[Peace-discuss] Resolutions Against War

[David Green]

ZNet Commentary
Counter Resolutions As Protest December 30, 2002
By Jessica Azulay 

In the face of a massive failure of the United States
government and 
the United Nations to heed the will of the national
and international 
antiwar majority, some U.S. cities are taking matters
into their own 
hands. Despite sizable dissent, President Bush has
resolved to declare war 
on Iraq, and the United States Congress has declared
its support of his 
policy, ignoring a huge outpouring of letters and
phone calls by 
constituents demanding the opposite. Bought into line,
the U.N. Security 
council passed a new resolution on Iraq, which seems
to be designed to set 
Iraq up for inevitable failure and attack. In response
to the obvious 
flouting of democracy and international law, antiwar
activists have 
shifted their focus away from Congress and are
convincing their city 
councils to make some resolutions of their own. 

On November 11, the Common Council of Syracuse, New
York passed a 
resolution opposing a U.S. led military strike against
Iraq. In doing so, 
Syracuse joined over 30 city councils that have passed
similar 
resolutions. Santa Cruz, Oakland, and Ithaca were the
first cities to pass 
resolutions in October, 2002. Over the next few
months, they were followed by 
others including Seattle, Washington; New Haven,
Connecticut; 
Washington, D.C.; and Santa Fe, New Mexico. Activists
in many other cities, such 
as New York and Chicago, are currently campaigning to
convince their 
councils to pass resolutions. That so many of these
efforts have been 
successful is encouraging and it speaks to the times.
Throughout the 
Vietnam War, peace activists in Syracuse tried but
failed to pass an antiwar 
resolution. Now, even before a big military offensive
has even begun, 
the resolution passed with relative ease.

The city council resolutions being passed all over the
country differ 
in content. Some are brief, merely stating the city
council’s opposition 
to unilateral military action against Iraq by the
United States. Others 
go further. The Santa Cruz resolution, for instance,
not only opposes 
war, but opposes continuing non-military sanctions. In
New Haven, 
councilors raise concerns that "committing American
troops to Iraq will put 
in harm's way citizens of New Haven, a
disproportionate number of them 
racial and ethnic minorities from our city's most
economically deprived 
neighborhoods." The Aaronsburg, Pennsylvania
resolution states that 
killing "innocent Middle Eastern people, including
Muslims, will widen the 
gorge between people of different races and religions
rather than 
nurturing a union of humanity here and abroad." Many
resolutions cite 
potential destabilization of the Middle East and the
failure of President 
Bush to present convincing evidence of Iraq’s threat
to the United States 
as reasons for dissent from the national war drive.

The Syracuse resolution is strongly worded. It states
that "it is 
essential to exert untiring efforts to find peaceful
solutions to 
international conflicts and to advance democracy and
human rights," and that 
"military force against Iraq or any other sovereign
nation should be used 
only in self defense when there is an imminent threat
of attack by the 
sovereign state against the United States." The
document also asserts 
that the enforcement of United Nations resolutions
should be the sole job 
of the United Nations and not its individual members.

Though copies of the Syracuse resolution have been
sent to President 
Bush, New York State Representatives, and the United
Nations, letting 
politicians know of the city’s opposition to the
national war policy is 
not the only purpose of the resolution. City councils
do not have real 
authority in the international arena. Their decisions
cannot directly 
impact the government’s plans for war. Instead,
antiwar resolutions can 
serve as a vehicle for public education, media
outreach, and building 
relationships between community groups. "It got people
talking and that 
really was the main objective," explains John Brule, a
Syracuse peace 
activist. "And we wanted to get more indication in the
news media of the 
fact that there is a significant number of people in
the city who are 
opposed to this war that’s being pushed by Bush."

Antiwar resolution campaigns are one way that
activists are organizing 
against a possible war with Iraq. Activists in cities
all over the 
United States are working to make themselves visible,
widen the debate, and 
reach a broad range of people. When activists put
together an antiwar 
resolution and submit it to organizations and
institutions for 
consideration, they move the discussion to their
conversational turf. It enables 
them to promote ideas on their terms, putting the
opposition on the 
defensive. In Syracuse, the process helped antiwar
activists achieve 
greater visibility and backing from diverse groups in
the city.
 
Activists in Syracuse worked to get support in the
city council for 
their resolution, but they also asked other community
leaders to sign onto 
the strongly worded antiwar statement. They
approached, Kate O’Connell, 
a progressive member of the city council and asked her
for support. 
While she attempted to get other council members on
board, Syracuse 
activists gave copies of the resolution to community
leaders for their 
consideration as well. The result was important
dialogue and debate in the 
city council and other organizations and institutions.
In addition to the 
Syracuse Common Council members who signed, the
resolution received 
endorsement from several churches, the Syracuse Area
Middle East Dialogue 
Group, unions, colleges, the Syracuse Jail Ministry,
and the Syracuse 
Republican Community. Thus, the campaign opened up new
venues for the 
antiwar discussion, and it provided the opportunity
for many groups to 
come out officially and openly against war.  

Another important aspect of the Syracuse antiwar
resolution is that it 
"urges the Executive and Legislative arms of the
government to attend 
to long neglected problems of this country which
include the depressed 
economy, the precarious state of the environment, the
availability of 
affordable health care and the internal domestic
security of our nation." 
Many of the resolutions passed by cities call
attention to the 
connections between war and domestic policy, pointing
out that the budgetary 
casualties of war will be much-needed social programs
and calling out the 
president and Congress for ignoring problems at home
or attempting to 
cover them up with a war.

The Syracuse Common Council Resolution also "urges the
people of 
Syracuse to exert efforts to convince the President
not to unilaterally 
initiate any war." Activists are already doing just
that. In Syracuse there 
are efforts to educate the public, distribute antiwar
yard and window 
signs, and organize civil disobedience. "We know that
opposition to this 
war is widespread, yet the media has rarely noted this
fact," says Andy 
Mager, a long time peace activist in Syracuse.
"Getting the Syracuse 
Common Council to pass an anti-war resolution made
that point very clear 
and, hopefully, makes it safer for people to speak out
against war."

City councils are not the only organizations passing
antiwar 
resolutions. They are just one part of a growing
trend. Unions, colleges and 
universities, religious organizations, and community
groups have been busy 
passing their own antiwar resolutions. When used
strategically, they 
can be a powerful achievement. At a time when
politicians are shirking 
their responsibility to represent the antiwar
sentiments of their 
constituents, these resolutions are a powerful tool
for communities to speak 
from the bottom up.


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com