Remember D-Day: It is Russia and US this time

And learn from our past. Could the terrible loss of life and environmental destruction that was World War II been prevented? If we don‘t learn from our past, we are bound to repeat our mistakes; honouring the battle of D-Day and the men who lost their lives should include  answering the question, “how could it have been prevented?”

My aunt lost two sons in the war; she spent almost a decade in mourning. She spoke resentfully of people who got rich during the war while she lost her children. 

So as the US and Russia face off over the Ukraine, what could we learn from World War II?

When someone, a leader or a country says that it wants world domination or implies that it is somehow “above the law”, they mean it! Hitler said it. Now the US says it. 

US exceptionalism was recognized as fact in the eighteenth century; unfortunately the more recent US leadership have mistaken exceptionalism for superiority. Paul Bolt, on taking his position as US representative to the UN said (and I paraphrase) that there wasn’t really a United Nations, the world was governed by one super-power and everyone else had to go along. In fact, the failure to understand the nature of US exceptionalism has lead to universal blindness about the invasions and bombings of more than seven different countries in the last century, the building of military bases in more than 25 countries, the surrounding of China, Russia and the Korean Peninsula – and acceptance of US hegemony at the security counsel. Finally, the United States does believe that it is above the law; it does not accept the existence of the International Criminal Court.

The US wealthy need to keep having wars. They even support the use of drones so the sales of arms will continue but US citizens don’t actually have to get killed. Obama has made threats to Iran, Syria and now Russia – none of which have threatened the US. So the US is on a war path.

Why do we (the rest of the world) stand silent?

1. Denial:  We can’t believe that the world would go to war. Chamberlain so wanted to believe Hitler that he called the “Munich Agreement” of 1938 which “gave” Czechoslovakia to Hitler, a “Peace agreement”.

We can’t believe that there would be unscrupulous people in the arms industry who would lobby for war for their own profit – of course, that’s not what they say.  They say that the war is for “education for the woman”, saving “babies from being thrown out of their incubators” or “to establish democracy”.

We can’t believe that the sales of arms is ethical; we can’t conceive that people have no responsibility for arming terrorists, underground militia, or despotic governments – or for the people killed by the arms from which they profited.

2. Personal Gain: This played a role in the delay with which the US entered WWII. It plays a role among nations currently allied with the US; disagreeing with the US might mean imposition of some new sanctions, some passport hassle or trade issue. Additionally, of course, other countries may have arms industries equally eager to see a war break out. Canada could become very wealthy if a major war occurred in Eastern Europe.

3. Bad-mouthing the US: No one wants to be labeled as “anti-American” partly because the term “American” is equally applicable to Mexicans, Central and South Americans and partly because mostly we like the citizens of the United States even as their government doesn’t represent them on the world stage.

Even so, the United States is behaving like a big bully; it must accept the same rules as everyone else. Why is it in the Ukraine in the first place? Why is it leading the inflammatory remarks towards Russia? Become civilized and behaviour as civilized adults and start negotiating a peace process.

The fact that Russia and the United States both have nuclear weapons means that no one will be left unaffected if war occurs - we cannot afford to just watch the process - we need to be vocal. 

No Military Intervention in Syria - or anywhere!

Interviewer:  What made you decide to join this action?

Bill and I have long been opposed to military action anywhere.  Call us "old peaceniks".  In April and October 1967, Bill marched in New York City and in Washington, DC  in opposition to the Vietnam war.  The enormous toll of war was apparent:  the environmental destruction, the waste of petroleum products, the re-building of lives, livelihoods and infrastructure.  When the peace movement influenced the US to pull out of Vietnam, many of us thought the world had reached an intolerance of war.  We raised families and developed professional careers.  

In the 1980's, the world accumulation of 67,000 nuclear weapons, enough to destroy ourselves many times over, spurred us to action again.  We were involved with International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War  (IPPNW) - it brought Reagan and Gorbachev to the negotiating table, the numbers were reduced to 23,000 and we thought the reductions would continue.  We were wrong. 

This year Obama devoted more than $80 million dollars to update nuclear weapons.  We don't know what he is truly thinking when he claims that he had have a "limited military action".  The Prime Minister of Russia has said, "Russia will regard such an action as an 'act of aggression'"?

Both sides have nuclear weapons and a measure of immaturity!  No military action in Syria.

Interviewer:  What do you think should be done?

Taking military action is will give in to the enormous military-industrial lobby, which will wring its hands all the way to the bank.   Whether it is power or oil or the banks, the beneficiaries will not be the people.  As the Mafia says, "Follow the money." 

"Occupy Wall Street" was right!  The economic system is intrinsically dependent upon both the petroleum industry (and other extractive industries) and upon the arms industry.  It is an entirely artificial, human-made system.  War and redirection of the world's resources into the military - the single greatest consumer of petroleum products and hence contributor to greenhouse gasses – is its product.

"Idle No More" sprang up to offer impetus to justice for Indigenous People and expanded to recognize the inclusion of opposition to extractive industries  and preservation of the environment.  It, too, will spur us towards the tipping point, the point where the human race changes direction. 

Do we "go where no man thought" (Carl Sagan), develop an economic system dependent upon sustainability (David Korton), accept the sacrifices (Naomi Klein) and create the world of the United Nations mission statement, a vision of peace and cooperation amongst people.  Or do we choose death - either by nuclear weapons  (nuclear winter – Carl Sagan, Ira Helfund) or by environmental destruction (global warming, increasing carbon)? 

Let us choose neither and start with Syria.  No military intervention. 

Let's:  choke the flow of arms into the country – identify the profiteers on both sides.  Pinpoint the manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction.  Remove international provocateurs.  Provide lots of work for undercover agents and journalists!

Start talking at every level of government, start teaching non-violent conflict resolution – not just in Syria but everywhere, start dealing with the already overwhelming numbers of refugees from Syria (but also all over the Middle East) and the personal traumas of survivors, including soldiers. 

Take it slow and take it patiently.  Real change does take some time.  Let Syria not slide into another violent Western-created quagmire like Iraq or Libya.

Interviewer:  Do you have hope for the future?

Yes.  The choices are clear and it is clear that many of us are making a choice to live and to create a world for future generations.  The human race has no alternative but to do it – and do it quickly!!!