Before You Enlist Video - http://beforeyouenlist.org
Researching Pop Culture and Militarism - https://nnomy.org/popcultureandmilitarism/
If you have been Harassed by a Military Recruiter - https://www.afsc.org/resource/military-recruiter-abuse-hotline
War: Turning now to Mr. Ralph Waldo Emerson - Christian Science Monitor
WHAT IS IN THIS KIT? - https://nnomy.org/backtoschoolkit/
Click through to find out
Religion and militarism - https://nnomy.org/religionandmilitarism/
‘A Poison in the System’: Military Sexual Assault - New York Times
Change your Mind?
Talk to a Counselor at the GI Rights Hotline
Ask that your child's information is denied to Military Recruiters
And monitor that this request is honored.
Military Recruiters and Programs Target marginalized communities for recruits...
..and the high schools in those same communities

 Militarization of our Schools

The Pentagon is taking over our poorer public schools. This is the reality for disadvantaged youth.

 

What we can do

Corporate/conservative alliances threaten Democracy . Progressives have an important role to play.

 Why does NNOMY matter?

Most are blind or indifferent to the problem.
A few strive to protect our democracy.

Articles

Military Recruiters Target Campus Activists

March 15, 2005

Hadas Tjier and Katrina Ywaw -

On Wednesday, March 9, three students from the City College of New York (CCNY), Justino Rodriguez,  Nicholas Bergreen and one of the authors of this piece (Hadas Thier) were brutalized and arrested by campus security guards for peacefully protesting the presence of military recruiters at CCNY’s "career fair." We were charged with misdemeanor counts of assaulting an officer, resisting arrest, and disturbing the peace, among other things. Hospital records from Mt. Sinai confirm that Bergreen and Rodriguez suffered multiple contusions and post-concussion syndrome. A court date is set for April 5.

What was the reaction of CCNY’s administration to these events? Without so much as a phone call to see if we were alright, or to find out our side of the story, Gregory H. Williams, the president of our college, sent an email to the entire faculty and student body repeating the allegations against us as if they were facts. "The confrontation escalated and several of the demonstrators grabbed and hit the officer. At this point, the three students involved in the attack on the officer were arrested," he wrote.

Perhaps his previous job experience as a small-town sheriff filled him with an innate sympathy for security forces. Nevertheless, Williams is now the president of an institution of higher learning. Debate, dissent, and, yes, even protest, must not only be tolerated in education, they should be nurtured and encouraged.

On the same day, Students Against War at San Francisco State University, a chapter of the Campus Antiwar Network, along with other student groups, organized a demonstration against military recruiters on our campus. Two hundred students rallied in Malcolm X Plaza and then marched inside the Cesar Chavez Student Center to confront Army and Air Force recruiters. For over 3 hours, students chanted down the recruiters and then surrounded them with a peaceful teach-in. The Army recruiters left within forty-five minutes. The Air Force recruiters held out longer, but ultimately gave up and left-without any new recruits.

The following day, March 10th, military recruiters returned to the SFSU. When two activists attempted to hand out anti-recruitment leaflets by the recruiters’ tables, eight police officers surrounded them and forcibly removed them from their own student center, pushing them and twisting one activist’s arm. When the other activist asked why she was being forced to leave, she was pushed into a doorway, told she was causing a fire hazard by standing there, and then kicked out of the building.

The military recruitment debate is heating up. With unemployment for black men currently standing at 50 percent in New York, Harlem — and CCNY in particular — is bound to be a priority target for military recruiters. "Counter-recruitment" has become a national issue (see "Counter-Recruiters Shadowing the Military," USA Today, March 7), and it’s working. Between these efforts, and widespread anger about the war, recruitment is down. According to a March 6 Reuters report, "The regular Army is 6 percent behind its year-to-date recruiting target, the Reserve is 10 percent behind, and the Guard is 26 percent short." The military newspaper Stars and Stripes reports that African-American recruitment is down 41 percent since 2000.

Counter-recruitment efforts have taken off from New York to Seattle and the military has clearly become concerned. At William Patterson University in New Jersey, an activist was arrested for simply handing out counter-recruitment leaflets. Twice last semester, CCNY student protesters drove military recruiters off of Colin Powell’s alma mater with peaceful protests. This time campus security was ready.

"We didn’t even get through one round of chanting," according to Tiffany Paul, a junior at CCNY and a member of the Campus Anti-War Network (CAN), who was one of the protesters. "We were completely peaceful. It was the officers who were violent."

On Friday, March 11, Hadas Their was informed that she had been suspended from the University for "posing a continuing danger," and was banned from even setting foot on campus, pending a hearing to take place sometime in the next seven days. On the same day, Carol Lang, a CCNY staff member, was picked up in her office and arrested in connection with Wednesday’s protest and also charged with assault.

At SFSU a university spokesperson informed reporters that groups involved in the protest will be suspended and some of the individual students will also face discipline.

Sean O’Neill, a veteran who returned from Iraq last year after serving with the Marines, spoke out in defense of the SFSU students who helped organize the counter-recruitment protest, saying, "Do students have the right to protest? Of course they do! Are you saying that people can’t protest anything now? Anyone who’s taken even a cursory glance at the Constitution will tell you that we have the right to protest whatever we want…As a vet, I don’t take any offense! Anyone who doesn’t want me over there is a friend in my book."

Bush claims that his occupation of Iraq represents "democracy is on the march" in the Middle East. Will that include the right to protest? Certainly not for the 100,000 Iraqis killed by the U.S. since the March 2003 invasion, or the more than 1500 dead American soldiers. Blood and oil don’t mix and they don’t create democracy.

Here in the U.S., high school and college student activists all over the country can take up the fight for peace and democracy and organize to kick recruiters out of their schools. Like the lunch counter sit-ins in Greensboro 45 years ago that challenged segregation in dozens of communities across the nation, you can get started opposing the recruiters at your school with just a few friends. Getting the military out of our schools and replacing them with real educational opportunities is our generation’s fight. No one will do it for us. We owe it to ourselves, the Iraqis, and the American soldiers dying for a lie.

To find out what you can do to help, write to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or go to CAN’s website www.campusantiwar.net

Hadas Thier attends City College of New York and Katrina Yeaw attends San Francisco State University.

 

Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/03/15/military-recruiters-target-campus-activists/

 


A Disturbing Meeting at the Gym

January 10, 2011

Dave Lindorff -

At the local YMCA today, I ran into a boy who was a childhood friend of my son’s. As my kid goes to a public arts high school in Philadelphia outside of our local school district, I don’t see much of his old grade-school friends any more. This boy, who used to be over at our house years ago at least once a week, recognized me right away though, and said, "Hey Mr. Lindorff, I haven’t seen you in years. How’s Jed!"

I was impressed by how he’d grown up, tall and strong looking. He was headed for the basketball court. I asked him, since both he and my son are seniors this year, where he was applying for college, and he stunned me by saying he had signed up for the Marines. "I’m going to be going in after graduation," he said proudly. "The recruiter came to school, and he convinced me it’s a good move."

I asked him what he planned to do, and he said, "Helicopter gunner! I’m really excited and proud!"

This was really shocking. This kid doesn’t own a gun. I doubt if he’s ever shot at anything except maybe a target with a .22 rifle at Boy Scout Camp, and now he’s all excited about manning a machine gun in a helicopter, where he’ll be shooting down at Afghan fighters–and inevitably at civilians, too–in a matter of months.

I really didn’t know what to say. I awkwardly told him "congratulations," because I could see he was proud of his "accomplishment" and because I didn’t want to have him cut me off as a possible confidante. Then I added, "You know of course that I’m not really in favor of what the Marines are doing?"

He smiled and said, "Yeah, I know."

"Well, good luck and stay safe," I said, again not knowing what else to say. How could I, standing in the hall there, tell him that he was simply signing on to be another expendable tool in the American Empire’s effort to subdue an impoverished people on the far side of the world who pose absolutely no threat to America? And while I don’t want to see him killing people in Afghanistan, I also want him to come home safely.

Unaware of my conflicted state of mind, and of how upset I was at his news, he ran off to play his game, at least for now still just another kid on a basketball court.

I had finished my run, so I headed for the exit to get my car and go home, when I ran into the boy’s mother and older sister, both just coming into the building. I hadn’t seen either of them in at least a year either.

They both greeted me and asked how my family was, and what my son’s college plans were. After I had caught them up, I said, a bit hesitantly, "I ran into your son. He told me he’s joining the Marines."

His mother looked upset and said, "Yes. I don’t know. We were going over colleges with him, and getting ready to work on his applications, and then he told us he wanted to enlist."

"I hear he’s going to be a helicopter gunner," I said.

The mother stiffened and looked at her daughter, a senior in college who looked surprised, too. "He said he was going to be a helicopter mechanic!" she said.

"Oops," I told them. "I guess I shouldn’t have said anything."

"No," she said. "I’m going to have to talk with him. But the trouble is, if that’s what he says he’s going to do, there’s nothing we can do to stop him."

Well, maybe, and maybe not. I’d certainly try if it were my son, starting with showing him that horrifying footage of a bloodthirsty US helicopter crew’s joke-filled slaughter of a bunch of innocent civilians in Baghdad, including two employers of Reuters. I’d also have him read the letter of apology to the Iraqi victims’ families, written by two soldiers, former Army Specialists Josh Stieber and Ethan McCord, who had appeared in that video because they came on the scene of slaughter at the end, and realized what had been done was an atrocity.

It is not too late for my son’s childhood friend. Although he has already signed on the dotted line, the GI Bill of Rights organization (www.gibillofrights.org tel: 877-447-4487) said the Delayed Entry Program is not final–kids can bow out until they get on the bus to basic training). Meanwhile, there is something we can do to stop more of this kind of thing from happening, and that is to protest the actions of Marine recruiters and recruiters from the other branches of the military in our public high schools.

The schools have been told, thanks to a law passed by Congress, that they must allow recruiters into high schools to speak with students and to try to lure them into signing up. Parents have a right to have their children’s names removed from recruiting lists so they won’t be personally invited to meet with a recruiter, or get recruiting literature sent to them, but they are still free when roaming the halls, to go see a recruiter on their own.

The only answer to this effort to suck our kids into service of the Empire as more cannon-fodder is to demand, and to provide, an alternative. Contact your local Veterans for Peace chapter (www.veteransforpeace.org) or Iraq Veterans Against War (www.IVAW.org) and urge them to send a representative to talk to the kids at your high school. If you’re a veteran, volunteer to go yourself, and tell kids why signing up is a bad idea. If you’re not a veteran, or relative of a veteran, get people with experience to go and tell what war is really about, and about why it’s not what America should be doing. (Colleague John Grant, who is with VfP, says don’t expect getting a counter-recruitment presence in your high school to be easy. Most schools only allow such speakers to go to a specific teacher’s classroom, not to an assembly session, whereas the most appropriate thing would be to have access to match whatever the recruiters are offered. That doesn’t mean VfP or IVAW activists aren’t anxious to get access, so contact them and try to get them to the kids.)

If you want a good argument, check out this little film which quotes Marine Brigadier General Smedley Butler, and is addressed to parents, and particularly mothers of young children.

Stop the propagandizing of our kids into becoming soldiers for Empire. We’ve had enough death and killing!

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Source: http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/381

An Interview with Clint Coppernoll - Counter-Recruitement: Preventing the Military from Getting More Youth for Their Wars

June 25-27, 2005

Keven Zeese -

The Army and National Guard have been failing to meet their recruiting goals for the last four months. Summer is typically the time they have their greatest success in recruiting and they are counting on this summer to make up for their shortcomings in the previous months. They are increasing their efforts and making more promises to get America’s youth to sign up for war. As a result those of us who oppose the war need to step up our efforts in counter-recruitment as well. Below is an interview with a counter-recruitment activist from Washington State that provides directions on how to get started and documents to assist in your efforts.

Clint Coppernoll is the father of two, a son who is a lawyer and a daughter who is an activist and student in San Francisco. He is the husband of an activist organizer and midwife, Belinda Coppernoll. He has been a peace activist and organizer since 1969 and has worked with many organizations on a range of issues including immigrant and farm workers rights, prison reform, and open access to the political system for all Americans.

Most recently his work has led him to work with a number or organizations on ‘Telling the Truth Behind the Sales Pitch’ that the counter recruiters are giving the young people of this country and their parents. One of the great outcomes of this work is his contact with young persons of Washington State and around the country. Any young people interested should contact him or Carrie Hathorn at 206-963-4873.

Zeese: Describe the counter recruitment project you are involved with.

Coppernoll: Kevin, Our counter recruitment effort is a ‘Direct Action, Direct Contact’ effort. We are a group of concerned people and organizations that have become sick and tired of the half truths and outright lies that are being told to young Americans by military recruiters. We are focusing on three areas; opt Out, Get the Truth and How to Deal with Delayed Enlistment.

Opt Out: Hidden in the No Child Left Behind Act is a provision known as section 9528 that requires public high schools to hand over private student information to military recruiters. If a school does not comply, it risks losing federal education funds. This breach of privacy gives recruiters access to addresses and phone numbers, allowing them to actively call and visit teens at home. A parent or student can present a letter to the school board or superintendent exercising the right to request that the school does not turn over the name, address, telephone listing and other school records to the Armed Services, Military Recruiters, or Military Schools. Information like exit test scores, assisted lunch programs and other information allow recruiters to target low income students and students that are being affected by the pressures of the high stakes testing for graduation. The No Child Left Behind Act has turned up an ugly card in this high stakes game of our children’s lives. The ugly card is exampled in our state as the WASL test. This is a test, like testing in most other states, that requires a student to pass an exam to graduate. After 6 years of WASL administration, we are still telling over 70% of our 4th graders, over 75% of our 7th graders and just under 70% of our 10th graders that they are sub-standard in at least one of the 4 WASL subjects. This means they would not graduate. When the children of already stressed communities are faced with this kind of threat, the drop out rate drastically raises. These communities of immigrant, color and lower economic status become a target for recruiters. The recruiters get the scores and lists of drop outs and start their Sales Pitch. The No Child Left Behind Act thus becomes a tool for the military to implement an ‘Economic Draft’ That is why students and parents must protect themselves and OPT OUTThis is how the Students and Parents “OPT OUT:” fill out a letter to OPT OUT the student or contact Carrie or I and we will send you a form that can be reprinted in English or Spanish filled out be pen for those without computer access.

Get the Truth: This involves giving the students a chance to speak with a Veteran for Peace and Get the Truth.

We give the student at least three opportunities. First, the Veterans for Peace have been great at having at least one Vet on hand at the schools for direct first contact. Secondly we try to have a general informational meeting with a Veteran for Peace the week after a school action for students and parents.

Third, we give out the GI Rights Hotline 800-394-9544 or in our area Washington Truth in Recruiting local number. The student can then speak with a veteran on the phone and Get the Truth. We also promote Career Councilors, Principals, PSTA’s and Teachers to always give an equal opportunity for a Veteran for Peace or any of the other Veterans organizations working for peace and against war to present the truth when Recruiters have access to students.

Dealing with Delayed Enlistment: Most young people enter the military through the Delayed Enlistment Program (sometimes called the Delayed Entry Program). This program allows youth to sign up with a military recruiter for one of the service branches, but receive a report date for basic training for up to a year later. When entering the Delayed Enlistment Program (DEP), youth sign an enlistment agreement and take an oath of enlistment.

It is very common for young people to change their minds after enlistment in the DEP. A young person may re-evaluate their decision. It is important to realize that up until a young person actually reports for basic training, they can be released from any military obligation.

The official way to gain release is to write a letter to the commanding officer of the recruiting station, explaining one’s decision not to report to basic training.

The young person may or may not receive an official response before the date to report for basic training. Military recruiters are instructed to be understanding of these changes in plans. Nonetheless, in some cases military recruiters may and have used intimidation or threats to persuade the young person not to withdraw their commitment to serve. However, not reporting for basic training will result in release from any further obligation. (for more information http://www.objector.org/girights/)

Zeese: What made you get involved in this effort?

Coppernoll: The Peace Movement in the United States is stagnant. It seems stuck in a loop that started in the 2004 election cycle, even though we have nearly six in ten Americans saying the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq according to the June 2005 Gallup Poll. Yet the peace movement continues to not be able to generate the energy to do much.

Sadly, some of this, it seems to me, comes from rivalries between organizations that are still arguing over what position or standing in leadership of the movement they should have. Position doesn’t mean a damn to me. The last couple of years I’ve slept on couches and basement floors with other activist organizers, because the mission far outweighed the position.

I got involved because I had to. My mission; end the wars that the United States is waging against countries of the world, now. All who care, about stopping our government, that is supposed to be representing us, from conducting the Iraq War and all the other wars of oppression that it supports around the world, must do something direct and immediate. This project begins that.

Zeese: How does it work? What materials do you give to youth or parents?

Coppernoll: Kevin, it’s pretty straight forward. You get in contact with your local Veterans for Peace group. This can be just one individual in your small town or a neighboring town if you’re not in a big city. You then reach out to anyone you know. Ask them the questions “Do you think the military has the right to not tell our young people the whole truth? Do you think military recruiters have the right to our children’s school records?” Then you ask student or parent or any one concerned; “if they would committee just one hour of their time a week and a couple of dollars for printing some information, to hand out, for saving a young persons life?”

Then you schedule one meeting for one hours worth of business, that business will cover organizing, the time for the first hand out of information to the students. The best time is after school when students are going home. Tell the people and organizations that after the business part of the meeting is over they can have a discussion period. But you’ve told people that the meeting is set for an hour to actually plan and set a date for your action.

Plan the first action if you can for the first day of school this fall.

This is very important. The first week we want as many students and parents to sign an OPT OUT letter as possible. On September the 24th we will announce while the first national protest are going on all the OPT OUT letters that have been signed. We will then demand our legislators support the “Student Privacy Protection Act” that would turn current policy around, allowing the military to talk only to students whose parents approve of such contact. Instead of having the responsibility of opting out, Parents should be asked to opt-in. Critics charge that this will make it far harder for recruiters to discuss military careers with the nation’s high school students, so be it.

If you have a group that wants to start this summer, at events that high schools students might attend. Print out an OPT OUT letter that can be filled out by pen and does not require a computer. (See earlier example or contact us.) Have some literature that you or your group has studied to hand out. If possible have a Peace Veteran at hand to speak to the students. Have a leaflet that has the next time and place a meeting is available, and where a student and their parents can speak with a Veteran. Also have on the meeting leaflets the GI Rights Hotline 800-394-9544. You have the right to stand on a public sidewalk in front of your school and hand out this information to students or any public place.

This direct contact may be out of some peoples comfort zone. However, this is the most important part. The only way to reach these students is eyeball to eyeball. You must show them that you care enough about their lives to stand there and talk with them. If they say they don’t care if they die in war you must tell them “you care for them and that’s why your there.” You don’t tell them that they can’t join the military. This is a free country and they have the right to do as they wish. These young people are smart, once you get them past the propaganda, which they are constantly bombarded with they will make the right decision.

Just ask them would they buy something important on a slick sales pitch or would they want the truth about what they are getting into before they make a life changing decision?

The week after the school action you have the meeting you called for in your leaflet you handed out. You have a Peace Veteran there. Keep it informal, this is a time the student, their parents and the veteran should have to dialogue with each other. It is important to have a sign up sheet. Ask students if they would like to start a club on campus that talks about peace and alternatives to war?

I also want to say that many groups are doing a number of things for counter-recruitment. I think it is great what they are doing. You will notice we use leaflets from other groups around the country and we support you getting material that they print and pay for it if they request it. The material we have developed is free to use.

Zeese: What has been the result of your efforts?

Coppernoll: They have been really good. We have incorporated a street theater group that come out at our campuses. They really got a buzz going with the students. It was great to see the actors and students interact. Kevin, I get goose bumps when I think of different moments I’ve had and observed between students and activists. The young people get it. They are a lot smarter than the government thinks. The government uses Slick Sales Pitches with Trained Recruiters. We use the Truth and People Who Care about Young Peoples Lives.

We started now before the fall because this time is what the Recruiters call "Christmas in July". Students are getting out of school in a dismal economy with pressures to get a job and find away to get training or go to school. The Chicken Hawk Recruiters are circling them with lies and false promises. We also started now so we could prepare for an all-out push for OPT OUT this fall.

The first day we had an organized effort at a high school we got 18 OPT OUT letters signed. That was 18 young people that the recruiters were told to keep their hands off their records.

We now have a coalition of groups like Veterans for Peace, Washington ACORN, Stand Up Seattle, The Green Alliance (national), Youth Against War and Racism (from Franklin High School an U of W) to name a few and more are coming aboard daily. Many individuals are coming forward and showing solidarity such as parents, students, teachers, councilors, school board members, and people of the community. However this is a call for more help to people that care.

Most importantly we have parents who are coming forward to work on getting a speaker to speak to their Parent Teacher Student Association about the recruiting situation. Students that are planning to set up clubs on campus around the military and peace. We are working on a packet for social studies teacher with resources so they can have debates in classes on military recruitment.

Zeese: What is the goal of your efforts?

Coppernoll: Quite simply, to have one or more activists, on every high school side walk, in every community, that has one person who cares for our youth and peace, when school starts this fall.
Some may say that it’s a huge undertaking. However, it all can happen, when we the people, who believe in peace, decide to stop war. When we the people say, I won’t let them lie to my children any more. When we the people say, I want our next generation to build a country that is a place that cares for all the people in it and doesn’t waste life subjecting others around the world for power for the few.

Zeese: Do you have any future plans you can share?

Coppernoll: Well, we are going continue our actions here in Washington State focusing not only on the cities but also on the rural and suburban areas. We are open and available for anyone or an organization that need some help in the country to get started with direct action on the counter-recruitment and OPT OUT program. We are already contacting groups that may want to help around the country. But don’t wait to be contacted, individuals and groups that want to tell our youth the truth need to start now and contact us.

We want to see students and teachers form ‘Peace Clubs.’ We want all the many organizations and individuals working around the country on counter-recruitment to come together this summer and work with each other.

We are also working toward a coalition of organizations and peace advocates who want to work now instead of waiting for the next war.

The young people that I have come in contact with and seasoned organizer are forming to build on this action. The youth of today have been given a bad rap a lot of them care and want to do something. But they need to be organized by other youth that they fell connected with. The youth need some help with training and once they get it watch out. They have the energy to make change.


KEVIN ZEESE is Director of Democracy Rising. You can read more of his interviews and columns at http://www.DemocracyRising.US

 

U.S. Military Takes Education Hostage

Resist newsletter, May 1999

Rick Jahnkow -

Military Industrial ComplexIt used to be understood in this country that the key to securing and protecting our democratic rights was to exercise strict control over the military. One of the prerequisites for this control has always been maintaining a strong, protective buffer between civilian society and the armed forces. Clearly, this buffer has been eroded over the years, and now very few components of our society-especially government and the economy-have escaped the powerful influence of militarism.

One key institution that is currently under intense attack from the military is public education. This assault is not being accomplished using tanks and helicopter gun ships-though bringing them to campuses is, in fact, one of the Pentagon's goals-but rather by using the weapons of economic coercion and legal threats. It reflects a developing trend that could have broad, long-lasting implications for social change work but, unfortunately, has received relatively little attention from even some peace organizations that have traditionally concerned themselves with such issues (see resource listing on page seven for some of the exceptions).

The Erosion of Educational Autonomy

Ten years ago, colleges and universities were able to set their own policies on accepting ROTC units or granting armed forces recruiters access to campus facilities and students, and a number of schools exercised their right to restrict or prohibit the military's campus presence. Also, in most states college students who resisted draft registration by not signing up with the Selective Service System could still apply for and obtain state and locally funded financial aid (federal student aid has been unavailable to them since 1983).

In the last few years, this ability of educational institutions to assert their independence from the military has been severely curtailed. Former-Representative Gerald Solomon, a conservative Republican from New York who recently left Congress, led the attack by introducing federal legislation which compels schools to cooperate with Selective Service and punishes campuses when they refuse to cooperate with ROTC and military recruiters. Proposals modeled after his legislation have also been introduced and passed in some states, including laws which make draft registration resisters ineligible for state civil service jobs, state student aid and, in some cases, admission to state colleges and universities.
From a practical standpoint, the state laws are an act of overkill, since the threatened loss of just the federal funds is already enough to force the vast majority of students and schools to comply. The true significance of the state laws is to establish a higher status for the military on a local level by conveying to young people that deference must be paid to the armed forces, and failure to concede this point will result in punishment-in this case, additional economic hardship for schools and students.

As a result of Solomon's most recent efforts, post-secondary schools now stand to lose substantial funds if they try to restrict the military's campus presence. Under provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1995, National Defense Authorization Act for 1996, and the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, schools can lose funds-including some funds used for student aid-from the departments of Defense, Transportation, Labor, Health and Human ~ Services, Education, and Related l Agencies. This loss of federal support can be triggered by any school policy or practice (regardless of implementation date) which either prohibits, or in effect, prevents, military recruitment representatives from obtaining entry to campuses, access to students on campuses or access to directory information on students, or which prevents the establishment and effective operation of a senior ROTC unit. Campuses with a "long-standing policy of pacifism based on historical religious affiliation" are still allowed to exclude military recruiters, if they wish, but the number of qualifying institutions is very small.

This change in law came about, in part, because a growing number of schools had adopted campus policies against discrimination based on sexual orientation. In line with these policies, campuses asserted their right to refuse to allow homophobic organizations access to school facilities; and since the Pentagon is the largest employer that fires people solely for being lesbian, gay or bi-sexual, many of the schools decided to ban armed forces recruiters and military programs like ROTC.

After the passage of Solomon's legislation, these schools faced the loss of significant, irreplaceable funds. Most, if not all, succumbed to the economic coercion and have been forced to accept violations of their nondiscrimination policies: ROTC cannot be banned, recruiters must be guaranteed access to the physical campus, and recruiters must be able to obtain directories of students names, addresses and phone numbers. (A few narrow exceptions are allowed, but they generally will not significantly limit the military's access to campuses and students.)

First Colleges, Now Grade Schools

Given the success of legislation forcing post-secondary schools to accept military training programs and recruiters, and the growing willingness of state legislators to pass parallel laws, it should not be surprising that the Pentagon and its supporters are now aiming their sights at grade schools. In March, military recruiters testifying before a House Armed Services Committee military personnel subcommittee complained that their efforts are being hampered by parents and teachers who view the armed forces as a "last option" for students who can't get into college or find good jobs. One recruiter said, "We have parents out there that forget what made America America. We have a lot of walls to break down."

One of the walls they want to break down is the right of citizens to protect their schools and homes from unwanted intrusions by the military. Air Force Sgt. Robert Austin, an Oklahoma City recruiter, complained that high schools will often give lists of students names to college representatives but not the armed forces. And he noted that individual school districts and principals can decide whether recruiters can go on campus. "I think that if they're federally funded, they shouldn't be able to tell us we can't come into the schools," said Austin.

At the time of the testimony, no members of the House Armed Services Committee subcommittee indicated whether they would introduce a law mandating military access to high schools, but the ranking Democrat, Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, said, "l think that's a good idea."In fact, such a law was once introduced unsuccessfully by Solomon, and there have been similar attempts at the state level. When several California school districts banned recruiter access to student lists during the Persian Gulf War, a reactionary bill almost made it through the legislature which would have mandated military access to high school campuses and student directory information. At the last minute, it was amended to become only a statement of legislative intent without the force of law. At least one state, Ohio, succeeded in passing a law which prevents high schools from limiting recruiter access to student addresses.

Even without a federal law mandating high school access, the Pentagon has significantly expanded its presence in schools. More recruiters are now invading both secondary and lower grade schools, where they give youths the false impression that the military is their best hope for obtaining the training and college financial aid that will later give them a chance at economic security. The view students have of viable civilian alternatives is being obliterated by the overwhelming marketing resources being employed by the armed forces. In many cases recruiters are being received with open arms by school counselors and vocational advisors who feel unable to deal with the problems facing today's young people problems which, ironically, are exacerbated by the huge diversion of national resources to the military.

Another recruiting device, the Junior Reserve Officers' Corps program, actually puts the Pentagon in a position to directly rob schools of local educational funds. The military tricks a growing number of school officials into accepting this curriculum by leading them to believe that JROTC is a cost-effective way to offer students a beneficial elective. The federal government shares in the cost of JROTC, but in actuality, schools wind up paying more than they would for a regular academic class, and they are essentially subsidizing military training and indoctrination.

Grassroots opposition to the military's invasion of public education has produced some important victories by community and student organizations. Court rulings have upheld the right of counter-recruitment activists to have equal access to schools, JROTC has been defeated in a few communities, and some educational institutions have been persuaded to adopt policies which limit or restrict armed forces activities on campuses. However, some of these victories-especially at the college level- have recently been reversed by the new legislation, and others are being threatened with talk about making military access mandatory at high schools.

Implications for Social Change Activism

The military establishment understands the key role that schools play in the shaping of people's values and attitudes, and they know that the deeper they penetrate into education, the greater their influence will be on society as a whole. Their goal is not just to attract enlistees; it is also to strengthen the position of the armed forces, in general, by teaching military values to a larger segment of the population and affecting people's worldview. If allowed to continue, the result will be a more conservative political climate and, in the long term, a breakdown in the protective barriers that prevent further military encroachment on civilian rule.

All of this underscores the importance of grassroots efforts to challenge the economic coercion and other legislative attempts to impose military recruiters and programs like JROTC and ROTC on our schools. Organizing against military intrusion is a way to resist a trend which, if allowed to continue unchecked, will affect a wide range of issues in future years. When it comes to subjects like economic justice, health care, women's reproductive rights, racial equality, the environment and other concerns of progressives, social change activists will have much more difficulty organizing when more young people have been persuaded that (in the words of one JROTC textbook) "the same qualities that make a good leader in the military services are equally helpful to the civilian leader," and being a good citizen means loyalty and obedience to leaders, "whether or not you agree with them." Militarism instills a conservative attitude toward life that children then carry into the community.

It is crucial that more social change activists realize the stake we all share in this issue. If we are to stop the trend toward greater militarization of society-and, by implication, the drift toward greater conservatism-more groups and individuals will need to join the effort to resist the military's encroachment on our civilian educational system. It's an immediate problem that we cannot afford to ignore if we hope to advance the cause of progressive social change in the future.


Rick Jahnkow is active in the Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft and the Project on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities (Project YANO), both of which are based in San Diego, California and have received grants from Resist. For information, contact Project YANO, PO Box 230157. Encinitas. CA 92023.

When the World Outlawed War

When the World Outlawed War26 September 2011 - War Is a Crime - David Swanson's blog David Swanson -

Remarks at Lynchburg College on September 26, 2011

I'd like to thank Dave Freier for inviting me, and all of you for being here.  I think I was invited to speak about my most recent book, War Is A Lie, but I asked Professor Freier if it would be all right to speak about my next book, not yet finished, and he agreed.  So, the following is a relatively very short summary of a forthcoming book that is not yet finished, and which I need your help with.  It would be very helpful to me if you let me know when I've finished these opening remarks what was unclear, what didn't make sense, or what didn't persuade you, as well as what -- if anything -- seemed useful or inspiring.

It would also help me a lot if you would raise your hands to show your views on a few questions.  First, raise your hand if you believe that war is illegal.  I don't mean particular atrocities or particular types of wars, but war.  And I don't mean bad or regrettable, but illegal.  If you're not sure or think it's not a good question don't raise your hand.  OK, thank you.  Now, raise your hand if you think war should be illegal.  OK, thank you.  And now raise your hand if you know what the Kellogg-Briand Pact is.  All right, that was very helpful.  Now, let me tell you a little story, or at least a few pieces of it.

In 1927 and 1928 a hot-tempered Republican from Minnesota named Frank, who privately cursed pacifists, managed to persuade nearly every country on earth to ban war.  He had been moved to do so, against his will, by a global demand for peace and a U.S. partnership with France created through illegal diplomacy by peace activists.  The driving force in achieving this historic breakthrough was a remarkably unified, strategic, and relentless U.S. peace movement with its strongest support in the Midwest; its strongest leaders professors, lawyers, and university presidents; its voices in Washington, D.C., those of Republican senators from Idaho and Kansas; its views welcomed and promoted by newspapers, churches, and women's groups all over the country; and its determination unaltered by a decade of defeats and divisions.

The movement depended in large part on the new political power of female voters. The effort might have failed had Charles Lindbergh not flown an airplane across an ocean, or Henry Cabot Lodge not died, or had other efforts toward peace and disarmament not been dismal failures.  But public pressure made this step, or something like it, almost inevitable.  And when it succeeded -- although the outlawing of war was never fully implemented in accordance with the plans of its visionaries -- much of the world believed war had been made illegal.  Wars were, in fact, halted and prevented.  And when, nonetheless, wars continued and a second world war engulfed the globe, that catastrophe was followed by the trials of men accused of the brand new crime of making war, as well as by global adoption of the United Nations Charter, a document owing much to its pre-war predecessor while still falling short of the ideals of what in the 1920s was called the Outlawry movement.

"Last night I had the strangest dream I'd ever dreamed before," wrote Ed McCurdy in 1950 in what became a popular folk song.  "I dreamed the world had all agreed to put an end to war.  I dreamed I saw a mighty room, and the room was filled with men.  And the paper they were signing said they'd never fight again."  But that scene had already happened in reality on August 27, 1928, in Paris, France. The treaty that was signed that day, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, was subsequently ratified by the United States Senate in a vote of 85 to 1 and remains on the books to this day as part of what Article VI of the U.S. Constitution calls "the supreme Law of the Land."

Frank Kellogg, the U.S. Secretary of State who made this treaty happen, was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and saw his public reputation soar -- so much so that the United States named a ship after him, one of the "liberty ships" that carried war supplies to Europe during World War II.  Kellogg was dead at the time.  So, many believed, were prospects for world peace.  But the Kellogg-Briand Pact and its renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy is something we might want to revive.  This treaty gathered the adherence of the world's nations swiftly and publicly, driven by fervent public demand.  We might think about how public opinion of that sort might be created anew, what insights it possessed that have yet to be realized, and what systems of communication, education, and elections would allow the public again to influence government policy, as the ongoing campaign to eliminate war -- understood by its originators to be an undertaking of generations -- continues to develop.

One way to revive a treaty that in fact remains law would, of course, be to begin complying with it.  When lawyers, politicians, and judges want to bestow human rights on corporations, they do so largely on the basis of a footnote added by a clerk to a Supreme Court ruling from over a century back.  When the Department of Justice wants to "legalize" torture or, for that matter, war, it reaches back to a twisted reading of one of the Federalist Papers or a court decision from some long forgotten era.  If anyone in power today favored peace, there would be every justification for recalling and making use of the Kellogg-Briand Pact.  It is actually law.  And it is far more recent law than the U.S. Constitution itself, which our elected officials still claim, mostly unconvincingly, to support.  The Pact, excluding formalities and procedural matters, reads, in full:

"The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another."

"The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means."

"The French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand, whose initiative had led to the Pact and whose previous work for peace had already earned him a Nobel Peace Prize, remarked at the signing ceremony:

"For the first time, on a scale as absolute as it is vast, a treaty has been truly devoted to the very establishment of peace, and has laid down laws that are new and free from all political considerations.  Such a treaty means a beginning and not an end."

The peace movement that made the Kellogg-Briand Pact happen, just like the militarism against which it competed, was given a huge boost by World War I, by the scale of that war and its impact on civilians, but also by the rhetoric through which the United States had been brought into the war in 1917. According to U.S. Socialist Victor Berger, all the United States had gained from participation in World War I was the flu and prohibition.  It was not an uncommon view.  Millions of Americans who had supported World War I, came during the years following its completion on November 11, 1918, to reject the idea that anything could ever be gained through warfare.

The propaganda machinery invented by President Woodrow Wilson and his Committee on Public Information had drawn Americans into the war with exaggerated and fictional tales of German atrocities in Belgium, posters depicting Jesus Christ in khaki sighting down a gun barrel, and promises of selfless devotion to making the world safe for democracy. The extent of the casualties was hidden from the public as much as possible during the course of the war, but by the time it was over many had learned something of war's reality.  And many had come to resent the manipulation of noble emotions that had pulled an independent nation into overseas barbarity.

However, the propaganda that motivated the fighting was not immediately erased from people's minds.  A war to end wars and make the world safe for democracy cannot end without some lingering demand for peace and justice, or at least for something more valuable than the flu and prohibition.  Even those rejecting the idea that any war could in any way help advance the cause of peace aligned with those wanting to avoid all future wars -- a group that probably encompassed most of the U.S. population.

Some of the blame for the start of the World War was placed on secretly made treaties and alliances. President Wilson backed the ideal of public treaties, if not necessarily publicly negotiated treaties.  He made this the first of his famous 14 points in his January 8, 1918, speech to Congress.

Following the war, disillusioned with its promises, many in the United States came to distrust European peace efforts, as it was European entanglements that had created the war.  When the Treaty of Versailles, on June 28, 1918, imposed a cruel victors' justice on Germany, Wilson was seen as having betrayed his word.  When he promised that the League of Nations would right all the wrongs of that treaty, many were skeptical, particularly as the League bore some resemblance to the sort of alliances that had produced the World War in the first place.

Both jingoistic isolationists, and internationalist peace activists with a vision of Outlawry that shunned the use of force even to punish war, rejected the League, as did the United States Senate, dealing a major blow to those peace advocates who believed the League was not only advantageous but also the reward due after so much suffering in the war.  Efforts to bring the United States in as a member of the World Court failed as well.  A Naval Disarmament Conference in Washington in 1921-1922 did perhaps more harm than good.  And in 1923 and 1924, respectively, the members of the League of Nations in Europe failed to ratify a Draft Pact for Mutual Assistance and an agreement called the Geneva Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, both of which had adopted some of the language of the U.S. Outlawry movement to somewhat different purposes.

Remarkably, these set-backs did not halt the momentum of the peace movement in the United States or around the world. The institutional funding and structure of the peace movement was enough to make any early twenty-first century peace activist drool with envy, as was the openness of the mass media of the day, namely newspapers, to promoting peace.  Leading intellectuals, politicians, robber barons, and other public figures poured their resources into the cause.  A defeat or two, or ten, might discourage some individuals, but it was not about to derail the movement.  Neither was political partisanship, as peace groups pressured Democrats and Republicans alike, and both responded.  It was during the peaceful Republican interlude of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, in between the Democratic war-making of Wilson and Roosevelt, that the peace movement reached its height.

European trade unions were pacifist and were working to recover the pre-war idea of a general strike to prevent any movement towards war.  Many political parties in Europe were strongly in favor of working to ensure peace. European peace organizations themselves were smaller and less influential than their U.S. counterparts, but they were more unified in their agenda.  They favored both disarmament and the League of Nations, as well as other treaties, alliances, and arbitration agreements.

U.S. and European peace advocates came from opposite directions.  Americans viewed peace as the norm and as consisting of the absence of war.  But Europeans, dealing with constant threats, provocations, grievances, and divisions, believed peace to require an elaborate system of checks on hostilities and means of resolving disputes.  The United States imagined the world at peace and sought to preserve it. Europeans strove to build a peace they did not know, with a keen awareness that they could never possibly solve every dispute to everyone's satisfaction.

Many U.S. peace groups, it should be said however, inclined toward the European perspective, while others did not.  The United States had a larger peace movement than Europe did, but a more deeply divided one.  Sincere advocates of peace came down on both sides of the questions of joining the League of Nations and the World Court.  Nor did they all see eye-to-eye on disarmament.  If something could be found that would unite the entire U.S. peace movement, the U.S. government of the day was sufficiently representative of the public will that whatever that measure was, it was bound to be enacted.

The Carnegie Endowment for Peace had profited from the war through U.S. Steel Corporation bonds.  Its president, Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, and its director of the Division of Economics and History Professor James Thomson Shotwell, would play significant roles in the creation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, after having advocated unsuccessfully for U.S. membership in the League of Nations. Shotwell had a $600,000 annual budget, or about $6.8 million in today's terms.  Other peace groups had even larger budgets.  More radical peace groups, often with less funding, in some cases supported the League and the Court, but in addition pushed for disarmament and opposed militarism more consistently, including U.S. imperialism in Central and South America.

One organization deserves particular attention, although it was largely a front for a single individual and largely funded out of his own pocket.  The American Committee for the Outlawry of War was the creation of Salmon Oliver Levinson.  Its agenda originally attracted those advocates of peace who opposed U.S. entry into the League of Nations and international alliances. But its agenda, of outlawing war, eventually attracted the support of nearly the entire peace movement, when the Kellogg-Briand Pact became the unifying focus that had been missing.

Levinson's mission was to make war illegal.  And he came to believe that the effective outlawing of war would require outlawing all war, without distinction between aggressive and defensive war, and without distinction between aggressive war and war sanctioned by an international league as punishment for an aggressor nation.  Levinson wrote:

"Suppose this same distinction had been urged when the institution of dueling was outlawed. . . . Suppose it had then been urged that only 'aggressive dueling' should be outlawed and that 'defensive dueling' be left intact. . . .  Such a suggestion relative to dueling would have been silly, but the analogy is perfectly sound.  What we did was to outlaw the institution of dueling, a method theretofore recognized by law for the settlement of disputes of so-called honor."

Levinson wanted everyone to recognize war as an institution, as a tool that had been given acceptability and respectability as a means of settling disputes.  He wanted international disputes to be settled in a court of law, and the institution of war to be rejected just as slavery had been.

Levinson understood this as leaving in place the right to self-defense, but eliminating the need for the very concept of war. National self-defense would be the equivalent of killing an assailant in personal self-defense.  Such personal self-defense, he noted, was no longer called "dueling."  But Levinson did not envision the killing of a war-making nation.  Rather he proposed five responses to the launching of an attack: good faith, public opinion, nonrecognition of gains, the use of force to punish individual warmakers, and the use of any means including force to halt the attack.

Levinson would eventually urge the nations signing the Kellogg-Briand Pact (also known as the Pact of Paris) to incorporate the following into their criminal codes: "Any person, or persons, who shall advocate orally or in writing, or cause the publication of any printed matter which shall advocate the use of war between nations, in violation of the terms of the Pact of Paris, with the intent of causing war between or among nations , shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be imprisoned not less than ______ years."  This idea can be found in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, which states: "Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law."  It was an idea that also influenced the Nuremberg prosecutions.  It may be an idea worthy of revival and realization.

Levinson wrote on August 25, 1917: "War as an institution to 'settle disputes' and establish 'justice among nations' is the most barbarous and indefensible thing in civilization. . . . The real disease of the world is the legality and availability of war . . . .  [W]e should have, not as now, laws of war, but laws against war; there are no laws of murdering or of poisoning, but laws against them."

Many in the United States were averse to the sort of alliances created, for example, in 1925 in Locarno, Switzerland.  Under these aggreements, if Germany were to attack France, then England and Italy would have to attack Germany, whereas if France were to attack Germany, then England and Italy would have to attack France.  Aristide Briand made a name for himself as a peace negotiator in Locarno, but the Outlawrists' criticism of such arrangements as sheer madness looks wiser through the lens of later history.

Rather than alliances and unpredictable adjudications, the Outlawrists favored the rule of the written word.  The most popular criticism of Outlawry was that it intended to simply wish war away by banning it. The most popular criticism of international alliances was that they would create wars to end wars.  While NATO and even the United Nations have indeed been used to launch wars (although the European Union has rendered wars within Western Europe unimaginable), the Kellogg Briand-Pact and the United Nations Charter have banned war, and wars have proceeded merrily on their way not noticing.  But all of this criticism is overly simplistic.  The United Nations is a corrupt approximation of an ideal never yet realized.  And Outlawry, despite passage of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, has never been fully tried.

Outlawry, in Charles Morrison's outline of it (Morrison was a close ally of Levinson), required that a world court ruling on a body of world law be substituted for war as a means of settling disputes. The International Criminal Court (ICC), finally created in 2002 and having taken jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in 2010, begins to approach this idea, but the United States is not a member, and yet the court is under the thumb of the United States and the other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.  The 1920s critics of the then existing World Court as a creature of the League of Nations would, if brought forward in time, no doubt have a similar critique of the ICC.

leaders to put on trial?Where the argument for Outlawry gets a little hairy is in its refusal to consider any distinction between aggressive and defensive war, while nonetheless countenancing armaments and self-defense. Morrison argues that distinguishing aggressors from defenders is a fool's errand, as every nation always claims to be fighting in defense, and an initial attack may have been provoked by the other side.  (In 2001 and 2003 the United States attacked the distant, unarmed, impoverished nations of Afghanistan and Iraq and claimed to be acting in defense.)  Morrison believes that self-defense will almost certainly not be needed, in the future of outlawed war, because war just won't happen.  But were it to happen, self-defense clearly must be envisioned in Morrison's scheme as something that does not resemble war.  For, otherwise, how can the world court of Outlawry determine which nation(s)' leaders to put on trial?

Ultimately, outlawing war is a process of moral development.  Changing the law and establishing a court to enforce it is a means toward changing people's conception of what is morally acceptable.  Viewed in this way, the work of the 1920s that brought about the Kellogg-Briand Pact can be seen as a partial success to be built upon, whether or not any court will ever be able to both prosecute warmaking and avoid the distinction between aggression and defense.

Morrison argued that Outlawry was so clear and so popular that no statesman would dare oppose it.  He urged popularizing the peace movement, taking it out of the hands of experts.  And he was right about that.  He was right about the United States and about the entire world.  Nobody opposed banning war.  While we still have wars, most people do not want them.  Wars may be Tyrannical Ruler Nature, or Corporate Profiteer Nature, but they are the furthest thing from Human Nature.

In 1922, the Lion of Idaho, Republican Senator William Borah, slowly began to roar. Levinson produced a pamphlet on Outlawry at Borah's request, and Borah republished it as a Senate document, placing it in the Congressional Record. Senator Borah and Senator Arthur Capper of Kansas mailed it to their lists.  Meanwhile, Raymond Robins barnstormed the country making speech after speech for Outlawry, and Levinson corresponded at length with anyone and everyone who expressed interest or raised objections.  Organizations of all varieties passed countless resolutions in support of Outlawry.  School boards and labor unions distributed pamphlets.  Prominent figures gave their endorsements.

Groups that supported the Outlawry of war early in the campaign included some organizations that are still around today, but which one cannot imagine even considering taking the same step again, even with the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the U.N. Charter already in existence and formally a part of our law.  Among these were the National League of Women Voters, the Young Women's Christian Associations, the National Association of Parents and Teachers, the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, and the American Legion.

When President Harding up and dropped dead in 1923, his Vice President Calvin Coolidge got the top job and the Republican nomination to remain in it after 1924.  Indeed, he remained until March 1929.  Levinson helped persuade Coolidge to pick Borah for the vice presidency and Borah to accept, but this deal fell through, Borah declined, and Charles Dawes accepted.  Secretary of State Frank Kellogg would have occasion to refer to Dawes as "an unmitigated ass" prior to organizing the nations of the world in support of brotherly love.  Borah would instead end up in the job of Chairman of Foreign Relations.  Outlawry made it into Coolidge's speech accepting the Republican nomination but not into the Republican Platform. It did, however, make it into the Democratic Party Platform.

While the struggle for women's suffrage had used marches and civil disobedience, and conscientious objectors to the war had used noncooperation, those were not the primary tools of the Outlawry campaign.  Instead there were countless public meetings and packed lecture halls, signed petitions and resolutions, and the support of numerous newspaper editorials.

In 1923, Borah introduced an Outlawry resolution in the Senate, following a tireless lobbying effort by Levinson.  Outlawry began to unite peace groups in a way that the League and the Court did not. In 1924 Levinson and the Outlawrists sought unity with their fellow peace-activist League supporters, offering support for World Court membership in exchange for support for the Borah Resolution on Outlawry.  In 1925, League and Outlawry supporters reached an agreement, known as the Harmony Plan, backing adherence to the Court Protocol and within two years the backing of Outlawry and the holding of a conference to embody in a treaty the principles that war be made a crime and the Court be given jurisdiction.  A third and final plank in this agreement was that the United States would withdraw from the Court if the Outlawry provisions were not put into effect within two years.  The plan was reported in national and international newspapers and served as a guide for local peace organizations, even though the peace-movement leadership was back to quarrelling by the end of the year.

Butler met with Briand in June 1926, at which point Briand asked "What can we do next?"  Butler replied: "My dear Briand, I have just been reading a book . . . . Its title is Vom Kriege, and its author was Karl von Clausewitz . . . .  I came upon an extraordinary chapter in its third volume, entitled 'War as an Instrument of Policy.' Why has not the time come for the civilized government of the world formally to renounce war as an instrument of policy?"  Briand's reply was "Would not that be wonderful if it were possible? I must read that book."

In 1927 the pressure on world leaders for steps to ensure peace reached a climax, and the pieces of a plan to do something about it began to be fitted into place.  Political organizations and clubs pushing for peace were springing up by the hundreds.  And the question of the League of Nations was no longer there to divide them.

Shotwell met with Briand in Paris on March 22nd.  France had just refused a U.S. invitation to a disarmament conference and was still upset about its treatment at the one in Washington and about U.S. accusations of militarism, not to mention U.S. insistence on war debt payment, and U.S. refusal to join the League or the Court. Shotwell suggested removing U.S. suspicions of French militarism by proposing a treaty to renounce war as an instrument of national policy.

On April 6, 1927, Levinson was on a train to New York where he would sail to Europe.  He read the day's newspapers on the train and was overjoyed and overwhelmed by an Associated Press report on a public statement from Briand, the Foreign Minister of France.  Shotwell later told both John Dewey and Robert Ferrell that he had written Briand's message himself.  The message proposed that the United States and France sign a treaty renouncing war.

This was public diplomacy at its most public.  The Foreign Minister of France was proposing a treaty through the Associated Press. The only downside to such methods was that a response could not be required.  And in fact, no response from the U.S. government was forthcoming.  And the newspapers didn't see any story worth pursuing.  On April 8th Butler and Borah publicly debated the outlawing of rum, which was of much more interest to the media.  Butler, who wanted to abolish war believed banning rum was too difficult.  With regard to Briand's offer, Butler took matters into his own hands.  He published a letter in the New York Times on April 25th demanding action in response to Briand's proposal.

Butler's letter in the New York Times and a supportive editorial published by the New York Times caught the wider news media's attention.  Newspapers turned it into a big story in the United States and even abroad.  This was Butler beginning a dialogue with his colleague Shotwell, but with Butler speaking for the United States and Shotwell having spoken through Briand for France. Not a bad bit of ventriloquism.

Numerous senators spoke up in support of answering Briand's offer.  Borah was opposed to an alliance with France and proposed that the treaty be expanded to include all other nations.  Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg, when he read Butler's letter, told a friend that Butler and the French were a set of "--- ------ fools" making suggestions that could lead to nothing but embarrassment.  If there was anything he hated, Kellogg said, it was "-------- pacifists."

But as public pressure grew, Levinson and Borah worked to educate Kellogg on Outlawry.  When Senator Capper introduced a resolution in November 1927 in support of renouncing war, the nation understood that the farmers of the Midwest were behind Briand's proposal, or at least not against it.  The Pocatello Tribune arrived at this cynical interpretation:

"The real significance of the Capper plan . . . lie in its showing the belief of western politicians that the voters who prevented American entry into the league are aware that if Europe spends a disproportionate share of its limited funds in military preparation it will have little left for American wheat and corn."

This was, of course, before the weapons exporters came to hold more sway in Washington than the wheat and corn exporters.

The combination of a number of Republican leaders backing former Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes for the 1928 Republican presidential nomination and Capper introducing a resolution coming out of the Butler-Shotwell camp, a resolution that defined aggressive war, may have helped motivate Borah, with his own presidential ambitions, to manipulate Briand's offer in his own direction.  The treaty would end up banning all war in order to (1) avoid banning only aggressive war, and (2) avoid doing nothing.  The latter was not an option, given the pressure coming from the peace movement.  On December 10, 1927, Jane Addams led a delegation to the White House and delivered a petition with 30,000 names.  Coolidge assured her that he would try to achieve the treaty with France. Addams sent the same petition to Briand who thanked her.  By January, 1928, to the shock of his staff at the State Department, Kellogg was working hard to achieve a universal treaty, which France did not want, and writing to his wife that he hoped to win a Nobel Peace Prize.

On February 5th, with negotiations stalemated, Senator Borah published a front-page article in the New York Times Magazine, largely prepared by Levinson.  The headline was "One Great Treaty to Outlaw All Wars."  Borah claimed that a breach of the treaty by one nation would release other nations from complying with it in relation to that violator.  This would allow self-defense.  It would also allow France to sign such a treaty while still upholding its treaties forming alliances to respond to war.  Kellogg continued to push France, and in March asked the U.S. ambassador to point out to Briand the wisdom of acting while Kellogg was still in office.  Coolidge had less than a year remaining as president.

The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom passed a resolution commending Kellogg on May 5th.  So did the American Peace Society.  The National Committee on the Cause and Cure of War's 12 million women planned 48 state conferences through which to influence the Senate when it came time to ratify a treaty renouncing war.  On June 23rd, Kellogg wrote to 14 countries.  Germany formally agreed on July 11th, and France three days later.  Agreeing to sign the pact by July 20th would be Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, India, the Irish Free State, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.And these additional nations would sign on to adhere to it: Afghanistan, Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Romania, the Soviet Union, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Siam, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey. Eight further states joined at a later date: Persia, Greece, Honduras, Chile, Luxembourg, Danzig, Costa Rica, and Venezuela.  

Does anybody know what Persia is called today?

The Kellogg-Briand Pact was put together in an extremely public manner, and as these things go was agreed to very quickly, and with an unusually high number of adhering nations.  Most observers give public opinion and public pressure the credit.  The U.S. peace movement was fully behind it, and that unity was a new and powerful force.  About the public opinion in favor of the Peace Pact it is worth noting a couple of things.  First, the propaganda campaign that had brought public opinion around to supporting war in 1917 had been far more extensive, vastly more expensive, and backed up by a police force.  The peace movement did not have to intimidate or lie to anyone in the United States to gain their support for Kellogg-Briand. Secondly, the same was true with foreign heads of state acting in accordance with the wishes of their peoples.  Unlike the formation of a coalition of nations to invade Iraq in 2003, this coalition of nations to outlaw war was put together without bribery or threats being required.

The highest hurdle remained, namely the U.S. Senate.  The peace movement buried it in letters, petitions, resolutions, and lobbying visits.  Supportive senators read the petitions into the congressional record. President Coolidge persuaded Vice President Dawes to whip every senator in support of the Pact.  The Federal Council of Churches brought the White House a petition with 180,000 signatures.  In mid-January 1929, a thousand women peace leaders from around the country lobbied their respective senators in Washington, delivering thousands of petitions. Carrie Chapman Catt, who led this effort, suffered a heart attack during it.  The vote was 85 to 1.  The Wisconsin state legislature censured its U.S. senator who had voted No. Other senators who had expressed concerns all voted Yes.  One explained his Yes vote by saying he did not want to be burned in effigy back in his state.

It would take me another hour to begin to cover the hypocrisies, weaknesses, and shortcomings of this accomplishment.  I'll limit myself here to claiming that it was an accomplishment.  It was not just a second-rate effort after the League of Nations failed, nor just a pretense or a fraud.  The Kellogg-Briand Pact established the practice of not recognizing territorial claims gained through war, and its revival by another crusading lawyer during World War II (the Pact having been largely forgotten by then) created prosecutions of the crime of aggression -- ironically so, in that the Pact had been created precisely in order to avoid creating a crime called aggression.  Victors' justice is not full justice, but punishing leaders following World War II worked out a whole lot better than punishing an entire nation after World War I had.

A new and more faithful revival of Outlawry might again serve us well.  The Kellogg-Briand Pact, which has never been repealed, makes a stronger case against wars like Afghanistan and Iraq than does the U.N. Charter. To comply with Kellogg-Briand, wars need not be defensive or U.N.-authorized.  Rather, wars need to simply not exist.

Outlawry also removes a major reason why young men and women join the military, namely to make war as a means to achieving peace.  If there is no way to peace other than peace, if war cannot have a noble cause, if war has been -- as it formally has been -- renounced as an instrument of policy, then idealistic militarism goes away from recruiting offices, and the propaganda of humanitarian war suffers as well.

We may also have something to learn from the activism that promoted Outlawry.  It was principled, non-partisan, cross-ideological, and unrelenting.  More internationalist and more principled anti-imperialist or disarmament proposals, and the proposal to create a public referendum power to block wars, helped to make Outlawry mainstream by comparison.  The campaign was built over a period of years through both education and the cultivation of powerful supporters.It was not overly distracted by elections.  Its analysis included cold cost-benefit calculations, but front and center was always the morality of the cause of ending war.  This campaign worked internationally, nationally, and locally.  And its members did not believe victory would come in their lifetimes.  But neither were they so self-focused as to imagine that this somehow made eventual victory impossible.

There is one thing that we can say with certainty, and I will close with this: if Outlawry does not win, humanity will lose.  

Source: http://warisacrime.org/content/when-world-outlawed-war

 

###

 

Revised 12/13/2023 GG  | 30M+ Hits Club on NNOMY

 

Resistance of One

August 10, 2007 - ZNet

David Swanson -

There is something else we can try.  If you've given up on staging marches and rallies, or if - like me - you haven't but you want to try something else as well, and if you've given up on lobbying Congress as pointless, or if - like me - you haven't but you want to try something else as well, and if educating your fellow citizens as to exactly how completely corrupt the whole system is seems like an incomplete answer, and if staging a general strike or taking over the capital only seems like a good idea if you can get millions of others to join you, there is another approach that can be taken right away by a single person, a small group, or a crowd.

You can counter recruit, counter the corporate war profiteers, and counter the media.  Talking to high school and college students and career counselors about the reality of the military, done at the smallest or largest scale, helps to deny the military the troops it needs to occupy foreign lands and kill.  Of course, the military pushes back, raising the top age for recruits (now at 42), promising bigger bonuses (now at $50,000), and lowering various qualifications.  Ultimately, the military can push back by instituting a draft.  But that could also lead to much greater resistance.  Corporations profiting from the pretended "reconstruction" of Iraq, from the control of Iraq's oil, and from the use of weapons and mercenaries, can be protested and influenced.  Bechtel chose to stop bidding on contracts in Iraq rather than endure further protest.  And the media can be resisted through the creation and promotion of independent media, through criticism and protest, and through campaigns targeting advertisers.

A guide to engaging in these tactics and training others to do so is found in a new book called "Army of None: Strategies to Counter Military Recruitment, End War, and Build a Better World," by Aimee Allison and David Solnit: http://ww.couragetoresist.org/armyofnone They present this approach, as everyone on the left always presents their approach, as the only one of any use.  I disagree.  I think the various approaches work together.  I think the marching and lobbying help move the public to the point where more people will resist recruitment.  I think countering recruitment helps recruit peace activists of all sorts.  And I think that we have to model democratic behavior as part of defining a vision for the future, if nothing else.  We have to publicly demand the behavior we want from our elected officials if only to deny them the argument that we never asked.  And we have to envision a world in which one day citizens are able to influence politicians directly.

Most of "Army of None" is devoted to counter recruitment, and the book makes an ideal guide for anyone interested in that project.  Among other things, it provides the basic facts about the usual lies recruiters tell.  For one thing, most recruits won't actually get $50,000 or anything close to it.  In fact, nothing a recruiter promises a recruit means anything at all, because every military contract includes these lines:

"Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me.  Such changes may affect my status, pay allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment / re-enlistment document."

In other words, the rest of the contract means nothing, and only those two sentences and a signature actually matter.  The rest, like much of what comes out of recruiters' mouths, is lies.  The New York Times reported that one in five U.S. Army recruiters was under investigation in 2004 for offenses ranging from "threats and coercion to false promises that applicants would not be sent to Iraq."

In addition to educating potential recruits and assisting them in finding more positive career options, citizens can actively counter recruitment by protesting or impeding recruiting operations.  One of the more creative ways to do this is for that dwindling portion of the population that is not qualified for recruitment to attempt to enlist.  Raging Grannies and other groups of women have tied up recruiting stations and attracted attention by attempting to sign up, refusing to leave, and risking arrest.  What are the raging grandfathers waiting for?

Although "Army of None" does not suggest it, I would recommend another tactic as well.  Get to know the recruiters and offer to help them with their job.  Take a stack of brochures and blank contracts from them.  And whenever you encounter a pro-war demonstrator, offer to help them sign up.  "Hey Hey What about you?  You look under 42!" is a chant that has been known to silence the most obnoxious voices.  The point is not, of course, to actually recruit anyone, but to expose the hypocrisy of war proponents and call attention to the question of exactly who is being recruited.

If you want to get involved in countering recruitment and in supporting members of the military who refuse to serve in illegal wars of aggression, go to http://www.couragetoresist.org

Source: http://mobile.zcommunications.org/resistance-of-one-by-david-swanson

 

 

Share this

FacebookTwitterStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditLinkedInRSS FeedPinterestInstagramSnapchat
The National Network Opposing the Militarization of Youth (NNOMY) is supported by individual contributions and a grant by the Craigslist Charitable Fund - 2023 Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. NNOMY websites are hosted by The Electric Embers Coop.

Gonate time or money to demilitarize our public schools

FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues connected with militarism and resistance. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Contact NNOMY

NNOMY

The National Network Opposing

the Militarization of youth
San Diego Peace Campus

3850 Westgate Place
San Diego, California 92105 U.S.A.
admin@nnomy.org  +1 619 798 8335
Tuesdays & Thursdays 12 Noon till 5pm PST
Skype: nnomy.demilitarization

Mobile Menu