Why training women in nonviolent resistance is critical to movement success

Waging Nonviolence - Sat, 02/24/2018 - 10:13

by Marie Berry and Erica Chenoweth

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'xNG9WyyURsVgMlsvbNYajg',sig:'cd4Lrrq0PnLQfutniRXXb9yux0Pbk4UcJM92CTbTo_0=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'907795060',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});
In the year since Trump’s inauguration, we have seen an outpouring of popular mobilization in resistance to his administration’s policies. Crowd estimates suggest that 5.2-9 million people took to the streets in the United States to protest Trump’s policies or points of view over the past year. Many more have mobilized worldwide in reaction to the rise of right-wing populist movements across the globe, using people power to contest entrenched authority and confront oppressive regimes and systems.

Women have been at the forefront of these efforts. The 2017 Women’s March on Washington — whose Sister Marches spanned all 50 states and dozens of other countries — was likely the biggest single-day demonstration in recorded U.S. history. The momentum continued in 2018, with between 1,856,683 and 2,637,214 people marching in Women’s Marches this year. And women continue to be at the helm of movements like Black Lives Matter, the struggle for immigrant rights and the Fight for $15. Around the world, they have played vital roles in demanding reproductive justice in Poland, protesting repressive religious laws in Iran and asserting their right to political representation in Kenya.

While these outpourings of popular protest often look spontaneous, behind the scenes are an ever-evolving series of trainings, funding decisions and tactical innovations, often led by full-time organizers and activists. Successful campaigns of nonviolent resistance do not materialize over night, nor do they remain reactionary or improvisational. Instead, a tremendous amount of work goes on to ensure that such movements coalesce, maintain nonviolent discipline under repressive conditions and develop real staying power. Bringing millions of people to the streets is not an easy task, but maintaining momentum is even more difficult. It requires resources, organization, training, and time and space to build consensus around planning for the future.

At the same time as this dramatic rise in the use of nonviolent civil resistance around the world, dozens of organizations have developed to spread knowledge about the theory and practice of nonviolent action. Selina Gallo-Cruz points out the emergence of dozens of nonviolent conflict-oriented international non-governmental organizations over the past several decades, and the ways in which they may have helped diffuse knowledge and capacity about effective strategies for civil resistance. These include the late Gene Sharp’s Albert Einstein Institution, the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, Momentum, Rhize, the James Lawson Institute, Training for Change, and various other organizations.

In recognition of the unique challenges and opportunities women-identified activists face in training for and leading movements for social change, along with research that suggests that the inclusion of women in nonviolent movements is critical for building more peaceful societies, we launched the Inclusive Global Leadership Initiative Summer Institute to elevate and amplify the work that women activists are doing to catalyze social change. The inaugural IGLI Institute, in 2017, reaffirmed progressive understandings of the importance of explicitly engaging in gender-specific training, since women do — and must continue to — play essential roles in building and sustaining movements.

Women activists are often able to exploit gender roles within their societies to find ways to resist that are potent and disruptive without exposing themselves to the highest levels of risk. For instance, an IGLI participant from Uganda noted how she had utilized her pregnancy to distract security forces during a highly contentious protest in the national legislature. Traditional gender expectations of how pregnant women should behave provided her some cover to engage in contentious political action that would have likely gotten her arrested in another context. She emphasized women’s unique commitment to working as a group, emphasizing that for women, it is “ours not mine.” This was not a commitment to selflessness; rather, she emphasized that it is an assumption of risk — women commit to putting their bodies on the line to protect other women.

Another participant, from Madagascar, described how women used their unique virtues of “persistence and commitment” to stand outside the president’s house for 500 straight Thursdays to demand change. Their small act — which initially started with three people — eventually grew to include thousands.

In Ireland, another participant explained how women from the African diaspora were at the frontlines of campaigns to stop the deportations of non-Irish citizens, using their status as mothers and primary caregivers to lend credence to their demands.

Beyond additional skills and networks for mobilization, a powerful outcome of this women-only nonviolent resistance training space was the generation of solidarity among participants. This solidarity — built and sustained among activists from 15 countries so far — has paid off in concrete ways since the 2017 institute ended. First, some of the participants have experimented with organizing joint actions that have involved a new transnational dimension, as well as sharing their ongoing lessons learned with one another. Second, the participants have been able to show up in support for one another’s ongoing efforts in other ways — through encouragement, moral support, signal boosting, and, in at least one case, assistance in obtaining release from detention.

There is much to be gained through initiatives where women can convene to share knowledge, train, plan and develop solidarity networks for the struggles ahead. Creating women-led spaces that are informed by research helps build feminist momentum around the most pressing issues of our times. Click here to nominate a woman activist for the 2018 IGLI Summer Institute.

Our current political moment is profoundly troubling. Yet there are frequent signs of hope as people rally to resist racist and xenophobic rhetoric and counter restrictions on human rights. Grassroots, strategically nonviolent and inclusive people-power movements are necessary to counter these worrying trends. Devoting attention, time and resources to convene and train the leaders of these movements is a powerful way to intentionally invest in a more peaceful, equitable and progressive future.

Truth Matters

Living Nonviolence - Fri, 02/23/2018 - 09:01

Truth matters! In a time of increasing propaganda, the deliberate repetition of misinformation and outright and blatant lying, we need to reaffirm the value of truth telling.Most people learn the value of telling the truth early in life. Parents can be especially sensitive to gradations of lying. The child may hesitate to be fully transparent. For parents, that betrays a reluctance to reveal the whole truth. There may be a tendency to exaggerate. For parents, that demonstrates something is likely being hidden. There may be a strong denial, with yelling, stomping feet and slamming doors. For parents, that illustrates there is much more to come to light. It's hard to raise a child on lies.    When Jesus was asked "what is truth," he invited his questioners to look at his life and what he represented. Ultimately truth is revealed, or not, in a person's life. We call it integrity. It's about following one's truth no matter what.Gandhi said his life was an experiment in truth. He believed one must follow their truth no matter where it leads. For him, Truth was God. (Now before any Christians get all bent out of shape about this designation, take the time to understand the ancient sanskrit origin of the word Gandhi uses for Truth, Satya. It starts with Sat, the word for Being with a capitol B). Most people who know the value of truth also recognize that truth is elusive. One person's truth can be another person's poison. Truth is usually divisible. We have to establish processes to try and discern the truth in any given situation. So in our government, we establish a free press. We establish freedom of speech and assembly. We establish checks and balances and a tricameral system. We establish courts and a system of justice. We investigate. We try to gather facts, not opinions, but facts. We gather evidence. We interview those who may know something about the event in question. We use an adversarial system in a court of law. We ask a person, "Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God," with a hand on the Bible. We don't always get it right but we try hard since getting to the heart of a situation matters.We went to see the movie "The Post" while it was in Brookings. We recalled those days when we were being lied to by our government. The "good news" out of Vietnam was repeated again and again while the "bad news"was the reality and the truth. Only after the war was over did we discover that Lyndon Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin incident, forcing Congress to allow full scale military action, was a lie and the steady drumbeat of "winning the war"was meant to deceive. We were grateful for a whistleblower named Daniel Ellsberg and a free press with the courage to publish the Pentagon Papers.It reminded me of the other time lying was coming from the oval office. President Clinton said, "I never had sex with that woman." My mother and father would have been all over me with additional questions on that one. Like, "what do you mean by 'had sex?'"Now we have a President who lies consistently. The New York Times has been counting, though the President labels the Times and all of the liberal press as "fake news." And when it comes to the Russia investigation, one has to wonder what the President is hiding that requires such frequent and aggressive activity against others.Let's get to the truth. Let the Russia investigation play out. That was the essence of a response I received to a letter I wrote to Senator Thune some time ago. He seems to be of the same conviction now, given his statement to the Washington Post Thursday about the "Nunes memo.""Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said Thursday that 'the Senate Intelligence Committee needs to see [the memo], for sure' before it should be made public. Thune, the Senate’s No. 3 Republican, also told reporters that if the House was going to release the GOP’s memo, they should also release a rebuttal memo from House Democrats at the same time.'I think they have to take into consideration what the FBI is saying,' Thune said of House Republicans angling for the memo to go public. 'I think they need to pay careful attention to what our folks who protect us have to say about how this bears on our national security.'”I, for one, am grateful that at least one Republican Senator is willing to stand for pursuit of the truth and with our intelligence community. We won't reach the truth through partisan politics, suppression of evidence or removing those in our intelligence offices from their positions.        Besides, our democracy is on the scaffold. Democracy can't survive on propaganda, partisan politics and lies. Neither can it survive if foreign agents are allowed to invade and sway our elections. What will Congress do about the Russia sanctions that are being ignored by this administration and cyber warfare from Russia that continues?

A nuclear war planner’s guide to resisting the bomb

Waging Nonviolence - Thu, 02/22/2018 - 13:02

by Robert Levering

As someone who grew up during the coldest years of the Cold War, I have always been aware that we are living on borrowed time. During the 1950s, nuclear bomb tests were broadcast live on TV. And I recall being traumatized by the 1959 film, “On the Beach,” which depicts the dystopian aftermath of nuclear war.

But the school air raid drills represented the most common reminders of the nuclear specter. When the siren sounded, we were expected to march out of our classrooms into the hallway, then kneel and put our heads against the lockers for a few minutes before the siren signaled that we could return to class. Supposedly this was to protect us from being incinerated during a nuclear attack. I realized this was a ridiculous exercise. Along with a few friends, I engaged in my first political act by refusing to participate in a drill early in my senior year. You can imagine that this did not sit well with the school administration. The principal gave us a stern lecture and threatened to punish us severely if we did so again. It was also my first lesson in the power of nonviolence: My high school conducted no more air raid drills that year.

At the time, Daniel Ellsberg was working as a consultant to the Pentagon on nuclear strategy. He says little about that work in “Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers,” which is among the most inspiring books I’ve ever read about civil disobedience. So, I was anxious to get my hands on his latest book, “The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear Planner,” to read what he has to say about nuclear war.

But I had some even more personal reasons for wanting to read Dan’s book. Last August, I was arrested with him and several dozen others at Lawrence Livermore Labs in California, where scientists create new devices to blow up the world. Our demonstration commemorated the 72nd anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki. Coincidentally, my grandson Rocky Barnes-Levering Ly was being born at the very time as we were being carted off to jail.

After reading Dan’s book, I knew that I had to give it to Rocky. Hopefully, no country will unleash its nuclear arsenal before he is able to read the book. That’s not a given, particularly considering the current nuclear bomb-waving threats emanating from Washington and Pyongyang. Trump threatened his counterpart in North Korea with “fire and fury the world has never seen before” the same week Rocky was born.

Assuming we escape a nuclear nightmare for the next two decades, Dan’s book can help Rocky comprehend the precariousness of our lives in the nuclear age. As a one-time insider and long-time student of nuclear strategy, Dan provides both a helpful overview coupled with lots of historical details.

I want Rocky to read “The Doomsday Machine” for yet another reason. I want him to develop an appreciation for why his grandfather has felt it necessary to commit civil disobedience several dozen times over the past half-century. Because I’m in my mid-seventies, I’m acutely aware that I may never be able to explain to Rocky why I tried to block the entrance to a government building the day he was born. Dan’s book does more than impart historical information and a critique of the entire nuclear madness. “The Doomsday Machine” offers a full-throated call for ordinary citizens to act to avert the catastrophe.

I wrote the following letter to Rocky that I inserted in the book along with a newspaper clipping of the civil disobedience action. After reading Dan’s book, Rocky may even find ways of joining the anti-nuclear movement himself.

Dear Rocky,

I’m giving you this book in the hopes that you will read it when you are a teenager. In the meantime, I hope that your father and mother — and all their friends — will read it now. The book tells a scary story. It talks about things that most of us would rather not think about.

But I think you’ll find the book inspiring. It’s written by a brave man — someone I hope you will consider as a model for your own life.

Like many truly brave people, Daniel Ellsberg does not consider himself one. In fact, throughout the book, he tells of many terrible things he did and many mistakes he made while working for the government. It takes courage to admit your errors and even more to try to correct them. He wrote this book in part to make amends for his misdeeds.

Dan was a teenager when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. He was horrified by the accounts of how tens of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians were incinerated in a matter of minutes and thousands more died in the weeks, months and years that followed.

He thought that he could help prevent atomic bombs from being exploded again. So he got a job from the late 1950s to early 1960s working as a high-level consultant to the Pentagon helping to develop our nation’s nuclear strategy.

This was the height of what was known as the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union (now Russia), which had a communist system of government. Dan considered himself a fervent “cold warrior,” someone who believed strongly that it was his duty as an American to engage in the fight against communism. He had earlier joined the Marines because of his strong beliefs.

At the time, both the United States and the Soviets had thousands of nuclear weapons, even though each side only needed approximately 50 to 100 nuclear bombs to annihilate all the cities, towns and people in the other country. Yet both built more and more bombs and missiles as rapidly as they could. Both countries were prepared to launch their weapons on a moment’s notice, and each side had what is called a “doomsday machine” that would automatically respond by unleashing their own nuclear arsenal.

While Dan was working for the government, American and Soviet scientists had figured out how to make bombs that were a thousand times more destructive than those that had obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Called thermonuclear bombs, one of these weapons could destroy everything within a 50-mile radius of the initial blast. That is, wipe out even the largest cities on earth.

With hundreds, let alone thousands of these nuclear explosions, the ensuing firestorms would pour millions of tons of smoke and soot into the stratosphere blanketing the earth, blocking most sunlight and lowering temperatures for at least a decade. This “nuclear winter” would eliminate all harvests, starving to death virtually every human being and animal that relies on vegetation to live.

I know it sounds crazy that anyone would help develop such weapons. It was — and is — insane. But Dan and everyone he worked with sincerely believed that having the ability to blow up the world made us safe. Hopefully things have changed by the time you read this. This idea, called nuclear deterrence, is still in effect today. It took years, however, for Dan to fully understand the madness of it all.

You may find Dan’s description of how he became disillusioned the best part of the book. I thought I knew a lot about our nuclear strategy, but many of Dan’s revelations were news to me — and I would suspect to virtually everyone else who reads the book.

Dan shatters the impression that only the president can launch nuclear missiles and bombs. Most people still believe this to be true. This idea has been reinforced over the years by the image of a “nuclear football” — a briefcase with the codes needed to start the war, carried by a military aide who accompanies the president wherever he goes.

But Dan discovered that the nuclear football is more public relations than reality. While Dan was working on nuclear strategy for the Pentagon, he went to a movie theater with a colleague to watch a newly released film called “Dr. Strangelove,” which was very popular at the time. It is a satirical black comedy subtitled “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” In the film, a deranged U.S. Air Force general orders a first strike attack on the Soviet Union while the president and his advisors try desperately, and unsuccessfully, to stop a B-52 bomber from delivering its payload, triggering Soviet retaliation and a nuclear holocaust.

As he left the theater, Dan and his colleague agreed that the film was not fanciful but “essentially a documentary.” The film’s director had correctly guessed what Dan had learned from interviewing people within the military and top brass at the Pentagon: local commanders could launch nuclear weapons on their own, and there was no way of recalling them.

Dan didn’t just work on the theoretical planning and development of the nuclear strategy. He was at the Pentagon during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, and he tells the dramatic, inside story of what happened. I was in college then and was terrified — as was virtually everyone alive at the time. For two weeks, we all went to bed not sure whether we would be cremated in our sleep. When the crisis was over, we thought that rational minds had prevailed, that the leaders on both sides had averted the catastrophe.

Dan tells a very different tale. He found out that President Kennedy and his advisors were willing to risk nuclear suicide because of their concern for the next election. They feared that their political opponents would paint them as weak. Even worse, Dan learned that two days after the world believed the crisis was over, the U.S. navy almost provoked a Soviet submarine into firing a nuclear torpedo. Only a last-minute decision by the sub’s captain averted a nuclear holocaust.

How did we get to the point where nations are prepared to use weapons that can literally destroy all life on the planet? Dan’s willingness to confront the most difficult moral questions about nuclear war makes his book compelling reading.

To answer that question, Dan recounts the dismal history of how nations came to regard cities as legitimate military targets. It started with the use of airplanes during World War I. By the end of World War II, slaughtering innocent civilians had become normalized. Atomic weapons only made the killing process more efficient. As Air Force General Curtis LeMay put it, “we scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo … than went up in vapor at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.” The moral distinction between killing combatants and noncombatants that had existed for millennia had been swept away.

I particularly want you to read the last part of the book because Dan believes it’s not too late for humanity to get out of the precarious predicament it has created for itself. He has a plan for change.

First, he hopes that this book will educate people about the problem. It’s only when people know the truth that they have any hope of changing the world.

Second, he calls on people within the government who have relevant information to become whistleblowers. That is, if government employees possess data on current estimates about potential casualties from nuclear war, they should share that information with the public.

Dan himself was a whistleblower during the Vietnam War. In 1971 he gave newspapers top secret documents called the Pentagon Papers that showed that the government had lied to the American public about the war. He risked spending the rest of his life in prison for his actions, but he did so anyway.

Fortunately, Dan did not have to go to jail because of the prosecution’s egregious conduct during the trial. Dan’s actions led to the downfall of one of the worst presidents in our history, Richard Nixon. Dan became a famous person for this action. Recently a major Hollywood studio produced a film called “The Post” that tells about Dan’s bravery in releasing the Pentagon Papers.

Finally, Dan hopes that informed citizens will create a movement that will force the government to change its nuclear policy. This, too, may involve some risks.

If you look inside the book, you will see a newspaper clipping that shows that Dan practices what he preaches. In the foreground of the accompanying photo, you’ll see Dan lying on the ground. Behind him you can see me (with a big hat) and your grandmother Carolyn. We are trying to dramatize what happened to the victims of the Nagasaki bombing. We’re blocking an entrance to the Lawrence Livermore Lab, where the government conducts research to develop new nuclear bombs. A few minutes after the picture was taken, the police ordered us to leave the area or be arrested. We refused to move. So about three dozen of us were arrested, handcuffed and driven to a holding area where we were photographed and fingerprinted before being released.

Just before the demonstration started that morning, your father sent me a text message from the hospital saying that your mother had just gone into labor with you. While we were in the paddy wagon being taken to jail, I told Dan and the others that Rocky, my first grandchild was about to be born. Everyone was, of course, delighted. We all believed that what we were doing was the least we could do to make it possible for you and others of your generation to live long and productive lives without the ominous specter of nuclear war that we have been living with.

You are entering a dangerous world. Hopefully you will be able to look back and see that Dan’s book helped put humanity on the right path. It’s not going to be easy. If you look at the last page, you’ll see that Dan quotes another man whom I hope will be inspirational in your life, Martin Luther King Jr.

“If we do not act,” Kind said, “we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight … Let us now begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful struggle for a new world.”

With love,
Grandpa Robert

How the ‘fake news’ frenzy threatens the possibility of dissent

Waging Nonviolence - Tue, 02/20/2018 - 13:02

by Cristina Orsini

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'gvqPfl6bRqhB2pO_P4z4ig',sig:'Vcsa-PVw5iFCG-dv9hXkkI_A3M8bTakQGq6mX1wbRjU=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'888621516',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

In 2017, the term “fake news” was used 365 percent more often than in 2016, earning the award for “Word of the Year” by the Collins Dictionary. Yet, fake news remains one of those highly politicized terms that gain popularity in the public discourse, while few agree on what it really means. Indeed, the term is often used to refer to both deliberately fabricated news and inaccurate or incorrect information, going beyond content that can be considered illegal according to the limitations placed upon freedom of expression in human rights law, such as propaganda for war and incitement to hostility and violence. In the public discourse, fake news is often a catch-all term, used to smear opposing points of view: Trump accuses well-established American media such as CNN of fabricating fake news about him, while his opponents blame fake news spread on social media, and possibly pushed by external powers, for his election victory.

They may all be correct to some extent. If we think of fake news as disinformation and misinformation, we could indeed start seeing it everywhere. We find it on social media platforms where sensational fake news is fabricated in order to gain political followers or, simply, to make money (like the Macedonian teenagers who made thousands of dollars by producing fake articles during the U.S. presidential campaign). But it can also be found on reputable traditional media, such as the widespread reports of weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The discussions that saw the recent popularization of the term, however, often focus on how the internet and social media amplify the spreading of misinformation to larger audiences, giving anybody the means to impart information in the public sphere and favoring content that is quick and easy. Worryingly, with the development of new technologies and artificial intelligence, new challenges may lie ahead, such as video and audio manipulation.

Yet, presenting fake news as a new phenomenon is both incorrect and dangerous. It is incorrect because misinformation is nothing new, nor limited to social media. It is dangerous because, on the false premise of a new problem, governments are calling for new solutions to control the spreading of (mis)information and regulate content, proposing fixes that risk shrinking the space to challenge those in power. This is why it is crucial for people around the globe to understand the impact that current narratives on fake news and proposed solutions may have on their potential to be active and free citizens, in order to preserve the possibility of dissent and maintain a pluralistic and informative public sphere.

Content regulation as a mechanism of state control

In the words of Mahsa Alimardani, a researcher on technology and human rights in Iran at the Oxford Internet Institute and at Article 19, “the fake news discourse is … the greatest gift that President Trump has given to governments like the Iranian government … trying to control and manipulate how information flows within a country.” Indeed, cases of governments picking on fake news as the latest excuse to crackdown on dissenting voices are sadly flourishing in all corners of the globe. To mention a few, China has prohibited websites from “quoting from unnamed or fake news sources.” Egypt’s latest anti-terrorism law provides for a minimum fine of $25,000 (enough to shut down any independent media organization) for journalists accused of “false” reporting on terrorism-related issues. In preparation for the 2018 elections, Brazil is considering a bill to criminalize the sharing of false information on social media, and it has established a committee — the Consultative Council on Internet and Elections — to monitor fake news. As security forces are included in the committee, concerns abound from Brazilian activists that “the armed forces [will] monopolize control of the truth.”

But content regulation to fight fake news is concerning activists in what would be considered well-established democracies as well. For example, in June last year the German parliament voted for a bill to fine social media platforms that fail to remove illegal content within 24 hours, which can include hate speech and fake news. This triggered concerns over accidental and privatized censorship due to the short time-frame allowed for analysis of each case. Emmanuel Macron started 2018 by announcing that his government is developing rules to crack down on fake news, including the possibility for judges to block accounts.

Dunja Mijatovic, former OSCE representative on freedom of the media, is worried about these trends. In December, at the annual meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, she said, “There are more and more calls by political leaders around the world saying that they will fix fake news, so the society will be protected. Why should I trust any government agency or any search engine or any intermediary to tell me what is right and what is wrong? … I do not want anybody to filter my mind.”

Indeed, top-down approaches to fake news disregard the existence of propaganda and the fact that misinformation can be spread by governments themselves and used to advance their own interests. Letting governments control narratives can result in the homogenization of available information, which would be dangerous for democratic debate, and paradoxical if this was to occur in the name of protecting “truth” itself.

Regulatory efforts proposed by state authorities go hand-in-hand with pressure on platforms to take initiatives to tackle fake news and self-regulate. It was in the run-up to the French election that saw Macron elected, for example, that Google and Facebook teamed up with a variety of news organization to flag content regarded as false or misleading, a feature already introduced in the United States and recently modified to display “related articles” that provide alternative insights into a topic. Similar measures are being discussed in view of upcoming elections in Italy.

However, investing social media platforms, and thus private companies, with the task of managing content can be extremely problematic. Social media platforms have been criticized for their lack of transparency about the mechanisms and algorithms used to prioritize content, often influenced by the power of money and by a business model based on maximizing clicks for advertisement purposes. The arbitrariness of platforms’ decisions may go well beyond content prioritization, as was the case with Twitter’s suspension of the account of an Egyptian human rights activist and journalist, Wael Abbas, without any public explanation.

Another danger is that social media platforms can be co-opted by governments. For example, Facebook has been removing content published by Palestinian activists at the request of the Israeli government. This has created an asymmetrical social media sphere where hate speech and misinformation by some is removed, but not by others.

The ability of platforms to flag “disputed” content (which is different from illegal content that should be removed) may also lead the public to approach online information with a less critical attitude, as if critical thinking is possible to outsource.

It is perhaps critical thinking itself that is most deeply challenged by the fake news frenzy. In the words of Frank La Rue, a human rights lawyer and assistant director-general for communication and information at UNESCO, “fake news is a trap. Why? Because … they are trying to dissuade us from reading the news and thinking.” In other words, fake news narratives risk making citizens increasingly cynical about information in general, which could result in a sort of agnosticism to news and information. This could lead to public disengagement, a condition in which the powerful go unchallenged and collective action for the defense of citizens’ rights becomes harder to achieve.

Human Rights Watch Deputy Executive Director Iain Levine explained how fake news may not only be an excuse for authorities to silence dissent but also to avoid accountability. “Political leaders around the world have begun to use the label ‘fake news’ as a smear on fact-finding by journalists, human rights organizations, perhaps even prosecutors,” he wrote. “In doing so, they seek to break the link between evidence and culpability, making it more difficult to ensure those accountable pay for their misdeeds.”

Preserving the possibility of dissent and accountability

How then, can we resist this shift towards asymmetrical content control in the name of tackling fake news?

It is first of all necessary to recast the terms of the fake news debate. The concern over fake news can be a genuine one. For example, human rights activists in Europe and in the United States may worry about the fabrication of stories that portray migrants and refugees as criminals in order to spread hatred and fear. Yet, it is crucial that the same activists understand that the battle for information is both a battle against misinformation campaigns coming from all sides and one against proposed top-down fixes to the fake news problem, which would result in state control over what is publicly considered true and false.

A step in this direction was taken by more than 30 civil society organizations from across Latin America and the Caribbean who came together to write an open letter precisely critical of the fake news discourse. The letter was read at the closing session of the Internet Governance Forum — which brings together governments, the private sector and civil society to discuss anything related to digital policy. The letter’s aim was to protest the framing of the fake news debate, which they see as “empowering traditional media monopolies” and “opening space for surveillance, content manipulation and censorship” from platforms and governments.

However, it is crucial to bring this criticism out of a specialized context like the Internet Governance Forum and into the public discourse. Digital activists, who are directly engaged with online content policies, should build alliances with activists involved with other issues — as access to information and freedom of expression is at the basis of any type of collective action, both online and offline. It is through these collaborations that the elaboration of valid bottom-up solutions to misinformation can be conceived.

These may include continuing to promote independent fact-checking projects, as well as equipping the public with tools to support them in navigating the web. The Hypothesis Project, for example, uses open-source technology to allow users to annotate online content, so that isolated pieces of information can be linked to others, facilitating collaborative investigations and allowing the internet to be a web of linked information, rather than a trap of filter bubbles.

Platforms should also be held to account, but rather than trusting them with filtering content, it is necessary to demand more transparency on how content is prioritized or removed, so that citizens can become aware of the mechanisms that define which news will reach them. At the same time, censorship and surveillance should be resisted, by continuing the fight for encryption and internet anonymity to protect activists against repressive practices.

It is also vital to continue to challenge (state-sanctioned) narratives with full commitment to evidence-based reporting. According to Robert Trafford, researcher at Forensic Architecture, the current polarization in the public discourse over the veracity of news opens an opportunity to “explain to society as a whole why investigative reporting is valuable and a resource to be cherished.”

Forensic Architecture is an interdisciplinary team of researchers that investigate human rights violations in the context of urban conflict, where narratives can be particularly polarized. “There is this idea of state control of factual output and one of the things that is very powerful about Forensic Architecture’s work is that we are able to conduct counter-forensic work which reverts the gaze of state investigators,” Trafford said.

Forensic Architecture’s researchers do this by mixing innovation and rigorous academic method. They often use the proliferation of online visual materials — such as videos filmed by the communities affected by human rights violations — shared on social media as a valuable source of information. They then use such evidence to support the affected communities, grassroots groups and human rights activists in court trials. But they also work with journalists and create videos and exhibitions to make the stories that they unveil accessible to as wide a public as possible.

While Forensic Architecture’s investigations have faced attempts at obfuscation — and in certain instances have been called fake news — they may be less vulnerable to such discrediting precisely because of their rigorous approach to evidence.

“When I write on behalf of Forensic Architecture, I am able to do so with absolute confidence that the method of evidence creation is an academic one, and thus constantly reviewed with ethics and procedures,” Trafford said. “When we produce a report we give the credentials of everyone who is involved.”

The same kind of methodological transparency should be applied by any organizations involved in the fact checking of news.

Ultimately, the issue of the production, control and consumption of information is an extremely complex one. Thus, ensuring diverse information, as well as freedom of expression, is a task that requires many different approaches. Most activists seem to agree that if an antidote to fake news exists — within a truly democratic society where freedom of expression is respected — it will arrive through education and be based on critical thinking.

“Instead of pouring enormous amount of money into fixing fake news, governments should … give more to support education and the plurality of voices that we need if we want to live in democracy,” Mijatovic said. As governments may remain unlikely to do so spontaneously, it is up to organizers and citizens to make sure that this demand is heard loud and clear.

Headspace: Mindfulness and Intentionality

M.K Gandhi Institute for Non Violence - Tue, 02/20/2018 - 10:48

Increasingly, I am opting out of the typical, American greeting which is some variety of:

Hi, how are you?

           Fine, thanks, and you?

Doing fine, thanks.

My reason for opting out is that in my experience, no one is doing “fine/great/well” all the time. This ritual greeting has lost meaning for me, because it fails to express the reality of my dynamic state from day-to-day, and moment-to-moment. I strive to avoid fluff, and “autopilot communicating” in my dealings with people. If I am asked about my status, my answer is an honest one, and usually based on how I am feeling in the moment. If I initiate the conversation, I will perhaps simply offer “Good morning” or “Hello” without the overt request to know the other person’s status. I welcome the information if he or she cares to share. This approach reflects my focus on clarity and honesty, which I am building into all aspects of my life.

It can feel uncomfortable operating in this mode, when interacting with other people. It is remarkable how much meaningless filler can dominate conversations. Without easy filler to fall back on, gaps in the conversation might crop up. In that moment, there is a choice to make. Instead of rushing to fill the gap, I am interested in seeing what rises to the surface in my mind, which either represents a genuine mutual point of interest, or is something that I truly desire to share or ask. If nothing comes up, then I am OK with silently taking the moment in.

Internally, I am engaged in a similar effort to drop automated and inherited patterns of thinking, to reject assumptions and projections, and instead to look for real evidence on which to base my conclusions and actions. While it sounds simple, operating in this manner is not an easy thing to do, since unchecked assumptions and inherited norms have significantly influenced the way I navigate and see the world. Actively rejecting assumptions, stereotypes, and projections means taking on the job of discerning the reality of situations that may defy easy compartmentalization when critically examined.

Consequences of my move toward intentionality, clarity, and honesty are that I must do more thinking overall, and that the familiar universe that formed my reality yesterday may not exist tomorrow. I accept and in fact embrace these changes because the reward is a heightened sense of purpose and self-respect and an activated mind, all of which enable me to operate at my personal best.

By: Erin Thompson

"Last Gasp of a Dying Past

Living Nonviolence - Fri, 02/16/2018 - 09:01

After the most recent degrading remarks by our President, I concluded he would have wondered how someone born in such a shithole as a manger, along with all those animals, could be an object of worship.
His foul mouthed remarks about Haiti and Africa, more than any other he has made (and he has made many), sealed the deal for me of his moral character. (Honestly, even after the Access Hollywood tapes, I held out hope he could be changed by the Presidential office).
The President has become the living symbol of the dying and despicable struggle to make America white again (and male). With each passing day, it becomes clearer and clearer that one of his most important agendas is reversing the racial demographics of this country. No more people of color coming in and lots more going out. And he continues to have the support of Republican partisans, who for years have been struggling to find ways to identify with people of color, and failing election after election. Apparently they have concluded that if the battle is lost to recruit people of color to their party, change the equation by sending them home and importing more Norwegians.   
One part of the President's racist method includes broadcasting stereotypes. Early on in his campaign, we learned that all Mexicans were rapists and murderers. He would describe one criminal act of someone in this country without documents, and extend that criminality to all residents native to Mexico.      He included in his web of suspicion the workers from Mexico who re-shingled our home, who repaved Interstate 29, who cared for the cattle who gave us our milk, who picked the vegetables and fruits I ate yesterday, who came to our nonviolence trainings in the Black Hills.
He stereotypes Muslims as security threats, when the evidence is we are far more likely to be killed by a natural born citizen than a Muslim immigrant (the home grown killers are even invading our houses of worship). He institutes a Muslim ban from Islam dominant countries and hate crimes against Mosques and our Christian cousins rise. He foments religious hatred to the point where in South Dakota, some decry an interfaith prayer service at our state capitol. What is so terrible about people of different faiths praying together unless the "other" is a stereotype and not a person?
He stereotypes Haitians. He sends them home. I've been to Haiti. It is the poorest country in the hemisphere. There are historical reasons for the poverty, just as there are historical reasons for our relative wealth. That history is connected. But amidst the poverty in Haiti there is also beauty and joy. It is unlikely one born with a golden spoon in his mouth and always surrounded by the trappings of wealth would be able to see it. He would likely just see a shithole. But I wish the President would try. Please Mr. President, make a trip to La Gonave. Walk the hill from the dock and meet the people as I did. See the human spirit in the midst of the poverty. Understand they don't all have AIDS and be chastened.
He stereotypes Africans! There are 54 countries in Africa. We have long standing relationships with many. What must leaders in those countries think? How does it reflect on all of us? On an earlier occasion he is reputed to have said, Nigerians should go back to their huts! Perhaps he thinks Native Americans should go back to their teepees; and where would they put them?
Recent experience with Nigerians interested in learning about Gandhian nonviolence has helped me better understand the economics in that country. Fossil fuel interests dominate the Nigerian economy. Shell oil is famous there for lobbying government officials with enormous sums of money, destroying agricultural environments and some believe colluding in the assassination of a nonviolent activist.       Nigerians do not live in "huts." That is a racist stereotype! Go, Mr. President! See Nigeria! See the world! And don't just stay in Trump Towers! Perhaps you can stay with my friends, Christopher Ehidiamen, a Christian teacher and leadership consultant for Nigerian corporations. Or maybe be hosted with Betty Abah, of CEE Hope, working with adolescent girls and against child marriage. See the real Nigeria and how we as a country might learn from them, how to be great again.
This President is a challenge for the party of Lincoln; for those who still believe in the Constitution and a democratic society; and most important to me, he's a challenge for the Christian church. Now is the time for the church to proclaim in no uncertain terms that ALL are children of God, born with dignity and deserving of our respect. Now is the time to make Sunday morning, as well as Friday prayers, or the Sabbath, or any other time of the week, the most colorful ever. It's our heritage and our destiny! This President and his stereotypes are the last gasp of a dying past.

Carl Kline

Anti-fascist organizing explodes on US college campuses

Waging Nonviolence - Thu, 02/15/2018 - 14:07

by Shane Burley

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'_EOn3hX6SphFbJemhe7vRg',sig:'7t8k1eyJyKWQTxdj17VWSENlFTdks1EcezWyQrGKUKU=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'863110446',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

On December 13, six members of the University of Michigan’s Board of Regents shared a statement titled “United Against Hate,” showing their opposition to the current negotiations happening between the university and white nationalist Richard Spencer. After a disastrous appearance at the University of Florida at Gainesville, which saw mass actions by the No Nazis as UF coalition, Spencer had set his sites on the University of Michigan for his so-called “alt-right” recruitment.

Students reacted quickly, organizing walkouts and building occupations at the University of Michigan, Michigan State, and Eastern Michigan University, as well as satellite community colleges. Students 4 Justice, an organization formed in 2016 around ongoing issues of campus racism staged a walkout at the Ann Arbor campus on November 29.

The confederation of organizations took their inspiration from the growth of campus anti-fascist groups that have been taking on the appearance of alt-right figures like Spencer over the last year. Instead of waiting for Spencer’s appearance, students begin organizing once they learn that he is planning on coming to campus. This is the same impulse that has pushed towards the creation of ongoing organizations of students and faculty to deal with the ongoing pressure from alt-right organizations that see campuses as their prime recruiting ground. As 2018 begins, anti-fascist campus groups have exploded, changing the dynamic in universities to confront the kind of violence promised by the alt-right.

The making of a college-based anti-fascist network

Ever since 2015, when the Trump campaign emboldened white nationalist organizations under the alt-right banner, the movement’s figures and followers have targeted college campuses. College students are seen as upwardly mobile and are often from a different demographic background than traditional white nationalists. These organizations have also made targeting “progressive” areas a key part of their strategy, trying to provoke protesters for optics.

“Since a lot of these alt-right leaders are from the middle and upper classes, they relate to intellectual battles over street fights,” said Alexander Reid Ross, author of “Against the Fascist Creep” and researcher of far-right movements. “To turn the university into a site of struggle, they carefully cultivated an aesthetic and attitude that caters to an audience of middle-class students and faculty, who traditional fascist skinheads, Klansmen and Christian Patriot-types find it more difficult to reach.”

With the exception of historically black schools, universities are ideal settings for groups like Identity Europa, Vanguard America and the Traditionalist Workers Party to try and reshape the American consciousness. Since the arrival of alt-right groups, anti-fascist student activists have been turning ad hoc responses into lasting organizations ready for a response.

One of the emerging projects — the nationwide Campus Antifascist Network, or CAN — has expanded to quickly become the largest and most well represented of these groups on college campuses.

CAN was officially launched in August as student, staff and faculty activists began noticing that alt-right organizations were targeting universities amid a growing number of reports of racist harassment and hate violence on campuses. Working in tandem with the manufactured outrage of far-right media outlets like Breitbart, the trolling and harassment of students and faculty created the need for a national network of local chapters.

“It started because we had already been seeing a lot of hate speech on campuses, so we figured we needed some kind of a national group to address what we saw as a rise of this neo-fascism trying to worm itself into universities,” said Adam Miyashiro, a medieval literature professor at Stockton University, who sits on CAN’s steering and academic defense committees.

CAN now has more than a dozen chapters and more than 400 members in the United States. Chapters are popping up in Canada and the United Kingdom as well. With a horizontal structure that avoids hierarchical leadership, the model is intended to provide local chapters the autonomy to organize in their local region to the appearance of organized alt-right groups or threats of racist violence on campus. CAN has garnered the endorsement of a multiracial group of student and faculty groups and individual writers and educators, such as Junot Díaz, Steven Saliata, Farah Jasmine Griffin and Vijay Prashad.

Protesting Milo and ‘The Bell Curve’

At California State University, Fullerton, the October 30 appearance of former Breitbart provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos pushed that campus’ CAN chapter to have its first organized response — a counter action that brought together a coalition of student and political organizations. The goal was to set a precedent that white nationalist figures like Yiannopoulos would not appear on campus unopposed. CAN built a large coalition of student groups from across the spectrum, such as black and Latinx student unions. While Yiannopoulos spoke to a captive audience of both students and outside community supporters, CAN held activist workshops, set up tables with political literature and created networking opportunities for larger activist coordination.

While there were some physical clashes between Yiannopoulos supporters and counter-protesters, things went relatively smoothly at the CAN-organized event itself.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'aDfOFuthSotrexD5l6XMEQ',sig:'po7qc9QplcEAPmPWF_8k-hopl5rUXHTLwFRUSX-EVRA=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'868805434',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

“[Yiannopoulos supporters were] picking arguments, disrupting tablings and pretending to be media,” recalled Clayton Plake, a Ph.D. candidate at Claremont Graduate University and a CAN organizer. “We are in the process of developing contacts, both with academic, activist and scholarly organizations that are all about empowering communities to stand up against the far-right threat and the state violence that comes along with it.”

At the University of Michigan, CAN activists took an even more confrontational approach when, on October 11, Charles Murray — author of the controversial book on race and IQ, “The Bell Curve” — began to speak. Critics have labeled Murray’s work as racist pseudo-science that is eugenic in nature. The CAN activists heckled Murray during his speech, and they projected the words “white supremacist” above him.

As the CAN network grows, organizers are also distributing organizing plans to “at-large” members in areas without a chapter so that they can easily respond to the alt-right groups recruiting or harassing students on campus.

“The threat is that they would go uncontested,” said Chris Vial, organizer with the University of Connecticut CAN chapter. “The danger of the alt-right presence or even just some kind of white nationalist group is that they politically organize and mobilize these kind of ‘casual acts of racism.'”

Putting Hatewatch on campus

The Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, has a multi-decade history of targeting far-right groups through research and reporting, as well as community organizing and lawsuits. It has forced some of the largest white nationalist organizations in the country to close down, including the Aryan Nation, United Klans of America and the skinhead White Aryan Resistance. The group’s work has often been more journalistic and educational for state agencies. But in the last two years, in response to new campus-centered white nationalist associations, SPLC has built college chapters as well.

On October 30, the Columbia University chapter of the SPLC, along with coalition partners, including the Liberation Collective, held a march and rally in response to the appearance of far-right internet celebrity Mike Cernovich. Known for his virulent sexism, “America First” nationalism and conspiracy mongering, Cernovich was brought to Columbia’s Lerner Hall by the College Republicans for a speech.

“We don’t want white supremacy at our school or in the community it exists within. We want this school’s administration to know that [by allowing alt-right speakers] they’re playing games at the expense of black and brown lives and we will not be passive nor silent in this process,” said Jasmeen Nijjar, a social work graduate student and organizer with the SPLC campus chapter and the Liberation Collective.

At Cernovich’s event, anti-fascist activists lined people up to filibuster during the question-and-answer session, had protesters hold up signs during his talk and held an off-campus rally that marched through Harlem onto the campus. “Each action differs as it is based on the response and message we are trying to put out,” Nijjar said.

When Tommy Robinson, co-founder of the anti-immigrant English Defense League, gave a Skype lecture on October 10, members of the campus chapter of the SPLC organized a protest and shouted down his talk, rendering it inaudible. The Columbia administration took a harsh response to this activism, threatening 20 protesters with disciplinary action. Meanwhile, Nijjar and others were banned from Columbia University College Republicans events, though that was lifted after a couple of weeks.

On and off campus

While student and faculty-specific groups have a special stake in confronting white supremacy on campus, the broad-based anti-fascist movement also views the college terrain as uniquely critical. With alt-right groups making campuses their prime target, both to get a hip crowd of educated recruits and to try and reshape the institutions that set the country’s intellectual attitudes, many anti-fascist organizers are working to bring the larger movement back onto the campus as well.

The Virginia-based One People’s Project, founded by Daryle Lamont Jenkins, is one organization that has been campaigning around the public appearances of white nationalists for almost 20 years. The strategy he employs on campuses is two-fold, confronting the events as they happen by organizing counter-protests, and rooting out the figures on campus that are bringing white nationalists to campus.

“You can call out the Ann Coulters and the Milos all you want, but the fact of the matter is you have someone on campus who is giving them a platform,” Jenkins said. “Those people need to be called out effectively so they are not only not able to do that again, but they are going to have a hard way to go once they get out of college because everybody’s going to know what they’re about.”

The cultural shift in the alt-right made many young men who were radicalizing online believe that their participation came with few consequences. As the public revealing of personal information — a tactic known as “doxing” — against white nationalists expanded beyond just the core of anti-fascist organizing, it began hitting alt-right students especially hard. Those joining groups like Identity Europa in their college years are finding — upon graduation — that they limited their job potential, raising the social cost of participation while enrolled.

Some critics have said that doxing of alt-right activists leads to more dedication on their side, limits their “free speech” rights, and is an invasion of privacy. But by confronting those working to draw in new recruits at a vulnerable point in their early professional lives, doxing has proven to be one of the most effective anti-fascist tools for disrupting formal white nationalist organizations and shrinking the sphere of less committed supporters.

The organizers mobilizing against Richard Spencer’s speech at the University of Florida, Gainesville on October 19 — led in part by a coalition called No Nazis at UF — especially relied on the outside community, where many groups had been doing the work of tracking and confronting the far-right in the year since the election.

“The locals of the city were even more concerned because they didn’t want another Charlottesville happening,” pointed out No Nazis at UF organizer Omar Syed Muhammed. Organizations like Planned Parenthood and the Democratic Socialists of America lent support, including planning community events to make signs and showing their disappointment with the university administration’s decision.

Spencer’s attempts to recruit in Michigan sparked a mass student revolt, resulting in building occupations and student walkouts. Students 4 Justice were matched by organizations like Solidarity and Defense, an anti-fascist group that tied together the rise of alt-right groups on campus to the attacks on black churches in the region. As students returned to start their spring semester, the possibility of Spencer’s impending visit will hang heavy and act as inspiration for student groups that are quickly growing in response to his threat.

On January 18, Michigan State University finally gave the go-ahead to Spencer’s appearance despite the back and forth that has transpired for months. Spencer’s attorney, white nationalist activist Kyle Bristow, has promised to continue the lawsuits to force the alt-right’s way into campus venues, but in Michigan, and across the country, the number of anti-fascist campus groups promise to limit the scope that far-right appearances can have.

How Maine climate activists found their power potential by moving past one-off protests

Waging Nonviolence - Tue, 02/13/2018 - 11:57

by George Lakey

Rob Levin (back row, far right) and the Portland activists who joined him in circling the courthouse in December.

Rob Levin, a Quaker attorney in Portland, Maine, has been concerned about the growing climate crisis for years. Recently, he came to see that using nonviolent direct action could increase his effectiveness on the issue.

When President Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris climate agreement, an idea emerged among Levin and his fellow Portland Quakers: dramatize how the decision makes the United States a rogue nation. So, in December, they went to the courthouse and walked around it 195 times — once for each nation that agreed to reduce its carbon emissions. They then turned around, held up an American flag, and circled it in the opposite direction.

Levin then put the flag at half-mast and carried it onto the courthouse grounds, expressing his mourning for the U.S. decision. He knew this was breaking the law. He was briefly detained by police, then let go without arrest.

On reflection, Levin and the others realized that — even though the day’s action was highly meaningful to them personally, and the mass media coverage was good — its one-off nature would, in reality, not make a difference to policy.

Levin searched for something more likely to mobilize pressure on a perpetrator of the climate crisis. He discovered that Central Maine Power, or CMP, the largest electrical utility in the state, had for two years in a row lobbied against solar power — despite its public stand for renewables.

Maine Quakers formed a group to, as they put it, “shine the light” on the utility’s hypocritical practice. Thirty went to the Augusta, Maine, headquarters on January 27, despite the likelihood that they would be locked out of the building on a frigid day. In a parking lot just a hundred yards from the building, they met, shared signs and began to sing.

As they walked toward headquarters, they saw that security had set up a barrier in front of the entrance. They asked to speak with a CMP representative. Police issued the order to disperse. Instead, Levin and three others tried to enter and were arrested. The magistrate gave them unusually high bail ($200), set a March 19 court date and barred them from returning to the site. News reports were sympathetic, highlighting the alleged duplicity of Central Maine Power.

Meanwhile, the Maine legislature is considering a bill that would require Maine homeowners with solar panels to install a new meter forcing them to pay a fee for their own solar generation. Michael White, one of those arrested, said, “CMP comes up with these phony arguments saying that poor people are going to be hurt by rich people putting solar on their roof, which is a bunch of nonsense. Solar benefits everybody, and it lowers the rates for everybody.”

CMP has been lobbying for the bill, and a vote is expected within the next two weeks. The Quaker group is considering returning to the CMP headquarters and holding a prayer meeting inside the lobby — a tactic that several other Quaker groups have employed recently. Last March, Seattle Quakers and allied clergy held a prayer meeting inside a Chase Bank to expose its over $300 million in funds to the Bakken pipeline, which is strenuously opposed by the Sioux. Then, on January 30, the Philadelphia utility PECO called the police in response to a prayer circle of Quakers and allies in the Power Local Green Jobs Campaign. The campaign is demanding a massive increase in solar, generated by rooftop solar in high unemployment neighborhoods with a history of racist neglect.

Utilities and banks have been forced to make pro-climate changes by sustained grassroots campaigns. The first step, in each case, has been to do what the wily old strategist Mohandas Gandhi called “experiments with truth.”

Even getting the first step of truth-telling done, however, requires some time. Many institutions doing harm have built up a lot of legitimacy. Utilities are usually there for us when the ice and weather bring down the power lines or when extreme heat brings us close to brown-out, and it’s the larger grid that saves us. Our personal contacts can be with a utility’s helpful service workers.

In Philadelphia, I find that a favorite theater gets grants from a utility and a special ride in the children’s park is kept in shape with the help of grants from another. By associating their name with good causes, the utilities build goodwill; they appear to be good citizens. Like Dorothy in “The Wizard of Oz,” we need to pull the curtain back, revealing the part of the show that’s not warm and fuzzy.

The good news is that it’s getting easier. Polls consistently show a large majority of Americans think that the United States is going in the wrong direction, and politicians’ ratings are in the toilet. When Maine activists reveal that Central Maine Power is in bed with the politicians, it does not reflect well on CMP.

Extreme weather is not only reported more frequently — people have their personal stories. The federal government spent $306 billion in responding to the aftermath of natural disasters in 2017. Who will pay for this?

These realities erode the credibility of a utility that is making money, ignoring scientists and acting like there’s no tomorrow. In Philly, we meet people newly learning that a utility gets its monopoly status, and guaranteed profitability, from the public that grants it a license — and the public can take it away!

The news only spreads, however, through repeated sharing: conversations, social media and, yes, a series of dramatic actions from prayer to civil disobedience. As Rob Levin discovered when he reflected on his Paris agreement action at the courthouse, what’s personally gratifying isn’t necessarily effective. What we found at Earth Quaker Action Team was that a campaign — a series of actions, escalated over time — combines both personal expression and the satisfaction of making an impact.

Venezuela’s revolution remains a process

Waging Nonviolence - Mon, 02/12/2018 - 12:30

by Matt Meyer

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'Q2nuP2Z_SQFyXjEnEJXSkA',sig:'clOidatndeJ5OY32Xk0ryvlSvohCgFVach8aWeqtsNI=',w:'594px',h:'397px',items:'547093458',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

What is happening in Venezuela today? The start of a new year is always a good time to bring new thinking to seemingly intractable situations, and there are few situations more confusing to the North American progressive community than this basic query about the radical South American state. Is it a revolutionary government worthy of support, facing covert or overt intervention from the CIA and other shadowy parts of the U.S. empire? Or is it a reactionary, oil-dependent country which has lost its way since the early days of President Hugo Chavez, when grassroots people were encouraged and empowered to organize for their self-sufficiency and self-determination? Protests critical of current President Nicolas Maduro, sometimes sizable, seem to indicate the latter.

But the truth is more nuanced than most U.S. analysts, even of the left, can easily comprehend, as I learned during a recent trip to Venezuela. Our failure to understand Venezuela today has everything to do with our inability to properly understand contemporary revolution.

Twists and turns

Hugo Chavez was many things: hero of the Bolivarian revolutionary struggle (which initiated an unsuccessful clandestine armed struggle), former political prisoner and leader of the Fifth Republic Movement (which initiated a successful electoral campaign). He became president of Venezuela in 1998 and, in less than two years, had strengthened ties with socialist colleagues throughout South America and the Caribbean — building strategic alliances with fellow OPEC oil-producing nations and diverting oil profits to popular social programs.

Neither the Clinton nor the Bush administrations accepted the legitimacy of Chavez’s government, despite his landslide victory at the voting polls and his domestic popularity. The question, as usual, was about economics and regional political influence, not at all about democracy. A 2002 military coup against Chavez — successful for barely two days — had all the signs of a U.S. “regime change” operation. Once back in power, Chavez intensified his security as well as his public warnings against the machinations of the government of George W. Bush (who he likened to the devil in a speech to the U.N.).

Things became further complicated when Chavez, at only 58 years old, succumbed to an aggressive cancer in 2013. When the beloved leader died, the already-active right-wing saw an opportunity to ratchet up its destabilization efforts. Protests — sometimes nonviolent, but often not — sprung up against the new president, Nicolas Maduro, who had served as Chavez’s foreign minister and vice president. New laws designed to contain the protests angered many, including some leading anarchists. Tensions grew between the Maduro government and these anti-state activists — centered mainly around the Venezuelan Human Rights Education-Action Program, or PROVEA, and its general coordinator Rafael Uzcategui. The work of PROVEA appeared to some like a full-fledged opposition party, not a critical but progressive social change group.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'hoPjsJBoRxJUV9fZFgysKA',sig:'basJMPuyl31stnEQxXjIoCQuWOBt5KIg0QK2bPvamDM=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'618893540',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

Some of the conflict was fueled by genuine differences in revolutionary approach. Even before the death of Chavez, Uzcategui suggested that the Venezuelan experiment had become more “revolution as spectacle” than any kind of actual radical alternative. Like many Latin American populist regimes, he argued, the state-based reforms were more disempowering to people than an autonomous movement would be. Others reviewing the same conditions and governmental responses came to substantially different conclusions. Sociologist Marta Harnecker suggested not only that Chavez’s approach was more realistic, but that it was, in fact, moving (albeit more slowly than some would like) in an empowering direction.

Defining revolution

Today, few of even the most dedicated socialist Chavez-supporters would suggest that the Maduro government is the pinnacle of world revolutionary achievement. In conversations I had throughout several towns and provinces during a recent visit, the following points were repeated again and again: the current government is a coalition, one that contains many elements from both the left and the right. It has within it many who intensely opposed Chavez and want to completely reverse his legacy. There are some who supported and worked with Chavez but are highly critical of Maduro over fiscal, political, personal or tactical differences. Still, others support Maduro in a limited way, because they feel that without doing so they give the imperialists the upper hand. And there are some who genuinely support Maduro in a generally uncritical way.

But for those inside and outside of government most committed to grassroots democracy and some form of economic justice, one thing is clear: the Venezuelan revolution was and is a process. For those committed to the empowerment of women and people of African descent, to building stronger rights and protections for the leadership of Venezuela’s indigenous peoples, and to implementing practical policies of eco-socialist alternatives, the process of change is the revolutionary force.

In our fast-paced society, it is difficult for even the left to understand what this means. For us, revolution is most easily characterized by a date (July 19, May 19, or even July 4); it can be embodied in a man (Mandela, Che, or Ho Chi Minh), rarely by women. Sometimes a single organization can be understood as revolutionary.

In modern-day Venezuela, however, revolution is typically found in small collectives — some with ties to the government, some quite distant from it. The country is filled with whole villages and countless communities, infused with the energy and hope of dialogue, decentralized decision-making and the concrete benefits of working together. This process and the revolutionary movement behind it was in sharp form at the founding of the First Ecosocialist International, held in three small towns in November.

Alternatives at the local level

The gathering was itself a unique, adaptive process. Those who organized the International were committed to bringing together those most affected by the barbarism of modernity, capitalism, colonialism, patriarchy and all oppression. While it did not exclude any non-grassroots peoples, organizing de-emphasized academic and hierarchical ways of solving the problems of oppression, injustice and war. The representatives of Venezuela’s most radical government ministries, for example, were not asked to attend, while members of key regional indigenous nations — even if they were at odds with the government — were invited and strongly encouraged. The convergence was explicitly not held in the capital or any large city, because it is in the smaller towns where the most successful alternatives have been built.

Understanding some of the origins of the conference proves useful in better comprehending the Venezuelan revolutionary process itself. Livio Rangel, for example — a member of the Venezuelan core group responsible for the International — helped to facilitate the Monte Carmelo Declaration upon which much of the organizing process was based. In 2012, Latin American farm-workers from eight countries met with their Venezuelan counterparts and declared themselves “guardians of the seed.” They created a strategic action plan to take on the U.S.-based agrochemical giant Monsanto and won major concessions through highly coordinated but deeply grassroots-based actions. Not only are these efforts notable for their effective, bottom-up approach, they underscore the regional Bolivarian nature and influence of the Venezuelan example.

Though the towns which hosted our time together are “poor” in an industrial sense (and often with limited electricity and no running water), basic grains, vegetables, fruits and meat are available fresh, direct from the source: local farmers who grow enough for themselves, their families and their communities. While the international agribusiness industry may collude with those who would see the Venezuelan experiment fail, the main effect this has had is to make supermarket shelves in the urban centers stark.

More distinct than the lack of food is the lack of actual cash. In Caracas, there are daily lines in front of banks to withdraw spending money — but not lines for bread. The eco-socialist solution to both problems has been the institution of an inter-village system called “trueke” — a bartering and trading market where people share without cash, and make sure that within a given community, everyone’s needs are met. In the towns we visited, food and other basics were plentiful, and money has almost been made obsolete.

On this same local level, we saw little sign of the “civil war” which international headlines scream is imminent. There are, as noted, significant ideological and political differences within the country. Some very real problems — including gun violence and forces in the military and police who repress dissent and use militarism for their own gains — have been reported. But in the rural villages outside of Caracas, we heard nothing of these problems and experienced a strong sense of peace and calm.

Hallmarks of revolution

Venezuela today is most certainly not a utopia, not a worker’s paradise or a pacifist’s dreamland. It is also not a dictatorship, a state in dire crisis on the verge of collapse or a country whose government is at war with its people.

There is a revolutionary process, which few on the outside begin to comprehend. It cannot be found in the federal government, and it is not personified by any individual. It is not held together in one radical ministry or in a geographic region that serves as a liberated zone. The process of social change involves balancing ties to government with grassroots empowerment, upending power dynamics between the urban elite and poor farming villages, and delinking from the global economy while emphasizing everyone’s responsibility to Mother Earth. These are the hallmarks of revolution in Venezuela today. Built on careful study of past mistakes and experiments, new ways of relating are being developed — with a vision of empowerment and political-economic alternatives meant to spread well beyond its borders.

Whether the revolutionary process pervading Venezuela’s grassroots is allowed to survive is certainly still in question. The role of foreigners, however — especially at a time when the United States openly brags about its disruptive tactics, even in light of upcoming, open elections — could not be clearer. Whether one is a supporter of the revolutionary process or is suspicious and critical of the gains of the past decades, we must force our own government to let Venezuela’s experiment not be hindered by callous interventions.

"What Would You Do?"

Living Nonviolence - Fri, 02/09/2018 - 12:34

What would you do? That is the question that lingers long after the last scene in a Belgian film, “Two Days, One Night,” that my wife and I watched recently. So too it is the question that is meant to follow us through Torah, lingering in the spaces that give rise to midrashic searching, to questioning and wrestling. I am hardly a film critic and am wary of watching if I don’t know a film’s “V” rating, the “Victor factor,” whether too violent or too sad, preferring to watch movies mostly to find respite from life’s harsher realities. Drawn to a Belgian film initially as a connection with Mieke’s roots and family, it offered a powerful reflection on life, pushing at times the limits of the “V” rating, but no more difficult than engaging with parts of Torah. The film became for me a commentary on Torah and life, as the two are joined in the context of living life with people, bringing us to ask, “what would you do?”
In the film, which unfolds in the course of one weekend, the main character, Sandra, is away from her factory job on a health leave as she struggles with depression.         
Highlighting the stigma of mental illness as a subplot, the owner of the factory where she works is wary of Sandra’s return. Duplicitously setting the stage for the moral drama that we are meant to become part of, the owner of the factory offers a choice to the other workers.
      They can each receive a 1000 Euro bonus or Sandra can return to work. It can’t be both. With the devoted support of one co-worker who has told Sandra of the insidious choice, labor rights now another subplot, Sandra spends one weekend, thus “two days, one night,” searching out each of the other workers. Gathering courage from out of her despair, she goes to each one to put a human face, hers, on the choice that they and we are faced with. What would you do?
Through the lens of this week’s Torah portion, Parashat Vayechi (Gen. 47:28-50:26), that question becomes the test of what it means to truly live. Our response to “what would you do?” becomes the moral measure of life, our own and of life itself, of what it means to live with wholeness, integrity, and truth. The question becomes more pointed when made real in given moments of our lives, those times when we need to answer in real terms, not “what would you do?”, but “what are you going to do?”
The Torah portion begins with a setting of the stage, with words that on the surface seem simple, even pedestrian, telling of Yaakov’s living in Egypt for the last seventeen years of his life. Now on his deathbed, we are told, Vayechi Yaakov/and Jacob lived…. That phrase offers its own teaching, a question pulsating beneath its apparent simplicity, “what does it mean to truly live?” About to be gathered to his people, Yaakov’s life swirls before him in all of its days and nights, all of its highs and lows, a life filled with so much struggle and strife, so much pain. Finally finding some solace in the dimming light of harsh truth, a dysfunctional family whose torment he is largely responsible for, there is a certain comfort in the questions that emerge. The questions that begin on one person’s deathbed become for us questions of life that are comforting in their way of encouraging us to live. Yaakov as Yisrael is calling us as his children, b’nei yisra’el/children of Israel to rise up each day to engage life and people with integrity.
The moral choice in whether to think only of oneself and one’s own follows Sandra through the film as she visits through one weekend each of her co-workers. The question put to each person she visits increasingly becomes our own, will they/would we forgo a sizeable bonus to still include among us one whose need for work is equal to our own? So too, Yaakov’s life in flashing before him also flashes before us. As he sees, perhaps through tears, those moments in which he lied and cheated, twisting the bonds of love with his father and brother, colluding in untruths with his mother, favoring one wife and one child to the detriment of all, does it matter that seamy decisions might have been shrouded in the assumption of a greater good, as his mother believed, that he and not his brother was the more worthy progenitor? The question remains, in film, in Torah, in life, “what would you do?” As Yaakov wrestled in the night, so do we and seek our way.
     As his deathbed wrestling plays out, even now more urgently than his wrestling with the angel long ago, Yaakov calls for his beloved son, Yosef, and asks him, even pleads, v’asita imadi chesed vemes/deal with me in loving-kindness and truth (Gen. 47:29). Still in this world, the father asks his son to try to hold him in both kindness and truth. It is only after death that we speak in Jewish tradition of all that we do on behalf of the dead as acts of chesed shel emes/kindness of truth, or true loving-kindness. The frailties and failures of a life do not disappear with death, but are then held as part of one whole, an ideal with which we may struggle at times, yet to be wrapped up in kindness that allows the dead to be more fully gathered to their people. So Yaakov pleads, that he not  be buried in Egypt, but brought home to Canaan to sleep in the ancestral grave in the Cave of the Machpelah.
That Yaakov sought to fully live in Egypt in the latter years of his life gives reality to his lasting teaching for us. It was here, in exile, away from home, away from all he had hoped would be, that he wrestles more deeply and earnestly than he had before. It is here that he finally finds at least an approximation of wholeness, even if yet imperfect, with and within his family. The holy RIM, Rabbi Yitzchak Meir of Rothenberg reminds us of Egypt as the narrow places in our own lives, Mitzrayim, from meytzar/strait, the places in which we are challenged to yet live with truth and integrity, to make our way without losing who we are. Ironically, it is Yaakov in Jewish tradition who is associated with truth, not as representing the ideal of truth, but as a frail human being who struggles, like all of us, toward the truth. Needing the blessing of truth to help him on the way of truth, we say in words of prayer each morning, thereby making the gift our own, titen emet l’Yaakov/give truth to Yaakov (Micah 7:20). Helping us to see Yaakov’s very human struggles as our own, however they may differ in degree, the RIM teaches, in this way we are also able to live in every Mitzrayim that is each one’s/al y’dei zeh y’cholin l’chi’yot b’chol ha’mitzrayim she’yesh l’chol….
Whether in the day-to-day kindnesses we do for others, even at our own expense, or in allowing for the inconvenient presence of social programming in our own back yards, or in paying taxes with a sense of prideful purpose for the sake of the common good, or in recognizing that “me first-ism” is not the way of truth in either interpersonal or international relations, these are the real life situations in which we are called to act with integrity. These are the “narrow places” in which we wrestle, not in the gathering of our days, but all along the way, in the real moments of life, as in “Two days, One Night.” Holding all of the tensions between kindness and truth, with compassion for our selves and others, the question from film, from Torah, from life becomes our own, “what are you going to do?” emerging from “what would you do?”

Rabbi Victor Reinstein

We have what it takes to meet the crisis of our democracy

Waging Nonviolence - Fri, 02/09/2018 - 12:14

by Frances Moore Lappé and Adam Eichen

In 1999, Dee Hock, founder of Visa, quipped, “It’s far too late and things are far too bad for pessimism.” But 18 years later, pessimism can feel like the new realism.

After all, just three Americans control more wealth than the bottom half of us. In last year’s election, less than 1 percent of Americans provided most of the $6.4 billion in campaign spending, worsening an imbalance in political influence that’s long been with us. Even in the 1980s and 90s average Americans, according to a data-deep study, exerted “near zero” influence in Washington.

In fending off despair and effectively taking on democracy’s degradation, one insight has helped us a lot: that it’s not the magnitude of a challenge that crushes the human spirit; rather, it’s a sense of futility that does us in. Homo sapiens evolved, after all, as doers and problem solvers.

Yet, to seize a challenge — and certainly one as mammoth as building a strong, inclusive democracy — our species seems to require three ingredients. First, we must believe that meeting the challenge is essential; second, that it’s possible; and third, that there’s a meaningful place for us in the action.

With all three, humans have proven to be unstoppable.


History shows us that democracy is not simply a “good” thing. It is the only approach to governance that can bring forth the best in us while keeping the worst in check. To make our case, consider three anti-democratic conditions shown time and again to bring out the worst.

One is concentrated power. From Nazi Germany to Stalinist Russia to Mao’s China, “good” people commit unspeakable acts. And concentrated power measured by economic inequality — typically translating into political power — saps the life out of a society. Social epidemiologists in the United Kingdom found that economic inequality strongly correlates with a vast range of social and physical ills, from homicide to mental illness.

Also eliciting the worst in us is secrecy. Before the 2008 financial collapse, bankers were feverishly pushing risky financial “products,” and among their creators a favorite slogan was I.B.G. Y.B.G.: “I’ll be gone, you’ll be gone.” Its meaning? The traders knew they would be long gone from their posts by the time their schemes went south. When we humans believe no one’s watching, we’re vastly more likely to cheat. And only accountable democracy can ensure transparency.

A third anti-democratic condition bringing out humanity’s worst is a “culture of blame.” When people jump to finger-pointing before exploring shared responsibility, ongoing conflict is certain; and time spent pointing fingers is time lost from actually solving a problem. Humanity’s tendency to prefer those like us and distance ourselves from those perceived as “the other” also brings real harm, including the limiting of others’ democratic rights. Less appreciated is how othering diminishes all of our lives as the gifts of those excluded are denied their full flourishing; whereas diversity, social science confirms, enhances creativity, innovation, and our overall capacity to solve problems.

But humanity doesn’t have to stay locked in this three-pronged trap.

Democracy embodies their opposites. It is the only form of governance enabling us to create and protect the positive conditions shown to elicit the best: the dispersion of power, transparency, and acceptance of mutual accountability — not the blame game. These conditions also make possible meeting human requirements for thriving beyond the physical: our need for connection, meaning, and a sense of agency.


Once we believe something is essential, we don’t need to know that its realization is certain or even that our odds are great in order to jump into action. We need only believe it’s possible.

To believe that democracy is “possible” we need some level of confidence that humans come equipped for it and that history offers proof of success, however imperfectly, of at least its key elements.

Evidence that we humans come equipped is strong. Democracy requires a deep sensitivity to fairness, along with capacities for empathy and cooperation. Fortunately, a growing body of science shows that all three are human qualities. Research shows that even toddlers rush to help others without prompt or reward; and fMRI scans recording the brain activity of subjects competing and cooperating find that cooperation stimulates our reward-processing center in ways comparable to eating chocolate!

On our innate sense of fairness, even the supposed godfather of greed, Adam Smith, wrote well over two centuries ago that humans feel “in a peculiar manner tied, bound and obliged to the observation of justice.” Even capuchin monkeys demonstrate measurable sensitivity to fairness. In one famous experiment, they rebelled against what they perceived as caretakers’ unfair treatment.

And what about proof that those capacities can generate progress through elected government that’s accountable and inclusive?

From 1933 to 1938, our federal government created fairness rules — including Social Security, the right of workers to organize, and a legal minimum wage, dramatically narrowing the gap between most of us and a tiny minority at the top. Broad-based economic prosperity followed. From 1947 to 1973, median U.S. family income doubled. In striking contrast to recent decades, every economic class gained during this period, with the poorest advancing the most.

Outside the United States, George Lakey in “Viking Economics” notes that some Nordic countries were among Europe’s most unequal a century ago, but citizen “movements . . . challenged a thousand years of poverty and oppression, took the offensive and built democracy.” Today, most Nordic democracies boast voter turnout of 77 percent or more, compared to about 56 percent in the United States. Often Americans dismiss Scandinavia’s social advances because they believe such gains come at the expense of economic dynamism. Yet, in the 2016 Global Innovation Index, Sweden ranked second while the United States ranked fourth. Three Scandinavian countries made the top 10.

While we celebrate evidence of the possibility of democracy answering to citizens, we also stand with our first African American federal appellate judge, William Hastie, who described democracy as “becoming, rather than being. It can easily be lost, but never is fully won. Its essence is eternal struggle.”

A place for us

Finally, to take on a colossal challenge, we humans must see a meaningful place for ourselves in the action — exactly what is increasingly available within an emerging Democracy Movement. It is a grassroots “movement of movements” enabling Americans committed to the broadest array of issues to also work on the root crisis — democracy itself, the mother of all issues. And, in just the past few years, though largely invisible, this movement is succeeding in a range of reforms for inclusion and accountability, from reducing the power of money in politics and automatic voter registration to ensuring fair and representational redistricting.

It is perhaps the first movement of its kind in our nation’s history, and chronicling its rise forms the heart of our new book “Daring Democracy.”

So, in this perilous moment, let us pause to register some good news. The three conditions humans need to accomplish what might seem impossible are met. Democracy is essential. It is possible. And achieving it is a daring and noble calling in which a rising Democracy Movement enables each of us to enlarge our lives with power, meaning, and connection.

In other words, we have what it takes to make history.

Adapted from “Daring Democracy: Igniting Power, Meaning, and Connection for the America We Want” by Frances Moore Lappé and Adam Eichen (Beacon Press, 2017). Reprinted with permission from Beacon Press.

Youth activists and Catholic lay leaders organize for a DRC without Kabila

Waging Nonviolence - Wed, 02/07/2018 - 13:13

by Phil Wilmot

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'HyxrlOeUQ_VEQhMXMRQzNw',sig:'xc_Xt8W2MEWoIAjmZawNw4kOd7DrHowyi_1QXkyqIQQ=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'900069218',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is home to 80 million people. Its land is so vast that a peat bog the size of England was discovered just four years ago.

Yet, despite geographic distance, road inaccessibility, language diversity and internet blackouts, Congolese activists across the country — with the help of Catholic lay leaders — have coordinated dispersed marches and prayers against dictator Joseph Kabila, who continues to lead the country despite his last term having expired in December 2016.

Since the final days of 2017, Kabila’s security personnel have been filling churches with tear gas and administering bloody crackdowns, resulting in hundreds of cases of politically motivated arrests, torture and assassinations. Following a Mass last Saturday, Rev. Sebastian Yebo was beaten and kidnapped by police.

Amidst this severe repression, organizers are not only relying on their Congolese neighbors who must incur enormous risks simply to attend worship services, but also their international solidarity network.

“The first tactic is to mobilize people to join our struggle even if they are not Congolese,” activist Sylva Mbikayi said. “African brothers and sisters, and those of the rest of the world, can put pressure on the regime, by calling on Kabila to step down.”

Is DRC blessed or cursed?

The DRC should be the world’s wealthiest nation. Its territory is loaded with tantalum, tungsten, tin, oil and gold. It’s the birthplace of your cell phone, laptop and car.

But the Kabila family dynasty continues to rule, concentrating natural resources in its own hands, and in the hands of business partners. Joseph Kabila inherited rule of the DRC from his father, Laurent Kabila, in 2001. Since that time, countless rebel groups — including private and state militaries under the direction of Rwanda and Uganda, with support from the United States — have terrorized the countryside, raping women and pillaging raw materials.

Since around the time of Joseph Kabila’s appointment to power, a group of youth scattered across the nation have been patiently using everyday issues — such as the decrepit condition of roads, water access or the absence of waste management systems in municipalities — to rally against state neglect. Going by the name Lutte Pour Les Changement (which means Struggle for Change), or simply Lucha, this nationwide movement is tapping its decentralized network across DRC to pressure Kabila into stepping down and ushering in a period of democratic transition.

“Our big strategy is nonviolent action — reflection and action,” a representative of Lucha who preferred anonymity explained. “This means sensitization of the masses and peaceful demonstration.”

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'QSU2YhiFS2JdTba0_s_bxw',sig:'Jv0VZIvM0GIr-tliHDc0F4cIELBtfSJ1Nysi0QKNYhs=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'452091050',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

Since Kabila’s presidential term expired over a year ago, he has barely appeared before the media. He has also delayed elections, claiming state coffers — in what should be the world’s richest country — lack sufficient funds. This delay tactic has pushed Congolese beyond the edge of tolerance.

The anger of the population is not a new phenomenon. In early 2016, the transportation sector had gone on strike in the capital Kinshasa eight months prior to Kabila’s term ending. Other towns have also since protested his presidency. Although the strike and other forms of resistance resulted in short-term slow-downs of state activities, the momentum wasn’t sustained powerfully enough through 2016 to substantially challenge Kabila. Thanks to Lucha’s decentralized mobilization prowess, however, resistance peaked in 2017 and has escalated through these first weeks of 2018.

Mass education and mass protest

Even a movement as decentralized as Lucha isn’t alone in this struggle. Four activists from Filimbi (Swahili for “whistle”) carried out an anti-Kabila march in Kinshasa on December 30, which resulted in their detention. Meanwhile, a Filimbi member in the eastern town of Kindu was arrested and tortured around the same time.

Another geographically dispersed youth movement utilizing the tactics of grassroots political education and mass marches has branded itself “Quatrieme Voie,” or the “Fourth Way.”

Mbikayi, who is a member of Fourth Way, explained that in matters of making change, people traditionally rely on three things: the government in place, the political opposition, and civil society when all else fails. “But, in DRC, civil society did not fulfill its role of speaking for the interest of the people and consequently youth felt stifled,” he said. “[Fourth Way] has created an autonomous way to be heard. Congolese now get up and speak on behalf of themselves.”

This critique of activists is common across Africa, where foreign donor funding often sets campaign agendas, causing traditional advocacy organizations to follow suit. Activists are thus sometimes co-opted by foundations and organizations that want to take credit for the peoples’ struggles. As a result, youth and female activists are often brought into traditional and ineffective lobbying spaces and tactics, leaving less human resources available for those poorer and more genuine activists committed not to media airtime, but to winning their struggle.

The church has also led calls to action against Kabila’s regime. Congolese Catholics — whose leadership had brokered a deal to allow Kabila to remain in power through 2017 with the understanding that elections would be organized before the year’s end — participated along with a few Protestant counterparts in the December protests, often with clergy marching at the frontlines.

“Fifty percent of Congolese are Catholics,” Mbikayi said. “Lay intellectuals and activists are at the base of these actions. They are similar to the liberation theology adherents in Latin America. The church has filled the void that politicians created by betraying the people for purposes of gaining posts in the government.”

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'q74n_d4oSMFBBY9tCtSbqA',sig:'jln4eAvmuHgcCAvnZkhDD7YuVco6aUxUlcQEPIF1FGI=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'904194252',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

Catholic worship services endured utter brutality on December 31, 2017. While nearly a dozen people were killed in the streets, soldiers also opened fire on worshipers and filled churches with tear gas. A dozen alter boys and two freelance journalists were arrested at St. Joseph’s parish in Kinshasa, where services were infiltrated by the regime’s security forces. Over 160 churches participated in the call to resistance, despite the colossal risks. The United Nations documented at least 123 arrests nationwide.

“The Catholic church has always been on the side of the population and has taken positions against the dictatorial regime of [former dictator] Mobutu [Sese Seko],” Mbikayi said. “On February 16, 1992, [Catholics] led a march where Christians demanded the reopening of the National Sovereign Conference, which was repressed in bloodshed. It is the same thing that we see repeating today, where two marches in the space of a month have resulted in blood.”

A 2018 without Kabila?

Although an internet blackout coordinated by the Kabila administration made it difficult for the repression to backfire, those who were able to access the internet started a hashtag #2018WithoutKabila. Using this hashtag, citizens reported tanks, gunfire, snipers and presidential guards brutalizing and scaring off those going to worship services. Lucha’s Facebook page is calling upon the over 76,000 people who like their page to help identify the assailants in videos of state brutality that they have posted.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'JAQAgN9_RqJkR-eKtN_BUg',sig:'UElYo69Oy_STZWP_hy25mBCpvVAzdSJSDwDT0ep2gnM=',w:'594px',h:'397px',items:'882913594',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

The push-back of the Congolese people has resulted in Kabila’s administration claiming fresh elections will be held December 23 of this year, but the people have been in this position before. No one trusts such a promise.

“Through political education sessions, we help the people overcome fear of the Kabila regime and mobilize to support the Catholic lay people’s calls to protest,” said Fourth Way spokesperson Elsie Lotendo.

Fourth Way has a system in place to mobilize civil disobedience, provide direct services and develop political awareness. Civil disobedience is carried out to further delegitimize Kabila’s administration. Poor women who are detained are offered pro bono legal aid. Students and orphans are supported financially, giving the movement an opportunity to speak to the public about the state’s neglect of its citizens. According to Mbikayi, “This shows the people the extent to which the government has abdicated its responsibilities and is instead stealing the people’s money. This helps people understand how much power they have in their own hands.”

Most of the activists interviewed use a similar strategy with their movements: grassroots political education combined with mass mobilization days. In a nation of 80 million people and over 200 tribes, a common strategy across movements — inadvertent as it may be — can only help strengthen the resolve to end Kabila’s reign. There’s even a chance, if the various youth-led movements and Catholic lay leadership can coordinate cooperatively, that Kabila might not make it to the postponed election date.

“We already say we do not recognize this regime and plead for a transition without Kabila,” said a Lucha representative who asked to remain anonymous. “We continue to organize actions in this direction and support all those who do the same.”

Space for Meditation

M.K Gandhi Institute for Non Violence - Tue, 02/06/2018 - 11:47

I have tried meditation before. Quite a few times, actually. I have also led meditations for a group and for a loved one. I often grow irritated with myself over my inability to quiet my mind. My thoughts are loudest when the world is quiet and my only focus is myself.

I’ve sat in the meditation room here at the Gandhi House a few times. It’s so quiet in there, so clean and unimposing. I’ve sat my butt on one of those fun round pillows, crossed my legs, and closed my eyes. And from there, I start to feel like a failure. I’m not very nice to myself.

“Oh my god, shut up!” That’s me talking to myself. If I ever heard anyone be so rude to another person, I would surely be unable to keep my butt on that pillow. I’d be rolling up my sleeves and dive head first into serious lecture mode.

But do I come to my own defense?

No way!

So instead of pushing myself to try out the meditation space upstairs at the Gandhi House, I just find excuses not to meditate.

Too busy, too cold, too many people around. To be honest, there are a million things I would rather do than mediate. And yet, there are health benefits to meditation. Which is enough for me to try again.

The issue was that I was trying the same thing over and over again. So I think back on all the times that I thought I had broken through. Certain aspects of meditation that I liked, or made the things I disliked less uncomfortable.

I learned that I didn’t have to close my eyes. That I could stare at something, or at the space between me and something. It made those busy thoughts quieter for some reason.

Then, I learned that you can meditate over a question. That your mind is allowed to contemplate, to stretch and stir a thought around inside your head. Envisioning a space I liked, or single note of my favorite song held and extended, an image of a person that I love. Now, my mind wasn’t chattering listlessly. It had a focus, it was engaged.

Finally, I learned that I didn’t have to be still. When I learned this, I stepped outside of  a meditation space and started to make space for meditation.

I journal now, daily. I’d been journaling prior to working at the Gandhi Institute, but it was mostly about what I had done, what I had eaten, what else needed to be done. I was all caught up in the bullet journal craze. But aside from doodling and practicing ornate cursive and hand lettering, I didn’t think too much of this hobby of mine.

That is, until I sat down with a Gandhi deck and looked through them. I’ve had a deck for two years and had only rifled through it a few times. When I decided to use them as journaling prompts, that’s when I realized that I was meditating. My eyes were open. My mind had a focus. And I was moving. Suddenly, that simple trendy hobby I’d picked up last year seemed like an integral part of myself.

I meditated over those cards, over each question on the back of the cards. I gazed at the pictures and let myself think through my fountain pen. Some entries were like a stream of consciousness, others were brief and sharply poignant. It was such a lovely experience, that I’ve started my meditation all over again.

If you’re not familiar with bullet journaling and the amazing popularity of it over the past few years, please check it out. And if you are familiar, or are just getting familiar, please join me in the following journaling challenge. Find yourself a deck of Gandhi cards and write something for each card. There is no deadline, just the hope that you go through the entire deck. If you’ve got an Instagram, use the following hashtags so that I can check it out too! @rocnonviolence #GandhiDeckChallenge2018

By: Alex Hubbell

Australians demand lawmakers #StopAdani from building the country’s largest coal mine

Waging Nonviolence - Mon, 02/05/2018 - 12:59

by Brandon Jordan

The #StopAdani movement protested outside Parliament House on Monday. (Facebook/Stop Adani)

Hundreds of Australians gathered outside Parliament House in Canberra on Monday to demand that lawmakers — heading into the first legislative session of 2018 — stop what would be the country’s largest coal mine from being built.

Adani, the Indian-based energy group behind the $12 billion facility, submitted an application to the Queensland government in 2010 to build Carmichael coal mine, but has yet to receive full approval from federal and provincial officials due to environmental and legal concerns from residents. The project has spurred a movement across the country, with a recent poll showing a majority of Australians, or nearly 56 percent, opposing the project.

Maggie McKeown, a community organizer for the Mackay Conservation Group and a speaker at Monday’s demonstration, highlighted the #StopAdani alliance as an example of resistance to the mine. In March 2017, several groups, including McKeown’s, formed the coalition to stop the project.

“In the last 10 months, the #StopAdani alliance has grown from a few groups to hundreds of groups and to thousands and millions of supporters around Australia and the world,” McKeown said.

She described Adani as a company with a questionable environmental record, using its Abbot Point coal port, located a few miles northeast of the proposed facility, as an example. Last April, after a cyclone hit the facility, coal-laden water spilled into the nearby wetlands. And just last week, an investigation discovered that Adani under-reported the damage caused by the spill and tampered with lab results sent to environmental regulators.

“Adani is a company that can’t adhere to the environmental standards put in place by our state government,” McKeown said. “They lie about what they’ve done.”

The fear of an even larger disaster occurring at the proposed Carmichael mine is just one reason many attended Monday’s demonstration.

“Politicians need to be reminded that this movement will continue to grow in size and strength until they take a stand for our future, do what it takes to stop this mine and move Australia beyond the devastating impacts of coal,” #StopAdani organizer Charlie Wood said.

According to an environmental impact statement, the project would require at least 3.17 billion gallons of groundwater per year, which would risk drying out aquifers and other water resources. Local wildlife, agriculture and towns that depend on that water would be greatly affected.

“[In addition,] it would place further stress on our precious and increasingly dying Great Barrier Reef, which supports almost 70,000 jobs,” Wood said. “It would run roughshod over traditional owners’ rights, devastating their cultural heritage.”

The carbon emissions, meanwhile, would be unprecedented in Australia’s history. Carmichael would emit at least 78 million tons of CO2 per year, far more than the cities of Toronto, New York City or Paris — all in the service of producing coal intended largely for export to India.

Needless to say, the country’s commitment to reducing its carbon emissions under the Paris climate accord would be in jeopardy. To ensure that Australia helps reduce global temperatures from rising beyond 2 degrees Celsius, over 90 percent of the country’s coal must stay in the ground.

350.org Pacific campaigner Joseph Zane Sikulu also spoke at Monday’s gathering outside Parliament House, urging lawmakers to reject the project in order to uphold the country’s climate commitments.

“We have the potential to blow out the targets the government agreed to in Paris two years ago,” Sikulu said. “We need to transition away from fossil fuels, and it’s never going to happen if the government pushes mines like this one.”

All this opposition is clearly having an effect, as Adani is losing momentum with the project. The country’s largest four banks refuse to offer loans to the project. Downer, a construction firm that obtained a $2.6 billion contract to build the coal mine, parted ways with Adani after the latter failed to secure a loan from the Queensland provincial government.

Still, as McKeown explained, Adani is not giving up on a $12 billion coal mine. If both provincial and federal officials refuse to publicly condemn the project, the firm is optimistic the project will happen.

With Monday’s demonstration as the official start to further actions and demonstrations this year, activists anticipate even more victories against the company and, perhaps, an end to a near-decade conversation over the facility.

“We built a movement that nags politicians,” McKeown said. “We want politicians to know that we’re not a movement that will go away. We’re a movement that will keep lobbying until its stopped together.”

Remembering Gene Sharp, a pioneer of people power

Waging Nonviolence - Fri, 02/02/2018 - 15:28

by The Editors

Gene Sharp at his office in East Boston, where he founded the Albert Einstein Institution. (Ruaridh Arrow)

Gene Sharp, who passed away at the age of 90 on Sunday, was not only a key figure in the development of a whole new field of study devoted to helping people realize their own power, he was a key figure in the lives of so many who found inspiration in his work and took it in new directions. It is no exaggeration to say that Waging Nonviolence would not exist were it not for his pioneering research demonstrating the undeniable power and effectiveness of nonviolent struggle. It is also true that his early encouragement — and desire to publish an original piece with WNV, just two years into its existence — gave us a much needed boost of confidence.

Nearly everyone who has taught, researched, written about or engaged in nonviolent struggle owes some debt Gene Sharp. And since the obituaries don’t have room to share their remembrances and tributes, we have collected some of them here. While the following stories come from only a small sampling of the activists, organizers, scholars and writers whose lives he touched, they give a glimpse of the profound impact that he had on the world.

It’s been a profound privilege of my life to learn from you. The world is a better place because of your path-blazing audacity. Thank you for sharing your genius with the world. Rest in peace, my friend.

– Jamila Raqib is the executive director of Gene Sharp’s Albert Einstein Institution and a Director’s Fellow at MIT Media Lab

I can never forget the day I first met Gene Sharp. I was an Army Senior Fellow at the Center for International Affairs at Harvard University. I saw a notice taped to a window stating there would be a meeting of the Program For Nonviolent Sanctions at 2 p.m. that day. As an Infantry officer with almost 25 years learning the skills of combat and executing those skills with two combat Infantry units, I decided I would drop in just to see what peaceniks and draft dodgers looked like and talked about. Soon, a small man walked to the front of the room and introduced himself. “I am Gene Sharp,” he said. “Strategic nonviolence is about seizing political power or denying it to others.”

After the meeting, I introduced myself to Gene and asked if I could meet with him, since my career was doing what he had talked about — except my career was about waging violence for the same purposes. After a meeting the next day, which lasted three hours, my life was changed regarding those who advocated nonviolent actions, if they knew and followed Gene’s concepts. To be more effective, in my view, Gene Sharp’s approach could be expanded to include strategic and tactical operational planning, propaganda development and distribution and understanding the meaning of Sun Tzu’s “Knowing your enemy and you will know the outcome of a thousand battles.” Gene became my mentor for almost two decades.

I know Gene enjoyed introducing me to his friends and colleagues as “Colonel” Bob Helvey. He showed me a viable alternative to war in pursuing security and other national interests. A society can no longer defend itself against a wannabe tyrant using violence against the modern state. Just maintaining our second amendment rights will not deter an oppressor. Nonviolent struggle is a force more powerful. We traveled together in many countries. The peacenik and the warrior worked well together!

Robert Helvey is a retired U.S. Army Colonel and the author of “On Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: Thinking About the Fundamentals”

All of those in the peace movement, whether they have been imprisoned on charges of civil disobedience or have taken to the peace studies classrooms, owe a large debt to Gene Sharp. Through his many books on nonviolence written over the decades, he has consistently been the idea man that kept us grounded. In the 35 years of my classroom toil, not a semester has passed without reading one or more of Gene Sharp’s essays.

I had a long conversation with Gene Sharp in 2011 when he came to Washington, D.C. to receive the El-Hibri Peace Education Prize. Gene, self-effacing and gracious, was characteristically modest about his long record to champion alternatives to violence.

Colman McCarthy directs the Center For Teaching Peace in Washington, D.C., and is a columnist with the National Catholic Reporter

Although I wasn’t even introduced to Gene Sharp’s work until 2005, I can say without a doubt that he has fundamentally shaped both my professional and personal outlook more than almost any other single person. I find that my own life has been enriched by the way in which I now understand power, and I have been able to pay this forward to thousands of students over the years. It is impossible to imagine that the study of civil resistance and nonviolent strategy would be anywhere near as evolved as it is today without the contributions of Gene Sharp. His work very likely has contributed to the liberation of countless people over the years, and will probably do so into perpetuity. That is quite the gift to humanity.

– Cynthia Boaz is an associate professor in the department of political science at Sonoma State University

I got to interview Gene Sharp when I was at the New Yorker, and his books were hugely useful to me when I was trying to figure out ways to escalate the Keystone pipeline campaign. But my favorite memory of him is from a meeting in an upstairs office in Central Square Cambridge some winter evening in the late 1970s. The Clamshell Alliance was planning for an attempt to take over the Seabrook nuclear power station, and I was a journalist covering the scene. Some of the more zealous activists were worried that the police would spy on them from helicopters so they were planning to use weather balloons to stretch steel cables so the choppers would be afraid to fly nearby. Gene had come by to consult, and I remember him listening to this, and then simply saying: “How is that different from telling them you have an anti-aircraft gun and you’ll shoot them down?” No one had a good answer, and the Seabrook occupation remained steadfastly nonviolent.

– Bill McKibben is an author, educator, environmentalist and founder of 350.org

It took a Hindu by the name of Mohandas Gandhi to grasp the power of Thoreau’s Christian-based civil disobedience. And similarly it took a (at the time) young academic by the name of Gene Sharp to unlock the strategic power of nonviolence from India’s most well known activist. Gene was bold enough to run against the prevailing winds. He was detailed enough to back it up. And he was insistent in his revolutionary argument that it is not might — but people’s tacit or explicit agreement with the powers-that-be — that keeps those powers in place. His lessons will echo long beyond his name. And we thank him for it.

Daniel Hunter is a trainer and organizer at Training for Change

It took a little time to convince Gene that doing a documentary was a good idea, but eventually I received an email from him where he said he understood the power of film to convey his message long after he was gone. That became my mission — his work was always going to live on in his books in every corner of the world, but I wanted to create a film where the viewer would feel like Gene was talking directly to them. Shortly afterwards he phoned me up and said, “Honestly, how much have you read!?” I was bit stumped by this question because I’d only completed “From Dictatorship to Democracy” at that point and dipped into the case studies in “The Politics of Nonviolent Action.” I fudged the question and thought I’d gotten away with it, but a week later an enormous box of books arrived at my flat in London with almost everything he’d written in it. He sent a note which read, “I like a well-informed interviewer!” Later I saw that was typical of Gene — he was quite capable of gently upbraiding any potential upstart who didn’t think they needed to study his material in depth. He’d say, “If you want to remove a dictatorship, you can read 900 pages. If you can’t even read 900 pages then you’re not serious!”

I was really privileged to go touring the film around Europe with him. I think we all understood that it would probably be his last foreign trip, and he enjoyed it enormously. He was treated like a rock star wherever we went — huge cinemas full of sometimes 700 people gave him emotional standing ovations. I remember looking out from the stage on one occasion to see the official photographer at the event had to stop taking photos to wipe tears out of her eyes. He was kind to everyone who wanted to meet him, caring and generous with his time, but there was an obvious steely and dogmatic core of his personality which kept him going through his toughest moments. His story of dogged determination to improve the world despite operating against incredible odds inspired so many people, but he was relentlessly modest about his contribution. Had it not been for the dictators who denounced him, I would never have known his name.

Ruaridh Arrow is the director of the documentary “How to Start a Revolution” and the author of a forthcoming biography of Gene Sharp

Gene and I were in Moscow at the invitation of the Living Ring after the August attempted coup d’etat against Gorbachev in 1991. Boris Yeltsin and the others opposing the coup were hiding out in the parliament building, while 10,000 people (the Living Ring) surrounded it for three days and nights, nonviolently facing the tanks and soldiers who had order to attack. The Living Ring wanted training in how to nonviolently defeat future attempted coups against the government. Gene gave talks and we led workshops on nonviolent means to defeat further coup d’etats. It was a real privilege to work with Gene who selflessly shared the power of nonviolent struggle with people, groups and movements who wanted to use peaceful methods to challenge oppression and injustice.

David Hartsough is the author of “Waging Peace: Global Adventures of a Lifelong Activist” and the director of Peaceworkers

I first met Gene 18 years ago while a graduate student at the Fletcher School. The simple but revolutionary concept that Gene described so clearly, that power is ultimately grounded in the consent and cooperation of ordinary people, was exciting for someone like myself studying internal wars and violent conflict. It didn’t take long before I had an appointment with Gene at the Albert Einstein Institution.

What struck me most in meeting Gene was the absolute seriousness with which he undertook his research and writing. Documenting the strategies and tactics of nonviolent struggle was not a theoretical exercise for Gene. He knew it had profound, real-life implications for those living under the boot of repression around the world. His interactions with activists from Burma, Palestine, Serbia and beyond demonstrably grounded his work.

The impact of Gene’s work on those on the front lines is most impressive. I’ve met many activists over the years, from Ukraine to Egypt to Zimbabwe, who’ve told me how Gene’s works, which have been translated into dozens of languages, have guided their freedom struggles. While working at ICNC and later in the U.S. State Department, I’d regularly send activists, civic leaders, and policymakers Gene’s writings, including those famous 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action. His From Dictatorship to Democracy is, for activists, a tool of liberation.

I am grateful to Gene for his groundbreaking and meticulous research, for laying the intellectual foundation for the field, and for providing peoples around world with effective tools to challenge injustices and build more inclusive, just, and peaceful societies. Rest in peace and power, Gene.

– Maria J. Stephan directs the Program on Nonviolent Action at the U.S. Institute of Peace and is the co-author of “Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict.”

Gene Sharp was a pioneer. He was our pioneer, who courageously put nonviolence on the map of a violent world, making possible the work that we do. His groundbreaking book, “Making Europe Unconquerable,” and his many writings on nonviolent tactics have been widely translated and widely read. It’s impossible to estimate how many people in our world today live in political freedom because of what Gene Sharp thought and did. How fitting that he passed on almost to the day that his great mentor, Mahatma Gandhi, fell to an assassin’s bullet.

Michael Nagler is the founder and president of The Metta Center for Nonviolence, as well as the author of “The Search for a Nonviolent Future”

My personal encounters with Gene were phone calls or drop in visits over the the years, during which he would always stop what he was doing to say hello, share his latest work, and answer my questions on the topic of the day. After the Arab Spring, I asked him why he thought Libya would choose civil war to overthrow their dictator, when Tunisia and Egypt had just demonstrated a less painful alternative. He explained how defecting military factions with lots of weapons at their disposal and support from NATO quickly rushed in to do the job.

What Gene gave us was a realistic way out of our insane belief that we must kill people to create a safe world. For me he created a bridge between the Sermon on the Mount and realpolitik. What a thrill it is now to see so many scholars and activists making that bridge wide and welcoming.

John Reuwer is adjunct professor of conflict resolution at Saint Michaels College, Vermont

Gene Sharp was such an unique person, and I feel so privileged I got to know him personally and can call him my friend. His work was certainly academically and scientifically very significant, but more importantly — for me and activists worldwide — it inspired thousands of people around the globe to better learn how to fight for freedom, human rights and democracy. I learned about his work in 2000, while leading the Serbian nonviolent movement OTPOR! (resistance). Since then, I have never stopped studying and applying his great work, which has left a significant stamp on people-power-driven movements worldwide. I am sure that his legacy will be even more important in the age that we are living in, the age when human rights and democracy seem to be under permanent threat. I feel that this great loss will serve as a boost and inspiration to carry on the torch of nonviolent activism with even stronger commitment.

A last salute to Gene, my friend and inspiration. Let’s make sure his legacy, ideas and marvelous insights into how people can empower themselves shines for generations to come. Great ideas, unlike great people never die!

Srdja Popovic is the founder of CANVAS and author of “Blueprint for Revolution”

I was first introduced to Gene Sharp’s writings as a left-wing student activist in the 1970s. Though I shared with my leftist comrades their strident opposition to U.S. imperialism and the importance of what was then called Third World solidarity, I was uncomfortable with their romanticization of armed revolution. These largely white middle-class college students would never know the horrors of counter-insurgency warfare inflicted against populations who resisted their oppression through armed struggle.

Their response was that, given how structural violence (deaths from malnutrition, preventable diseases, etc.) was responsible for ten times the deaths of behavioral violence, supporting an armed revolution that would end the structural violence was actually was thereby morally defensible. Even putting aside the propensity for successful armed revolutions to turn into autocratic governments that also fail to successfully address structural violence, I was not convinced that it was an either/or situation. There had to other ways than armed revolution to topple autocracies. Through his study of centuries of nonviolent struggle, Gene made a convincing case on utilitarian grounds that nonviolent struggle was a better means of resistance.

Most of my fellow student radicals remained unconvinced, in large part because there were few concrete examples at that time of largely nonviolent movements bringing down authoritarian regimes. In the 40 years since, however, over 50 autocratic governments have been toppled through unarmed civil resistance movements, many of which were influenced by Sharp’s writings.

Stephen Zunes is a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco


Living Nonviolence - Fri, 02/02/2018 - 11:08
There's a singing video making the rounds on social media. Apparently there are more than 12 million people who have viewed it. You see a teacher sitting on the bleachers at her school as a group of young people are singing to her. The children are smiling and moving with the music, even while sitting, and are obviously into the song. They are probably forty or fifty in number, racially diverse, accompanied by what one assumes is their music teacher. At one point he has a short solo part and a beautiful voice. Toward the end of the song the children all hold out a flower they had hidden below their seats and extend it toward the teacher.   
In all of this, we periodically see the teacher, who is crying. She wipes her eyes. She manages weak smiles before the tears flow again. At one point she is so moved she almost falls over backwards. It's as if the power of the music and the energy of their care for her sweeps her off her seat. 
She has cancer. The students know it. They are offering her a love song. It made me cry.
         Another video on social media made me cry as well. This one was of a mother forgiving her son's killer in court. She hugs him. She hugs his mother. She greets all the members of his family. She tells the killer she will always be a part of his life and she will not let the society kill him. She makes it clear that all lives are connected so taking one life affects many lives. She is obviously Muslim and acting out of her faith.
I may be getting more sentimental with age but I don't want you to think most things make me cry. Still, the tears do seem to come more lately and I'm wondering why. They can flow listening to good music or watching good theater. It can happen when I'm telling a story about an event that moved me or reading someone's else's story in prose or poetry. I've begun to seriously ponder what's behind it all.
This is my conclusion so far. In a world seemingly gone mad, I crave examples of kindness and harmony. In the event with the teacher, I saw and heard both. After seeing the video, I wondered about the healing capacity of that experience for the teacher. How did it impact her body? How did it help her fight her cancer?
We are learning some of the physically therapeutic benefits of music. Studies have concluded that music can make a difference for those with brain injuries, stroke, Parkinson's, perhaps even autism. Music therapy has come into it's own. Movement can be aided by rhythmic auditory stimulation. Musical improvisation can help with emotional expression. Singing and respiratory exercises can aid in restoring speech. Even persons with severe brain damage and no speech or movement can be stimulated by music to smile.
Once when I was as ill as I've ever been, the Canadian Tenors sang constantly by my bedside. They moderated the pain as well as any opioid. If I woke in the middle of the night and the CD had run its course, we just started over again. Given how mothers have used lullabies to soothe crying babies for ages, it seems strange we haven't recognized the therapeutic value of music as medicine sooner.
Then there's kindness. It's also about harmony. It doesn't have to be as unusual and dramatic as forgiving your son's killer in court. It can be as everyday as forgiving the person who cuts you off in traffic instead of carrying that anger through your day.
Undeserved kindness is so exceptional it can be life changing. Especially when we know we've done wrong, to be forgiven and embraced is shocking. To be kind and forgiving when we've been wronged, is equally shocking. Kindness sets in motion an energy that creates change. When God does it, it's called grace. 
I confess it's difficult to face some days with harmony and kindness. If one is open to what's happening in the nation and the world, there is bound to be disharmony and upset. At one time we were promised a kinder, gentler conservatism. There are no such claims now. At one time we had political parties that could sing in harmony (with enough practice). Today they sing very different tunes, alone.
Our task is to keep singing. Music and harmony is the way of the world. Do you remember that old round we used to sing, "Music alone shall live, never to die." And our task is to do those small acts of kindness for those with cancer, brain injured, or simply stressed in the super market. 

One of these days maybe we can send a mass choir to Washington to serenade the Commander in Chief and the Congress. Perhaps there could be some healing.

Carl Kline

Gene Sharp — the lonely scholar who became a nonviolent warrior

Waging Nonviolence - Thu, 02/01/2018 - 12:00

by George Lakey

(Twitter / @GeneSharpAEI)

Once again I rang the bell at the brick row house in East Boston where Gene Sharp lived. When he opened the door I said proudly, “Today I drove here instead of taking the T.”

“You drove?” he said in mock horror. “Man, are you trying to get yourself killed? Haven’t you heard about Boston drivers? They show no mercy, especially toward Philadelphians!”

That was the Gene Sharp I knew, always loving to find a joke in the moment. So, I was sad to hear the news that he passed away on Sunday at the age of 90.

When I had him speak at Swarthmore College he put on his distinguished scholar persona, adding the English accent he’d learned while studying at Oxford. When one of my students asked a particularly penetrating question, Gene, at the time associated with Harvard, peered over his glasses and said, “Hmm, it appears to be true: Swarthmore students really are brighter than Harvard students.”

Even though he charmed my students, he also relished the role of contrarian. Not easy, if your life mission is to bring into the mainstream an area of study previously on the intellectual margin.

I was 21 years old when I met him. I was studying sociology at the University of Oslo. One of my teachers there who knew of my interest in the peace movement said that I might like to meet someone at the university who was researching Norwegian nonviolent resistance to the German Nazi occupation in World War II.

I dropped by his office and found a 30-year-old in jeans and sneakers with a quick smile. We both welcomed the chance to speak English, although his Norwegian was much better than mine. My eyes widened when he told me he was not only digging into stories of Norwegian resistance, but was going to conferences where he interviewed Africans in anti-colonial struggles who told him of nonviolent tactics being used there, sometimes alongside armed struggle.

At first I couldn’t make sense of it. Gene had been to prison as a conscientious objector and then became secretary to A.J. Muste, who Time magazine called “America’s number one pacifist.” I’d become a pacifist only recently after a fierce internal struggle, given my family’s pro-military beliefs. To me, the choice between violence and nonviolence was a choice of moral conviction. What happens to moral choice when we research violent and nonviolent methods as if they are alternative means to an end?

In dialogue with Gene over time I realized he was not closing the door on ethics. Instead, he saw much more promise through opening the door of practical advantages of nonviolent struggle. He and I wanted the same thing: maximum attraction to nonviolent struggle to win justice.

Gene also told me stories of his own disappointment, when pacifist intellectuals he knew who could have developed pragmatic strategies for nonviolent struggle chose not to, falling back on their ethical choice as their default. As an eager-beaver student, already set on getting a master’s in sociology, I sympathized with Gene’s eagerness to take on the tough questions on their own terms rather than rely on a default answer. From there, it wasn’t hard for Gene to convince me that I should write my own thesis on nonviolent struggle.

We stayed in touch after I returned to the United States, and — with his encouragement — I persuaded the University of Pennsylvania’s sociology department to allow me to write that thesis. In it, I proposed that there is not just one way that nonviolent campaigners win, when they do, but instead there are three different mechanisms through which success can come. Gene then adopted the mechanisms for his own work.

The lonely researcher

It’s difficult to understand in 2018 — when so many people around the world are researching and writing with sophistication about nonviolent struggle — how lonely Gene’s path was in the early years. When I met him in 1959, Gene was the only person in the world doing full-time research in nonviolent struggle.

True, peace and conflict research was happening at the same time, with a scholarly journal around Kenneth and Elise Boulding, based at the University of Michigan. In Oslo, I helped Johan Galtung on his first peace research project. The emerging field’s focus was on conflict resolution. Gene’s, however, was on conflict-waging.

I saw this emphasis coming from Gene’s being a warrior. His passion was to map a territory where fighters could take on their biggest opponents and win, nonviolently. Winning that way, he believed, could make a big difference. Whatever the win/win conflict resolution people might offer, Gene believed there are some struggles where the result needs to be a loss for one side: slaveholders needed to lose their slaves; fascists needed to lose their secret police.

His disposition to be a nonviolent warrior at a time when so many non-warriors were looking for conflict resolution, and warriors looking for a way to apply violence, made him a lonely scholar. To my eyes his perseverance made him a hero.

A technology with multiple applications

Thanks to Gene, we can think of nonviolent action as a social invention that has multiple applications. Nonviolent change, from neighborhood to international levels, is probably best known. Most people also understand Nonviolent defense struggles, which includes defending the environment, indigenous rights and other human rights. Less well known is defense of communities against occupation and annexation. Then there are the applications still needing further development, such as defending against terrorist threat — something we made some progress on at Swarthmore. Finally, there are the applications waiting to be developed. Gene told me he wished people would tackle the research needed to begin to erect nonviolent defense against genocide.

One application that Gene spent years tackling proved to be particularly controversial. In 1964, Gene invited me to present a paper at the first international conference on civilian-based defense, or CBD, at Oxford University. The fear of nuclear war had triggered a growth of disarmament movements in multiple countries, but they had the all-too-familiar problem: no real alternative to military defense.

If you’re looking to defend your people from attack and occupation by a hostile power, consider the advantages of building a nonviolent defense system, Gene suggested. We learned at the conference from one of the foremost military strategists of the day, Sir B. H. Liddell Hart, that he had already advised exactly that to the Danish government shortly after World War II.

In Europe, seeing the idea of CBD taken seriously alarmed a number of radicals. Anarchists were joined by others who had a dim view of governmental behavior and couldn’t imagine how there could be liberating outcomes for nonviolence once the state got hold of it.

While I joined the anarchists in being wary of the state, Gene won me over with a set of arguments including his analysis of the dynamic impact of the means of conflict that we use. Choosing military defense, he said, has a centralizing impact and heightens authoritarian relations. Nonviolent defense is the opposite. The work so far done on CBD points to the most promising nonviolent defense strategies having a decentralizing impact, empowering the grassroots of society.

If he’s right, then it makes sense for decentralists to support further development of CBD for countries — like the Nordic ones — that might consider trans-arming, the term we invented to get around the non-starter of disarmament. In my view, for countries like the United States, where the 1 percent rule and have a vested interest in opposing trans-armament, CBD might usefully be considered for inclusion in our vision — to be implemented when we push the 1 percent aside and make the major changes needed for a living revolution.

Seeing events with new eyes

Some years ago, high schoolers in Philadelphia banded together to form a city-wide schools reform movement, the Philadelphia Student Union. To inaugurate training they invited me in to lead workshops. One day I handed out newspapers I’d collected from the previous three weeks and asked them to look through them to find out what kinds of nonviolent action they found being used. I first asked them what they considered “nonviolent action” to be, weaving parts together into what amounted to Gene Sharp’s classical definition.

They dove into the newspapers and amazed themselves with the large number of tactics they found reported on at the local, national and international levels.

A Swarthmore College international student came into the nonviolent research seminar I was leading and told me she wanted to research cases but was regretful that her own country had no nonviolent experience of its own. I smiled and said, “We’ll see.” In a matter of weeks she was bringing cases to the seminar from her own country. By giving her new eyes to see with, Gene had given her back her own country’s history.

To me this is Gene’s most important single contribution. He defined nonviolent struggle in behavioral terms, so clearly that people are empowered. They can see what’s happening now and recover their legacy as well.

Gene’s own eyes sparkled with pleasure a few years back when my student Max Rennebohm and I showed him the Global Nonviolent Action Database, which, at the time, comprised over 500 cases compiled by Swarthmore students. Now there are over 1,100 cases, spanning nearly every country — including the doubting international student’s home country — giving inspiration and strategic hints to all who access it. The database, based on Gene’s conception of the field, is one of his living memorials. But I’ll miss him all the same.

Alternative State of the Union events promise resistance

Waging Nonviolence - Wed, 01/31/2018 - 13:59

by Rhys Baker

Members of CASA and NAKASEC march with a coffin to represent people who have died in ICE custody or as they attempted to immigrate to the United States. (Facebook/CASA)

Podiums were filled across Washington, D.C. on Jan. 30 to give Americans alternative viewing options during Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address. The events utilized the hashtags #TuneOutTrump and #SOTUWalkOut.

The speakers at the events — named the State of Our Union, the Real State of Our Union, the State of the Resistance, and the Community’s State of the Union — expressed the perspectives that Trumpism thrives on insulting and devaluing. Women, the LGBTQ community, people of color, those living with disabilities, and immigrants were represented at several venues. An extra dash of rebellion came from people who risked harsh cold to show their protest signs to the presidential motorcade.

Only the Community’s State of the Union watched the president’s speech. The group met at a Lutheran Church near the Capitol Building in the late afternoon. Their event was organized by two immigrants rights groups, CASA Maryland and NAKASEC, which focuses on Latino immigration and Korean immigrant rights.

They marched in a mock-funeral procession that passed the Capitol Complex in the early evening. The coffin they carried memorialized people who have died trying to come to the United States or in the custody of ICE.

The State of Our Union was held at the National Press Club office. Mónica Ramírez, the president of Alianza Nacional de Campesinas and the deputy director of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, explained the purpose behind the event.

“I was invited to attend the State of the Union address, as were my sisters Tarana Burke and Ai-jen Poo. I respectfully declined the invitation. While I was grateful to have been invited, I decided that I could attend this event while my community is under attack by the Trump administration,” she said. “Alicia Garza of the National Domestic Workers Alliance and Black Lives Matter Global Network had the beautiful vision of an event that would bring us together and celebrate our power. We loved this idea. So, we joined our sisters to organize a celebration of women, our power and our shared commitment to making our country better for all people in our nation, not just some.”

When Ramírez spoke she thanked everyone involved in organizing the event and set an aggressive tone, declaring “Women’s rights have been under attack and we’re here to say, ‘No more!’” She celebrated the solidarity and resilience in the room.

Supporting groups included Not Without Black Women, Color of Change, MomsRising, and Multicultural Efforts to End Sexual Assault. Congresswomen Pramila Jayapal and Barbara Lee boycotted the official State of the Union to speak at the feminist alternative. Throughout the night the speakers touched on themes of sexual assault, the gender-pay gap, the protection of women’s health and hope for the future of organizing around feminist issues.

At the Real State of Our Union journalist Roland Martin hosted black intellectuals, organizers and politicians at the Shiloh Baptist Church. The address opened with an organ-accompanied hymn. A panel on economic issues looked at the state of black America. Then there was a presentation on a voter engagement app and a panel discussing mobilizing the youth vote.

Rev. William J. Barber held the stage during the president’s address. He quoted scriptures that compared politicians to wolves, covered the history of black Americans being betrayed and used by the powerful in America and plugged the Poor People’s Campaign and the 40-day season of direct action they will unleash this summer.

By the end of the speech his voice was raised to a furious tone. “Too many tears have been cried, too much blood has been shed, and there’s an army rising … and this army will be able to break every chain,” he said. “The last thing they should’ve called us was shithole, because we know how to take that stuff, make fertilizer and build a new movement.”

Why the time-honored White House protest needs defending

Waging Nonviolence - Mon, 01/29/2018 - 13:08

by Frida Berrigan

Frida Berrigan, age 10, protesting in front of the White House next to Ched Myers and her father Phil Berrigan (right). (WNV/Berrigan family)

I was first arrested at the White House when I was 10 years old. My hair was pulled off my face by a blue bandana. I drew a penguin on my sign and wrote: “Reagan: Give Kids A Chance to Live.” My brother, a year younger, was arrested too, along with the activist and pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock. The arrest was a novel experience — the police officers were courtly. Jerry and I kept a quiet eye out for the elderly doctor’s pointy ears. It wasn’t until days later that we realized we hadn’t been arrested with Mr. Spock, Captain Kirk’s half Vulcan science officer.

Over the years, I’ve been arrested in front of the White House many times. As an adult, I’ve always felt a mixture of tension, excitement and righteousness — which is followed by brief terror, before being swept away amid the cheers and solidarity of supporters. Then the emotions switch to a compound of boredom and community-building in the holding areas or cells, as we wait for processing and release.

The beginning of that arrest process over these many years has always been the same: to stand still with a sign along the central stretch of the White House’s south sidewalk known as the “picture postcard zone.”

Not anymore. The picture postcard zone is now inaccessible. There is a permanent cordon that shortens the depth of the sidewalk by half. The White House fence is now protected by another fence and guarded by an armed officer behind an improvised bulletproof barrier. Pennsylvania Avenue, long a car-free promenade, is now often shut down and inaccessible to even the most appealing tourists.

This reordering of public space was announced by the Secret Service last April in response to a series of fence jumpings and security breaches that occurred during the final months of the Obama administration and the early days of Trump’s residency. A Secret Service plan for a nearly 12-foot fence surrounding the White House with “pencil point anti-climb fixtures” was approved and work will begin on this project sometime this year. In the meantime, it looks like the sidewalk is a no-go zone.

Five Witness Against Torture members were arrested on January 11 while attempting to take their message to the White House. (Flickr/Justin Norman)

I took in all these changes from beneath a black hood on January 11. I was at the end of a single-file line of 40 or so friends dressed in orange jumpsuits. We were at the White House to mark the 16th year of Guantanamo’s existence as a prison and torture chamber for Muslim and Arab men deemed to be terrorists and held since the beginning of the War on Terror. Now there are just 41 men being held, but under President Trump, even those cleared for release have almost no hope of ever being free.

Through the rally and interfaith prayer service, we maintained a specter-like stillness and silence, representing men like Sharqawi Al Hajj, a Yemeni who is the same age as me and has been held at Guantanamo for 14 years. He has never been charged with a crime. He was subjected to sustained interrogation and torture, undertook protracted hunger strikes to protest his detention and is now weakened and ill.

Our plan after the rally was to process across Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House sidewalk with our Shut Down Guantanamo banners and signs. But, met with cordons and barriers, we set up along the Lafayette Park curb to begin our ceremony of transformation.

As each Guantanamo name was read, the people dressed in orange were handed a cup bearing that name. I took the cup, pulled off my hood, drank the sweet tea and then set the cup down in front of our banner “Land of Liberty: 41 in Guantanamo, 2.3 million in U.S. prisons, 44,000 in immigration detention.” One after another we did this until all 41 lives, stories and humanities were represented. And then five of our group ducked under the police tape and tried to take our message across the street in front of the White House. They didn’t get 20 steps before they were intercepted and placed under arrest.

Brian Terrell, an activist with Voices for Creative Nonviolence, has been arrested in front of the White House countless times since the Carter administration and was arrested again on January 11. In a recent Common Dreams article describing his arrest, he noted that the sidewalk is cut in half. “This public forum,” he bemoaned, “a place of protest and advocacy for more than a century, the place where the vote for women and benefits for veterans were won, has been strangled to the point where no dissent is tolerated there.”

A War Resisters League protest on the White House lawn in September 1978.

There is a great picture of Grace Paley, Ralph DiGia and other members of the War Resisters League holding a banner on the White House lawn emblazoned with “No Nuclear Weapons! No Nuclear Power! USA or USSR.” It was 1978 and while their message needs little updating, their simple action would be essentially impossible these 40 years later. In the name of security, space for unfurling banners, holding signs and hearing speakers is too constricting. And it is not just in Washington, D.C.

A Special Rapporteur for the United Nations on freedom of assembly toured the United States during the summer of 2016 and concluded that “people have good reason to be angry and frustrated at the moment … and it is at times like these when robust promotion of assembly and association rights are needed most. These rights give people a peaceful avenue to speak out, engage in dialogue with their fellow citizens and authorities, air their grievances and hopefully settle them.” In most places it is not an overt curtailment of free speech but an effort to control, corral, extract permits and fees, the compounding of regulations and ordinances, that all results in more private space and less public space.

However, not all cities are going this route. Perhaps unsurprisingly, San Francisco is redesigning one of its central squares as place to gather, rally, organize and strike out from. Harvey Milk Plaza, named for the civil rights activist who became the first openly gay elected official in the United States, sits right on top of public transportation. The new design for the plaza — approved and slated to be built by 2020 — is an elevated, universally-accessible amphitheater and plaza that architects hope will support “a wide spectrum and scale of activity. An afternoon picnic with a friend or a small activist’s meetup on a Saturday or even a starting point for thousands of people to march down Market Street; the plaza welcomes everyone.” Sounds great, doesn’t it? Did I mention the design includes thousands of LED lights? Sounds like we need it yesterday.

There is a lot for us to do in this Trumpian time. Against the backdrop of his administration’s sweeping and systemic affront to us all, the narrowing of public, physical, political space might not seem like a big deal. But it is. I have my own attachment to the White House as the site of my first arrest, but it is more than that. Tyrants take away space.

I have always thought of that strip of sidewalk in front of the White House as “America’s front porch.” In one hour, you can talk to a world of tourists, see a world of issues expressed on banners of varying sophistication and art, and hear a cacophony of voices calling out for justice. Do a quick Google search of demonstrations at the White House to get a sense of the span of political issues and voices and faces that converge on that small bit of our shared topography to draw attention to their causes: Stop the Keystone XL Pipeline, No Deportation of Immigrants, Stop the Wars — alongside groups taking aim at everything from circumcision to the cruelty of circuses.

There is a lot for us to do, and unless we have public space — unless we push back against all the ways that politicians at all levels try to privatize, monetize or securitize space — we can’t do the work of building a different kind of society and a different kind of world.

Dutch fight to shut down EU’s largest gas field after earthquake

Waging Nonviolence - Fri, 01/26/2018 - 11:24

by Bryan Miranda

Protesters carried torches during a march against gas drilling in the Netherlands on Jan. 19. (WNV/Johann van der Geest)

A march against Shell and Exxon’s gas drilling drew thousands in the northern Dutch city of Groningen on Jan. 19, after a heavy earthquake rocked the region earlier this month.

Ten thousand people — a record number for Groningen — marched through the city with torches and chanted slogans scolding the government, as well as its partners Shell and Exxon, for the gas operations they say are responsible for the 3.4 magnitude earthquake felt throughout the province on Jan. 8.

Seismic activity has been recurrent in Groningen since the late 1980s in what scientific experts and numerous reports have long confirmed to be a direct repercussion of drilling in Europe’s largest gas field. But not since a heavy quake in 2012 — after which the Dutch government was forced to halve its gas production — has the magnitude been this intense. Up to 3,000 people reported cases of damage as a result of the earthquake this month.

“No one saw this coming. We thought they [Shell and Exxon] had this under control, that they were extracting in such a way to produce less quakes,” said Jelle van der Knoop, the co-founder and chairperson of the Groninger Bodem Beweging, the leading organization resisting gas production in the province. “But then this quake came and reminded people this is not the case; it can get worse. Everyone is really fed up with it now. We are pissed off and ready for action.”

With public opinion and mainstream media swaying in favor of the plight of Groningers, the pressure has mounted on the liberal conservative government of Prime Minister Mark Rutte to take tough measures regarding its gas production.

After a long controversial delay, the Minister of Economy and Climate Eric Wiebes finally released a public letter on Jan. 23 stating that gas production in Groningen must come to a halt by 2022. “For me, the starting point here is that this phasing out is inescapable,” Wiebes wrote, “but the way in which this can best be worked out can vary per company.”

This sounds like political spin to many anti-extractivism activists, who are demanding concrete plans — including compensation for economic and emotional damages due to seismic activity — and an immediate closure of the gas tap.

The sense of collective anger emanating from the northern Netherlands is steeped in a longer conflict-ridden relationship with the Dutch government, which has earned a reputation among the local population for prioritizing gas money over their safety.

Since natural gas extraction began in the 1960s, the state’s income has become hugely dependent on gas revenues. In partnership with Shell and Exxon — which are in charge of the gas production via a company called Nederlandse Aardgas Maatschappij, or NAM — 90 percent of the revenues have been flowing to the Dutch state in the form of taxes, royalties and dividends.

This has allowed the Netherlands to build a relatively lavish welfare apparatus for itself, as well as a powerful geopolitical position in the European Union as one of its main gas suppliers.

But this has come at the expense of local communities. There have been over a thousand recorded earthquakes since the 1990s. While the causal link between gas drilling and earthquakes was obvious to local residents and scientific experts early on, this was steadfastly denied by both the government and NAM. An investigative report from the Dutch Safety Board incriminated both parties for outright ignoring the safety of citizens in their decision-making and planning between 1959 and 2003.

“You can extract gas all you want, but everything has its price, and this is in large part paid by Groningen. That whole province is shattered,” said Jorien de Lege, campaign leader at Milieu Defensie, which co-organized Friday’s march and has been a frontline defender in the Groningen anti-gas struggle. “A lot of money has been made from it, but no one thought about investing it into dismantling the system so that people in Groningen can live safely and we can transition to clean energy.”

It wasn’t until 2015 that Shell and Exxon publicly admitted fault for the damages caused by earthquakes after a Dutch court ruled in favor of 900 homeowners who filed a lawsuit to compensate for the drop in value of their real estate.

Meanwhile, compensation for specific damage has been dealt with on a case-to-case basis with NAM. In 2016, the company received 75,000 damage complaints and spent over $1 billion in compensation. This process, however, has proved to be a slow and arduous struggle. According to a report in the Guardian, NAM often denies the cause of damage, and puts the onus of proof on the plaintiff. It then negotiates the price down as much as possible in a strategic move to tire people out.

A new protocol that specifies when people are eligible for indemnities has been suspended since March, after local groups protested the questionable involvement of NAM in deciding when there is cause for compensation. In response, organized Groningen residents have drafted their own protocol, but the government has so far ignored it, leaving people unable to repair their own homes.

“Gas extraction clearly has its risk,” Van der Knoop said. “But apparently the only ones that can do something about it are the people, because the government is earning money by sacrificing its own people, as is Shell and Exxon, so it’s going to have to be the people themselves who will have to stop this.”


Feed aggregator

Subscribe to Upriver Collaborative aggregator