Soldiers For Peace International was conceived as a model for how to build a movement capable of ending war. It closely parallels the mass movement after WW I to make war illegal by international treaty. That was spearheaded in the US by a war hawk turned diplomat and supported by groups around the country and then around the world who realized that if the vast majority of the citizens of developed nations worked together to make their will known, their governments could not easily refuse.
One of the key
constituent groups of this movement was the religious community who all agreed
that offensive war should officially be made an international crime. They put
aside doctrinal differences and came together in the cause of liberty and
justice for all of the Peoples of the world, which is of course the message
that all the founders of the great religions of the world tried to impart to
the billions of their followers. It is this kind of unity upon which a
successful mass movement depends.
The movement
was divided at one point when those who wanted to pass the law through the
League of Nations butted heads with those who wanted to do it outside of the
League by treaties ratified between individual nations. In the end it was the
latter strategy that succeeded, but only because the two sides put aside their
differences and supported each other as they pursued their individual
strategies in parallel with each other.
We know of
course that a strategy to end war that tries to use the United Nations as its
vehicle is doomed to failure because of the undemocratic nature of the UN,
where the most powerful nations retain the right to veto the will of the
majority. The token representation of the rotating members of the Security
Council is thus a sham. The only benefit of the Security Council is that the
major powers provide a check on each other’s excesses. Even that was not enough
to stop the rape of Libya, the weakening of the Russian sphere of influence
that is one leg of the balance of power or the illegal wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
Like the Occupy
movement that came two decades later, Soldiers For Peace International was
designed to be anarchical. Contrary to the popular perception, that merely
means that there are no designated leaders. The advantages of this structure
should be obvious by now. Without designated leaders the movement is not
subject to being co-opted. Leaders can arise only on the strength of their
ideas, which is their only source of support. They become in a sense a natural
“aristocracy” but one which can only retain leadership by consistently putting
the interests of the 99% over ego and personal interest.
Soldiers For
Peace also depends on the leadership skills of those who understand military
strategy and tactics, whether they are veterans or not. Make no mistake: We
intend to go beyond mere protest and create the conditions for a peaceful,
democratic Revolution that will free all people from the threat of enslavement
in a permanent fascist New World Order. That can only happen if we develop a
consensus behind each step in the strategy that develops in this way. Our Army
is not dependent on imposing the will of a few leaders on those who volunteer
to serve but on the willingness of foot soldiers to fight for a cause they believe
in, regardless of the strength of the opposition of their corrupt governments
or the divisive infighting of self-appointed leaders within the movment.
We are seeing a
point in the budding American and world Revolution where we have to choose
whether to proceed together or in tandem. We have no hope of success if we
cannot agree to work together on our mutual goal. If we compete with each other
for money or for “followers,” we will find that we have none. As the Occupy
movement has shown, in this worldwide democratic Revolution each of us must
aspire and be given the opportunity to become leaders in our own right, to the
best of our ability.
Millions of
Americans have already decided that the key to establishing true democracy in
the United States is passing a constitutional amendment that will cut off the
source of corporate power at its root: The ability to choose the Puppets of
their choice to represent their interests over those of We the People. That
power rests on their ability to pay for the obscenely expensive political
campaigns of those willing to sell their independence in exchange for working
for the international corporate terrorists or at best to fight a losing battle
against the endemic corruption that corporate rule has created.
The largest
coalition in the abolition movement is Move to Amend, a hierarchically
structured organization controlled by a few self-appointed “leaders” who
dictate strategy and tactics to the huge coalition of groups they claim to
represent. They have rejected all efforts of constituent groups and individuals
to persuade them that depending only on their strategy of passing resolutions
at the local and state level has no chance of success. Their most active
spokespersons have repeatedly argued that Congress is so corrupt that it is
useless to try and persuade its members to introduce and fight for an amendment
that will accomplish our mutual goal of moving us a giant step forward in
ending corporate rule.
There is a
second coalition forming that has a different strategy. It is to make support
for a strong constitutional amendment a campaign issue in every race in 2012
and beyond until we elect enough servants of the People to get the amendment
passed. This strategy has been embraced by groups as diverse as Take
Back America for the People, Abolish Corporate Personhood
Now, Move to Amend of Ohio,
Public Citizen, Free Speech for People, People for the American Way and Demand Progress. Take Back America and
Abolish Corporate Personhood Now are working to develop a common strategy,
while each of the other groups is encouraged to promote the Pledge to Amend
campaign in any way of its choosing.
One of the
other problems confronting those of us who are working for unity in the
abolition movement is that some groups have chosen to back a particular
amendment and bicker and backstab supporters of other versions. Move to Amend
for instance backs an amendment that the Steering Committee wrote without
allowing constituent groups to criticize or debate. Once more, the ugly head of
elitism is threatening unity of the movement. The amendment they produced has
been criticized by a number of constitutional lawyers and other experts on the
topic, yet their response to this criticism is to ignore the concerns until
they feel that their positions of influence are threatened, then attack the
critics and attempt to isolate us.
The persistent
disregard and outright rejection of the will of the members of a coalition that
voluntarily puts their names in support of the efforts of those who start the
coalition is the sure sign of a failed leadership. That is what all of us are
fighting: failed leadership in Washington. If we cannot move forward together
to create the critical mass needed to succeed in this nonviolent democratic
Revolution, we will fail. Those who divide us are agents provocateurs, whether
that is their intent or not. Those who challenge their autocratic ways are
seeking to unite, not divide. As sovereign citizens we will continue to demand
that our voices are heard so that others may have the knowledge of the variety
of strategies and tactics they may choose to put their efforts behind.
There is no
reason that we cannot choose to work on parallel tracks to get to the same
objective. In choosing to dissociate Move to Amend from the rest of the
movement, the Steering Committee risks undermining its own authority, which depends
on the consent of those they purport to lead. I fully expect that in the end
all will be forgotten in the flush of victory, but in the meanwhile I encourage
the foot soldiers of the Revolution to choose for themselves what path to take.
We are all headed to the same objective, after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment