ASA BEE IS NOT ALONE

Asamoah Boateng

By Joseph Manu.

Mr Asamoah Boateng, former Minister of Information is not happy about what he describes as the violation of the constitution of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) by some leaders of the party.

He has fired a reasoned letter to the National Executive Council of the party complaining about the apparent effort of some party leaders to stampede members into adopting Nana Akufo Addo as the presidential candidate for 2016.

Even though Mr. Boateng dispatched the letter in his personal capacity there are very strong indications that he is not alone.

Several leading members of the party share his views and a few of them have marshaled sufficient courage to go public.

Mr. Kofi Konadu Appreku, a former Minister in the Kufuor administration says that the competition for the presidential candidature of the party ought to be open and democratic.

 He thinks it is inappropriate for party executives to openly declare support and bias for the candidature of Nana Akufo Addo.

Mr. Richard Anane, also a former Minister has virtually announced his intention to contest for the presidential candidature for the 2016 elections.

He has claimed that many party members are urging him to join the race.

 It is widely believed that party stalwarts like Dr Kobina Arthur Kenedy, Alan Kyeremateng, Dan Botwe and John Boadu fell uncomfortable about the declaration of support for the candidature of Nana Akufo Addo by sitting party officials.

Former President J.A Kufuor and former Chief of Staff Kwadwo Mpiani have remained silent over the controversy around the candidature of Nana Akufo Addo.

Party insiders say that there are atleast five contenders for the position of Presidential Candidate. 

 Editorial

DE KLERK TOO?

Wonders will never end.

The apartheid leader F.W. de Klerk was in Ghana recently to pontificate about democracy and to solidarise with the New Patriotic Party (NPP).

The Insight can only be amazed at the fact that somebody who presided over a racist state and was responsible for horrendous human rights abuses could have the effrontery to lecture Ghanaians on democracy.

The insult of de Klerk and his sponsors to Ghana and its people is clearly unacceptable.

 Did de Klerk’s regime not torture, maim and kill African Freedom Fighters?

Didn’t de Klerk join the Israeli and US intelligence to subvert newly independent African states?

Not too long ago, de Klerk believed that Africans are inherently inferior to whites and therefore cannot live together.

Please spare us the insults of a racist bigot who subverted African independence.

Genetic Modification of Plants: Early History of Plant Genetic Engineering.

By Tom Mysiewicz

I was editor of the weekly biotechnology news service BioEngineering News from 1980 through 1993.  I covered plant genetic engineering from its inception and was even allowed (under secrecy agreement) to attend the first Gordon Research Conference on plant genetic engineering.  (No reporter had ever been allowed to attend one of these conferences before–since the secrecy agreement later hampered me as to what I could write about the subject, I suspect that may have been the reason.)

The main push behind this technology was to move profit centers from agrichemicals into the seeds, thereby securing for the seed suppliers complete commercial control of food production.  Seed companies dealing in nonreproducible seeds would supplant the current system of seeds, herbicides and pesticides and capture all the savings in terms of profits.  Monopolizing the seed outlets could ensure a stake in these vast future profits.

In the U.S., seed companies traditionally were money losers and used as tax shelters by wealthy families.  Starting in the early 1980s a Rothschild-backed company in Wisconsin, Agrigenetics, was formed ostensibly to develop genetically engineered cultivars.  However, BioEngineering News discovered a large chunk of investors’ monies being plowed into the rapid purchase of U.S. seed companies rather than the fertile soil of Wisconsin! 

So angry was a top executive of this company that he would actually stand up at scientific meetings, redfaced, and yell at me, to the chagrin of his colleagues.  He even sent mailings around calling my publication a “mendacious yellow rag”.  However, with the exposure, investment sources dried up and the company’s scheme ran into financial difficulty.  The assets and seed companies were ultimately sold to Lubrizol, a manufacturer of industrial adhesives’ and specialty products and lubricants.

The USDA and FDA gave plant genetic engineering a big boost by recognizing the products of such research as GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe) meaning they were not subjected to rigorous animal testing.

Initial genetic modification of plants was done with recombinant strains of crown-gall virus/Agrobacterium tumefaciens.  Subsequently, other plant-disease vectors were developed as was non-disease “shotgun” genetic technology (which fired genes directly into plant cells whose cell walls had been enzymatically removed–so-called protoplasts.)  Surprisingly (to some) it turned out many of the genetic modifications were passed on through the seeds.  To help safeguard DNA technology, some companies developed “suicide gene” technology that would cause a seed line to self destruct after a few generations, preventing farmers from saving and planting their own seeds.

I have been out of the industry a long time and have not had time to review papers on cumulative health effects of GM (genetically modified) crop ingestion.  My suspicion is that the culprit in ill-health effects could be proteins with altered conformation (same formula wrong shape) and/or mutant amino acids (resulting from genetic engineering) whose structure is different from those found in nature.  Plant viral vectors that could infect animals, as some have recently claimed is possible, mean genes coding for such products could be spread via pollen or ingestion.  

There have been cases of genetic engineering companies suing farmers–whose non-GM crops were contaminated by pollen from adjacent fields–for patent infringement and theft of trade secrets.  I have suggested these farmers countersue the GM-crop companies for contaminatingtheir crops!

In my estimation, there is a possibility that the spread of GM pollen around the world may be killing honeybees and bats (who ingest pollinating insects) through recombinant vectors, and that such vectors could spread through pollen to non-GM crops (and possibly even wild plants.)  A worst-case scenario would be a large-scale dieoff of useful plant species, resulting in worldwide famine.

The negative economic aspect of GM crops could also become significant in rural areas.  Since GM crops are rapidly spreading and cross pollinating with non-GM cultivars, it is unlikely that conventional agriculture will be able to safeguard itself.  Rising oil prices will make petro-based herbicides and pesticides more costly, giving an advantage to GM farmers.  Since GM seed companies will be in a position to charge top dollar for seed, this will increasingly favor large agribusiness/corporate farms that can negotiate favorable seed prices.  Small- and mid-size farmers will become increasingly squeezed by the need to buy costly seed annually even if they do not want to (due to contamination from GM fields.)  I believe they will be increasingly unable to compete with large corporate farms, leading to increasing centralization of food production.

I recently saw a farm publication touting the beneficial effects of GM crops in reducing agrichemical contamination of groundwater.  This certainly was the promise of genetic engineering of crops.  The actuality is far different.  The most popular brands of GM seed, at least when I last checked, were ones that either increased herbicide tolerance or made use of herbicides (such as Roundup(R)) possible on food crops that hitherto would have been killed by them.  To me that would seem to enhance the use of herbicides rather than reducing them.

Tom Mysiewicz is a freelance writer: http://members.tripod.com/writer_on_call

FOUNDER’S DAY

Thousands To Honours Nkurmah

Thousands of people from all over the World and from all walks of life are expected to troop to the Accra International Conference Centre on Founder’s Day to pay tribute to Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah, first President of Ghana.

 The Socialist Forum of Ghana (SFG), organizers of the event say they have issued close to one thousand invitations.

“We have invited youth and students groups, trade unions, progressive organizations and political parties as well as all Members of Parliament, Ministers, Deputy Ministers and the diplomatic corps” said Mr. Duke Tagoe of the SFG.

 “The international and local media has also been invited and we expect the turnout of media personnel for the event to be around 100” he said.

 The event will begin at 10:am prompt with musical performances by the African Youth Choir, Wineba, J.B. Backagain and Sister Jessica, reggae star, Knii Lante Blankson and Hope of Africa.

Poets from the Freedom Centre including Nii Lante and Papa Yen are also expected to perform.

 Major-General Kalinde Otaferi, Minister of Justice of Uganda, the Key –Note Speaker at the event is expected to arrive in Accra on Friday, September 20, 2013.

General Otaferi doubles as the Chair person of the Pan-African Movement based in Kampala, Uganda.

He was elected to the position by 2000 delegates attending the 7^th Pan African Congress.

 Ghana’s first President Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah played a Key role in the organization of the 5^th Pan African Congress in Manchester.

It is widely held that the Manchester Congress invigorated struggles for decolonization throughout Africa.

The event will be chaired by Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, a distinguished lawyer and Pan Africanist.

 Previous Key-Note Speakers at the event have included former President Abdulaye Wade of Senegal ,a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba, General J. Risket Valdes, Professor Akilagpa Sawyer, former Member of the Council of State, Professor Osei of the University of Cape Coast and Professor Agyeman Badu Akosa, a former  Presidential aspirant of the Convention Peoples’ Party.

SFG SOLIDARISES WITH WESTERN SAHARA

SFG Convener, Kyeretwie Opoku

The Socialist Forum of Ghana (SFG) has launched a signature Campaign in Solidarity with people of the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic.

 As a press conference in Accra, yesterday, The SFG asked all progressives join the campaign for the independence of Western Sahara.

The full test of the SFG’s statement is published below;

Ladies and Gentlemen of the media.

Thank you for joining us today.  We have invited you in the run up to the 104^th birthday of Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah this Saturday to launch a solidarity programme with the People of the Saharawi Republic.  Osagyefo taught us that “the independence of Ghana is meaningless unless it is linked to the total liberation of the African continent.”  Accordingly, African progressive activists and African governments generally have waged a campaign for the independence of the African continent and inch by inch have restored sovereignty to our peoples.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Today only one bastion of colonialism remains in Africa. It lies is in the far North Western corner of our continent. The colonial power is Morocco, itself an African country, which experienced French colonial, rule and fought valiantly to win its independence from France in 1956.

Unfortunately, the decolonized State of Morocco has since 1976 colonised the Saharawi people, citizens of a small country on Morocco’s southern border.The Saharawi people who suffered brutal Spanishcolonialrule for over 450 years are now, since 1975 struggling under the jackboots of the Moroccan military. They experience oppression and brutality at the hands of aneighbourwith whom they share a common culture, religion and language.

In alliance withwestern powers principally France and Spain Moroccoruthlessly appropriates Saharawi fishery resources,phosphatesand other minerals for its benefit and for the benefit of these former colonial powers.

Since 1975 African countries through the OAU and the AU have recognised the Saharawi struggle as a legitimate struggle forself-determinationand sovereignty and have called on Morocco to end its occupation of Saharawi. Rejecting African opinionthe monarchical state of Morocco chose towithdraw from the OAU in 1984 rather than address Saharawis’ fundamental rights of self-determination.

Morocco, with support from France and other Western Powers has also continuously frustrated all efforts by the United Nations to implement the General Assembly resolution calling for a referendum that will allow the Saharawi people to decide formally and democratically on either independence or integration into Morocco.

Ladies and Gentlemen:Forty years of struggle by the Saharawis has not yet yielded the desired result. There is therefore the need to intensify diplomatic and other campaigns and to mobilize civil society, African States and the wider international community to fight toend the foreign occupation of the Western Sahara.

The Socialist Forum of Ghana declares its unflinching support for the independence of the Saharawis, their right to self determination and its just fight and struggle against a violent, aggressive, brutal and inhumane occupier.

The SFG condemns the Morocco’srepression of the Saharawi people andtheir resort to xenophobic tactics to keep the Saharawi people divided and weak.  We call upon the international community commit to ensure the freedom and independence of the valiant Saharawi people.

Ladies and Gentlemen: The SFG is today calling on all socialists, Nkrumaists,progressives, and the citizens of conscience to step up the campaign for freedom for the Saharawi people and to finally end colonialism in Africa.  We call on our Government to keep faith with our history and values and continue to give the issue of Saharawi independence prominence in all international for a.

Ladies and Gentlemen: We have today opened a book for the collection of signatures at the Freedom Centre in Accra from today. And we urge all human rights and political activists who share in the dream of a free and united Africa to sign on between the hours of 9 am and 6 pm each day. The campaign will end on 3 October 2013.

Long live the Saharawi people

Long live Africa

Long live the ideals of Pan Africanism.

Thank you.

What are electoral reforms to the NPP? (Part I)

NPP Logo

By Dr. Michael J.K. Bokor

The New Patriotic Party (NPP) leaders have taken their agitations a step further by writing to the Council of State to consider “the concerns of the various political parties when advising the president on who to appoint as Chairman and Commissioners of the Electoral Commission (EC)”.

The letter, signed by Chairman Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey and copied to the Council as well as the President Mahama,said: “Ghana would be helped if the Council were to formalise and institutionalise a process to act upon the advice of, amongst others, IPAC when advising H.E. the President on who should serve on the E.C”.

Some contents of the letter speak to the facts on the ground while others don’t. It is factual that the 1992 constitution empowers the President, acting on the advice of the Council of State, to appoint the Chairman, Deputy Chairmen and members of the Electoral Commission.

It is also factual that in the past these powers have been exercised without any consultation with the political parties. But this aspect is inadmissible because the Constitution doesn’t enjoin the President so to do. The NPP’s twisting of the issue at this juncture is politically motivated and won’t fly.

So also is their claim that any decision and action by the Council of State “to formalise and institutionalise a process (for the President) to act upon the advice of amongst others, IPAC, when advising H.E. the President on who should serve on the E.C.” would not need an amendment to the constitution.

By seeking to clip the wings of the President through this adroit if not uncanny means, aren’t these NPP people re-defining the trajectory? Why won’t it need a constitutional amendment if it has to be binding on the President or the Council of State to involve the IPAC in the efforts?

Another aspect of the letter is contentious: “This decision and action would … be very much in line with the spirit of article 144(3) on the appointment of Appeal and High Court Judges on the advice of the Judicial Council, who are those most knowledgeable about their colleagues, as the political parties may be presumed to be knowledgeable on political players”.

Have these NPP people so much confidence and trust in the judges so appointed? At least, the air is still thick with their insults and vain threats against judges whom they perceive as not in their good books. Any echoes here?

Now, let’s tear apart issues to know why the NPP’s letter is worse than self-serving; it is an act in further desperation that cannot stand the test of our contemporary Ghanaian political situation.

The President is mandated to appoint persons to various institutions of state, including the Council of State. He appoints a third of members of the Council of State and the rest elected to represent the 10 regions. Who does the President consult in making those appointments to the Council of State (or even the Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies)?

The President knows how to do things and should be left alone without necessarily being invaded by bitter political rivals!!

Obetsebi-Lamptey’s desire that input be sought from IPAC is not necessarily harmful; but it has its own negative and distasteful quirks. Will these political parties ever agree on a common candidate to recommend to the President for appointment as the EC Chair?

Just take, for instance, the initial stages of the NPP petition hearing when the Supreme Court asked the petitioners and respondents to confer and agree on common aspects of the petition to be heard. What happened? The Court had to take it upon itself to determine the angle from which to hear the petition because no compromise could be reached. It is only nonsensical for anybody to presume/assume/think that bitter political opponents will ever settle on a common person to chair the EC.

That is why the framers of the constitution gave the President that prerogative, which he exercises in consultation with the Council of State.

The IPAC is not a constitutionally mandated or required electoral body; it was established on the initiative of the EC itself and supported by the various political parties to serve purposely as a consultative forum. It has been an instrument for hob-nobbing on critical political issues and sometimes consulted by the EC on procedural matters concerning the elections.

As can be seen from the constitutional instrument 75 and any other that cropped up during the NPP’s petition hearing, the IPAC doesn’t have any clout to drastically influence the electoral process. It is the EC that does because everything about elections in Ghana falls within its constitutionally defined and mandated purview. Thus, the IPAC is only an instrument for bridge-building to bring all the political parties on board as far as discussions concerning matters of mutual interest to them are concerned.

So, elevating it to the status that Obetsebi-Lamptey and the NPP have suggested and are advocating through letters to the Council of State, former Presidents Rawlings and Kufuor, civil society organizations, and others is a waste of time. The IPAC cannot be entrusted with responsibilities that it doesn’t have the recognition for. What the country will lose if the IPAC is scrapped is minimal because it will only create a vacuum for the political parties. They will not have a forum to interact in, which means that petty differences will not be discussed with the EC as the IPAC has been used for all this while.

The IPAC is the EC’s creation and cannot be uplifted above its nominal status as such. It can’t be endowed with qualities and given powers that it shouldn’t have. It can’t even exercise any power so vested in it because it has no foundation in the constitution.

So, by asking for it to be so ordained, isn’t Obetsebi-Lamptey going overboard? We recall that in their petition against Election 2012, the NPP’s Akufo-Addo and co-petitioners pinpointed Presiding Officers as personalities whose (mis)conduct largely influenced the records in the pink sheets. Thus, so much emphasis was placed on the role of the Presiding Officers as to suggest their importance, even more than that of the Returning Officer (Chairman of the EC).

We were given to know that the Presiding Officers’ failure to sign pink sheets or the transpositional errors that they committed was an infraction of the law and the constitution, which warranted the petitioners’ claim that irregularities, malpractices, and violations occurred at the elections. That being the case, the basis exists for us to conclude that the main focus in any electoral reform should be on them.

But in their letter, the NPP leaders left out the Presiding Officers’ status and role as if they hadn’t seen anything therein to be reformed. Instead, they suggested that the EC Chair should be appointed after consultations between the President, Council of State, IPAC, and others, which is constitutionally lame. The constitution empowers the President to appoint the EC Chair, Deputies and other members of the Commission, which has been done over the years without any rumpus until the NPP lost Election 2012 and began pointing accusing fingers at these hardworking officials instead of themselves for failing to mobilize votes from the electorate for Akufo-Addo.

The NPP’s defeat had more to do with the ineffective/ineffectual electioneering campaign or particular attributes of the candidate that repelled the electorate. It was not caused by any collusion between Dr. Afari Gyan or his Deputy (Sule) to systematically rig the elections in favour of President Mahama. Whatever happened was confirmed by the Supreme Court to put them to shame.

On that score, their agitations for the resignation of Dr. Afari Gyan are not only mischievous and treacherous but they will end up in smoke just as their protests against the outcome of Election 2012 did. The cause of their defeat lies in their own wombs, where it is taking root to emerge again at Election 2016 unless the party’s leaders clean their stables to give a better account of their party and its candidates. That is the task to perform now, instead of biting off more than they can chew.

Indeed, the NPP leaders are even contradicting themselves because when the EC began regional seminars after Election 2012 to appraise its performance, they were the first to protest, saying that such review efforts confirmed their allegations that the elections were fraught with malpractices. They condemned the EC and it ended the seminars abruptly. Of course, at that time, their petition was before the Supreme Court.

Then, after judgement had been given, when the EC sent out calls for proposals/suggestions toward electoral reforms, they jumped up again to use that move as a confirmation of their earlier allegations against the EC, claiming that the EC was culpable for all that happened at Election 2012 to deny Akufo-Addo the Presidency.

In fact, some of the NPP leaders even stated that the party would not cooperate with the EC because its calls for proposals toward electoral reforms vindicated them. They supported the call by their protégés in the Alliance for Accountable Governance (AFAG) that Dr. Afari Gyan must resign.

That was not all. Akufo-Addo went further to say that that he doubted if the EC was the appropriate outfit to lead the way for electoral reforms because “an institution that needs to be reformed is not the same institution that must lead those reforms”. That was when he had met last Friday with members of the Peace Council and the Civil Forum Initiative.

That is where the NPP’s problem lies. Nowhere has it been stated by anybody (not even the 9-member Supreme Court panel that heard their petition) that the EC should be reformed. Suggestions have been made for electoral reforms, which the NPP people have mistaken for a reform of the EC. The two mean different things.

Electoral reforms have to do with the processes and procedures and practices for organizing, supervising, and controlling the elections. It is not institutional and can be done by no other institution but the one mandated by the constitution to take charge of election matters (which is the EC).

The reform of procedures and practices involves intangible aspects of the elections, including, for instance, the hiring of persons to serve as Presiding Officers, the caliber of people to be hired, the training to be given them, remuneration, evaluation of their performance, and many more. There are many other issues involved here, some of which have to do with the resources to be used for the elections, how these resources are to be procured, designated, and distributed, the rules and regulations on voting, etc.

What we have here is open-ended and can be added to as determined by the EC. Indeed, the EC has the option to discuss pertinent issues with stakeholders but it is not compelled to be at their beck-and-call. It has the unfettered responsibility for the elections at every stage. Its creation of the IPAC and recourse to it at times shouldn’t be mistaken for its subservience to the IPAC or any other institution (even including the political parties). That is why I see the NPP’s agitations as irritating insofar as they seek to hold the EC (especially its Chair) hostage.

On the other hand, reforming the EC is institutional and a major exercise. It involves tangibility because human beings will be shifted around and the physical structures housing the EC (whether at the national, regional, or district levels) touched too. It also will involve appointments and dismissals of persons designated as EC officials.

We note here that the constitution leaves no doubt anywhere on who should appoint the overall boss of the EC. In exercising this prerogative, the President has enough leeway to choose the person who can best handle the responsibilities of the office. I wish we could be told how former President Rawlings settled on Dr. Afari Gyan. But the truth is glaring for all to see except those who have purposed in their hearts not to do so.

Dr. Afari Gyan has been in office and put in power four different Presidents in this 4^th Republic (Rawlings, Kufuor, Mills, and Mahama) through elections that didn’t provoke bloodshed. He supervised the 2000 elections that shifted the paradigm from the NDC to the Kufuor-led NPP, making history.

In 2004, he did same, even though this very Obetsebi-Lamptey took the wind out of his sale by announcing Kufuor as the winner. That particularly reprehensible act by Obetsebi-Lamptey was blessed by the NPP leaders and members; but the NDC complained and made moves to seek redress in court. Former President Rawlings had even insisted on street protests but the late Mills demurred to allow Kufuor the chance to rule the country on the basis of the elections.

Come 2008 and 2012, the NPP people won’t see anything good in Dr. Afari Gyan anymore because they lost the elections and instead of addressing their own inadequacies, decided to unleash their venom on the EC Chair. At this point in their agitations, we know where they are heading to. They will continue to misplace their priorities, forcing a river to flow upstream, and end up in a worse state.

The exercise that they have embarked upon is too huge for them to accomplish. The electoral reforms that Ghana needs will not be implemented successfully when tinged with the NPP’s biases and preferences. Electoral reforms happen on the basis of consensus, which is why the NPP people are advised not to colour everything with their bitter loss and one-sided perspectives.

As a human institution, the EC has its shortcomings and has to be supported to smooth the rough edges. It can’t do so when stampeded by the NPP. Reforming the EC is more arduous than meet the eyes of Obetsebi-Lamptey and his followers. It will involve constitutional amendments and not happen overnight. That is why I consider their venom-laced agitations as problematic.

Of course, the suggestion that the President consult with a wider constituency in the search for the EC Chair is harmless; but it has more to it than we may know now. It is an attempt to dictate to the President. Unless the constitution says otherwise, the President has the prerogative to perform the function of appointing the top-ranking officials of the EC. And it is the EC Chair who will also ensure that all personnel needed by the EC to perform its functions are recruited at the various levels.

Any outsider seeking to stamp authority on this arrangement will be muddying the waters for nothing. We recognize the fact that officials of the EC must be conscientious citizens not known for their political biases. But we also recognize the fact that these officials are not a-political. During general elections, they vote for candidates of their own liking, meaning that they make electoral/political decisions and choices to suit their aspirations on governance. Thus, any attempt to suggest that anybody appointed to the EC must be infallible is worse than ridiculous.

Dr. Afari Gyan is not an angel; but he is not the devil either. He is only human. If these NPP people are against him because they lost the elections through no fault of his, they can do as they like but won’t change the dynamics to suit their needs.

I end by questioning these NPP people why they didn’t ask for a recounting of the votes if they were sure that something irregular happened at the polls but rather chose pink sheets. And as Dr. Afari Gyan told them during the petition hearing, he is not a Presiding Officer to be blamed for the absence of signatures on the pink sheets.

So, can’t these NPP people be honest for once to take issues beyond the level of Dr. Afari Gyan or anybody else to replace him (as will be appointed by the President)?

In looking for means to reform our electoral process, we may have to look far afield to find out how mature democracies in the United States or Great Britain handle affairs, especially in terms of the body that organizes and supervises elections. I haven’t yet heard any complaint against any single person in charge of elections in those countries. How do they do it?

If we can learn useful lessons from there to apply to our Ghanaian situation, we will be smoothing the rough edges and saving the poor EC Chair from all the personal attacks that Dr. Afari Gyan is suffering at the hands of those who are aggrieved that he didn’t help them win the 2012 elections. Electoral reforms cannot be carried out on the basis of poisoned emotions but on that of sound reasoning and dispassionate appraisal of processes, procedures, and practices that guide general elections.

I shall return…

E-mail: mjbokor@yahoo.com

War addicted US justifies aggressions

By David Swanson

But that also means that what you had was a peace movement that believed in the possibility of good wars. In fact, much of it believed that Iraq was a bad war and Afghanistan a good war. Many people even went out of their way to display their "reasonableness" by declaring Afghanistan a good war without actually examining the war on Afghanistan; this was imagined to be a strategic way to prevent or scale back or end the war on Iraq.

Of course, when the bad war ends, and all that's left is the good war, those who are actually motivated by opposition to war must shift to opposing the former good war as the current bad war. And why would you listen to anyone who did that?"

Related Interviews:

‘UK govt. on mission to afflict poverty’

‘US headed for perpetual war, genocide’

Why did the peace movement of the middle of the last decade not grow larger? Why did it shrink away? Why is it struggling now?

As has been documented, a huge factor in the shrinking away was partisan delusion. You put a different political party's name on the wars and they become good wars.

But that also means that what you had was a peace movement that believed in the possibility of good wars. In fact, much of it believed that Iraq was a bad war and Afghanistan a good war. Many people even went out of their way to display their "reasonableness" by declaring Afghanistan a good war without actually examining the war on Afghanistan; this was imagined to be a strategic way to prevent or scale back or end the war on Iraq.

Of course, when the bad war ends, and all that's left is the good war, those who are actually motivated by opposition to war must shift to opposing the former good war as the current bad war. And why would you listen to anyone who did that?

Many, of course, opposed the war on Afghanistan until the invasion of Iraq, and then switched to talking almost exclusively about Iraq. Afghanistan was labeled the good war once Iraq had happened, just as World War II was labeled the good war once Vietnam had happened. Our beliefs regarding contrasts between Iraq and Afghanistan are mostly false. The invasion of Afghanistan was no more legal or moral or honest or U.N.-authorized than the invasion of Iraq. The occupation of Afghanistan is no less of a vicious one-sided slaughter of helpless people who wished us no ill than the occupation of Iraq was.

But we aren't in the habit of talking about wars as one-sided slaughters of innocent men, women, and children. And we aren't in the habit precisely because that is the essential feature that all of our wars share in common.

When we chose to oppose the war on Iraq without opposing all wars, we were obliged to find a reason

why. We were obliged to oppose the war .

* because Iraq had no weapons (as if a government's possessing weapons were grounds for its people being bombed -- a notion that could cost Iran dearly),

* or because Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 (as if a government's association with a group affiliated with a party having once met with a wing of an organization connected to a group involved in 9-11 were grounds for being bombed -- a notion now costing the lives of drone strike victims by the thousands, not to mention sustaining the war on Afghanistan),

* or because the war in Iraq wasn't being won (a notion that helped escalate that war and later the occupation of Afghanistan as well),

* or because -- in fact -- the war on Iraq was a Republican Party war (as of course it was not; just check who controlled the U.S. Senate at the time -- remember the Senate, that body that long prevented President Obama from doing any of the wonderful things he'd like to have done in his secret, if not imaginary, heart of hearts? And look at what happens to opposition to Republican wars when a Democrat is put on the throne.)

A forthcoming book by Paul Chappell is even better than all of his other ones, and I highly recommend it, but it's marred by advocacy for appealing to people's patriotism and religion. I attended a peace conference recently at which some of the speakers claimed that the movement against the war on Iraq had been more strategic than that against the war on Vietnam, and had done so by appealing to patriotism, waving flags, avoiding disrespect for the U.S. military, and not opposing war in general. For several years now, peace groups have been preaching that it would be unstrategic, if not racist, to oppose President Obama. We must oppose Obama's wars, but not him or his political party, as that might turn people off. So we're told.

Often it's considered humble and inclusive to reach people "where they are" and nudge them ever so slightly toward where you'd like them to be. And most of our country is saturated with militarism. But if a peace-in-certain-circumstances movement does manage to turn out a crowd for a march or two, what remains behind when the marches are over? Certainly not an understanding of what's wrong with militarism. Not even an understanding of what the war was that was marched against.

A majority of Americans believes the war on Iraq benefitted Iraq but hurt the United States. A majority wanted that war ended, year after year, for several years, many motivated by selfishness -- by a desire to cease bestowing such philanthropy on the undeserving and ungrateful people of Iraq. A majority believes President George W. Bush lied the nation into the war, but not that all wars are begun with similar lies. And almost no one in the United States understands what was done to Iraq, that more Iraqis and a higher percentage of Iraqis were killed than were Americans in our civil war, or British or French or Japanese or Americans in World War II, or that three times that many Iraqis were made refugees, that towns and neighborhoods and populations were wiped out, infrastructure destroyed and never yet rebuilt, cancer and birth defects at record levels, civil rights worse than under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, a nation devastated as totally as almost any other in history.

We opposed this without understanding a fraction of it, without educating others about it, and without displaying disrespect for the U.S. military. Is that an accomplishment to be truly proud of? How can counter-recruitment efforts possibly succeed in limiting the military's supply of cannon fodder if the peace movement doesn't disrespect the military? I think the simplemindedness here is not in the public we're so arrogantly trying to manipulate gently, but in ourselves. When we tried to impeach George W. Bush it was not with ill-will toward him, but with an eye on the future behavior of future presidents. When we treat membership in the U.S. military as respectable, how can we simultaneously convey to high school students the disgust we will feel for their action, should they choose to enlist? I said for their action, not for them. Are we not capable of recognizing the economic bind students are in and nonetheless stigmatizing participation in mass-murder? Or are we perhaps not even capable of recognizing mass-murder for what it is?

Here's a secret about people in this country: they don't support mass murder. Here's another: they're not stupid. So, when you force them to be aware that their government is committing mass murder and glorifying it, they get upset, angry, and often energized to make a change. And when you talk to them honestly, they know you're being honest even if they don't agree with you at first. And when you respectfully disagree, they are able to notice whether your position makes any sense. So, if you oppose wars because you oppose killing people, you have to explain to everyone you can that you oppose wars because they kill people. You can't say "I oppose this particular war because Paul Bremmer did something dumb," because everyone will fantasize about a future war that doesn't include the dumb thing. And once you've said that, you have to downplay the fact that the war is an act of mass-murder, because if it were, then why wouldn't you be opposing it for that reason? Why wouldn't your interlocutor as well? You have joined in a cooperative agreement to keep that matter secret as you turn the conversation to the WMD lies or the financial costs or the costs to the U.S. troops who made up 0.3% of the deaths.

On the train home from a recent peace conference, I spoke to a young woman who told me she was studying dentistry and would be in the Air Force. Couldn't she be a dentist without the military, I asked? No, she answered, not without $200,000 in debt. Yes, I replied, but without the Air Force, we could have free colleges and no debts. No, she replied . . . and, if you think for a moment, I know you'll know what she said next. It had nothing to do with the lies about Iraq, the financial cost of Iraq, the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, or what war mongers the Republicans are. It had nothing to do with any of that. Think for a second, and you'll know.

Got it? She replied: if we didn't have the Air Force, North Korea would kill us.

Now, if you have a little education you probably realize that North Korea couldn't attack the United States without being completely obliterated, and that any nation on earth would scream angry threats if we pretended to drop nuclear bombs on it after having destroyed all of its cities, killed millions of its people, and threatened and antagonized it for over half a century through control of the military belonging to its former other half.

But if you'd just learned that the war on Iraq was a dumb war that cost too much, that nothing is more heroic than militarism, that even the peace movement should be led by soldiers, and that waving flags and valuing a particular 5% of humanity to a special degree are admirable values, where would you be? What would you know about militarism, where it exists, or how it functions?

There will always, always, always be another North Korea that's supposedly about to kill us. We don't need rapid-response fact corrections. We need citizens with some understanding of history, with knowledge of the Other 95%, with the capacity to resist terrorism-by-television, and capable of independent thought. To get there, we need a peace movement that moves us, at whatever pace it can, toward peace -- toward the popular demand for the absolute abolition of all war.