Expose of NATO Commended
To the Editor:
In a world awash in self-serving pious drivel that passes for news &
analysis in the mainline media, it was most refreshing, as always, to read
the last issue of PEACE TALK.
Because my email hasn't been working, it is rather late to commend you
especially for the excellent expose of NATO & its real purpose, in the
autumn issue.
It seems to be more important than ever in the din of war to know how our
governments & their supposedly independent creatures operate in deceiving
the many & serving the few. Thank you, & keep up the good work!
Ken Carstens
Albany Township, ME
Banning Nukes a Right to Life Issue
To the Editor:
I compliment Peace Action Maine on its aggressive efforts to stop nuclear
weapons proliferation and save this planet from nuclear holocaust. I have
written articles questioning the sanity of the George W. Bush coterie of
military industrial giants headed toward a nuclear showdown that could
terminate life on this planet. I do not fancy the silence of the moon here
on earth.
The thought occurs to me that a possible ally in the political battle to
stop U.S. opposition to international efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons
worldwide would be the religious far right. They do get out the votes and
get chokeholds on Congress regarding right to life issues. And if ever there
was a right to life issue, terminating preparation for nuclear warfare
should fit into the category of "thou shalt not kill." There may be a way of
sending Peace Talk to the same list that right to life uses, since the
rationale for ending abortion is similar to the rationale for ending the
movement toward nuclear warfare, though the latter is, by mere numbers of
casualties, blindingly more overwhelming.
Norman Tate
Port Clyde
UN Only Way to Global Peace
To the Editor:
Along with many others, I am sure, I was moved by Peace Action's "Open
Letter to the President from the People," published in the October 21
edition of the Maine Sunday Telegram. It is a beautiful call for peace with
justice and equality for all peoples, and stresses what we all know to be
true, that violence begets violence in return.
But I must ask, how is a worldwide coalition against terrorism through
the rule of law to be achieved? And how is international law to be enacted,
monitored and enforced? It strikes me that the authors of the letter look to
the president and the government of the United States to lead the world to
lasting peace.
Realistically, we know that such a course of action is neither likely
nor possible. History tells us that throughout all time, efforts by one
leader or nation to lead the world have come to catastrophic ends. If we are
to use our great strengths, democratic traditions and love of liberty and
freedom, we must do so through a genuine coalition of nations.
That coalition exists! It is the United Nations. The Nobel Prize
Committee in awarding the Peace Prize for 2001 to Kofi Annan and the United
Nations, said it wishes in its centenary year to proclaim that the only
negotiable route to global peace and cooperation goes by the way of the
United Nations.
So, while applauding Peace Action's sentiments, I would suggest that one
more step is needed: to urge the president to lead the world to peace
through a coalition of all governments working through the United Nations.
And I would ask Peace Action how they see the rule of international law
being achieved. Law requires an enacting legislature, a mechanism to monitor
its application and a police and judicial system to punish violators. This
must be, from a Maine town meeting to the United States government.
If we are to have the rule of law in this world, the peoples of the
planet must turn to the United Nations, recognizing its many imperfections,
but also recognizing the correctness of the Nobel Committee's words: the
only negotiable route to global peace and cooperation goes by way of the
United Nations.
Charles H. Weitz
Board Member, United Nations Association
Maine Chapter
Be Willing to Ask Hard Questions
To the Editor:
I write belatedly to express my appreciation for the article in the last
Peace Talk concerning NATO (NATO As Global Cop Assaults Democracy). I
believe that many in the peace community are reluctant to ask hard
questions, not wanting to be seen as confrontational by those in charge. Too
often, people who enter into a dialogue with heavyweight opponents end up
being marginalized because they play by the rules of their antagonists,
accepting, for example, that some subjects are off limits.
The tradition is that political debate leaves off at the water's edge.
Rather than foreign policy being a matter of consensus, as is often alleged,
edicts from on high seem to have become the rule, followed too often by
assaults upon social justice. Guatemala (1954) is recalled, as is the
Dominican Republic (1964), support for the massacre of 500,000 Indonesians
(1965), 40 years of embargo against Cuba, upending Allende (1973), waging
counter-revolution in Central America during the l980's, backing apartheid
in Southern Africa in for decades. Discussion on these questions often took
place only after the fact.
So why not learn about NATO? Most of your readers, including myself, lack
specific knowledge that permits verification of all of the offenses alleged
of NATO, although news reports seem to back up many of the author's points.
The failure of the so-called "peace dividend" having been realized stands,
in my view, as silent testimony against the legitimacy of NATO's current
role. The alliance may formerly have had to do with the Soviet Union, but
now NATO seems to have acquired the characteristics of a protective moat
around the castle housing the wealth of the Northern industrialized nations.
With NATO, their economic self-interest has free rein. The price they pay,
however, is Uncle Sam's continued top-dog status. Thank you for giving us
the opportunity to think about NATO and perhaps join in on a debate as to
its future.
W.T. Whitney Jr
South Paris
Back to Peace Talk Index, Winter, 2001-2002