100 Living Peace & Justice Leaders: List 2, Part 2

By Kathie Malley-Morrison & Anthony J. Marsella

David Reiff, in his classic paper, “The precarious triumph of human rights” (New York Times Magazine, August 8, 1999), described characteristics of a “new moral order” that we desperately need today:

  • Civil society;
  • Humanitarianism;
  • Human rights versus state sovereignty;
  • Emergence of human rights activists, development workers, aid experts committed to needs of an interdependent world;
  • Small is beautiful;
  • Democracy building;
  • Growth of NGOs;
  • Considering individual as well as state rights;
  • Plans for a permanent international criminal court.

Despite the many abuses permeating societies today, there is a new spirit of encounter (e.g., Black Lives Matter); a new spirit of protest evidenced by DC gatherings of women and minority groups; a new spirit of communication among media free of government or wealth controls; a new spirit of protest against war, militarism, and the spending of a nation’s wealth on weaponry and endless war; a new spirit of concern for life and land; a new spirit of determination to expose the abuses of privilege and position by those who have politicized and weaponized laws for personal use (e.g., FISA).

All these emerging changes signal and sustain “Hope!”  “Hope” is the life blood of progressive change. “Hope” can be suppressed and oppressed, but it cannot be defeated.  Regardless of life forms and species, “hope” is the evolutionary impulse pursuing survival. If you want to hope, just think of the high school students organizing to fight gun violence ; honor their courage in joining together to protest in front of the White House ; admire their plans for a march on Washington in March.

Our list-building efforts are just beginning. Each day, new people are rising to the call.  Please send us names and links of individuals and nonprofits you think should be recognized for their contributions to the cause.

 

  1. Kame’eleihiwaLilikalā K. Kame’eleihiwa
  2. Katz: Nancie L. Katz
  3. Kaye: Jeff Kaye
  4. Kelman: Herb & Rose Kelman
  5. Khan-Cullors: Patrisse Khan-Cullors
  6. Kimmel, Paul Kimmel
  7. Kivel, Paul Kivel
  8. Kis-Lev, Jonathan Kis-Lev
  9. Lapham: Lewis Lapham
  10. LeBlanc: Andrea LeBlanc
  11. LoCicero: Alice LoCicero
  12. Lopez-Lopez: Wilson Lopez-Lopez
  13. Lutz: Catherine Lutz
  14. Lykes: Brinton Lykes
  15. Lyubanski: Mikhail Lyubanski
  16. MacNair: Rachel MacNair
  17. Maleno: Helena Maleno
  18. Martin: Abby Martin
  19. McKee: Ann McKee 
  20. McKinney: Cynthia McKinney
  21. McKone: Anita McKone
  22. Moghaddam: Fathali Moghaddam
  23. Montiel: Christina Montiel
  24. Moore: Michael Moore
  25. Nelson: Linden Nelson
  26. Norsworthy: Kathryn Norsworthy
  27. Palast: Greg Palast
  28. Parenti: Michael Parenti
  29. Perlman: Diane Perlman
  30. Randa: Lewis Randa
  31. Rappoport: Jon Rappoport
  32. Robinson: Rashad Robinson
  33. Rosenberg: Carol Rosenberg
  34. Secker: Glyn Secker
  35. Shetterly:  Robert Shetterly
  36. Shiva: Vandana Shiva
  37. Sivaraksa: Sulak Sivaraksa
  38. Soldz: Stephen Soldz
  39. Solomon: Norman Solomon
  40. Spieler: Susan Spieler
  41. Stout: Christopher E. Stout
  42. Sveaass:  Nora Sveaass
  43. Valent: Roberto Valent
  44. Wadlow: Rene Wadlow
  45. Wasfi: Dahlia Wasfi
  46. Wessells: Michael Wessells
  47. Wise: Steven M.Wise
  48. Wollman: Neil Wollman
  49. Wright: Ann Wright
  50. Zeese: Kevin Zeese                                                                                                                          Join us in celebrating the individuals making the world a better place for all; individuals advancing the human and natural order. 

Does nonviolent resistance work? What Chenoweth and Stephan get right (Part 1c)

Third in a series by guest author Ian Hansen

This is a continuation of Part 1 of a four-part series: Does nonviolent resistance work?

  • Part 1: What Chenoweth and Stephan get right (also see Parts 1a1b2a2b and 2c)

In her comment on my original post, Dr. Dahlia Wasfi pointed out that Maria Stephan works for the State Department. That does not necessarily mean she personally supports U.S. empire. Historical figures like Mikhail Gorbechev and Zhao Ziyang (former Premier of the People’s Republic of China, who supported the Tiananmen Square protestors and thus fell from power) are reminders that participants in systems and even leaders of systems can facilitate or try to facilitate major humanity-respecting changes in those systems.

Not all servants of a state are enthusiastic supporters of that state’s wars, atrocities, and acts of oppression.

Dr. Wasfi also noted that it is strange for Chenoweth and Stephan to treat the Iranian Revolution as an example of successful nonviolent revolution given the prominent violent elements to that revolution. I have a different reason for discomfort with describing the Iranian Revolution as a “successful” nonviolent uprising. The state that emerged in the aftermath of that revolution treated many of the participants in it with a murderous brutality that recalled the purges of much more violent revolutions. (See Marjane Sartapi’s Persepolis for a firsthand account of a leftist family struggling in the aftermath of the anti-Shah movement they helped support.)

Chenoweth and Stephan admit that violent revolutionary activities co-occurred with the nonviolent civil resistance in Iran and that the post-Shah government was as brutal or more brutal in many ways. Still, they make a good case that nonviolence, while not used by all parties, was the most effective tactic employed in the Iranian revolution. Those who relied more exclusively on nonviolence gained the most power in the subsequent regime. The irony is that this faction then used the power they gained from nonviolence very violently. Chenoweth and Stephan argue—and offer data-based evidence—that this kind of state violence is less likely and less extensive after nonviolent than violent revolutions.

The take-home, then, is that as a matter of probabilities (rather than money-back guarantees), the victorious leaders of relatively nonviolent revolutions (and coups) are less likely to enact purges and genocidal-scope mass killings than are the victorious leaders of relatively violent upsets in relations of power.

Nonviolent revolutions get betrayed, too (as with Iran, and more recently Egypt), but usually the betrayal is gentler and has a lower body count compared to the betrayals enacted by leaders who take power after ultra-violent transformations.

Ian Hansen, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Behavioral Sciences at York College, City University of New York. His research focuses in part on how witness for human rights and peace can transcend explicit political ideology. He is also on the Steering Committee for Psychologists for Social Responsibility.

Imagine an occupation of the U.S.

By guest author Dr. Dahlia Wasfi

Imagine that on September 11, 2001, instead of four airplanes used as missiles, massive air strikes had targeted numerous strategic sites in the U.S.

Over 50 aerial bomb drops
Stenciling boasting over 50 aerial bomb drops. Image in public domain.

Instead of attacks over a few hours on a single morning, consider the bombardments continuing unabated for three-and-a-half weeks, for the purpose of “shocking and awing” the American people.

Instead of nearly 3,000 dead, tens of thousands of Americans are murdered in the bombings.  And in the aftermath, local police and fire departments responsible for aiding the ill and injured are rendered helpless by swarms of occupying soldiers who take control of American society.

Consider the scenario of our elected leaders then being kidnapped or simply made to disappear, and foreigners—most of whom do not speak English—declaring authority over the U.S.  Our lives become ruled by a military occupation that lasts the next decade.

The occupation force responsible for our security comprises primarily young men and women ignorant of our society. Human rights violations become the norm.

During the course of this decade of occupation, the foreign military protects Texas oil fields, while the fabric of American society is destroyed.

  • Women’s rights are set back for decades, if not centuries.
  • American infrastructure deteriorates while the healthcare and educational systems are decimated.
  • An estimated 1,000,000 – 1,500,000 American citizens die
  • Nearly 5,000,000 Americans are displaced [opens in PDF] from their homes
  • Five million children lose one or both parents
  • Between one and two million widows are made
  • Electricity, potable water, and security are scarcities.

How would we feel about the people responsible for this calamity? How would we feel about the soldiers occupying our streets?

How do Iraqis feel about us?

Dahlia Wasfi

Travesties of justice

By guest author Dr. Dahlia Wasfi

On August 27, 2012, the US Marine Corps announced “non-judicial administrative punishments” for several Marines who were videotaped urinating on three dead bodies in Afghanistan.

Rachel Corrie crushed by a bulldozer
Rachel Corrie crushed by a bulldozer. Photo by Joe Carr, used under CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Such minor punishments can include “a reprimand, reductions in rank, forfeiting pay, extra duties or being restricted to a military base.” These Marines will not face criminal charges for their deviant behavior which could be considered a war crime.

While the dead victims have often been identified in the media as Taliban fighters, I have not seen any evidence for this allegation or any justification for their deaths.

On August 28, 2012, the travesty of justice continued with an Israeli court’s ruling in the civil lawsuit brought by the family of American activist Rachel Corrie.

Rachel was a member of the International Solidarity Movement in the city of Rafah in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory of Gaza. With her colleagues on March 16, 2003, she was practicing civil disobedience to prevent the demolition of Palestinian homes.

Rachel was crushed to death by two Israeli soldiers commandeering a 60-ton, D9 militarized Caterpillar bulldozer.

This week, the Corrie family’s case charging that the Israeli military was responsible for Rachel’s death was dismissed. As reported by The Guardian, the verdict stated that Israel “could not be held responsible because its army was engaged in a combat operation.”

This ruling blatantly contradicts international humanitarian law that was created to protect civilians during armed conflict.

Rachel’s mother, Cindy Corrie, pursues justice for her daughter and for all human rights defenders and those suffering under oppression. The night before the verdict, she said:  “Craig [Rachel’s father] and I have been so blessed because Rachel gave us this opportunity to focus here. There’s no end to the work that can be done around this issue, and other peace and justice issues.…”

Since justice is lacking from the institutions created to serve it, we must continue our work on whatever issues are dearest to our hearts.

As long as we are without justice, we will be without peace.

For more information on Rachel and the Corries’ work, please visit:

Dahlia Wasfi