On the outskirts of a desert town in the Moroccan-occupied territory of Western Sahara, about a dozen young activists are gathered. They are involved in their country?s long struggle for freedom. A group of foreigners?veterans of protracted resistance movements?is conducting a training session in the optimal use of a ?weapons system? that is increasingly deployed in struggles for freedom around the world. The workshop leaders pass out Arabic translations of writings on the theory and dynamics of revolutionary struggle and lead the participants in a series of exercises designed to enhance their strategic and tactical thinking. These trainers are not veterans of guerrilla warfare, however, but of unarmed insurrections against repressive regimes. The materials they hand out are not the words of Che Guevara, but of Gene Sharp, the former Harvard scholar who has pioneered the study of strategic nonviolent action. And the weapons they advocate employing are not guns and bombs, but strikes, boycotts, mass demonstrations, tax refusal, alternative media, and refusal to obey official orders.

Read More: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/learn-as-you-go/weapons-of-mass-democracy

21 January 2008

AMNESTY International has said that Israel’s use during the Gaza offensive of white phosphorus ? banned under international law for use near civilians ? was “clear and undeniable”.

Tension eased in Gaza early yesterday as a fragile ceasefire entered its third day. There were no reports of shooting or rockets for the first time since Israel launched its massive assault on the besieged territory on December 27.

“Amnesty International delegates visiting the Gaza Strip found indisputable evidence of widespread use of white phosphorus in densely-populated residential areas in Gaza City and in the north,” the rights group said.

Read more in The Age

As the protests fizzle out in the wake of the military junta?s violent crackdown, many are wondering whether there is any hope for change in Myanmar. Are the people of Myanmar condemned to eternal suffering? Is their ordeal and anguish some sort of bad karma from which there is no escape?

There is no reason for pessimism. Struggles against autocracies take a long while. When autocratic power is dressed up as a military dictatorship, the struggle becomes even more difficult.

Nonetheless, the people of Myanmar, it should not be forgotten, have, from time to time, revolted against military rule. In 1988, a popular uprising, triggered off by price increases of basic commodities and currency devaluation, was crushed mercilessly. The junta massacred some 3000 unarmed civilians. The uprising was spearheaded by students with monks playing a minor role.

Two years later when an election for delegates to a Constitutional Commission was held, the people rejected the military slate and chose instead candidates from the newly formed National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of the ?founding father? of the nation. Though the military refused to accept the verdict and imprisoned a number of NLD officials, it could not ignore the fact that the people were against its dominance. Since 1990 there have been other smaller, sporadic protests in different parts of the country.

The August-September 2007 mass protest against the military junta, euphemistically called the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), is reminiscent of the 1988 uprising in one sense. It was the skyrocketing of prices caused by a huge fuel hike that ignited popular anger. It proves yet again that economic discontent is often at the root of mass revolts.

To gauge the depth of popular anger one has to understand that poverty is widespread in Myanmar. A quarter of its 56 million population live on 1 US dollar a day. Wages are meagre. Basic amenities are inadequate. And unemployment is high.

Read More at

Of the various proposals made so far on how one could coax the military junta in Myanmar to heed the voice of the people, the most feasible is perhaps the one that seeks to convene a conference of heads of Asian governments to be held under the auspices of the United Nations. The conference which will be attended by all ASEAN member states, China, India and Japan, would have as its immediate objective, the commencement of a serious dialogue between the junta and Myanmar?s popular and respected dissident, Aung San Suu Kyi.

The dialogue would seek to achieve the following goals:-

1) The immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners, including Suu Kyi herself.

2) Agreement on a transition plan which would witness the sharing of power for a period of time between the junta, on the one hand, and Suu Kyi, her National League for Democracy (NLD) and other citizens? representatives, on the other, leading eventually to a full-fledged democratic system.

3) The legitimization of all political parties and political party activities.

4) The determination of a date for holding free and fair elections to a national legislature.

5) A pledge from the armed forces of Myanmar and all other groups and parties that they will accept the electoral verdict and respect the people?s choice.

No one should expect the junta to agree to a dialogue with the above aims? unless it is compelled to do so. . Myanmar?s fellow ASEAN members and China, India and Japan are in a position to force Myanmar to act. They do not have to resort to conventional trade or investment sanctions which from all accounts are not effective.

What they should do is:-

1) Freeze the bank accounts of the senior members of the junta and their families which according to some reports are still being maintained in leading banks in certain Asian cities.

2) Stop the sales of military equipment to the junta.

3) Stop the sales of communication equipment which may be used for the junta?s surveillance of protesters and dissidents.

The question we have to ask is whether Myanmar?s Asian neighbours are prepared to take any of the measures outlined here. Is there the political will to act? Or, are monetary and economic considerations more important than human lives and human dignity?

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,

President,

International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

Malaysia

The United States maintained its role as the leading supplier of weapons to the developing world in 2006, followed by Russia and Britain, according to a Congressional study to be released Monday. Pakistan,

Published by Foreign Policy in Focus, the report ?Just Security? proposes an alternative foreign policy framework for the United States, and by extension those countries which fall within its orbit. The report states:

?Current U.S. foreign policy is unjust and breeds insecurity for all. In seeking an alternative, we should not revive the failed policies of the past. Instead, we should chart a new relationship between the United States and the world.

Our common future faces daunting challenges. War, poverty, terrorism, loose nukes, and climate change make us all feel less secure than a decade ago. The Bush adminis tration?s foreign policy has brought U.S. popularity in the world to new lows. At home, it has generated widespread dissatisfaction across the political spectrum.

Such widespread public dissatisfaction offers an opportunity to transform the national conversation from the framework of fear that has prevailed since 9/11 to a broader response to global ills and injustices.

The growing public awareness of the climate crisis, the need to address the Middle East in a comprehensive manner, the wasteful extravagance of military spending, the continued threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear use, and the corrosive effects of global inequality have revealed the inadequacies not only of current U.S. foreign policy but the Democratic Party?s 2006 ?real security? doctrine as well.

With its emphasis on fighting wars, the Bush administration has insisted on focusing just on security. We must focus instead on a just security, because there can be no real security without justice. The United States should act as a global partner not a global boss. We must restore principles of fairness and equity into our international conduct.?

The