most people have been brainwashed into thinking that the only way to save Egypt is through military rule.”
And yet he reports that his pessimism is balanced by another impulse. “I also feel confidence,” Salah said. “Each group that has been in the leading position in the country has tried to retain power. Yet we Egyptians were able to bring down three regimes: Mubarak, the Supreme Council and the Muslim Brotherhood.”
“What we did before,” he concluded, “we can do again.”
Source URL: https://portside.org/2014-02-22/did-nonviolence-fail-egypt
Links:
[1] http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/02/2011217134411934738.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/world/middleeast/02iht-letter02.html
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-salah/egypt-january-25-revolution_b_3671877.html
[4] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/what-is-the-muslim-brotherhood
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/world/middleeast/egyptian-revolts-leaders-count-their-mistakes.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)