Happy Birthday America: How Exceptional Are You?

Today, as we celebrate the birth of our nation as the world's beacon of freedom and democracy, we might also ponder the insights from a book by Godfrey Hodgson, The Myth of American Exceptionalism. Exceptionalism is an especially pertinent topic for us during this insecure period of empire, war and economic decline.

Hodgson grew up in Great Britain and became a great admirer of Americans because of what we did during World War II. He studied in Philadelphia and served as a correspondent for the London Observer in Washington, D.C. He covered the Civil Rights Movement and made films about Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ronald Reagan. He taught at Harvard and Berkeley and has visited all but two states. He prides himself in spending most of his life in trying to understand the history and politics of the United States and he provides an interesting "outsider's" viewpoint.

American exceptionalism, says Hodgson, is rooted in religion where colonialists saw themselves as "a chosen people" destined to "fulfill a unique historical destiny." This ideology surfaces from time to time, especially when the nation is in crisis. Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and George W. Bush all used it because it resonates well with the public and reasserts our identity. President Obama is now using it by "appealing to our better natures," as Lincoln would call it.

Our schools have trained us well in exceptionalism, he says, however, what they often miss is the context of international historic processes at work. For example, the American Revolution borrowed its ideas about liberty and freedom from Europeans who had been developing them since the seventeenth century British Revolution and the eighteenth century Enlightenment.

European political rivalries and struggles also influenced America's development because they brought dispossessed immigrants to our shores. We were exceptional in that we offered the immigrants land they couldn't get in Europe. However, these lands became available through our expulsion of the indigenous tribes who once lived on them. In this way we were not exceptional to the Europeans who built their colonial empires in the same way.

Hodgson continues that westward movement, made possible mostly by the transcontinental railroads, was financed by Europeans who also invested in our manufacturing, provided us with intellectual property, and supplied us with cheap European labor-through immigration.

The twentieth century reinforced America's exceptionalist belief when we acted as "an international knight errant, riding to the rescue of the victims of oppression and injustice." Much of this ideology came from Wilson but FDR tapped it, too, and it inspired us to win two world wars. A good thing, says Hodgson.

The post-war 1950s began a new era of American exceptionalist thought and brought more good. Our victory in war bred a new prosperity, wider participation in politics, greater rights for women and minorities, belief in educational opportunity, mobility in geography and economics and concern for the welfare of others. But it also produced a dark side where we feared vulnerability with the Soviet Union. However, our Cold War textbooks taught us a "new militant sense of exceptionalism" with a re-worked religious belief that "the United States had been entrusted by God with a mission of bringing light to a darling world."

This story continues into the mid-1970s until something happens to make America seem less exceptional, he says. International institutions the United States had created, like the United Nations, became unpopular with many Americans. Then the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 fomented a hubris where we seemed to reject "long-cherished principles."

For example, America switched from being exceedingly liberal (the legacy of FDR) to being exceedingly conservative (the legacy of Reagan), which made us drastically exceptional from the rest of the world in terms of:

* imprisoning greater numbers of people
* providing less access to health care
* sustaining a growing inequality in distribution of income and wealth
* disconnecting the campaign from the deeds done in politics
* rejecting assumptions about global warming, international law and respect for international organizations
* supporting a standing army of invincible force and superiority.

The rate of child poverty is 21.9 percent, the highest among the 17 OECD countries, makes the United States exceptional, says Hodgson, in that we are unwilling "to pay to take children out of poverty."

Additionally, our political system has become more focused on funding and winning elections than on encouraging voter participation. Politicians seek money from business and lobbyists to finance the cost of TV advertising, which is aimed at wealthier people who do vote their best interests, he says. It's no wonder unions, citizens groups, consumers and minorities have been left out!

Even the Constitution has been abused in part "as a result of the unrestrained ferocity of political conflict" between the polarized conservatives and liberals-who differ very little except in their party affiliations.

A spiking stock market in the 1990s created a "mood of economic triumphalism and a belief in a ‘New Economy' that broke all the rules," says Hodgson. Americans changed from being an people of idealism and generosity to a people who were "harder, more hubristic." Most Americans truly believed that everyone was experiencing a rise in living standards-that is until the bubble burst in 2000 and again in the fall of 2008. Only then did it become obvious that the country had in fact become a debtor nation where only the very rich profited.

Since 1989 America has evinced a new attitude as "the lone superpower" with its 700+ military bases and a supremacy of force. Consequently, Americans were the last ones to believe that anyone could challenge them, says Hodgson, until 19 hijackers armed with box cutters poked through our vulnerability.

And that is yet another thing. Americans perceive 9/11 as an instance where we were exceptionally hated and then forget that terrorist attacks were carried out in Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania, Bali, Madrid, Casablanca, Istanbul and London.

Hodgson concludes that the United States as it is today is not exceptionally bad but that it is no longer exceptional. Instead, America is just "one great, but imperfect, country among many others."

Hodgson has taken great pains not to minimize America's achievements but rather to offer analysis about how our exceptionalism has influenced false perceptions of ourselves and a skewing of some of our policies.

Actually, this book may serve as a sounding board for our national consciousness during this time of crisis. Then, what we do as a nation is really up to us. And that will be the measure of our exceptionalism.

This article was posted on CommonDreams.org on Sunday, July 5, 2009.

How to Boil a Frog

Want to be a real hero?

Save the planet.

Don’t know how?

Start by viewing the new eco-comedy, How to Boil a Frog.

The film tells the story of Jon Cooksey, an ordinary man on a mission, who decided two years ago that he had to do something personally to make sure his 12-year-old daughter would have a future, given all the bad news on global warming.

As he began this quest he was especially keen on waking people up to the disinformation campaign against global warming. However, after interviewing top experts in the field, he discovered a much bigger picture: the world is in “overshoot” where peak oil, global warming, overpopulation, diminishing natural resources, and a system where “the privileged few rule” come together to a point that no one problem can be addressed without tackling all of them.

While too many films (and books and speeches) stop right there with the problems, Cooksey goes beyond that to offer solutions with the promise that acting on global warming can not only make our lives better but it can make a difference for people throughout our world. Here are his five suggestions:

* Don’t buy Exxon products (a foremost contributor to global warming and big-time lobbyist against change).
* Reduce or eliminate your consumption of beef. (Cows contribute to global warming more than any other animal except humans.)
* Limit families to one child per couple.
* Discover ways to transition off the energy-chugging treadmill that consumes time, money and happiness.
* Be a “giant killer” by organizing citizens to fight for sustainability in their communities and exposing corporations and projects that pollute. (Cooksey is especially fond of You-Tube for gaining the attention of both the giants and the “little people.”)

How to Boil a Frog is especially useful for people struggling with paralyzing guilt, despair and/or ignorance over the state of the environment. Here Cooksey puts it bluntly: “If you believe you can make a difference, you can; if you don’t believe you can’t make a difference, you can’t.” Of course, he hopes he can convince you to act.

One interesting effect of deciding to act is that citizens come together in cooperative ways to fight for their communities—and the can make a lot of friends, just as Cooksey did. This is something, he says, that we have gotten away from in our society where competition and the acquisition of private property and goods are more valued than our relationships with each other.

Cooksey’s message is clear in point and snarky in tone and its snappy pace is filled with many mind-boggling facts and challenges. The film will appeal to both adults and children alike as it takes a funny and irreverent look at our consumer culture, unsustainable lifestyles and general attitudes that have allowed us to wage an unprecedented war against Nature.

Finally, what is most compelling—and refreshing—about the film is to see a man who has known privilege and success illustrate to viewers how he uses his skills and talents as a TV writer/producer to communicate his concerns about the environment. Through his own example, he taps the heroic vein in all of us to do the same in our own way so that we, too, will act with purpose and hope in the future for the sake of all our children.

How to Boil a Frog is an interactive work in progress. The website provides a trailer, background information on the issues and several links about what other communities are doing for sustainability. A virtual bake sale is also being held to raise funds to finish the film and distribute it.

This article appeared in Energy Bulletin on Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Who Wants to Be George W. Bush?

BENTON HARBOR/ST. JOSEPH, Michigan – Private citizen George W. Bush poked his head out from his quiet, exclusive Dallas neighborhood last night to give his first major speech since leaving office. Ironically, the place he picked is near one of the nation’s poorest, most racially divided cities. It also happens to be in one of the reddest, most conservative congressional districts.

The Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan attracted 2,500 people who greeted the former president with great warmth and excitement. It was obvious that they must be the 30 percent of Americans who have remained loyal to Bush. Perhaps this is the way he now can attract a friendly crowd, a much different approach from his 2004 campaign rallies where dissenters were barred from attending.

However, it was evident that one of the lowest-rated presidents of all time is not someone office holders want to be around these days. Republican Representative “Freddie-boy” Upton, Bush’s nickname for him, was not there nor were other local political officials who are customarily introduced at such affairs.

Nevertheless, Bush was in his best form and he didn’t hold back his folksy informality. He looked relaxed and comfortable as he told a few tales of his presidency—without notes. The whole event felt much like neighbors gathering around the pickle barrel in a country store. And that’s his magic. He ingratiated the audience with his wit, charm and affability. Even his skeptics might be persuaded to accept his world view—until they recall the past eight years of Hell he put this country through.

Bush gave a self-effacing performance, especially when it came to pointing out his mistakes in following the evening’s format, but not the mistakes of his presidency. It appears that he truly believes he didn’t make any and that he exercised responsible leadership in a time of great trial.

For example, he told the audience that his guide for decision-making included five principles. They read like a cross between the Declaration of Independence, Grover Norquist and an MBA leadership text:
· Freedom is universal.
· The people can spend their money better than the government can.
· The organizational structure must allow information to get to the decision-
maker.
· Timeliness is important.
· A leader has to be willing to make tough calls, stand by them and insist
that they be carried out.

Choosing a vice presidential candidate was Bush’s first big decision, he said, and he looked for someone who could advance his own credibility. Cheney was a “thoughtful guy” who would “do a good job.” Besides, Cheney wasn’t interested in running for president so he wouldn’t distance himself from the president if something went wrong.

Such ironic comment was typical throughout the speech and Bush and the audience seemed quite oblivious to it.

In another instance, a woman asked what impact his strong religious beliefs had on his presidency. He replied that “religion and politics are a dangerous mix” and that he “made religion a personal matter” by trying to practice Jesus’ commandment to ‘love thy neighbor.’

“Muslim mothers want their children to grow up in peace,” said Bush. “There’s more commonality [between us and them] than you think.” And he seemed concerned that Americans had somehow taken to negatively stereotyping Muslims in the Middle East.

Such comments made it hard to believe that Bush’s perspective and reality could be one and the same thing and if this is how his book goes, he may risk losing sales.

The former president seems to have forgotten how quickly he called the 9/11 hijackers “evil doers” (code for the Religious Right) and how he later attacked Saddam, whom he now identifies as “a dangerous man who sponsored terrorism.” He also unfairly drew lines between Americans: those who were with him and those against him. Some fundamentalist Christians were so whipped up by his apocalyptic rhetoric that they called protesters against the war in Iraq traitors!

Bush still holds fast to the idea that we are waging an ideological struggle with “a group of people who murdered the innocent to spread an ideology of hate.” These enemies are similar to the fascists and communists in days gone by, only they do not represent nation-states and they plot and plan against us just the same.

His reaction to the September 11 attacks was based on how he viewed it, which author Reza Aslan calls a “cosmic war” view in his new book on the subject. A cosmic war is a religious war not between armies or nations but rather between the forces of good and evil where God is believed to be on one side against the other. How do you win a cosmic war? By refusing to fight one, Aslan answers.

Bush, however, indulged himself and the nation in this fight. He described his actions with a paternalistic tone by telling the audience of his vow “to take whatever steps that were necessary to protect you” and to do whatever it took to get information so that decisions could be made. He was not as brash as Dick Cheney usually is with the protection-of-America argument, but the message was the same.

Then Bush addressed and justified the torture memos without naming them.

“The first thing you do is ask, what's legal?” he said regarding the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in March 2003. “What do the lawyers say is possible? I made the decision, within the law, to get information so I can say to myself, ‘I've done what it takes to do my duty to protect the American people.’ I can tell you that the information we got saved lives.”

The declining economy was on everyone’s mind and Bush explained that his advisers told him to either make a move (institute the Troubled Asset Relief Program), or preside over a depression worse than the Great Depression.

Wall Street bankers, whom he benevolently characterized as “thoroughbreds” chasing after money, were responsible for the economic downturn but that the “lack of responsible regulation” was the major culprit. In trying to fix the situation, he also blamed Congress for its inaction and globalization for the lack of maneuverability.

“I’m a big free trader,” he said, “but the markets obviously need restraint and oversight.” If we export our products, all will be well with our economy and poverty can be eradicated, too, he said.

“We’ll recover. We’ve always recovered,” he said to great cheers from the crowd. “Capitalism works and it will work again.”

As usual, Bush relied on his words and force of personality to convince people of his best hopes.
The former president also received a standing ovation when asked what he wanted his legacy to be.
“Well, I hope it is this: The man showed up with a set of principles, and he was unwilling to sacrifice his soul for the sake of popularity.”
Little did Americans realize after the 2000 election that this administration would attack American civil liberties and regard the Constitution as just a piece of paper!
Of course, September 11 pervaded his speech. Only this time he used it less to strike fear in his listeners but more to solicit pity for himself.

“You have to convey a sense of calm,” he said. “If you’re president of the United States, if you overreact, you send shock waves throughout society.”

Security at the event was surprisingly loose. There were no metal detectors or purse searches. Police and Secret Service were present, of course, but they did not occupy the area as though it were a fortress.

The former president spoke for about 30 minutes and then took spontaneous questions for nearly an hour. This was a diversion from the plan where questions were solicited before the event.

Officials for the event refused to say how much Bush received for the speech but the eight protesters who showed up to demonstrate outside the building claimed it was $150,000 too much.

So how will the country ultimately judge George W. Bush? Seeing him in action clearly illustrates that he is a tragic figure not because he presided over the worst attack on the United States in history but rather that he thought he could be a competent president.

“It was my honor [to serve as president]” he said. “I love America and I wanted to serve in any capacity.” Such statements belie his actions, starting with when he went AWOL from the Texas National Guard.

Bush also illustrated that he is not aware of whom he is: a man who took political advantage of a disaster and then ruined his own presidency. He will forever remain responsible for our fallen and wounded; the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani dead, wounded, and homeless; our shrinking treasury; and our reputation in the world.

Bush may have charmed his supporters in the room last night but it is doubtful he will have the same effect on most people. And after witnessing this first major speech, it is obvious that it will be difficult for him to be George W. Bush probably for the rest of his life.

Climax man seeks common bonds amid societal conflicts

Many people want to change the world. Steve Olweean of Climax is doing it.

Olweean helps people to focus on their common bonds rather than their differences, particularly people who have been traumatized by war or violence.

“Outsiders provide food, clothing and shelter after the war, but they ignore the trauma that goes with war,” said the psychotherapist and founding director of the Common Bond Institute (CBI).

As head of the institute, Olweean provides training programs to local health professionals and relief workers around the world who then help traumatized victims in their regions. So far, his work has taken him to Russia, the Balkans, Middle East, Caucuses, Caribbean and Basque country in Spain.

To help people cope with the traumas of war, Olweean developed something called the Catastrophic Trauma Recovery training model. It operates on the premise that “there is no bad society” and that when violence occurs, it is regarded as something that has gone awry to make the community extremely inhumane.

In 1998, Olweean joined with the Harmony Institute of St. Petersburg to organize an intensive CTR-training conference for therapists to address war’s inhumane behaviors and seek healing.

Catastrophic Trauma Recovery training has been used in Bosnia and with mental-health groups in Gaza. Olweean also helped establish a children's trauma-treatment center in Nablus on Israel’s West Bank.

Olweean got his start as an activist in the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s and 70s.

Those efforts were spiritually motivating for him, he said, and they increased in importance during the 1980s when the tensions of the Cold War threatened world peace and security.

His sensitivity to social justice grew out of his childhood where his parents and grandparents encouraged him to become familiar with, experience and appreciate many different religions. As a Muslim, he discovered that people of various faiths were seeking goodness, compassion, wisdom and peace.

He first came to the Kalamazoo area in the 1970s for graduate study in psychology at Western Michigan University. Then he worked for the Douglass Community Association as a community advocate and mental-heath worker. Although he never intended to stay in the area, he liked it and found that he could be involved in global work through the Association for Humanistic Psychology (AHP) and its International Soviet-American Professional Exchange.

The Exchange was intended “to reach commonalities and to introduce humanistic psychology to our Soviet counterparts,” said Olweean.

Humanistic psychology, according to the AHP website (www.ahpweb.org), seeks to “enhance the quality of human experience and to advance the evolution of human consciousness” through the principles of integrity, authenticity, compassion and skill in listening, and respect for all people.

“What we discovered was that we were bridging stereotypes and forming strong bonds,” said Olweean who coordinated several exchanges until he decided to devote himself full-time to the Common Bond Institute in 1992. He then worked with his Russian colleagues to create the Annual International Conference on Conflict Resolution (ICR) in 1993.

“The ICR grew on its own from a half-day annual exchange to a six-day conference and it has continued over the past 16 years with therapists from 65 countries participating,” said Olweean.

In 2006 the ICR began its annual “Engaging the Other” conference in San Francisco, which focused on confronting religious, racial, ethnic, political and national conflicts.

“If we are separated from people, we only go on what we don't know about them,” said Olweean. “This is where prejudice, threat, and discomfort arises. So we get people together and create an inclusiveness where there is mutual honoring of each other. New learning takes place as people realize how they lock themselves into certain ideas.”

Olweean said that the distinction between ourselves and “the Other” occurs from birth when we identify who we are in comparison to everyone else. People who are closest to us are the first examples of who we are not.

This natural psychological process is the means by which we create our internal compass, he said. But conflicts occur when we adopt a belief system where our encounters with “the Other” are shrouded in fear and anxiety.

One key element in this training is that participants learn to focus on their commonalities more than their differences, said Olweean.

They also learn how societies pass on a cultural heritage that typically distinguishes “the Other” by harboring memories of their victimization or victory in war. These memories carry past grudges and tragedies rather than moving people toward a new future.

People who have gone through war and violence have memories that can traumatize them psychologically and emotionally over many generations, which was the case in the Balkans during the 1990s. The Serbs were demonized as perpetrators of the war although they felt they were victims of the Bosnians centuries before.

This is called “inter-generational trauma,” said Olweean. Such trauma is so strong that some Jews have shown signs of being traumatized by the Holocaust even though they were born after World War II.

Recently, Olweean held the inaugural Conference on Religion, Conflict and Peace at southeastern Michigann’s Oakland University upon the invitation of Imam Achmat Salie, founder and director of the Islamic Studies Program there.

“The significance of this conference was that we were openly debating the issue of religion in a public university,” said Salie. “Private universities are doing a good job with such discussions but public universities hesitate because they feel bound by separation of church and state.”

Penny Zago, one of the conference speakers, first participated in a CBI conference in St. Petersburg in 1997. The retired special education teacher trainer and consultant to the Michigan Department of Education currently volunteers for the Shalom Center for Justice and Peace at the United Methodist Church in Lansing.

“Steve always has outstanding presenters who have a great knowledge and passion for what they do. I always come back with a lot of ideas to gnaw on,” said Zago. “His conferences are very interactive and always focused on building relationships among participants.”

For Olweean, it’s all about giving peace a chance.

This article appeared in the Kalamazoo Gazette on May 9, 2009.

Organizing for Peace and Social Justice

“There's nothing magical about organizing people for peace and social justice,” said 1997 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Jody Williams, but it's a lot of work because it requires logic, planning, follow up, follow through and the constant search for allies.

This is what Williams did in 1992 when she headed the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL). Five years later she and a team of activists persuaded 121 nations to ban the use of landmines, weapons, which at the time were considered legal in over 80 countries.

Williams is one of several Nobel Peace laureates working with PeaceJam (www.peacejam.org) to help create a new generation of young leaders committed to peace through positive change in themselves, their communities and the world.

Organizing first requires that you figure out whom you can get to build a coalition to work on an issue, she said. Then you find existing laws or treaties and figure out how they can be used to advance your issue. Finally, you find allies in government who share your view and will push through legislation.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) turned out to be her government contact, which was a natural since she, too, was a native Vermonter. He'd seen victims of landmines in the late 1980s and had started the Leahy War Victims Relief Fund in 1989, which is administered by USAID for civilians disabled by civil strife, war and landmines. He also sponsored legislation—the first in the world—to lead a moratorium on the exportation of landmines.

“We got a big boost for banning landmines right at the starting gate,” said Williams. “It energized Europe [who was also involved in these exportation practices] and created a competition among nations to outdo each other.” For example, France upped the ante on the United States and proposed a three-year moratorium. After that, the movement just gained momentum.

Unfortunately, the United States, Russia and China did not sign the treaty, but that has not stopped Williams from continuing her effort to rid the world of violence.

“You must have an outline for a plan of action for the next six to twelve months,” she said. “Most people don't think through strategy but instead adopt yours, if you have one.

The key to the ICBL's success on banning landmines was in forming close partnerships with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), governments, the (ICRC) and United Nations agencies, according to the organization's website (www.icbl.org). In order to obtain these partnerships, the ICBL managed the following activities:

· Provide expertise and credible documentation
· Articulate goals and messages clearly and simply
· Maintain a flexible but unified coalition structure that is inclusive and diverse
· Recognize that most of the work is done by a few
· Communicate key developments with all concerned
· Organize people to move an issue forward
· Formulate plans with achievable deadlines and goals to build momentum and excitement

Prior to her starting ICBL, Williams worked for eleven years to build public awareness about U.S. Policy toward Central America. From 1986 to 1992, she developed and directed humanitarian relief projects as the deputy director of the Los Angeles-based Medical Aid for El Salvador. From 1984 to 1986 she was co-coordinator of the Nicaragua-Honduras Education Project, leading fact-finding delegations to the region. Previously, she taught English as a Second Language (ESL) in Mexico, the United Kingdom and Washington, D.C.

Teaching the young about nonviolence is essential, said Williams, who contends that peace is about talking through differences and finding compromises. It takes schools and families to change things and end the continuum of violence that pervades a culture that “glorifies screeching.”

One example of effective education, organization and action Williams cited was a fourth grade teacher who taught a unit about banning landmines. The students then decided to go to the University of West Virginia near their home to teach the college students there about the dangers of landmines. Recently, the students had a tenth anniversary to celebrate their work.

“Those are the ones who blow me away,” said Williams.

High School Students Flock to PeaceJam Conference

There's no doubt about it: Many of today's youths are highly motivated and very excited about engaging themselves in community-service projects.

What's different about PeaceJam youths, however, is that they are focused on projects that change the world to make it a more peaceful and nonviolent place.

The weekend of March 27, 200 high school students from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio converged on the Bernhard Center ballrooms at Western Michigan University to celebrate their yearlong study of peacemaking at the annual Great Lakes PeaceJam conference. They were treated to an appearance of 1997 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Jody Williams.

Williams won the Peace Prize for her work in heading up the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (www.icbl.org) in 1992. Five years later she and a team of activists persuaded 121 nations to sign a treaty usually called ``the Ottawa Convention'' to ban the use, stockpiling, production and sale of landmines, which at the time was considered a legal weapon for military arsenals.

Although the United States, Russia and China did not sign the treaty, Williams has not stopped her effort to rid the world of violence. She is one of several Nobel Peace laureates who are working with PeaceJam to help create a new generation of young leaders committed to peace through positive change in themselves, their communities and the world.

This year's laureate was a passionate advocate for peace whom teens widely admired and appreciated for both her style and her message.

``She's a firecracker,'' said Quinn Stifler, an eleventh-grader from Portage Northern High School who got the chance to interview Williams for her school newspaper, The Northern Light. ``I like her great energy and her easy way to have a discussion. She's very personable.''

Lili Marchak, the eleventh grade managing editor for the Portage Northern newspaper, noted that not many high school journalists get such an opportunity to talk to a worldwide figure.

``(Williams) is someone who's really made a difference,'' Marchak said. ``In this story I want to inspire students to do the same.''

Williams' message focused on substituting national security policies and initiatives with human security policies and initiatives. She contended that the world can no longer sustain military solutions when people are without basic human needs, such as food, water or shelter, or when they lack dignity, employment, health care, education and safety against various forms of violence.

``We can only be secure when justice and the sharing of resources in the world are present,'' Williams said to an audience of nearly 400 at the March 27 public event that preceded the students' weekend conference.

``Human security, not national security, will bring security to everyone in the world.''

PeaceJam has enlisted the help of the Nobel laureates in order to inspire students and serve as models.

``She wasn't afraid of anything and was willing to do anything to get her message across,'' said Eileen Zimmerman, a 12th-grader from Waverly High School in Lansing.

Tenth-grader Ryan Walling, of Shaker Heights, Ohio, found Williams not to be the stereotypical laureate he expected.

``It's kind of boring to hear about being nice and peaceful and that war is terrible,'' he said. ``(Williams) is more realistic. She understands that people get angry sometimes and want to punch out someone. However, peace is about overcoming such emotions.''

A big part of the PeaceJam conference is students' involvement in peace projects during the afternoon session. On Saturday, students chose from among several activities like clearing the brush at a Habitat for Humanity house, demonstrating for peace with the Kalamazoo Nonviolent Opponents of War, helping youngsters read at the Lincoln School YMCA, making blankets for the YWCA domestic violence shelter.

``We're here to make the world believe that anything is possible and that there's a solution to every question,'' said Kimyahtta Morris, a twelfth-grader from Southfield Academy in Battle Creek. She participated in the peace demonstration in front of the Federal Building on Michigan Avenue.

``It gets you thinking about different issues in the world and how to [promote peace] locally,'' said Zimmerman, who volunteered for the Habitat for Humanity project. ``It's such an easy thing to do to volunteer your time to help people in need.''

On Sunday, students learned how to derive inner peace through lessons in yoga, tai chi, chi kung, poetry, healthy food, conflict resolution, dialogue and becoming ``green fashionistas'' with a recession budget.

Youth volunteer for PeaceJam in an after-school club setting starting in the fall. They study a particular Nobel laureate and the peace issue that she or he pursued.

``PeaceJam is truly a path to enabling youth to make positive social change,'' Nott said. They meet students from other states and ``learn (peacemaking) is happening all over the country.

This article appeared in the City Life section of the Kalamazoo Gazette on Saturday, April 4, 2009.

It's Human Security, Stupid, Not National Security

She is emotional, strong-willed and determined. She is also passionate and not averse to yelling, swearing or pounding on the podium to make a point. And when it comes to national security, 1997 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Jody Williams is dead set against using our country's power and resources to kill or maim other people. Instead, she promotes “human security” as a way of forging world peace.

“We can only be secure when justice and the sharing of resources in the world are present,” she said to an audience of nearly 400 at the annual Great Lakes PeaceJam held last weekend at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo. “Human security, not national security will bring security to everyone in the world.”

PeaceJam's (www.peacejam.org) mission is to work with Nobel Peace Laureates to help create a new generation of young leaders committed to peace through positive change in themselves, their communities and the world.

Williams won the Peace Prize for her work in starting and heading up the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (www.icbl.org) in 1992. Five years later she and her team of activists persuaded 121 nations to ban the use of landmines, which at the time was considered a conventional practice in supplying over 80 countries' military arsenals. Unfortunately, the United States, Russia and China did not sign the treaty. But that has not stopped Williams from continuing her effort to rid the world of violence.

In fact, she has stepped up her campaign for human security by participating in PeaceJam's “Global Call to Action.” The program involves several Nobel Peace Laureates who work with and inspire the youth of the world to be involved in a decade-long quest to effect change by addressing the following needs:
· Providing equal access to water and other natural resources
· Ending racism and hate
· Halting the spread of global disease
· Eliminating extreme poverty
· Fighting for social justice and human rights
· Promoting rights for women and children and their roles as leaders
· Restoring the earth's environment
· Controlling the proliferation of weapons
· Breaking the cycle of violence
Many governmental leaders believe that they need a mighty military machine to make their people safe and secure, said Williams. Investing in human security, however, means that when we work to stop global warming; provide people with decent housing, education and health care; and deal with conflict through compromise instead of violence, then we are creating a more secure world.

To illustrate the hapless pursuit of national security, Williams noted that on September 10, 2001, the United States had the strongest military presence the world had ever seen. On September 11, after Americans “freaked out” over four hijacked airplanes, $44 billion was allocated to the Pentagon “to make our country more secure.”

Beefing up the military, as important as it is for the defense of our nation is not the path to increased security, said Williams.

“We talk about U.S. interests being advanced by the military,” said Williams, who received a master's degree from the prestigious School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, which trains American diplomats, policymakers, businesspeople and organizational leaders. Her experience of the SAIS curriculum was that its emphasis on economics left out the human element.

“The military is supposed to be our last resort when diplomacy has been lost,” said Williams.

“We make all sorts of calculations and analyses of our military actions but forget to analyze the impact we make on the people we bomb.

In fact, Williams hated her time at SAIS and they hated her, she said—until she received the Nobel Peace Prize. Paul Wolfowitz, who was dean at the time, sent
her a letter inviting her to receive recognition for the most achieved alum award.

“I didn't answer it and threw the letter away,” she said with disgust.
However, Williams takes pains to distinguish between the policymakers and the soldiers who are sent to do battle.

“I have nothing against soldiers who die for our country, but rather for those who send them there to die.”

Of late, she is very concerned about President Obama's decision to step up the war in
Afghanistan and send drones to bomb Al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan.

“Won't the people who are bombed there try to send some drones over here?” she asked.
Williams promotes peace activism but warned her audience that such work is considered as kumbya, guitars, doves and rainbows.

“They call us peaceniks and tree-hugging liberals. That means that we are little wimps who don't understand what makes peace in the world. It implies that we can't deal with the complexities of national security like the big-time policymakers do.”

Attaining peace in the world today, she said, requires a different mindset and a new way of thinking that advocates justice and equality and strives to meet basic human needs.

There is something wrong when 20 percent of the world's population controls 80 percent of the planet's resources, she said. There is something wrong when 1.5
billion people are without clean drinking water. There is something wrong when a handful of billionaires have more wealth than sub-Saharan Africa. That's why people strap on a bomb and blow it up.

“We need to think about security in terms of human beings, not the state,” said Williams. “We'll still have conflict, but not at the scale we have now.”

Williams also urged her audience to commit themselves to a brand of peace activism that is bigger than just being against war. Instead they should be focused on making sure that people's basic needs are met, they are treated with dignity, they have a right to choose their own forms of government, and that conflicts are resolved without violence.

She also advised that activists can get more done if they join together with activists of
different causes and “realize that we're all part of the same thing” when we contribute to human security and not national security where we strive to have “the biggest, most muscular missiles and defense in the world.”

PeaceJam participants donned gray t-shirts with Williams' advice printed on their backs: “Emotion without action is irrelevant.”

“Emotion is the first step,” said Williams. “But if it's not channeled positively, it
is a waste.”