CounterVortex

THE U.S. THREAT TO MEXICAN NATIONAL SECURITY

Narco Gangs Armed by Gringos—Despite Border Militarization

by Bill Weinberg, NACLA Report on the Americas

Shipping powders back and forth
Black goes south and white comes north.
—”Throwing Stones,” John Perry Barlow for the Grateful Dead, 1982

The violent struggle between Mexican drug cartels for supremacy over the multibillion-dollar narcotics trade is starting to look like a real war. With local police outgunned, President Felipe Calderón began his term in the final days of 2006 by deploying the army to fight the cartels.

The violence, simmering for more than a decade, exploded in 2003 in Nuevo Laredo, a crucial crossing point to Interstate 35, when Gulf Cartel kingpin Osiel Cárdenas was apprehended. Seeing a strategic vulnerability, the rival Juárez and Tijuana cartels started moving into Nuevo Laredo, traditionally a Gulf Cartel stronghold. The Zetas—the Gulf Cartel’s paramilitary force, thought to be composed of former military personnel—began a reign of terror to protect their turf. Several Nuevo Laredo police officers were killed by presumed Zeta assassins in the opening months of 2005, prompting then president Vicente Fox to flood the town with 700 federal agents and army troops in what he dubbed “the mother of all battles” on the drug trade.

Yet the Mexican state’s armed response has done little to solve the problem. In 2007, drug-related killings surpassed 2,500, up from 2,100 in 2006.

A crucial part of the problem lies in the cartels’ firepower, which now rivals even that of the regular Mexican army. Both the cartels and the Mexican state get their arms from the United States. During the Fox administration, an astonishing 2,000 guns entered Mexico every day, overwhelmingly from across the northern border, according to official Mexican estimates. This “iron river” of guns, as it has been called, has swollen since the US Congress allowed the federal ban on assault weapons to expire in 2004. Mexican authorities confiscated an unprecedented 10,579 smuggled weapons in 2005, and they say 90% of them come from the United States.

“The arms the narcos use are the most sophisticated that you can imagine,” says Luz Maria González Armenta, leader of the Civil Association for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights–Emiliano Zapata (DEPRODHEZAC), which has been monitoring violence from the often overlapping narco gangs and police alike in Matamoros since 1994. “The 9mm cuerno de chivo, or AK-47, continues to predominate. But they use fragmentation grenades, shotguns, grenade launchers.” Spectacular shoot-outs in the border city, which is the nerve-center of the powerful Gulf Cartel, sometimes makes headlines—but discrete executions are more common, González says. “Bodies are frequently found with signs of torture and the famous tiro de gracia,” or final death shot.

And she has no doubts about where the weaponry originates. “Considering that Mexico is a country that does not produce arms, and yet the narcos have access to arms far superior to those used by the police forces, we presume these arms come from the United States,” she says. “It is very close, and with the corruption in customs an elephant could pass undetected.”

The arms intercepted on the border are likely a small fraction of those that make it through. In December, the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) raided a Phoenix storage locker and seized 42 weapons, including AK-47s and Belgian FN handguns; just weeks earlier, BATF agents in Phoenix had seized more than 60 AK-47s, other assault rifles, handguns, and an Uzi. In both cases, bureau agents said most of the weapons were purchased at gun shows and were bound for Mexico.

Seizures across the border have been even more dramatic. In August, a single raid at the Nogales crossing yielded 163 weapons, and in February 2007 the Mexican army seized a tractor-trailer loaded with some 20 M-16s, M-4 carbines, and grenade launchers—along with an armored pickup truck—in Matamoros. A federal agent involved in the raid was killed the following day by AK fire.

A new AK-47s sells for less than $1,000 in Mexico, and an AR-15 starts at $825. According to a 2005 government estimate, US guns are recovered in 80 percent of crimes in Mexico.

In a strange case of role reversal, Mexican officials are increasingly taking the United States to task for failing to stop the guns from entering their national territory—echoing their counterparts in Washington, with their continual criticism of Mexico over the northward flow of drugs. In his first published interview with the foreign press after becoming Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderón told the Financial Times: “The United States is jointly responsible for what is happening to us… In that joint responsibility the US government has a lot of work to do. We cannot confront this problem alone.” Mexican Prosecutor General Eduardo Medina Mora put it succinctly: “We have done our part; we hope the United States will do its part.” Medina added that about $10 billion in drug cash flows south each year, and that gun stores in border states sell twice as many weapons as outlets elsewhere in the United States.

Mexico’s assistant secretary of Public Safety Patricio Patiño told the AP last May: “The firepower we are seeing here has to do with a lack of control on that [the US] side of the border.” In an interview with Reuters, Gen. Javier del Real Magallanes, head of army drug operations for northeastern Mexico, said: “If there are no weapons, there’s no violence. These arms aren’t from Mexico; they’re from the other side.” He added that more surveillance and detection equipment was necessary, but would not be sufficient. “We also need the United States to do what it should with respect to arms trafficking… We have to put a brake on the sale of arms.”

In September 2006, Mexico’s “drug czar”—head of the National Institute to Combat Drugs— Santiago Vasconcelos also argued the US government was failing to stop the flow of illegal weapons. “There’s a huge black market in weapons in the United States that they have to control,” he said. “If they closed that, the traffickers would be hitting each other with stones instead of bazookas.”

Just how will the U.S. government “do its part”? The answer is to be found in the Mérida Initiative, a multi-million-dollar military aid package now being considered in Congress.

The NRA and Arms Deregulation
Last June, the Calderón government formally requested military aid from the US Congress, saying such assistance was necessary to defeat the cartels. The request was made at the US-Mexico Inter-Parliamentary Meeting held in Austin and was revealed to the Mexican daily La Jornada by Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), leader of the House Intelligence Committee. The request came under the rubric of a Mérida Initiative, named after the Mexican city where the presidents of Guatemala, Mexico, and the United States held meetings in March 2007, at which the idea was first discussed. The initiative, which would provide $550 million to Mexico and Central America, was criticized by US representatives Eliot Engel (D-NY) and Tom Lantos (D-CA) because Congress had not been involved in—or even notified of—the proposal’s development.

The Bush administration calls the Mérida Initiative “a new paradigm” of bilateral cooperation in the war on drugs and terrorism, and says it will be but the “first tranche” of a $1.4 billion, multi-year “security cooperation package.” Some 40% of the funds are slated for new helicopters and surveillance aircraft for the Mexican army; $60 million is earmarked for the Prosecutor General of the Republic (PGR), Mexico’s justice department, to beef up forensic capabilities, digitize intelligence, and train federal police. About $30 million would go to Mexico’s National Migration Institute, for stepped-up enforcement on the southern border with Guatemala. A total of $50 million would go to the military and police forces of the Central American republics.

The Mérida Initiative includes a “Southwest Border Initiative,” which calls for greater cooperation between the BATF and Mexican authorities to interrupt arms smuggling. But some Washington policy-watchers doubt this will be effective as long as arms are so freely available north of the line.

“Because of how loose the gun laws are here, anyone can walk over, buy large quantities of arms, and go back and use them to kill a presidential candidate,” says Bill Hartung of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation. (In fact, the .38 Special used in the 1994 assassination of candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio in Tijuana was traced to a gun sale in Arizona.) “If we had some kind of gun control here, if we didn’t have these kitchen-table dealers, if there were limits on how many weapons you can have—it would prevent people from buying a lot of guns and bringing them in by the shopping bag to Mexico or Colombia.”

Hartung’s critical first step is closing the “gun show loophole.” While licensed dealers are required to check purchasers’ ID and to perform background checks, private sellers at gun shows are not subject to these requirements under federal law, allowing many purchasers to evade scrutiny. The question is left to the states, 17 of which have passed legislation closing the loophole. Among those that have not are the border states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

About 40% of US gun sales are in the “secondary gun market,” according to Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California–Davis. The secondary market thrives especially in Arizona and Texas, which Wintemute calls a “gunrunner’s paradise.” He notes three varieties of illegal sales at gun shows: In the first, the buyer is prohibited from purchasing—for instance, someone from out of state—”and the seller knows not to ask questions.” Second are “straw purchases,” in which a legitimate purchaser serves as a surrogate for someone barred from purchasing from a licensed dealer. In the third, “a licensed or unlicensed dealer knows sale is prohibited and turns a blind eye.”

Assault rifles like the AK-47 remain high on the Mexican cartels’ shopping list, despite the fact that any weapon more powerful than a hunting rifle is outlawed in Mexico for use outside the military or law enforcement. The sturdy AK-47, ironically designed by the Soviets as an asset to guerrilla forces in the third world, is today produced by several US companies, including Arsenal of Las Vegas and Armory USA of Houston. Arizona is a major producer of firearms. In 2004, 11 companies in that state produced more than 100,000 weapons, according to the most recent BATF data. Red Rock Arms of Mesa makes a variety of high-powered rifles; Bushmaster Firearms of Lake Havasu City produces AR-15 parts; Sturm, Ruger & Co. of Prescott manufactures pistols.

“In effect, we allow military-style weapons to be readily available,” says Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (and former mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana). “They’ll check you out when you get on an airplane, but you can show up at a gun show and walk out with an AK-47.”

Helmke says the 1994 assault weapons ban was never even very effective. “Manufacturers found ways around some of the definitions,” he says. Under the law, a rifle had to have at least two of several listed features in order to be considered an “assault rifle”—such as bayonet mounts and flash guards. Nineteen makes of rifle were originally thusly defined, and banned for sale to civilians. “So new ones were designed which just dropped one of those features.”

Helmke wants new legislation that will close this loophole, and takes hope from some state laws. “When we talk to people in Congress, we ask them to follow the California model. It has a single-feature test, so it’s harder to get around.”

Meanwhile, Congress allowed the 1994 law to sunset when its ten years were up. “We haven’t had any type of assault weapons ban at the federal level in the last three years,” says Helmke. “As a result, we’re starting to see more assault weapons.”

He rattles off some examples from the recent spate of media-splashed massacres in the American heartland. “The kid in Omaha who shot up the mall was using an AK-47 that his stepfather left in his closet. The young person who shot up the Colorado churches had a Bushmaster. He bought it at a gun store and ordered ammo through the mail. The UPS outlet reported the large quantities of ammo to the police, but there weren’t any legal restrictions. If you have a high enough credit card limit, you could buy a thousand AK-47s tomorrow and all the ammo you wanted.”

Federal gun laws have followed a paradoxical trajectory, actually getting looser since the post-9-11 obsession with “security,” after generations of getting tighter. The first was the National Firearms Act in 1934, which required fully automatic weapons to be federally licensed, essentially barring them from civilians. The Gun Control Act of 1968, passed in the wake of that year’s political assassinations, set up prohibited purchases—including to convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and “illegal aliens.” In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (named for White House press secretary Jim Brady, permanently disabled in the 1981 attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan) instated a criminal background database—the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Then came the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which was allowed to sunset—just as the Patriot and Homeland Security acts were coming into force.

In December 2007, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act in response to April’s Virginia Tech massacre. The law imposes a cut of federal law enforcement funding to states that do not turn records over to the NICS—but does not address the “gun show loophole.”

Wintemute says the BATF has abdicated its responsibility to crack down on gun smuggling, having been starved for funds by a pro-gun Congress and pressured to turn a blind eye. He points to a series of BATF stings at gun shows in Richmond, Virginia, in 2004 and 2005 that resulted in the confiscation of several firearms. Afterward, Wintemute says, the agency was “grilled” by Rep. James M. Sensenbrenner (R-WI) in hearings of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

Perhaps most surprisingly, given the US government’s commitment to fighting the “war on terror,” the National Rifle Association has urged the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit people on terrorism watch lists from buying firearms. In an open letter to the Justice Department, NRA director Chris Cox said the bill “would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere ‘suspicions’ of a terrorist threat.” Yet current law already denies sales to “illegal” immigrants—and the NRA has no problem with that.

This comes amid ominous signs of a resurgence of right-wing militia activity in the United States—this time in reaction to the supposed immigration crisis. In early May 2007, just as Cox issued his letter, the BATF announced the arrest of five members of an “Alabama Free Militia” in that state’s DeKalb County, and the seizure of 130 grenades, a grenade launcher, a machine gun, a short-barrel shotgun, and 2,500 rounds of ammunition. The men were denied bail after BATF agents said they had been planning attacks on Mexican immigrants.

The US gun lobby’s obstructionism takes a global toll, Helmke adds. “The US is the world’s biggest importer and exporter of guns. There’s no limits on the amount or type you can buy, no limits on the amount of ammunition. We’re the marketplace of choice for drug gangs and dealers around the world.”

The NRA did not return numerous phone calls requesting comment for this story.

From Drug War to Real War
Foreign policy critics worry not only that the Mérida Initiative’s arms-trafficking provision will do little to stem the flow of guns into Mexico—but also that its aid to the Mexican army and police agencies will only escalate the violence. For this reason, La Jornada dubbed the initiative “Plan Mexico”; a persistent criticism of Plan Colombia has been that US military aid indirectly supports the army-linked paramilitary network whose long litany of atrocities is well-documented (and whose very leaders are wanted in the United States on drug charges).

US and Mexican officials implicitly seek to avoid such analogies. Andrew Selee, director of the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, told the BBC: “The idea of comparing this package with Plan Colombia generates resistance in both countries. At least in the US, more and more voices question the effectiveness of the help that was given to Colombia.”

But officials have implicitly endorsed the analogy. Mexico’s Prosecutor General Medina Mora said on a trip to Bogotá in 2006 that Mexican law enforcement should “learn through an exchange of information with Colombia about the best way to combat organized crime.” Meeting with his Colombian counterpart Mario Iguarán, he hailed President Álvaro Uribe’s “democratic security” program as “a comprehensive, integrating vision.” Medina noted that the two governments in 2003 formed the High-Level Security and Justice Group, a joint effort to fight narcotics and arms trafficking.

Evident interpenetration of Mexico’s drug cartels and security forces suggest this dynamic experienced in Colombia is poised to repeat itself. In his congressional testimony in support of the Mérida Initiative, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Thomas A. Shannon said cartel operatives have infiltrated municipal and state law enforcement in Mexico, “substantially weakening these governments’ ability to maintain public security and expand the rule of law.” Bringing the Mexican army massively to bear in drug enforcement may only make it easier for the cartels to infiltrate the military.

The violent contest for Nuevo Laredo exemplifies the risks of military involvement in the cartel wars. President Fox’s 2005 deployment of army troops to the town only seemed to escalate the violence. That summer, a clash broke out between Zetas and their rivals with machine guns, grenades, and rocket launchers. Residents of the city’s Colonia Campestre district reported hearing several rounds of shots and explosions at a local home. When authorities arrived, the house was empty but damaged by machine-gun fire and rocket blasts. Federal agents discovered three AK-47s, two 9mm handguns, a hand grenade, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Agents also found two grenade-damaged vehicles on a nearby street. In response to the incident, the United States temporarily closed its consulate in Nuevo Laredo.

After Alejandro Domínguez, a veteran agent of the federal prosecutor’s office, was gunned down hours after he was sworn in as Nuevo Laredo’s police chief in June 2005, more federal agents were sent in to investigate his slaying—and got into a shoot-out with city police three days later, leaving one federal officer wounded. Army troops took control of the city, suspending the local police force’s powers.

If Zeta co-optation of the municipal police was evident, it is less clear whether the federal forces were attempting an even-handed crackdown or were themselves collaborating with the Gulf Cartel’s rivals. In any event, the federal presence did nothing to de-escalate the violence. “The army is here and the federal police are here,” said Raymundo Ramos, president of the Nuevo Laredo Human Rights Committee in the summer of 2005. “But the thugs carry on killing with impunity.”

Another indication of the drug-smuggling industry’s penetration of law enforcement is the access that the cartels seem to have to official (or at least very official-looking) Federal Agency of Investigation (AFI) uniforms. In May 2007, federal army troops exchanged fire with 20 gunmen equipped with AR-15s, bullet-proof vests, and AFI uniforms at a checkpoint in Michoacán. In Chiapas, presumed Zetas dressed in AFI uniforms opened fire on a state police patrol with AR-15s, leaving one dead and two wounded. In Coahuila, four men in AFI uniforms kidnapped the state’s chief anti-kidnapping investigator, Enrique Ruiz Arevalo, in Torreón.

The cartels also evidently have access to army uniforms. In February 2007, gunmen armed with AK-47s and dressed as federal soldiers attacked two police stations, killing seven, in Acapulco. The cartels’ use of rocket launchers may also indicate friends in the Mexican military.

In Colombia as well, the US has been complicit in arming violent outlaws. Human rights groups have repeatedly accused the United States of supplying arms to Colombian military units that collaborate or even overlap with the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), the country’s most powerful right-wing paramilitary organization, which is officially listed by the US as a terrorist organization. Despite official efforts at “demobilizing” illegal armed groups in Colombia, paramilitarism has exploded in the eight years Plan Colombia has been in effect—and has survived the official disbanding of the AUC. While noting some modest improvements, Amnesty International’s 2006 year-end report on Colombia found that “serious human rights abuses remained at high levels, especially in rural areas,” and that “abuses by paramilitary groups continue despite supposed demobilization.”

US complicity in arming Colombia’s paras evidently extends beyond military aid to co-opted army units. The Colombian government has announced that it will seek the extradition of eight unnamed persons affiliated with the US banana giant Chiquita Brands International for their involvement in the company’s payments to illegal right-wing paramilitary groups. In March 2007, Chiquita pleaded guilty in US federal court to making payments to the AUC, and agreed to pay a $25 million fine. An OAS study into the affair found that thousands of AK-47s bound for the AUC—which is held responsible in thousands of killings and massacres—entered Colombia through Chiquita’s private banana port of Turbo. The largest shipment was apparently brokered by Israeli dealers in Panama, with the weapons pirated from the Nicaraguan police force.

The Brady Campaign’s Helmke expresses some reservations about weapons falling into the wrong hands under the Mérida Initiative. “You want to make sure they’re being used for the purposes they’re intended to be used for,” he says. “I’ve read enough about how weapons in Iraq have wound up missing. People like guns for a lot of different reasons, not just the official business.”

But the dilemma may run deeper than that, even if the nightmarish violence on the southern border finally prompts Congress to buck the gun lobby and seriously crack down on the arms trade. Prohibitionist solutions have dramatically failed to halt the illegal drug trade and may be no more likely to work for arms. Arms may be harder to hide than drugs, but their capacity to co-opt military and law enforcement—the more fundamental issue, ultimately—is likely the same. By providing further firepower and intelligence capabilities to military and police forces themselves infiltrated by (or collaborating with) the cartels, the Mérida Initiative could fuel Mexico’s violence, upping the ante in the war for narco-supremacy.

—-

This story first appeared, in slightly different form, in the March/April edition of NACLA Report on the Americas.

RESOURCES

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
http://www.bradycampaign.org

Arms and Security Initiative, New America Foundation
http://www.newamerica.net/programs/american_strategy/arms_security

Violence Prevention Research Program, UC Davis
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/

See also:

PLAN MEXICO
Militarization and the “Mérida Initiative”
by Laura Carlsen, Foreign Policy in Focus, WW4 Report, December 2007
/node/4744

From our daily report:

Chihuahua: rural activist killed
WW4 Report, March 18, 2008
/node/5276

Mass graves in Ciudad Juárez
WW4 Report, March 16, 2008
/node/5261

Chiquita sued over FARC payments
WW4 Report, March 18, 2008
/node/5274

——————-

Reprinted by World War 4 Report, April 1, 2008
Reprinting permissible with attribution

CIVIL WARS, NORTH AND SOUTH

Perspectives on Colombia from the US Civil War

by Paul Wolf, Upside Down World

On February 4, up to a million Colombians participated in public demonstrations against the FARC insurgency. Organized by supporters of President Alvaro Uribe Velez, the call of the day was to denounce the terrorists.

The propagandistic depiction of guerrilla terrorism is being used to mobilize advocacy of an equally indiscriminate and destructive counter-terrorism. In Colombia, there is a self-righteous condemnation on every conceivable ground of those who oppose the government, a total war against those openly associated with the insurgency, as well as a secret diplomacy that seeks to lure moderates into co-optation and support for the regime. Those caught in the middle are asked to choose sides.

Colombia has endured an uninterrupted, low-intensity civil war since about 1948. Even before then, Colombia’s history since its independence was one of civil war interrupted by periods of peace. And yet, despite hundreds of thousands of casualties in the last sixty years alone, the government denies the existence of an insurgency within its borders. Too weak to seize power, but too strong to defeat, the rebels have now been recognized by neighboring Venezuela as belligerent armies. A review of the application of International Humanitarian Law to the US Civil War provides a surprising perspective.

Flashback to the US Civil War

[T]he Federal Army has made no progress in subduing the Insurgent States. — I agree with you that the time is come for offering Mediation to the United States Government, with a view to the recognition of the Independence of the Confederates. I agree further that in case of failure, we ought ourselves to recognize the Southern States, as an Independent State.

Letter from British Foreign Minister Lord John Russell to British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, Sept. 17, 1862.

British recognition of the Confederacy was never to materialize. Only a month after this was written, and after news of the Northern victory at Antietam was received, and Lincoln’s preliminary Emancipation Proclamation heard round the world, the British Cabinet “doubted the policy of moving, or moving at this time.” One can hardly imagine what might have happened if the Cabinet had moved earlier.

Francis Lieber was a nineteenth-century liberal author of a textbook on international law. A German immigrant, Lieber had been a slave-owner while teaching law at South Carolina College. After attending Columbia College in New York, he became enlightened to the idea that slavery was immoral, and became an outspoken advocate for the Union cause. Three of his sons fought in the US Civil War, on different sides. One of them, a Confederate, died in the battle of Williamsburg.

After the US Supreme Court’s decision in The Prize Cases, recognizing the rebellion in the United States as a civil war, both sides attempted to apply the laws of war, but these rules were not well known. Lieber’s article, “Guerrilla Parties Considered in Reference to the Laws and Usages of War,” soon attracted the attention of the Union Army. After revision by a board of army officers, it was published by the War Department in 1863 as General Orders No. 100, “Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field.” Known as Lieber’s Code, it has been revised and renamed several times, including as the Hague Regulations of 1899 on the “Rules of Land Warfare.” In 1956 the US Army renamed it the “Law of Land Warfare, Basic Field Manual 27-10.” Lieber’s article was the first codification of what is now called International Humanitarian Law, or the laws of war. It’s noteworthy that the first systematic classification of the laws of war was made in the context of a civil war. Lieber wrote:

I had no guide, no groundwork, no textbook. I can assure you, as a friend that no counsellor of Justinian sat down at his task of the Digest with a deeper feeling of the gravity of his labor, than filled my breast in the laying down for the first time such a code, where nearly everything was floating. Usage, history, reason, and conscientiousness, a sincere love of truth, justice and civilization, have been my guides; but of course the whole must be still imperfect.

One of the most basic principles of Lieber’s Civil War code was that enemy troops were to be taken prisoner, if possible, rather than killed. Troops could refuse to give quarter “only by [order of] the commander in great straits making encumberment by prisoners impossible.”

The rebels were to be treated as prisoners of war when captured. The Code defined combatants in fairly broad terms. Not only captured enemy soldiers, but civilians attached to the enemy army, high ranking officials of the enemy government, and diplomatic agents without a safe conduct could be legally taken as prisoners of war. Hostages, if taken, “rare in modern war,” must be treated as prisoners of war, but chaplains, doctors, and nurses should be left free unless detained for special reasons, in which case they should be exchanged. The North had threatened to treat officers and crew of Confederate privateers as pirates, but this was never carried out, perhaps due to threats of retaliation. It would have been illegal to treat them as pirates, since they were members of a belligerent force.

Even had they engaged in piracy, though, the North would have been obligated to treat them as prisoners of war. An interesting example occurred in 1885 in the District Court of New York, when Judge Brown held that a vessel of Colombian insurgents, captured on the high seas by the US Navy and condemned for piracy, was engaged in “an expedition technically piratical” when captured. The judge released the vessel under the mistaken belief that the Secretary of State had recognized the belligerency of the Colombian insurgents. (US v. Ambrose Light, 1885)

Lieber’s Code provided for, but did not require, the exchange of prisoners. The North and South did exchange prisoners on the initiative of President Lincoln, although the North agreed to these exchanges rarely, taking advantage of the South’s manpower shortage. Deserters, if recaptured, could suffer death. An uprising by the inhabitants of an occupied area constituted a crime, and could be punished in the courts martial of the occupier. Scouts in disguise, armed prowlers, war rebels in occupied territory; spies, traitors, and war traitors; voluntary guides, and guides proven to have intentionally misled, could be punished by death if caught in the act.

The placing of bounties on the heads of enemy leaders was considered a war crime. “Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.”

Lieber’s Code, as applied in the Civil War, also recognized the principles of the laws of war concerning property. Public property of the enemy could be appropriated. “Strictly private property” would be protected in occupied territory, but the “victorious invader” retained the right to tax the people or their property and to appropriate property such as homes, land, boats, and even churches for temporary and military uses.

The US Civil War resulted in numerous court battles over the ownership of property after the war, and reparations to be paid for property taken by one of the belligerents. It was held after the war, in courts in the United States, Great Britain, and international arbitral tribunals, that the United States was not, as a rule, responsible to foreign states for property losses or other injuries to their nationals caused by the Confederates, even if the foreign state had not recognized the belligerency of the South. In this way, the North had limited its civil liability through the recognition of belligerent status to the Confederacy.

By Civil War Standards, Venezuela’s Recognition was a Hostile Act

“Unless justified by necessity, [the recognition of belligerency by a third state] is always and justly regarded as an unfriendly act and a gratuitous demonstration of moral support to the rebellion.”

General Grant’s message to the US Congress, December 7, 1875

Venezuela’s recognition of the belligerent status of Colombian FARC and ELN rebels indicates, at the very least, that rebels found in Venezuela would not generally be extraditable if they had not violated the laws of war. For extradition to occur, the crime must be a crime in both countries. This is called the principle of dual criminality. Lawful acts of war, when committed by belligerents, are not crimes.

Secondly, the formal recognition of belligerent status to Colombian guerrillas opens the door for Venezuelan diplomacy with the government and the rebels on equal terms. In some respects, this is what Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is doing now, as unofficial mediator of Colombia’s negotiations with the FARC.

Third, and what should be obvious after reading this article, is that Venezuela has provided the FARC with a forum to argue for the legitimacy of most of its practices, which are condemned all over the world—yet do not violate the laws of war, at least as conceived by Francis Lieber and applied in the US Civil War. If the FARC were a belligerent force, it would have the legal right to tax the part of the country it occupies. It could imprison those who did not pay the tax. It would have the right to detain high-ranking government officials, and diplomats traveling through its territory without safe conducts, as prisoners of war. It would have the right to execute captured intelligence agents. A prisoner exchange would be a perfectly reasonable thing to propose. None of this would be considered hostage-taking.

Even the FARC’s taxing of coca growers within its territory would not be a violation of the laws of war. Presuming the FARC were a belligerent occupying force, it could legalize coca. Coca leaves are already legal in many countries in South America, most notably Bolivia and Peru. Bolivian President Evo Morales was elected by coca growers, and he has at various times proposed legalizing cocaine. Presumably, Bolivia has not done so because it does not want to be isolated internationally. The point of all this is that growing coca or taxing coca growers is not a war crime.

On the other hand, the government’s placing of “dead or alive” bounties on the heads of guerrilla leaders, in the words of Francis Lieber, is a relapse into barbarism.

As a neutral state, Venezuela is under no obligation to assist the government of Colombia in its war against the insurgents. In fact, it is prohibited from doing so. This is quite removed from the ordinary cooperation between states in matters of law enforcement. And, to the dismay of many observers, it could indicate a willingness on the part of Venezuela to support the insurgents, in some way short of illegal intervention.

Colombia follows the lead of the United States, which in the case of third world insurgencies, equates revolutionary violence with terrorism. Any act by the revolutionaries is inherently terrorist. Any response by the established government is inherently counter-terrorist. But it’s hypocritical and moralistic to ask revolutionary groups to adhere to higher moral standards than those accepted by states. It is also unrealistic and unjust to insist that victims of state terror acquiesce in their repression.

Respect for the principle of self-determination of people, and the duty of states to develop self-government in their non-self-governing territories are basic tenets of the United Nations Charter. When self-rule is denied, the result can be violent revolution. This is the basic problem in Colombia, not terrorism.

—-

Paul Wolf is a lawyer in Washington, D.C. practicing international human rights law. Permission to reprint this article is granted. Much of it is based on the scholarly research of Richard Falk.

RESOURCES:

Richard Falk, ed., The International Law of Civil War (Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, US, 1971)

See also:

BOLIVAR’S SWORD
Venezuela’s Recognition of the Colombian Insurgency
by Paul Wolf
WW4 Report, February 2008
/node/4963

From our weblog:

FARC commander killed in raid on Ecuador; Chávez warns of “war”
WW4 Report, March 2, 2008
/node/5185

FARC free four more hostages
WW4 Report, Feb. 29, 2008
//node/5169

Uribe exploits mobilization against FARC
WW4 Report, Feb. 7, 2008
//node/5055

——————-

Reprinted by World War 4 Report, March 1, 2008
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Thank you to our readers!

Dear WW4 Report Readers:

Last month, we admitted that we were at an existential crisis, and that if our Winter Fund Drive failed to raise $2,000, we would have to cease publication. Today our total stands at $2,485, exceeding our modest goal. We thank all of our readers who came through for us. We hope not to have to threaten our demise again! We only ask each of our regular readers to send at least some token amount once a year. Please accept that we do so only in order to be able to continue our work.

Some news: the publication of Petro-Imperialism: the Global War on Terrorism and the Struggle for the Planet’s Oil has been put off to the end of the year by request of our publisher Shadow Press so as to include an analysis of the incoming administration. So those who pledged $25 or more will be receiving their premiums at the end of the year. The first ten who pledged between $15 and $25 will be receiving their premium, Iraq’s Civil Resistance Speaks, forthwith.

Thank you for your patience, and your support! We won’t forget you.

Yours,

Bill Weinberg
David Bloom

Co-editors, WW4 Report

As always, you can send checks payable to World War 4 Report to:

World War 4 Report
121 Fifth Ave. #172
Brooklyn NY 11217

Or donate by credit card:

/node/98

GLOBAL WARMING AND THE STRUGGLE FOR JUSTICE

by Brain Tokar, Toward Freedom

If 2006 was the year that the “inconvenient truth” of global climate disruption made its way into the popular consciousness—and sparked a huge new wave of green products and corporate greenwashing—then hopefully the results of 2007’s revelations about the earth’s rapidly changing climate will prove more substantive and long-lasting. Not only did the UN’s Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issue a massively comprehensive report on climate science and its consequences, but the disturbing, and sometimes catastrophic, reality of worldwide climate collapse began to affect almost everyone’s daily life.

In the US, where the minds of a media-saturated public seemed to be firmly lodged in the sand around this issue for at least two decades, people finally began to notice the disturbing changes in the weather and in the once-familiar pattern of the seasons. In most regions now, spring comes a couple of weeks or more earlier than it used to and fall comes later. In much of the country, unseasonably warm weather appeared sporadically throughout the year and cold spells were sudden, severe, and relatively short-lived. Rain in many areas was sparse and appeared more often in rapid, concentrated deluges. Major floods seemed more common than ever. The extreme drought in much of the Southeast—the worst in over a century—made national headlines, and nearly everyone saw the news of the unprecedented wildfires that swept across southern California in October. Midsummer temperatures in much of the US Southwest, as well as in parts of Greece and Turkey, reached 115 degrees F. or higher.

The professional doubters continue to relegate all this to chance and coincidence, but two central facts make the evidence more compelling than ever. First, the patterns of heat, highly erratic weather, and cycles of floods and drought are felt worldwide and closely match the projections of climate modelers going back more than a decade.

Second, the scientists of the IPCC have documented an unprecedented convergence of findings from hundreds of studies and tens of thousands of distinct data sets in numerous independent fields of inquiry.

Another reality that began to break into the public consciousness in 2007 is that the effects of chaotic global warming were felt most by those people who are least able to adapt or compensate for these disturbing changes: the roughly half of the world’s population that live on less than two dollars a day. Beside the anecdotal evidence, several systematic studies, including the IPCC’s second volume addressing the consequences of climate change, have begun to map out this story in detail. Impoverished people around the world are also bearing the consequences of some of the most prevalent false solutions to global warming, including the push for so-called “biofuels” and the dual hoax of carbon emissions trading and purchases of offsets. Considerations of justice and equity further highlight the scale of social and economic transformations that are necessary if we are to head off the very worst consequences of an increasingly erratic, overheating climate. While business-as-usual scenarios in terms of energy use and carbon dioxide emissions have now been shown to be untenable, so, too, is the continuation of business-as-usual in the structure of our political and economic institutions.

Global Justice

One of the latest articles to bring the global justice consequences of global warming to a wide audience was an unusually insightful piece in the New York Times that appeared fast on the heels of the IPCC’s initial 2007 report. As reporter Andrew Revkin stated, “In almost every instance, the people most at risk from climate change live in countries that have contributed the least to the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases linked to the recent warming of the planet. Those most vulnerable countries also tend to be the poorest.”

The Times dispatched reporters to cover four widely varying instances of people coping with the consequences of a severely altered climate, illustrating some stark contrasts across different parts of the world. In a village in Malawi, officials struggled to maintain the functioning of a simple weather station, chronically lacking basic supplies like light bulbs and chart paper, while in India, rural villagers struggle to cope with the effects of increasing floods and more erratic monsoons on their already fragile life support systems. Meanwhile, Western Australia has built a state-of-the-art water desalinization plant, powered by an array of wind turbines about 100 miles away and the Dutch have begun building homes attached to huge columns that allow houses to rise and fall by as much as 18 feet with the ebb and flow of tidal waters.

The plight of people in Pacific island nations is also finally attracting some mainstream press attention. With rising sea levels, not only are people less able to live near the shore, but inland sources of essential drinking water are becoming brackish due to increasing infiltrations of sea water. Migration of Pacific islanders to New Zealand has quadrupled in recent years, according to the Independent, as rising numbers of island communities are becoming uninhabitable. Yet island nations, according to the IPCC, are collectively responsible for less than 1 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

In the US, Hurricane Katrina brought home the extreme inequity in people’s capacity to cope with climate-related disasters. While affluent homes have been restored and people are again flocking to New Orleans’ unique tourist quarters, roughly a third of the population has yet to return and public housing projects remain empty, continually threatened with demolition, despite a relatively low level of storm-related damage. While the human toll from the more recent San Diego area wildfires was comparatively low, the systemic inequities remained rather harsh. Naomi Klein reported in the Nation in November that residents able to pay several tens of thousands of dollars were whisked away to elite resorts to wait out the fires, while their homes were sprayed with special fire retardants that were tragically unavailable to their neighbors.

It has become common wisdom that people living near the coasts are vulnerable to the uncertainties of a changing climate; however the magnitude of that threat remains controversial, even among climate scientists. The IPCC, reflecting the high level of scientific uncertainty around this issue, projected an estimated sea level rise of less than 25 centimeters this century, based on current trends. But scientists agree that the two most vulnerable glacial landmasses, Greenland and the West Antarctic, each hold enough water to raise sea levels by 20 feet.

In a paper published by the British Royal Society last spring, NASA climatologist James Hansen documented a much higher level of ice sheet instability than is accounted for in the IPCC report. Factors such as the decreased reflectivity of Arctic zones due to global warming—the well known “albedo effect”—along with an increasing incidence of glacial fractures and quakes, and the lubricating effects of glacial meltwater, all point toward a much faster rate of melting. Hansen stands by the far more disturbing prediction of an 80-foot sea level rise, based on extrapolation from the period 3 to 4 million years ago when global temperatures were last as warm as they will become by the end of this century.

Studies

The IPCC devoted several chapters of its second volume to the human costs of global warming. By comparing all of the available studies issued since their last report in 2001, and quantifying the confidence levels of various observations and trends, this report establishes a benchmark for virtually all future study.

Their basic message is overwhelming in its consequences. The northern- and southernmost portions of the earth’s temperate zones may reap some short-term benefits from global heating, including longer growing seasons. The tropics and subtropics, however, where most of the world’s poor people live, are in for a future of uncertain rainfall, persistent droughts, coastal flooding, loss of wetlands and fisheries, and increasingly scarce fresh water supplies. Flooding will most immediately affect residents of the major river deltas of Asia and Africa. The one-sixth of the world’s population that depends on water from glacial runoff may see a brief increase in the size and volume of their freshwater lakes as glaciers melt, but very soon the overall decrease in glacial area will become a life-threatening reality for many people.

The IPCC predicts a worldwide decrease in crop productivity if global temperatures rise more than five degrees Fahrenheit, but crop yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by half as early as 2020. In Africa alone, between 75 million and 250 million people will be exposed to “increased water stress.” Agricultural lands in Latin America will be subject to desertification and increased salt content.

The health consequences of climate changes are perhaps the most starkly framed: “increases in malnutrition and consequent disorders…; increased deaths, disease and injury due to heatwaves, floods, storms, fires and droughts; the increased burden of diarrheal disease; the increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone…; and, the altered spatial distribution of some infectious disease vectors,” including malaria. There is little doubt that those with “high exposure, high sensitivity and/or low adaptive capacity” will bear the greatest burdens.

The UN’s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, released in 2005, offers a particularly graphic representation of where we seem to be headed. Page 119 of the “Synthesis Report on Ecosystems and Human Well Being” offers a pair of world maps, each with a bar graph superimposed on every continent. The upper map chronicles the number of major floods reported in each decade from 1950 to 2000; the lower map displays the number of major wildfires. Everywhere but in Oceania (which is facing such a severe drought that large portions of Australia are now virtually unable to grow crops), the graphs rise steeply as the decades advance. Over this period, global temperatures only rose about one degree Fahrenheit; only the most optimistic of the IPCC’s projected future scenarios limits further warming during this century to less than three additional degrees.

The biannual UN Human Development Report, issued at the end of November, reported that 1 out of every 19 people in the so-called developing world was affected by a climate-related disaster between 2000 and 2004. The figure for people in the wealthiest (OECD) countries was 1 out of every 1,500. Yet the funds available thus far to various UN efforts to help the poorest countries adapt to climate changes ($26 million) is less than one week’s worth of flood defense spending in the UK and close to what the city of Venice spends on its flood gates every 2 to 3 weeks. The report estimates that an additional $86 billion will be needed to sustain existing UN development assistance and poverty reduction programs in the face of all the various threats attributable to climate change.

Two additional studies addressed the likelihood for increased violent conflict in the world as a result of climate-related changes. A paper published in the journal Political Geography by Rafael Reuveny of Indiana University examined 38 cases over the past 70 years where populations were forced to migrate due to a combination of environmental (droughts, floods, storms, land degradation, pollution) and other factors. Half of these cases led to varying degrees of violent conflict between the migrating population and people in the receiving areas. It is clear, states Reuveny, that those who depend the most on the environment to sustain their livelihood, especially in regions where arable land and fresh water are scarce, are most likely to be forced to migrate when conditions are subjected to rapid and unplanned-for change.

In November the UK-based relief organization International Alert reached a similar conclusion. In a report titled “A Climate of Conflict,” they compared maps of the world’s most politically unstable regions with those most susceptible to serious or extreme effects of climate change, and concluded that 46 countries, with a total population of 2.7 billion people, are firmly in both categories. The report states: “Hardest hit by climate change will be people living in poverty, in under-developed and unstable states, under poor governance. The effect of the physical consequences—such as more frequent extreme weather, melting glaciers, and shorter growing seasons—will add to the pressures under which those societies already live. The background of poverty and bad governance means many of these communities both have a low capacity to adapt to climate change and face a high risk of violent conflict.”

The report profiles eight case studies of places in Africa and Asia where climate changes have already put great stress on people’s livelihoods and often exacerbated internal conflicts. The outlook is significantly improved, however, in places where political institutions are relatively stable and accountable to the population. This contrast allows for a somewhat hopeful conclusion, with the authors extolling “the synergies between climate adaptation policies and peace-building activities in achieving the shared goal of sustainable development and peace.” One specific recommendation is to prioritize efforts to help people adapt to a changing climate, especially where subsistence-based economies already contribute very little to global warming but are highly vulnerable to the consequences. Various international NGOs have already intervened, particularly in Africa, to document and disseminate those adjustments in farming practices that prove most useful in facilitating adaptation to a changing climate.

Worldwide, the potential human (and non-human) toll from severe changes in the climate is even more disturbing than the statistics and “objective” case studies suggest. Two centuries of capitalist development—and especially the unprecedented pace of industrial development and resource consumption that has characterized the past 60 years—have created conditions that threaten everyone’s future. “There could be no clearer demonstration than climate,” says the recent UN Human Development Report, “that economic wealth creation is not the same as human progress.” Those who have benefited the least from the unsustainable pace of economic growth and expansion over the past five or six decades are facing a future of suffering and dislocation unlike any the world has ever seen.

Mitigations Worse Than the Disease?

Unfortunately, many of the most widely promoted solutions to the problem of global warming don’t come close to addressing these highly unequal impacts. Indeed, some of the most popular proposals, including the widespread conversion of food crops to so-called “biofuels” and the payment of fees by Northern consumers to development projects in the South hoping to “offset” personal greenhouse gas emissions, often do significantly more harm than good.

A year ago in these pages (WW4 Report, December 2006), I cited some early studies demonstrating that the extraction of ethanol from corn and biodiesel fuel from soybeans may not offer much of a solution to the dual problems of climate change and declining fossil fuel resources. Most striking at the time were the land use consequences of US production of agrofuels (the preferred term among activists and critics in the global South): for example, researchers at the University of Minnesota demonstrated that the entire current US corn and soybean crops could only displace about 3%, respectively, of our gasoline and diesel consumption. In the past year, the pressure on global grain prices from the accelerated push for agrofuels has led to a near crisis in global food supplies.

Analysts such as Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute have been predicting a conflict between food and fuel consumption for some time. Brown calls it an “epic competition between 800 million people with automobiles and the 2 billion poorest people.” But in the past year, the effects began to reverberate worldwide. World corn prices nearly doubled, as more than 20 percent of the US corn crop was diverted to ethanol production. Wheat prices rose to an all time high as midwestern farmers, seeking to profit from the ethanol boom, converted acreage from wheat to corn production. (Wheat is also relatively drought tolerant, whereas corn is far more dependent on large inputs of water and chemicals.) The world price of milk increased nearly 60 percent and people in Mexico rioted as prices for tortilla flour nearly doubled. China announced a freeze on the diversion of food grains to fuel production, as the effect on their own food prices began to be felt. Even the elite journal Foreign Affairs determined that “[t]he biofuel mania is commandeering grain stocks with a disregard for the obvious consequences.”

The most popular solutions to this dilemma carry equally troubling consequences. Europe is getting less of its biodiesel from soybean or canola oil and more from oil palm plantations, mainly in Southeast Asia. Malaysia and Indonesia, in particular, have lost 80 to 90% of their tropical rainforests to intensive logging, followed by the planting of monocultures of oil palms. Brazil is plowing under its unique Cerrado grasslands for sugar cane plantations, known to be a more efficient source of ethanol than corn, and is collaborating with US and global investors to export its exploitative model of sugar production throughout the Caribbean. Meanwhile, soy plantations are spreading deep into the Amazon to satisfy growing demands for biodiesel, as well as for livestock feed. Peasant and indigenous groups throughout the global South have come to see the agrofuel push as an accelerated effort to expand industrial agriculture and drive subsistence farmers from their lands.

Meanwhile, virtually all biofuel/agrofuel advocates are staking the future on the hope of rapidly switching from food crops to cellulose-rich sources—mainly trees, grasses, and crop wastes—as the major feedstock for agrofuel production. But these scenarios, too, often rely on the massive replacement of natural biodiversity with monoculture plantations of “energy crops.” Cellulose, as one of the two main structural components of plant cells, is extremely resistant to chemical or biological digestion, and current experimental “cellulosic” agrofuel plants consume far more energy than they produce. Thus, the push for cellulose-based fuels has also turned into a massive subsidy to biotechnology companies that are attempting to re-engineer enzymes and microorganisms—and even synthesize entirely novel bacterial genomes—in the hope of developing an efficient way to turn cellulose into fuel.

Even if these technical problems can be resolved without dire unforeseen consequences, there is not enough “excess” biomass to keep all of the privileged world’s cars running. Crop “wastes” are an essential resource for farmers seeking to return some fertility to the soil after harvesting grains, and many of the grasses frequently proposed as fuel sources are noxious weeds in many parts of the world.

One of the most disturbing consequences of the push for cellulose-based fuels is a resurgence of interest in the genetic engineering of trees. A company known as Arborgen, partly owned by International Paper and Mead-Westvaco, received USDA approval last summer to expand its experimental plots of a variety of eucalyptus that is genetically engineered to withstand cold temperatures. This would allow these highly invasive and resource-consuming trees to be planted throughout the southeastern US, as well as in other moderate temperate zones. Backers of this technology continually invoke the idea that such trees are needed to make fuel to replace petroleum, in an attempt to disarm critics and dismiss wider ecological concerns. Throughout the global South, people whose lands have been appropriated by corporations for conversion to commercial tree plantations have joined the worldwide campaign to prevent the commercial growing of genetically engineered trees. Ultimately, there is not enough biomass on earth, whether on fields, grasslands, or forests, to replace the millions of years of accumulated biomass that produced the once-abundant reservoirs of fossil fuels, consumed at an ever accelerating pace during the past century.

Similarly, the growing practice of purchasing carbon dioxide credits in order to “offset” affluent consumers’ excessive greenhouse gas emissions is increasingly opposed by people on the receiving end. Carbon offsets, whether sold on the Internet or negotiated through the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism, also favor the conversion of forests into monoculture plantations and further the displacement of traditional communities. Intensive monitoring required by the UN may be necessary to prevent profiteering and outright fraud, but also significantly favors homogeneous and biologically deficient plantations owned by transnational timber companies, in contrast to richly biodiverse tropical and subtropical forests inhabited by indigenous communities.

Most of us tend to view planting trees as an inherently benign activity, but as Larry Lohmann has documented in his study, “Carbon Trading: A critical conversation on climate change, privatization and power” (online at The Cornerhouse), international funding for tree planting (also for various industrial conversions and even for solar electricity) often exacerbates inequalities and semi-feudal economic relations in the recipient regions. Further, the process of global warming has begun to measurably decrease the ability of trees to absorb carbon dioxide, as nighttime respiration begins to emit more carbon than the trees can absorb through photosynthesis during the day. The added damaging effects of hurricanes and other catastrophes can quickly turn even the healthiest forest into a net emitter of carbon dioxide.

A Different Response

The more closely we follow the evolving discussion of global warming and its potential impacts, the more often we seem to find ourselves hovering at the edge of despair. This is especially true once we realize how many of the proposed “solutions” worsen the problem and exacerbate inequalities around the world. Powerful interests in the US are seeking massive subsidies for ever more destructive false solutions, including the expansion of nuclear power and the liquification of coal. So what are we to do? Most analysts opt for a cautious approach, trying to piece together enough different strategies to reduce CO2 emissions while maintaining current levels of production and consumption. Such systematic analysis is necessary and several approaches to building a more renewable energy system will be reviewed in a future article. But it is not sufficient, and current consumption levels in the industrialized world cannot be sustained. The technical obstacles to addressing the problem of global warming are often not even the most important ones. If we can find a way beyond the current impasse to imagine and realize a different kind of society, the problem of reorganizing our energy sources becomes far more tractable.

The last time a popular movement compelled significant changes in US environmental and energy policies was during the late 1970s. In the aftermath of the OPEC oil embargo, imposed during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, the nuclear and utility industries adopted a plan to construct more than 300 nuclear power plants in the United States by the year 2000. Utility and state officials identified rural communities across the US as potential sites for new nuclear facilities, and the popular response was swift and unanticipated. A militant grassroots anti-nuclear movement united back-to-the-landers and traditional rural dwellers with seasoned urban activists and a new generation of environmentalists who had only partially experienced the ferment of the 1960s.

In April 1977 over 1,400 people were arrested trying to nonviolently occupy a nuclear construction site in the coastal town of Seabrook, New Hampshire. This event helped inspire the emergence of decentralized, grassroots anti-nuclear alliances all across the country, committed to nonviolent direct action, bottom-up forms of internal organization, and a sophisticated understanding of the relationship between technological and social changes. Not only did these groups adopt an uncompromising call for “No Nukes,” but many of them promoted a vision of an entirely new social order, rooted in decentralized, solar-powered communities empowered to decide their energy future and also their political future. If the nuclear state almost inevitably leads to a police state—due to the massive security apparatus necessary to protect hundreds of nuclear plants and radioactive waste dumps all over the country—a solar-based energy system could be the underpinning for a radically decentralized and directly democratic model for society.

This movement was so successful in raising the hazards of nuclear power as a matter of urgent public concern that nuclear construction projects all over the US began to be canceled. When the nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, nearly melted down in March 1979, it spelled the end of the nuclear expansion. While the Bush administration today is doing everything possible to underwrite a revival of nuclear power, it is still the case that no new nuclear plants have been licensed or built in the United States since Three Mile Island. The anti-nuclear movement of the late 1970s also spawned the first wave of significant development of solar and wind technologies, aided by substantial federal tax benefits for solar installations, and helped launch a visionary “green cities” movement that captured the imaginations of architects, planners, and ordinary citizens.

The 1970s and early 1980s (before the “Reagan revolution” fully took hold) were relatively hopeful times, and utopian thinking was far more widespread than it is today. Some anti-nuclear activists looked to the emerging outlook of social ecology—developed by Murray Bookchin and others—as a new theoretical grounding for a revolutionary ecological politics and philosophy. Social ecology challenges prevailing views about the evolution of social and cultural relationships to non-human nature and explores the roots of domination in the earliest emergence of human social hierarchies. For the activists of the period, Bookchin’s insistence that environmental problems are mainly social and political problems encouraged radical responses to ecological concerns, as well as reconstructive visions of a fundamentally transformed society.

Radically reconstructive social visions are relatively scarce in today’s political climate, dominated by endless war and further inequality. But dissatisfaction with the status quo reaches wide and deep among many sectors of the US population. While elite discourse and the corporate media continue to push political debates rightward and politicians of both major parties glibly comply, poll after poll suggests the potential for a new opening, reaching far beyond the confines of what has become politically acceptable. The more people consume, and the deeper into debt they fall, the less satisfied most people seem to be with the world of business as usual.

Global warming can represent a future of deprivation and scarcity for all but the world’s wealthiest or this global emergency can compel us to imagine a radically transformed society—both in the North and the South—where communities of people are newly empowered to remake their own future. The crisis can drive us to break free from a predatory global economy that fabulously enriches elites, while leaving the rest of us scrambling after the crumbs. The time is too short and the outlook far too bleak to settle for status-quo false solutions. Instead, we can embrace the reconstructive potential of a radically ecological social and political vision, prevent catastrophe, and begin to make our way toward a fundamentally different kind of future. As a writer in The Nation recently summed up her assessment of two books on the rise of the extreme right in the US, “sometimes only a willingness to be radical really brings about change.”

—-

Brian Tokar’s books include Earth for Sale, Redesigning Life? and Gene Traders. This article first appeared in Toward Freedom Jan. 22, and also ran in the January issue of Z Magazine

RESOURCES

The Cornerhouse
http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk

Earth Policy Institute
http://www.earth-policy.org/

The Climate Divide, by Andrew Revkin
New York Times, April 2, 2007

How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor
by C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer
Foreign Affairs, May/June 2007

Rapture Rescue 911: Disaster Response for the Chosen
by Naomi Klein
The Nation, Nov. 1, 2007

NASA’s Hansen says oceans could rise several meters by 2100
Post-Carbon Cities, Aug. 28, 2007

Rafael Reuveny profile
Indiana University News Room, Feb. 1

Deal Breakers
by Kim Phillips-Fei
The Nation, Dec. 10, 2007

See also:

BETRAYAL AT BALI
Toward a People’s Agenda for Climate Justice
by Brian Tokar
WW4 Report, January 2008
/node/4897

THE REAL SCOOP ON BIOFUELS
“Green Energy” Panacea or Just the Latest Hype?
by Brian Tokar
WW4 Report, December 2006
/node/2864

From our weblog:

Darfur crisis linked to climate change: UN
WW4 Report, June 27, 2007
/node/4131

New US reactors ordered for first time since Three Mile Island
WW4 Report, Sept. 25, 2007
/node/4472

Murray Bookchin, visionary social theorist, dies at 85
WW4 Report, Aug. 1, 2007
/node/2267

——————-

Reprinted by World War 4 Report, Feb. 1, 2008
Reprinting permissible with attribution